Zero Punctuation: Battlefield 3

[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.

 

[GeorgW]

I would have liked his thoughts on the rat, and some mention of the coop would have been nice, but oh well. It'd be fun with a MW3 vs BF3 video in the vain of Prototype vs infamous.

 

[FinalHeart95]

I saw some videos of the campaign, and it's far too similar to the Modern Warfare games for my liking.
Bad Company 1 at least had a sense of humor to it.

 

[CriticalQuit]

Despair not, Yahtzee, less than a week remains before Saints Row the Third, which will probably be a bigger island in a sea of turds than Resistance 3 was.

 

[DTWolfwood]

Ah good critique as always!

Agree on all fronts for that retarded generic Single Player.

At the least the Multiplayer gives you a bit more freedom to dick around than the COD series

 

[Markunator]

While I do actually agree with a lot of Yahtzee's points in this review, I still love this game to bits. Why? One word: multiplayer.

And if you think that it's just like "Call of Duty"'s multiplayer - i.e. a paintball match filled with overpowered weapons, perks, killstreaks and screaming 12-year-olds - then you're wrong. It's nothing like that. Skill actually matters in this game's multiplayer. Yes, the singleplayer was a huge letdown, but I can't really mark the game down much for that when the multiplayer is this good.

Oh, and for all of you who might have bought the game just for its campaign only to be disappointed: You know that this is a "Battlefield" game, right? You DO know that, right? Yes, EA/DICE might have said that singleplayer is just as important as multiplayer, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still a FUCKING "BATTLEFIELD" GAME!!!

 

[LobsterFeng]

I like how all the people here, are going on about, how it's multiplayer-focused. A game shouldn't have to excuse itself for it's singleplayer, nor should I, or anyone for that matter, pay $60 for the multiplayer alone. TF2 didn't even cost that much, and it's even gone F2P.

Does anyone remember, when Croshaw reviewed Halo 3, and said a game should be able to stand on singleplayer alone? People rejoiced and threw their top hats into the air in pure joy, but somehow, this is different? Somehow, BF3 is excused?

Thank you, couldn't have said it better myself. Honestly I'm glad he tore into the singleplayer. From the ads I saw of BF3, all I really saw was the singleplayer campaign. So if I didn't know anything about the Battlefield series, and I only like playing singleplayer, I might have bought it. Seriously the community on this site contradicts themselves more than Yahtzee.

 

[Slayer_2]

That invisible wall part got me so. Many. Times. So retarded. I'm surprised he didn't mention the several points where you could follow a street till it ended, and walk OFF the map. Looks like the out-of-bounds guy fell down on the job. Regardless, intense and engrossing campaign, although the multiplayer is far better.

 

[Swifteye]

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! -.-

Yathzee believes in playing with friends he just believes in having your friends next to you so you can punch them in the face for when they mess a campaign up. Playing with people who are more or less strangers with bad manners that you can't reprimand is something he considers a hindrance to the gaming experience.