So it has pages and pages of problems, yet it still gets over 9?Pandabearparade said:
That doesn't make any sense to me at all, which is probably why I hate numbered/star reviews.
First reviews for Battlefield 3
- Thread starter Supertegwyn
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That doesn't make any sense to me at all, which is probably why I hate numbered/star reviews.
I'm done with DICE games. Their multiplayer is a pile of garbage now. The same hit detection issues that plagued BFBC2 still dont seem to be fixed. The floating triangle over your head, going prone in the bushes, and one body-shot sniper kills make this yet another campy shooter that is boring as hell. Their most popular mode, rush, is basically two teams taking turns playing the victim. And even then it's not uncommon for both sides to just lay down and wait for someone to walk in front of their muzzle until the tickets run out.
They didn't start making garbage until they started making console games.
Poor control ability of thumb sticks be damned, bring back the PC shooter, bring back run and gun proven classics.
They didn't start making garbage until they started making console games.
Poor control ability of thumb sticks be damned, bring back the PC shooter, bring back run and gun proven classics.
Correct. The amount of content per dollar is so much higher than virtually any other game in recent years (though beaten by New Vegas), and the flaws don't change the fact that the game more than makes up for them with the exceptionally strong good qualities.ChupathingyX said:
Though I see your point about number/star ratings. Especially since reviews really only use 6-10.
Honestly, I'll take an ambitious game with flaws over a boring, unambitious turd (also known as the EA library) every day of the week.
well how do we know the single player is sucky? maby sub-par, but then again the fact it has a single player campaign is a sigh of relief from me. cause hell, as a Battlefield fan im used to no single player (exception being bad company 1 and 2 which were very amusing)I Have No Idea said:
but to the rest of your post, i agree, can't wait and what a bunch of snobs accusing something when it hasn't been released yet.
same here, and at least they we get some damn innovation and a color scheme that doesn't give us clinical depression.Pandabearparade said:
And only fools stick their head in the sand. There is nothing wrong with listening to what someone else has to say. In fact NOT listening is what gets you into trouble.ZephyrFireStrom said:
Of course you shouldn't take everything at face value, but even if you do you're still better off than what you're suggesting, which is basically sticking your fingers in your ears and running around with your eyes closed and sooner or later you're going to run head-first into a wall.
Shooters aren't my thing, but I'm sure a metric buttload of people will enjoy this game. At the very least it looks purdy.
Indeed, But it's the Escapist. Anything Yahtzee doesn't like, but is well reviewed anyway, is immeadiately deemed "overhyped". (or some other term slung around by tools and posers)I Have No Idea said:
As for the single player, I view it just as I viewed the multiplayer from hitman. It's there just so it can say "CINEMATIC SINGLEPLAYER EXPERIENCE!" on the back of the box.
Yeah, no kidding. It's great that it looks great on a $3000 computer. I don't have one of those. How is it going to look on my PS3? The beta didn't look any better than CoD.Awexsome said:
Ya, for a second opinion, just like I would ask my friends for their opinion on a movie before I watch it myself. It doesn't make me weak-minded, it makes me financially savvy because I don't want to waste my money on something I may not like.ZephyrFireStrom said:
If a multiplayer focused game is going to bother including a major component such as a single player campaign, then perhaps it should be judged based on an honest comparison between its contemporaries. If the campaign doesn't stack up against what similar games are offering, that issues should be addressed in the review. A 98% score for a hum-drum campaign even with stellar multiplayer, doesn't sound quite right.
On the other hand, the strength of the Battlefield series has always been multiplayer. In fact, the series had never really contained a single player component that wasn't just "multiplayer with bots" until this current console generation (as a previous poster mentioned). I don't judge Madden based on it's narrative content. I don't complain when Final Fantasy doesn't even have at least a bare bones multiplayer component. Each of those games focus on their strengths, and are judged accordingly. In the case of Battlefield, I would suppose that the weight of the critique should fall on the multiplayer component, their greatest strength, rather than a campaign that falls a bit short.
I'm sorry, but that particular statement ranks right up there with some of the dumbest things that Yahtzee has ever said. It's like saying that because I don't like red sauce or cheese, I judge pizza solely on the merits of its crust alone. What irks me is not that he blurts out 100% self-serving biased junk (that's 90% of the internet...), it's that so many posters on here treat his word as law. Come on guys, you've given someone with a once curious little internet comedy routine, a diamond studded soapbox from which to spout his nonsense. Please try to take his statements with tad more than a grain of salt...(more like an ocean really)
On the other hand, the strength of the Battlefield series has always been multiplayer. In fact, the series had never really contained a single player component that wasn't just "multiplayer with bots" until this current console generation (as a previous poster mentioned). I don't judge Madden based on it's narrative content. I don't complain when Final Fantasy doesn't even have at least a bare bones multiplayer component. Each of those games focus on their strengths, and are judged accordingly. In the case of Battlefield, I would suppose that the weight of the critique should fall on the multiplayer component, their greatest strength, rather than a campaign that falls a bit short.
Then I guess games like Team Fortress 2 and the elder Counter-Strike titles are real crap sandwiches then? Because they are oh-so rich treasure troves of narrative content....Alphonse_Lamperouge said:
I'm sorry, but that particular statement ranks right up there with some of the dumbest things that Yahtzee has ever said. It's like saying that because I don't like red sauce or cheese, I judge pizza solely on the merits of its crust alone. What irks me is not that he blurts out 100% self-serving biased junk (that's 90% of the internet...), it's that so many posters on here treat his word as law. Come on guys, you've given someone with a once curious little internet comedy routine, a diamond studded soapbox from which to spout his nonsense. Please try to take his statements with tad more than a grain of salt...(more like an ocean really)
Portal 2 had a single player and co-op. And it was brilliant. Deus Ex: Human Revolution had single player only. And it was brilliant. Team Fortress 2 focused on the multiplayer, and it's brilliant. BF3 (and likely soon to follow MW3) get bad single player, good multiplayer, and its brilliant? Frankly, I would weigh a game on whats in the package. If 50% of your game is crap, why is it over 90%? Don't half ass or don't try at all.
and note to self: Do not trust reviews in Denmark was it? Where EA will send review copies to fans only?
and note to self: Do not trust reviews in Denmark was it? Where EA will send review copies to fans only?
The problem behind your reasoning is that the single-player isn't 50% of the game. Look at bad company 2, most people that played the game put around 6-10 hours in the singleplayer, but 100+ in the multiplayer, meaning that for the average player of the game, the singleplayer only makes up 90% of the time spent playing the game will be in the multiplayer? Why should we give a game a 50% total because 10% of the game may be a bit sub-par (and we don't even know that, none of us have played the game yet) while the other 90% is absolutely phenomenal?FreakSheet said:
The average bc2 player put about 6-10 hours in single player and over 100 hours in multiplayer. That means that less than 10% of the total time spent playing is on singleplayer. Why should we base 50% of the review score on less than 10% of the game?FreakSheet said:
Hahaha, this made me genuinely laugh IRL.Zhukov said:
I'll join you; we can see how long it takes before the general populace of the Escapist puts a price on our heads and hires hitmen.
OT: Oh no, good reviews. That can't possibly mean that the game is simply good can it?!
Oh, and to everyone saying about over-hyped games getting good reviews.... I will simply say these words: Black Ops, Duke Nukem, and RAGE. In fact the only example I can think of of hype carrying over into reviews is MW2, due to everyone now viewing it as having a poorly-told story, too many explosions, and an utterly broken multiplayer, but back when it was released all I remember is 9/10, 10/10, 'A masterpiece', 'Greatest game of all time' etc etc. Hell, I even remember myself and all my friends thinking that for a month or two.
It was Norway, and this was proven bullshit, rectified by the actual gaming sites/magazines that were accused of having been checked to see if they were fans by EA.FreakSheet said:
Hahaha, that's a good idea actually. Guess Bethesda is exempt from that particular rule.Zhukov said:
OT: That sounds pretty cool, but I have no room for Battlefield 3. I already bought the one game I wanted to buy this month (Dark Souls) and I'm getting plenty of entertainment out of that already.