Zero Punctuation: Battlefield 3

[KelsieKatt]

Ah yes. As he himself pointed out in the Gears of War review: if you trash the singleplayer, everyone defends the game by saying "no one plays it for the singleplayer."

This is an argument that never ceases to become less retarded the more times its put out there.

I've heard BF fanboys say the series was never about the SP, and thus it doesn't matter if it's mediocre to poor.

Considering that up until only recently, single player did not exist at all in the Battlefield games, like literally... there was no campaign period. I'd say it's a pretty fucking valid point that anyone who has been following the franchise doesn't give two shits about the campaign that EA slapped on recently.

If Team Fortress 3 suddenly came out with a single player campaign in the next entry, you can bet your ass that none of the fans going to care and it would be stupid for a reviewer to emphasize that particular aspect while ignoring the online considering that Team Fortress 1 & 2 had no single player campaign.

This really isn't a difficult concept to grasp. The Gears of War comparison isn't even relevant considering it's been a campaign+multiplayer combo experience since day one, along with many other games like Halo, etc. I could care less which part of those games he reviews.

However, exclusively reviewing a campaign that randomly popped up in a multiplayer-only franchise is quite useless information to the vast majority of people. (Or vice versa, reviewing the multiplayer specifically in a single player franchise. For example, if they put in versus modes in Mass Effect 3 and someone reviewed only that, you can bet people would be justifiably annoyed.)

 

[Madara XIII]

Everyone wants to focus solely on the multiplayer that the campaign itself falls short of Anemic.

Kind of a shame it sells so well

Very Shameful. I mean it's not all that hard to make a campaign just as fun as the multiplayer.

Prime Example:
[HEADING=2]METAL GEAR SOLID 4[/HEADING]

That was a game that had a heavy and hearty campaign, coupled with it's ever endearing online segment known as Metal Gear Online.

Both the single and multiplayer segments were deep and compelling. The Multiplayer had a system that punished mediocrity and would make you level down if you didn't meant your levels quota.

It proved itself to be clever. It MADE you work as a team and it MADE you realize that running and gunning is indeed VERY VERY VERY STUPID, because you will get eliminated.

[HEADING=2] Metal Gear Online is a SMART ONLINE SHOOTER![/HEADING]

[HEADING=2] Team Fortress 2 is as well[/HEADING]

Regardless though, maybe if developers balanced campaign and multiplayer more often then we wouldn't have half-assed attempts at an incomplete game that fanboys would jump in front of a Bus for

 

[Madara XIII]

Some people seem butthurt over Yahtzee's criticism... He's a critic damnit!

Indeed. Secondly I FREAKING LOVE YOUR AVATAR!!!

 

[StreetPizza]

Weird thing is, the ad was for MW3.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll set the next CoD in South America so we can fight in a tropical rainforest. But don't say that people are ONLY making brown military shooters. The brown military shooters are just the most popular and well polished.

Umm....

World at War was half set in the Pacific(rather Tropical).
MW2 had two missions in South America(Not in the rainforest, mind you).
Black Ops had some Vietnam Jungle missions.
MW3 has a tropical mission in Sierra Leone.

That's 4 CoD games with tropical or South America.

And I'll count Bad Company 2, because it obviously wanted to be MW2 so badly, and was set in South America.

I realize all of this. But I wouldn't compare those past iterations to something like Far Cry or Crysis. The main reason why we don't see games like CoD in tropical environments is that A) they are largely hallway/cover based shooters and tropical environments are too open, and B) realistic foliage is probably one of the most difficult things to do from a programming standpoint because foliage is dynamic and can't just be a texture, in fact, it requires its own physics.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Ah yes. As he himself pointed out in the Gears of War review: if you trash the singleplayer, everyone defends the game by saying "no one plays it for the singleplayer."

This is an argument that never ceases to become less retarded the more times its put out there.

I've heard BF fanboys say the series was never about the SP, and thus it doesn't matter if it's mediocre to poor.

Considering that up until only recently, single player did not exist at all in the Battlefield games, like literally... there was no campaign period. I'd say it's a pretty fucking valid point that anyone who has been following the franchise doesn't give two shits about the campaign that EA slapped on recently.

If Team Fortress 3 suddenly came out with a single player campaign in the next entry, you can bet your ass that none of the fans going to care and it would be stupid for a reviewer to emphasize that particular aspect while ignoring the online considering that Team Fortress 1 & 2 had no single player campaign.

This really isn't a difficult concept to grasp. The Gears of War comparison isn't even relevant considering it's been a campaign+multiplayer combo experience since day one, along with many other games like Halo, etc. I could care less which part of those games he reviews.

However, exclusively reviewing a campaign that randomly popped up in a multiplayer-only franchise is quite useless information to the vast majority of people. (Or vice versa, reviewing the multiplayer specifically in a single player franchise. For example, if they put in versus modes in Mass Effect 3 and someone reviewed only that, you can bet people would be justifiably annoyed.)

If you're going to quote me, please don't snip out my entire argument so it just looks like I'm here to troll.

 

[Andru S]

*sigh*

[HEADING=2]It's a MUL-TEH-PLAY-HER GE-HM! It's also a PEEE-CEEE GE-HM.[/HEADING]

*sigh*

It's like he's thick sometimes or something or wants to make an art out of missing the point, I wouldn't be surprised if he Reviews the likes of Star Wars: The Old Republic, League of Legends or Team Fortress 2 based on their amazing SinglePlayer fun modes of talking to questgivers or shooting bullets into a wall as the lone man on an empty server some day... Or maybe he could move on to board games and play monopoly and chess all by himself and report about what an amazing experience that was?

The hell?

What does it matter that it's a PC game? The Longest Journey was a PC game. Thief was a PC game. Baldur's Gate was a PC game. Planescape Torment was a PC game. Arcanum was a PC game. Even recently, Witcher 2 was a PC game.

A game's platform has no bearing on what its single player quality campaign is. Somehow expecting that PC games having bad story is nothing short of utterly myopic.

 

[Fasckira]

The BF3 campaign didnt keep me interested, but I didnt buy BF3 for the campaign. Having a blast in the multiplayer side and Im enjoying the game a lot overall. That being said, I still enjoyed the ZP on it... I guess Im one of the fortunate few who doesnt experience some sort of internal strife when Yahtzee beats down on a game I like, and instead Im able to enjoy it for the few minutes of chuckle-tastic-comedy that it is.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

If a game says it has a single player component, that is the standard by which it should be judged.

Maybe they should re-roll the random plot generator, either that or their dice are rigged to always land on the terrorist/nuke combo.

 

[KelsieKatt]

If you're going to quote me, please don't snip out my entire argument so it just looks like I'm here to troll.

Sorry... Didn't intend it that way.

Just getting really tired of how many people keep comparing the BF3 complaints to very different scenarios.

That said, I can agree with some of your other points. I do agree that if it's in the game, it should probably be reviewed and by all means the awful campaign in BF3 should be trashed. However, at the same time, the multiplayer which is for a fact the entire purpose of the Battlefield series, should not be ignored because of that.

A singleplayer campaign is a big investment for a studio, it means a lot of time programming scripted events, creating a level design that fits the mission, it means paying extra voice actors, it means producing lots of cutscenes... in short, it costs at least a substantial amount of money.

Given how happy certain major publishers are to cut out anything that's not considered 'vital' to the game and either not give it to us or make us fork over DLC for it, why on earth do these games keep coming out with singleplayer? If so many people apparently have reached the consensus that no one cares about it, surely EA would have gotten wind of that and thought "Great! That's a whole less team we have to employ for this game!"

 

[Savryc]

If they're going to focus on the multi-player why even bother with single player? Being MP focused is no excuse for a shitty campaign, it's just half-arsed laziness on the developers part which no amount of fan-boy bleating can sweep under the rug.

It's a sad state of affairs when a developer can shit all over you in single player because "Hey, we focused on multi-player and those walking cash pinata's won't give a fuck" and they STILL get defended.

 

[ExiledPaladin13]

If they're going to focus on the multi-player why even bother with single player? Being MP focused is no excuse for a shitty campaign, it's just half-arsed laziness on the developers part which no amount of fan-boy bleating can sweep under the rug.

It's a sad state of affairs when a developer can shit all over you in single player because "Hey, we focused on multi-player and those walking cash pinata's won't give a fuck" and they STILL get defended.

Can you prove that the single-player is shit? The developers actually tried their best in making the singleplayer when they stated that single-player is just as important as multiplayer, this PROVES that they werent lazy with it.

Basically you're just recollecting DICE's legendary multiplayer status and using that as a reason for saying that they are lazy with the single-player. I'm sorry but you do not have enough proof to state that the developers went half-arsed with the single-player.

I'd have to agree that there was nothing special about the campaign, but the devs DID try their best. I also realise that i wont be able to beat your opinion so i dont want to start a war with you, i just wanted to respond in a kindly mannor about your aquisations. good day =]

 

[thom_cat_]

Hm, I find it rather silly to base a battlefield review off the single player and to play it on a console. But that aside I also feel many things were glossed over in this, good things were portrayed as negatives and things that are required to make the game function are written off as unneeded and bad.
But then again, this is Yahtzee. Annoying how I didn't detect any undertones or hints throughout.

The whole thing is a rip on EA's statement, which isn't really that helpful.

 

[kingmob]

I can totally imagine Yahtzee sitting there with gleeful anticipation for this one. A modern, completely unoriginal, cover based FPS with QTEs and a very below average single player storyline. That's just about every box ticked on Yahtzee's list of most hated qualities.

Every person with any knowledge on Yahtzee saw this one coming and nobody should be surprised. He doesn't enjoy multiplayer so every game that does a poor job on single player will be ripped to shreds and no amount of raging is going to change that. I found the review quite amusing, though honestly I expected you to be even more harsh about the singleplayer - it was rubbish.

I'll still thoroughly enjoy the multiplayer though.

Well, that's exactly why it is so useless and boring to review it anyway, isn't it? I mean, Yahtzee knew he wouldn't like it and what he wouldn't like, the viewers knew and why and noone really likes the SP anyway, not even the fans. What is the point then really? Not just a waste of time for Yahtzee, but also the viewers imo...

I don't know, I don't imagine Yahtzee having fun tearing this a new one. I imagine him finding it rather tedious. Again what was the point? Next week MW3 and the exact same thing?

 

[Hawkraider]

Any game is better playing with friends or the like. Hell, tetris is better with another person. You cant get as much enjoyment shooting an in-animate object as you could shooting your friend (lol) add a gun and online multiplayer to Dynasty warriors and will it get a 10? no, but it would certainly boost the score. (The single player would be crap as expected but you get to shoot your friends in feudal china woohoo! -.-

 

[ph0b0s123]

Clegane]

As I predicted here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.319929-Zero-Punctuation-Kinect?page=2#13062231] some weeks ago, no mention of the multi player game which is the main point of the Battlefield series. The justification for this by Yahtzee was pretty laughable.

Yahtzee should just recuse himself from reviewing battlefield games if he is only capable of reviewing at most half the game. I have an excuse for not reviewing it as well. Blame the spyware you would have had to have loaded to play the best version on the PC. That could have been quite funny....

Lmao, someone has butthurt.

Having played BF3 I can honestly say this is one of Yahtzee's more fair reviews, he normally blows faults out of perspective for comedic value, but BF3 did all of that for him. All of his complaints and nitpicking were completely legitimized, it's almost as if EA are trying to make his review easier for him, it reminds me of when South Park did Scientology.

Butthurt, not really I would just like a review that as well, covers the part of the game I would be interested in buying it for....

 

[Zeriah]

I can totally imagine Yahtzee sitting there with gleeful anticipation for this one. A modern, completely unoriginal, cover based FPS with QTEs and a very below average single player storyline. That's just about every box ticked on Yahtzee's list of most hated qualities.

Every person with any knowledge on Yahtzee saw this one coming and nobody should be surprised. He doesn't enjoy multiplayer so every game that does a poor job on single player will be ripped to shreds and no amount of raging is going to change that. I found the review quite amusing, though honestly I expected you to be even more harsh about the singleplayer - it was rubbish.

I'll still thoroughly enjoy the multiplayer though.

Well, that's exactly why it is so useless and boring to review it anyway, isn't it? I mean, Yahtzee knew he wouldn't like it and what he wouldn't like, the viewers knew and why and noone really likes the SP anyway, not even the fans. What is the point then really? Not just a waste of time for Yahtzee, but also the viewers imo...

I don't know, I don't imagine Yahtzee having fun tearing this a new one. I imagine him finding it rather tedious. Again what was the point? Next week MW3 and the exact same thing?

I'd imagine he was made to by The Escapist (He's said before that he's been pushed into reviewing games by them). His reviews on the big titles always get a lot of views so it makes sense that they'd make him do it. Some of his funniest reviews are on games that he hates as well (though I think he might have held back a little bit because of it being a multiplayer game). People have got to remember his videos are for entertainment, they aren't even really meant to influence you on what you do or do not buy (though the few games he genuinely does enjoy are probably worth checking out).

 

[Superior Mind]

While Call of Duty started as a single player game with a multiplayer component as a bonus, (as most games of the CoD 1 and 2 era did,) and then evolved to be mostly-multiplayer-with-single-player-bonus, Battlefield has until recently been multiplayer only. It seems odd to have a review based only on what I would consider the additional content - but hey, EA and DICE wanted to have a campaign and it deserved every bit of criticism it got from this.

That being said this seems like a review of only a fraction of the game. I know Yahtzee only bothers with the single player aspect of a game and I get his reasoning behind this but with multiplayer largely ignored and co-op completely ignored this seems like a very superficial review given how important multiplayer in particular is to the franchise. It feels similar to how it would if it was a review based on the first three levels of a game. I kind of think given how unimportant the BF3 campaign was, (both as a game and as part of BF3 as a whole,) it hardly warranted an entire Zero Punctuation dedicated to it. Could have passed as a side-note to a later MW3 review or as a head-to-head-type episode or something.

 

[dmase]

I'm never going to get the couple of hours I spent on battlefield 2's single player back, I can't really say it was a let down because I wasn't expecting much. I'll leave that for mw2 when I get it later today and i'm not satisfied with crazy Russians.

 

[synthesis]

Hmmm.. does yahtzee not know that cod:mw did not invent stories with nukes or in BO stories with dudes recallin' stuff.

Heck might aswell say that bf rippedoff fps genre from cod, since cod invented everything when it comes to gaming, right.

Anyway, i liked the sp and i'm frustrated with the mp cuz of bugs and hax.
Also i have the PC version and i know the mission that you are talking bout you must have played on hard, cuz in normal i did it on the first try.

I expected more from BF3, but the game is still in it's teens so i guess they can fix some stuff stil.