To Whom It May Concern (but mostly user reviewers)

Call of Duty games, like anything else that is popular, gets a lot of shit. There may be a reason to give these games shit, many good reasons at that. In fact, the only Call of Duty I have ever personally purchased was Call of Duty 4 because I find the games' single player too short and I don't find multiplayee r shooters very fun. Having a bad opinion of a game isn't a problem especially if you're reasonable about that opinion. For me, I understand that the Call of Duty games are really well made, solid, good games. But they are games that just aren't for me.

But reasonable responses to games is rare isn't it?

Case and point:

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, on Metacritic, has a 1.9 user rating for the PC, 2.8 for the PS3, and 3.2 on Xbox 360. On the Xbox 360, of the 5,799 reviews 3,977 were negative (a score of 4 or below). A score ranging from 0-3 suggests that the game is practically unplayable. A 0-3 scored game barely works, it barely plays, and provides next to no entertainment value.

So, how does a person who scores COD:MW3 at 4 or below describe the game?

"What did you expect. Of course it is the same old same old. Lets see what has changed since the last installment: Console tech? nope. Core demographic? nope. Online tech? nope. Expectations of fans? nope. The dependency of game review sites on big game publisher $$$? Nope. Of course this game is gonna be 99% the same as the last one and 99% of the reviews are gonna b"e 90+ on Metacritic. It is what it is: an insanely profitable IP franchise for a huge corporation that cares only about ROI and executive bonuses. My prediction: there will be a COD: MW4 within 13 months and it will be 99% the same as this game and it will get 90+ on Metacritic. Now go insult strangers through your headset while shooting them in the face."-score of 2

"sigh. i thought this was gonna get good reviews but guess what? no when i played single player on the shop it was the same old crap looks like this is a Money wasted 3rd time game, glad i didn't buy it. Get milked hard."-score of 0

"The Singleplayer is ok. The multiplayer is really bad. Get this only if you like to follow the stream. I have no idea how a game like this manages to sell millions of copies. Either the gaming industry and consumers consist of a much younger audience, or something drastically casual has washed over it. Skyrim is probably the game to buy this november."-score of 0

Do these seem like reasonable scores considering the complaints?

I understand that user reviews are not to be considered to be of the same quality and substance of professional reviews. BUT, this idea of devaluing a good, solidly built game that is clearly playable and polished because of the publisher and popularity of a product is insane to me. Further, the complaint that the game is exactly the same is reasonable. To give a game a 0 as a result is not. What bothers me is that this issue is so emblematic of the prevailing culture within the gaming community perpetuated by man-children who hate things people like. They seem like such miserable little people who are depressed until they find something to get mad about.

Like I've said, I don't care if one doesn't like a game. But, be reasonable and fair.