Battlefield 3 Devs Are All About The Review Scores

[emeraldrafael]

And I guess this is why games like psychonauts and Beyond Good and Evil have sequels and franchises then, eh?

EDIT: Actually... I can kinda agree with him. But looking at this recent thing with Uncharted 3 and that mishap they had in norway, I dont know if his argument holds much water.

 

[Zhukov]

Heh.

Translation: "We expect to get good review scores but we know that we won't outsell MW3."

And you all know it.

 

[AnarchistFish]

Neither reviews or sales are a good way to judge how good a game is. It's a shame, games should be the easiest media to review since it's relatively the least subjective.

 

[duchaked]

So games are now where movies have been for a while, where how good a movie / how well it is reviewed, does not match up with it's box office performance. COD is so the Fast and Furious of the gaming world....

I remember that summer when people saw that Transformers 2 was going to outsell the Dark Knight in ticket sales...meh

 

[Frostbite3789]

Unfortunately, while review scores may indicate quality, sales indicate which games will get sequels and which studios will stay open.

Because DICE is in such danger of closing down.

 

[GeorgW]

Huh, Battlefield 3 said that when being up against CoD. Surprising...
Still, I do agree with him, and I always judge reviews over popularity.

 

[emptyother]

How i see it; sales tell how average a game is. If you sell 7 billion units, your game is so average that 7 billion people have found a common ground. And we humans are so different that you have to have a REALLY average game for this many people to like it.

A good game, on the other hand, will have people hate it with passion, and other people love it with passion. These are the games that goes down in history as cult games, and getting replayed over and over again by its supporters.

 

[Strazdas]

sales dont make the game. it is theo ther way around. good game makes sales. jsut look at how max payne STILL SELLS. the sale=win tactic is what led developers to do stuff like NFS, CoD and BF series in the first place. metacritic is by far one of the worst places to get the actual score due to differences in critics rating (who rates by letters? how can you be that stupid?). but generally i would rather say the best test for a game its ability to stand the test of time. a great game will be played 5 years after, a HD itneractive video that you dont want to try again wont. just compare max payne and crysis (just picked two shooters out of top of my head) and see this really works.

 

[Ickorus]

"The other thing you have is consumer feedback, as in forum posts. You can't use that because it's mostly people being very upset with stuff. It's not very often you have a thread on how awesome something is. Well you get that sometimes with videos and stuff, but general threads are mostly complaints."

Actually, if you don't rehash the same game, release a buggy game, leave things unbalanced, price DLC too high, have stupid DRM, release shoddy ports and many many other things that you don't need to do or could be easily remedied then you wouldn't get so many complaints from users.

In the games I tend to play I see users praising developers very often since the developers take that extra little bit of time to make sure their game is as awesome as it can be and then even afterwards will support their game with regular patches for balance and bugfixes.

And the funny thing? Even though the users generally praise the games highly the reviewers rate them lower than AAA titles. ('Cause they don't pay off or threaten the reviewers)

Customer feedback is where it's at.

 

[mrscott137]

I kind of agree with this, as Scott Pilgrim vs. the world is one of the best films i've had the joy of watching, but did not cover the budget in box office.