So the game deserves 1.4 and its worse than Big Rigs???? OMG, how could IW screw up that bad ?

It has nothing to do with being elitist. 

The game has been made worse (compared to COD4), and console gamers should be demanding that their product be made better, rather than deriding PC gamers for not being content with P2P hosting and low player limits.

WOW! Talk about sweeping generalisations and missing the point. I don't know how to explain it any better to get it through that skull of yours. It would be nice if you answered with comething logical and thought out rather than the ignorant comments of "PC gamers are arrogant and pirates".

It's not about arrogance or a cheap console port. MW2 is in direct competition with other PC shooters, all of which have dedicated servers, so a game that is supposed to be AAA doesn't even have the most basic and standard features that the direct competition have. Even there own CoD4 is looking more desirable for MP. It is NOT in direct competition with console shooters. WHY would anyone release a game into a market when it's lacking in so many basic features that even the cheapest of competitors have?

What works for one platform DOESN'T work for another. This isn't just based on PCs but can vary between consoles as well. Can you imagine if Star Wars came out on Wii and had NO motion control. Or if the PS3 version FIFA had NO online whilst the other versions did. If these things happened then Wii and PS3 gamers would be annoyed and rightly so. This is the situation that has occured here with MW2.

And not all PC players pirate games and they know IW doesn't hate them, they're a developer and a group of human beings that have recently made some unpopular and downright stupid decisions.

I note you didn't actually answer my question:

Which is worse, console fanboys lowering the score of a game they haven't played because it's on a rival console or PC players lowering a score because it lacks the basic features the competition has?

OH MY GOD!!!!! MW2 ONLINE IS INFERIOR COMPARED TO SOME OTHER SHOOTERS ON PC, LETS MAKE IT WORST RATED PC GAME EVER BECAUSE OF THAT!!!!!!!!!! IN FACT, LETS TELL PEOPLE THIS GAME IS WORSE THAN BIG RIGS BECAUSE ITS WORSE THAN COD 4. LET'S JUST FOCUS ON ALL BAD THINGS MW2 HAS AND FORGET ALL THE GOOD ONES!!!!!!

OMG!!!! GEARS OF WAR 2 IS ON THE 360!!!! LETS RATE IT THE WORST RATED 360 GAME EVER BECAUSE ITS NOT ON THE PS3... WITHOUT PLAYING IT!!!!! IN FACT, LETS TELL PEOPLE IT'S WORSE THAN BIG RIGS BECAUSE IT'S ONLY ON 360!!!!! LET'S FOCUS ON ALL THE BAD THINGS (EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE) AND FORGET ALL THE GOOD ONES!!!!!

I can use caps lock too! Care to answer my question now?

And you want to actually answer my points rather than appear ignorant? If you can't be bothered to read all my post, see the bolded.

First, let me start out by saying HOLY CRAP I didn't know we should take metacritic reviews so seriously. User reviews no less, lol. This thread should be renamed to "People's seriousness of metacritic is laughably AWFUL!"

This is similar to 360 or PS3 owners rating down a game on the opposing system. However, if you only want to dwell on "OOOHHH THESE USER REVIEWS ARE SAYING MW2 IS WORSE THAN BIG RIGS" then keep going. You're doing a wonderful job at not seeing the big picture. 

COD4 - Dedicated servers (lower latency), custom mods/maps/ect, 16 vs 16 players (can go up to 32 vs 32 I believe, but I know for a fact it can do 20 vs 20), leaning, console, more tweakable settings, and anything else I'm missing.

Modern Warfare 2 - Peer-to-Peer only (higher latency), no custom maps/mods/ect, 9 vs 9 max, no leaning, no console, less tweakable settings, and anything else I'm missing.

Pointless metacritic score sabatoging or not, why should people think as highly of Modern Warfare 2's multiplayer when it removes standard features? I remember seeing Sony getting quite a bit of flak for removing backwards compatibility (from myself included) and wasn't that a standard feature?

LOL, why do you keep bringing console gamers into this??? To make PC gamers look better??? Nice try. And Gears 2 is rated much higher than Big Rigs.

To answer your question I find both equaly bad. There is a diffrence between lowering the score and giving the game 0 because its a downgrade from COD 4. The game maynot as good as COD 4 but its sure as hell better than Big Rigs and deserves much higer score than 1.4

Yes, if you allow for a scale from 10/10 to -10/10.  That would end up making MW2 a 5 out of 10, which is where I wish it would end up, because it sends a message that the PC version of MW2 is forgettable, and not worth buying.

Never said it was, and you're still missing the point. A point you'll never understand since you're console gamer. End of story. Have fun droping tactical nukes during your killstreaks.

What exactly the problem with giving a worse game that came out later a very low score? I thought the aim was to improve upon gaming. That said if the game is "sme as before" it should also have gotten middle grades (in the 5 range instead of the 2 range). Only actual games that vring improvements should get anything over a 7 or an 8, but that's just my 2 cents.

Using that, I don't see any problem with rating MW2 under a 5, since it is clearly inferior to most FPS games on the PC. Even if it was just similar and more of the same as MW1 I would stitll give it a 5 or a 6. Now if it wasa groundbreaking like either of the Half-Life games then I would consider anything bove an 8.

I think that's the reason why we have yet to see a true new X-COM or Deus Ex. Consumers just praise the same old games that they had for years, there's no point in making anything groundbreaking when people's standards are so low and people are so complacent.

Finally, it seems that the consoles only worsen the issue, since people pay for DLC and there nearly no community content. On the PC game a person can get "more of the same" for free from the modding community, so the developers have to actually make soomething new that's good instead of just making more of the same and charging the same amount. On the PC that's why you see such huge leaps in between games of the same series (compare Half-life  1 to 2; U99 to UT2003/2004 and them to UT3; compare Warcraft 1, 2, and 3; Diablo 1 and 2 and what 3 will be; Starcraft 1 and 2, I think you get the point). All you see on consoles are things like MW1 and 2 the FIFAs, NFLs, etc, which let's face it, if you showed them to my grandmother she would not be able to tell the difference between the two at all.

So I say downgrade any "more of the same" game down to a 5 and just don't buy it and give games that are worse than the current standard a sub 3 score and don't even bother renting it, that will quickly do 2 things:

a) clsoe down a lot of development studios who shouldn't exist because they keep making the same game over and over

b) leave only the studios which will make new games with fresh experiences and know that if they fuck up they will go bankrupt