Uncategorized no image

Published on November 14th, 2011 | by Alex

22

Modern Warfare 3’s PR Nuke Boosting

Share

Glen Schofield, Studio head of Sledgehammer Games (the maker of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3’s multiplayer) apparently thinks he knows the quality of his game better than you do. After Metacritic users sent a strong message by rating the AAA title with a meager 1.7 (out of 10) Schofield took to his personal Twitter to effectively boost (how ironic) his game’s user score.

He writes: “I don’t usually do this but, if u like MW3 go 2 Metacritic.com & help our user score. It’s suspiciously low. Be honest but help if u agree.” Basically, give this game a like and a favourite…really helps me out.

Later that day Schofield deleted the tweets after they landed him in some hot water and justified his actions by saying he “knows it’s better than a 1.7.” Currently, the game stands with a 1.8 score.

So, what do you think of Mr. Schofield’s PR nuke boosting? Agree with the score?

Tags: , ,


pvtj8ker

Alex

Title: Absentee Staff Member About: Alex is a proud Rhodes Scholar currently living in his vehicle, a 1993 Toyota Camry, so that he may be closer to the rhode. As an avid cinemagoer, often he will go for six or seven hours at a time playing air hockey with unattended minors in the arcade without ever actually seeing a film, before returning home to his Camry. On weekends he dresses himself up as a Little Sister from his favourite video game BioShock before attending Bear and Twink Conventions in search of his Big Daddy. Currently runs the KBMOD YouTube Channel.


View pvtj8ker's posts



  • idk what hes griping about… i say 1.7 is pretty spot on…. id give him a 2.5 TOPS.

  • nipnops

    It’s better than a 1.7 But certainly isn’t the greatest.

  • I’ve been playing too much Skyrim to care whats going on with MW3.Speaking of which, it has a 8.5 user average on metacritic.

  • Fibre

    it should be higher than that, tbh the more i play it the more i like it, the only poeple that dont like it are people who havent played it or BFBC2.5 fanboys

    • bRadddd

      implying that MW 1, 2, and 3 aren’t all re-hashes of the same exact game with graphics updates. Bad Company 2 and Battlefield3 are so different that “BFBC2.5 fanboys” just shows you’ve never played either or you’d understand.

      • Fibre

        I do agree the games are simelar but is that a bad thing? I put about 30+ days into mw2 i liked the game and this game is a hell of a lot better than it, i played the BF3 beta and all i could tell that was different was a few guns and a shit ton of lense flare, im not saying its bad it just wasnt my cup of tea

        • bRadddd

          i played my share of cod games up to mw2 and they are fun games but since it mw2 i just cant justify paying 60$ for whats basically DLC content. that’s why people think it deserves such a low score.

          i mean i have my own opinions but i’ve played a lot of battlefield 2, bc2 and bf3 and i can say each game was something more than graphics updates.

  • The funny thing about that, is that there is way more different from BF:BC2 to BF3 than there is from MW2 to MW3. That’s not even remotely a fair comment.

    There are plenty of things you could dislike about BF3; Battlelog being Dan’s stumbling block (I personally LIKE it at this point). Some people can’t stand the pace of the Battlefield series, and prefer the spawn, die, spawn, die, spawn, die, spawn, kill someone, die, spawn, kill a few people, get a kill streak, and another kill streak, and another kill streak. Kill streaks annoy the hell out of me.

    How are those copy and paste buildings, and the atrocious maps?

    • But does that really justify a score of 1.8? Whatever your opinion is, you have to agree that it deserves at least a 7.

      I realize that very little has changed between MW2 and MW3, but that’s not a bad thing. Saying that it’s MW2.5 is a compliment. It looked great, had fantastic maps, and was filled with non-stop fast-paced action. MW3 still looks great, has fantastic maps–especially for Domination–and is still filled with fast-pace action, with a lot less junk on the side.

      Do not become a hypocrite yourself. Don’t shout the problems of Call of Duty, only to leave out the troubles that plague Battlefield.

      By the way, how’s that “fully destructible environment” going for you? In other words, how are you enjoying obviously scripted and limited walls falling over?

  • WUMIBO

    I think he should start a Youtube channel.

  • bdonchip

    i don’t think the game is worth $60 anymore so therefore the game score is going to be low. If the game sold for $40, it would have a better score

    • ToastyGod

      I’m not gonna pay more than $30.

      • ApotheosisNemesis

        I bought a russian key for 20 at a key-site.

    • Slippy

      Activision? Less than 60$?! You’re a mad man

  • Zelos45

    “I’ve been playing too much Skyrim to care whats going on with MW3.Speaking of which, it has a 8.5 user average on metacritic.”

    ^ This

  • Alister1707

    honestly i think the user score should be 7-8 i would give it a 7.4 nice campain ok multiplayer but lacks basic pc stuff like ranked dedi servers no fov, or max fps this is stupid i mainly play spec ops with friends cause its a tone of fun but iw please put changable fov and max fps

  • davepaison

    I think we may have strayed a bit from the point.

    Yes, the game should be higher. 1.7 is a little low, HOWEVER, isn’t it fair for this game to have such a low score? Think of it as a Rotten Tomatoes type formula. Many movies there have had horrible scores, but been large and successful. I think this is a lot like that.

    MW3 isn’t really my thing. I haven’t and probably won’t ever play the game. I’ve played the games in the past and not been satisfied. It’s just me, obviously. However, a lot of other people are starting to see things kind of the way I did… it’s just a reskin with a couple new maps. Hopefully this next, extended, development cycle will yield better results… for everyone.

    What he did to try to get the score up is sickening. It is things we have seen time and time again, especially in PC gaming. You get paid off for a good review OR you have to give a good review to keep getting early copies. If you don’t get an early copy and have a review out that day, you’re done. It is in the best interest of a lot of these sites to hand out great reviews. Some reviewers have even come out and said that they gave games reviews that they didn’t even finish, just to get the review on the box or on the website because they wanted the extra traffic that it would bring. Sad, sad stuff.

  • Fargoh

    I know every other comment is going to be something about how mw3 is shit.
    The games are released yearly, 2 years goes into making a game that will last a year.
    The support for most of these (besides Black Ops) has been and will most likely still be that they implement the suggestion into the next game. Eventually they’ll make the best game they can, and the games will start being the same.

    Sure mw2 and mw3 look the same, but there’s a hell of a lot that says it’s an independent release, and it deserves more than “LOL SO FUNNY MAP PACK FOR MW2 XXDDDDD”.

    I would give the game a seven or eight. Yes, it makes me mad at times. Yes, it leaves me feeling bullshitted. Yes, they did fuck over pc players, but it’s not enough to make me ignore that I enjoy the games. I like how they play.

  • Gipseemagic

    I love how he said suspiciously, like the results were messed with.

  • iGotUrNose

    All arguments aside, this game doesn’t even deserve a 1.7, yes its more balanced, but since when was game balance a FEATURE instead of something a company works to perfect after the title comes out. MW3 is MW2 with patches and balancing that it should have gotten early on in its life cycle but that Infinity Ward and Activision refused to admit to being a necessity. I rate a game based on how it either improved on its last iteration, or forged its own path in the genre, in those terms, MW3 did absolutely nothing special, strike packages or not, its still the same old stale gameplay elements with some gimmicks thrown in to help bad players out *cough*akimbo fmg-9’s, dead man’s hand*cough*. MW3 isnt deserving of the title of game in my opinion, its a rehash of the same old title because nobody was either smart enough or willing to really take a chance and move in a new direction with the game because of the hit their sales might take, its a safe bet not a real game, something to keep Activision’s pockets full until next year when they unleash the next wave of increasingly mediocre content to the franchise

  • Cyberwaste

    I’m all for promoting loyalism and trying to be a PR… But if you’re begging like this, pretty sure you’re doing it wrong.

  • That’s exactly what it fucking deserves, just let the shit die, it’s called lazyness and these cunts should not be awarded with great positive feedback for not doing a damn fucking thing…

Back to Top ↑