Originally Posted by Laten
Plus, I generally don't listen to metacritic scores these days anyway. The score is weighted depending on the Critic, so IGN's score will have more of an affect on the total score than say Gamekult. Not really accurate way of doing it - plus in most cases IGN are ignorantly stupid so it makes the scores even more void.
Originally Posted by GrizzleBoy
This would be like DICE tweeting all their followers and asking them to help fix the Battlefield 3 ratings on Amazon lol.......
Kind of funny, Battlefield is getting mass-spammed ratings for privacy infringement and whatnot, MW is getting mass-spammed because it's a bad game.
Back to the OP,
The way I see it is this:
Company A makes great game, let's call it Game X, it's a best seller. Game critics give it 10/10
One year later, Company A releases Game X 2. Game X 2 is literally just Game X with a different name, one changed hat, and a different logo. All for another $60.
How do critics review Game X 2?Technically, the game itself is still "worth" 10/10.. but they've already seen it, and the few changes are embarrassingly irrelevant. This is an exaggeration to be sure, but it illustrates a point.
MW2 to the masses was a great game (personally didn't care for it), and MW3 is pretty much MW2, but that doesn't automatically make MW3 a great game. I don't agree with the assertion that every game should be reviewed out of context with no consideration of its predecessors.