Battlefield 3 Devs Are All About The Review Scores
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
In the end, the only review that really matters to me is my own.
If I know nothing about the game but it looks interesting, I'll check X-play's review before buying it, but otherwise I simply make my own decision based on what I'm expecting. It's worked so far.
If I know nothing about the game but it looks interesting, I'll check X-play's review before buying it, but otherwise I simply make my own decision based on what I'm expecting. It's worked so far.
does this mean if the game flops which I am sure it wont it will still be a success for getting a few 10/10 or 9/10 scores....
They're still Battlefield games, and, that said, both Bad company games outsold Battlefield 2 - Battlefield: Bad Company 2 sold more in two weeks than Battlefield 2 did in a year - and still didn't reach anywhere near Call of Duty level sales. Again, this isn't a reflection of the quality of the titles, just the general trends when it comes to sales.Vrach said:
I belive it will outsell mw3 on the pc... obviously it wont on the consoles. At the end of the day though we all know what will happen, and the cod fanboys will laugh their arses off about it.. but i really dont care about sales, i know that im getting a game im gonna enjoy which is the point of games isnt it? to enjoy themGrey Carter said:
I agree, absolutely. I'll be picking up both. Battlefield for the PC most likely, and MW3 for the 360.silverbullet1989 said:
Games are often analyzed using a set of objective conditions. Enjoyment will vary from person to person but enjoying a game doesn't necessarily make it good.Vault101 said:
OT: EA can go fuck themselves.
What most forumites fail to realise is how much they are affected by metascores. You say now that it's not a big deal, but lets face it, seeing that number up in the 90s does something for you. It's perfectly fair for a company like EA to attempt to make their game seem favourable, lets not forget they aren't paying reviewers off, just electing to give them to outlets that are more LIKELY to enjoy the game.
When you spend hundreds of millions developing and marketing a game, and some schmuck with a bad attitude against one of your parent company (EA, vs DICE) can have a marked impact on your profits, I'd say you're well within your rights to play around within perfectly reasonable grounds. God, I hope some of you open restaurants someday, or act in a movie/play, and a press member gives you a bad review. Watch your world come crumbling down because of it, and understand why this kind of conduct is ok when the stakes are so, so much higher.
When you spend hundreds of millions developing and marketing a game, and some schmuck with a bad attitude against one of your parent company (EA, vs DICE) can have a marked impact on your profits, I'd say you're well within your rights to play around within perfectly reasonable grounds. God, I hope some of you open restaurants someday, or act in a movie/play, and a press member gives you a bad review. Watch your world come crumbling down because of it, and understand why this kind of conduct is ok when the stakes are so, so much higher.
Well, it might be true: I think Battlefield 3 will be a more entertaining game than MW3, but I'm not buying the game because of all the crap EA saddled the game with, Origin being the most important part. So yeah, my expectations on what the better game is won't factor into the sales.
I do check review scores but I also want to know why critic gave the game certain rating. So what I'm getting at I'm not blindly just scroll down on review to find what score it got, I read whole review to find out what are those scores based on.
After that ofcourse I try to find out what people think of the game (thought it's hard sometimes because all the trolling and flaming). And about upset gamers, almost any multiplayer game have loads and loads of whiners who says it sucks and bases their whining that game sucks on one thing only. This have happened in Halo, MW and resently when I have played GoW 3 there is also the typical "old game was better grr grr grr *angry speak*" etc.
After that ofcourse I try to find out what people think of the game (thought it's hard sometimes because all the trolling and flaming). And about upset gamers, almost any multiplayer game have loads and loads of whiners who says it sucks and bases their whining that game sucks on one thing only. This have happened in Halo, MW and resently when I have played GoW 3 there is also the typical "old game was better grr grr grr *angry speak*" etc.
UUGHGh, "Metascores". "95s and 85s". Why don't these designers just quit the industry and go into accounting if only high percentages give them boners? And the workers salaries and employment then depend on these fake little numbers? It wasn't enough that game reviewing was already a travesty and a disgrace to anyone that's ever called themselves a journalist (with some exceptions *hint hint*), now it's like a pet beauty contest. "Zis pure-bred Muffin haz thigh hair eggzaktly 4.5'' long, und dat somehow makes him ze best dog on ze planet by virtue of that being ze korrekt length by some absurd arbitrary standard. Heil Muffin."
Poor guy that invented Metacritic. He had no idea what abomination he would unleash.
Poor guy that invented Metacritic. He had no idea what abomination he would unleash.
"Score more meaningful than sales" might actually mean something if reviewers actually rated games properly.
Yes, you're technically right. However, as far as sale numbers are concerned, and that alone, they did very well. I clarified that in a later post. Basically it said that they could never recoup the money that was dropped into that game. They knew they were going to take a loss, but had to make back some of that money. If they hadn't of pissed all over Rockstar, they probably wouldn't have been axed and allowed to make a sequel under Rockstar, which would have sold very well and actually have made money.Tin Man said:
BF2 came out in 2005. Of course something that came out years later would've outsold it, the market grew since then >.>Grey Carter said:
If you wanna compare Battlefield 2 to something, compare it to Call of Duty 2 that came out then - in which comparison BF outsold CoD in a year with 2.25 million to 1.4 million.
But of course, it's a ridiculous comparison because the old CoD franchise is not much like the Modern Warfare one, same way Battlefield isn't like Bad Company. They just play different, despite there being many similarities.
I'm not just talking about the "return of real Battlefield" though as a why BF stands a chance against CoD financially. They've got everything this time around, everything they never had. There's a (reportedly solid) single player campaign, a co-op mode and loads of different multiplayer modes.
Modern Warfare has also went through 3 incarnations (counting Black Ops here) and a lot of people are tired of it. In that time, MW has barely changed, but take a look at Battlefield - there are loads of changes to the game. I'm not saying every change is a bright shining light in the eyes of everyone - classic BF fans are pissed for example that there are now also more CoD-like maps, in terms of being somewhat more close quarters - but that's exactly what's gonna draw in the financial element.
On the 'completely' bright side, you've got new modes, new engine, better destruction, better graphics and physics, reworked vehicles, loads of room for progression, maps of all shapes and sizes (some might not like it as I said above, but for the game as a whole, that gives diversity) with different modes to support them all, infantry-only setting for those not into vehicles, loads of different weapons and upgrades, rebalanced sniping (glare effect) etc. That's next to loads of great existing features about the game, the fact you've got dedicated servers with progression and so on.
It's a lot to draw players in. Also, you know that "oh snap" 99 problems marketing campaign that we've been cringing at? Guess who likes that shit, hordes of people playing CoD - it gets their attention. On the other hand, there's also been proper marketing to keep the real fans in - just see the non-TV launch trailer, the multiplayer trailers etc. I'm not cheering it on, but the game is well marketed as far as financial gain is concerned.
Again, I don't expect it to oversell CoD, but I also don't think it an impossibility, but either way, the differences are not gonna be as huge this time around, of that I'm pretty damn sure.
The problem (and you can see it withing the first ten posts even in this topic) is that it's not about people getting pissed about game problems, I cant even take a guess how many topics Ive seen that have been fueled by retarded fanboyism, from people who won't even try a game because it isnt Call of Duty, or Battlefield. People have been fighting online like retarded children because they've spent money on a series and they need it to be the best so they praise everything it does and yells at people who don't disagree because they can't even think they might be wrong. The funny thing is people have all this loyalty to a game, then ***** about the company because they know that their game will be bough so they jack up prices or lock out content. The game companies dont give a shit about you so stop carrying their cross for them.josemlopes said:
It's always funny when the business logic behind a press release is transparently obvious. In this case :"We've been hyping up this game as the one that will 'beat or compete with Call of Duty' so now that it's actually coming out we need to preemptively dismiss the fact that CoD MW3 will almost certainly sell far more copies."