EA Accused of Gaming Battlefield 3 Review Scores

[Clonekiller]

Once again, EA fails to understand the wider world of gaming. The fact is, any good reviewer will give a neutral review, regardless of their personal preference. If you're wondering about whether or not a reviewer is good, compare their reviews. (For example: The reviewers here on the Escapist have solid game-play reviews, but the reviews they publish often lack anything solid about the storyline. The Dragon Age II review is a great example of this) It seems like EA can't publish a game anymore without causing a PR incident.

 

[darksakul]

I think with success EA forgot what the company was 15 - 25 years ago. Back when they went by their full name Electronic Arts. At the time they didn't want to be like all the larger companies, and instead when Electronic arts let there craftsmanship and story telling sell games and not cheap marketing ploys and underhanded business practices.

In the words of Obi Wan Kenobi, EA was a student of mine until he turned to evil, he struck down and destroy other game companies, he betrayed and murdered Electronic Arts.

Note: completely ignore how Anakin skywalker was Emo in the Prequel series

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

So, EA got caught being dastardly.
In other news, the sun came up today.

Once again, EA fails to understand the wider world of gaming. The fact is, any good reviewer will give a neutral review, regardless of their personal preference. If you're wondering about whether or not a reviewer is good, compare their reviews. (For example: The reviewers here on the Escapist have solid game-play reviews, but the reviews they publish often lack anything solid about the storyline. The Dragon Age II review is a great example of this) It seems like EA can't publish a game anymore without causing a PR incident.

The Escapist is not unusual in its lack of interest in the story. Even the few review sites that do mention the storyline are usually extremely forgiving in their estimation of it.

Game Reviewer: The story is average.
Translation: The story is utter garbage.

Game Reviewer: The story is great.
Translation: The story is an unfinished mess with plot holes and loose ends aplenty, but it has some good moments.

Game Reviewer: The story is awesome.
Translation: The story almost manages to be as good as a below-average movie.

/end of off-topic rant

 

[WouldYouKindly]

The question is do I give a crap? This happens with tons of reviewers. There was no such controversy around DA2, while not the worst game ever, was definitely not worthy of the scores it was given by professional reviewers. In general, there is a much more subtle pressure on game reviewers, as in slight suggestions that if you give a negative review, especially on a AAA title, you won't get any more games to review from that publisher/dev. From such a monster publisher as EA, that would probably demolish a large section of any reviewers business.

This is a little more blatant, but any advertising company will do the same. They only need 9 people to like their product to say 9 out of 10 people like this product even if a majority said they didn't. Within very specific parameters, what they said is correct and that is all that is required. Advertising, publishing, and promoting are all based on bullshit. 90% of the time, no one notices or even really cares. EA got caught doing something a little slimy, but I don't doubt that there is a more subtle vetting process that most companies use. As opposed to outright asking are you a fan, they'll ask your opinion on certain features of the game. After all, if you don't like vehicle combat, you obviously wouldn't prefer BF to CoD.

 

[RuralGamer]

Why oh why are they doing this?
I've played the beta and the metacritic scores for BFBC2 are 86 (PC) and 88 (consoles); if EA delivers as they seem set to, then I'd personally give BF3 a "why haven't you bought this already?" recommendation to my friends*; it sounds epic, looks nice and clear, plays not too dissimilar to BFBC2 (which I felt played quite well), but with some nice new touches and is made by DICE, a developer whose games I can't really fault.
In short; leave it alone EA; if the beta is anything to go by, the community will love it.

*If I could play it online; I'm now going to sit in a corner and sulk about how my internet connection is too crap to play this online *sulks*

Edited: for big whoopsie

Edited again for bad grammar

 

[jawakiller]

Location: EA's secret headquarters, somewhere under the artic ocean.

Yes, we must capture good review scores in Norway. Major, initiate project Santa Claus!

Sir, uh, are you sure we need to go after Norway?

Yes, why?

Uh, no reason. I just didn't realize there was anybody actually living there, that's all.

All done?

Yes sir.

Men lets kick some ass, RELEASE THE MOTHER FUCKING KRACKEN!!

...

May our grandchildren remember this as the day Battlefield buried Modern Warfare under six feet of concrete...

Note: Events similar to this may or may not have occurred when EA started this plan.

 

[Toeys]

While gaming review scores is a disgusting habit, and should always be discouraged, I can't for the life of me think of any reason why EA would do this with Battlefield 3. In all likelyhood it's going to score well, and the Norwegian market can't be big enough to justify a move like this.

For once, the official line of "We have made a mistake and we apologize" seems the most plausible explanation. Unless, of course, the world waits on Norway's answer to the great question of whether a game is good or not. I was off-line for much of the summer, is this the case now?

This might very well be a stunt by the norwegian EA representatives. Ive met a few of them through earlier work, and they are of the type to try something like this. And while we dont have the biggest market for games here in Norway(boiling straight down to total population), we do have a high average income and pay almost double of what you pay in the US for games.
So the EA representatives in the country will probably try to do whatever they can to meet their budgets.

I wouldnt say that the world have any reason to, or would be waiting for the norwegian reviews. But as a norwegian i hold a couple of the norwegian reviews higher than many of bigger gamesites. I dont always agree with them, but i do trust them in giving their honest opinion. As opposed to Gamespot and other sites that have gone from great sites to become gigantic advertisement banners.

 

[Frostbite3789]

Somehow I'm not surprised EA would try and pull this. But I wonder how common this is. I've got a feeling it's a little more widespread than with just one game in Norway. It seems more and more AAA games are getting scores they don't deserve, I think. One of the biggest examples of this are reviews for the NFS series since Shift 1. They have left me very suspicious as to whether critics are being honest. And that series is published by EA too...

You mean you haven't heard [http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/11/modern-warfare-2-reviews-behind-the-scenes-of-early-access-1.ars]?

 

[Username Redacted]

Don't know why this is a surprise to anyone. All anyone needs to do is look on Metacritic and compare the critic score for a game against the user score for the game (the recently released Rage is an excellent example*) to see that critics are at best worried about their own asses ("If I give this game a negative review then I'll get fired and/or denied preview copies down the road") and at worst being bought off.


*Rage critic scores: 81/100(X-Box 360), 83/100 (PS3), 79/100 (PC), 81/100 (Average)
*Rage user scores: 6.4/10 (X-Box 360), 5.5/10 (PS3), 3.9/10 (PC), 5.27/10 AKA ~53/100 (Average)

 

[TG MLPDashie]

Hey, after the shit they pulled with the origin service terms, this honestly comes as no surprise. Not to mention their constant insulting of call of duty, because trash talk makes you look real mature and cool in front of your fans, doesn't it?

well just remember thats all of that shit was EA, DICE is still an amazing company worthy of not being flamed because of EA's actions.

 

[Warforger]

Hey, after the shit they pulled with the origin service terms, this honestly comes as no surprise. Not to mention their constant insulting of call of duty, because trash talk makes you look real mature and cool in front of your fans, doesn't it?

Yah that's what bothers me about it, EA seems to run on a platform of "CoD sucks" in order to distract players that all Dice is doing is adding in older features from previous FPS's they took out in Bad Company into BF3. What's even more sad is that they try to get CoD's fanbase over through making the Beta (well Operation Metro at least) basically CoD with prettier graphics.

But sadly have you seen BF3 fans? Trash talk if anything makes them more excited since they're also hyped for BF3 on the basis of "CoD sucks".

 

[Rack]

So they expect us to believe they have a questionnaire for journalists reviewing Battlefield 3 that is only meant for internal distribution? How gullible do they think we are?