First reviews for Battlefield 3

[JochemDude]

So EA bought it's way to victory again 'yawn' How is it I'm not surprised.

 

[Alphonse_Lamperouge]

The scores are higher than what it deserves but certainly what I expected.

Deducting only 2-10 points from the score because of a bad single player campaign just goes to show how hype and fanboyism works (and the reviews are all essentially pointing out the campaign is "meh").

And yes, I've heard the bf3 fanboy response of "BUT BATTLEFIELD IS PRIMARILY A MULTIPLAYER GAME SO YOU SHOULD JUST IGNORE ALL THE FAULTS IN THE SINGLEPLAYER" but if DICE didn't want their game to be judged including the single player they wouldn't have included a goddamn single player. But they did, and they should be judged on it properly, which it seems they haven't been.

i tottally agree. as our great lord YAHTZEE says ''a game should be judged solely on the merits of its single player'' i paraphrase but i cant remember in which video he said it. its true though, not everyone has the internets moneys

 

[surg3n]

I still think it's a bummer that they can get away with shitty single player as long as the multiplayer rocks.

Yes I can be petty like that. I was expecting huge praise for this hype train anyway.

Because Campaign has always been less important than Multiplayer in a Battlefield game? The games didn't even had a singleplayer mode until Bad Company 1, and that was a spin-off from the main games. You should be grateful there IS a singleplayer mode.

Actually BF1942 had a pretty enjoyable single player mode, albeit more of a tour of the multiplayer maps - it was well worth playing through. Battlefield Modern Combat on the 360 had a more thought out, but incredibly pointless single player campaign. Battlefield has always been multiplayer orientated, but sometimes I like to practice against bots, or in single player, before humiliating myself online. Nothing would make me happier than a co-op Battlefield campaign though.

Incidently, does anyone know when BF3 is due to be released? - they're cutting it pretty close to the Skyrim release, I wanted to be sick fed up of BF3 by the time Skyrim appears .

 

[MercurySteam]

Yeah, because EA has NEVER paid off reviewers. Such a practice is unheard of in the gaming "industry".

tough talk my friend, yet you fail to provide any proof. well?

Don't get Andy started on EA. He almost religiously hates EA, so I'm guessing that EA committed some kind of hate crime on him or he absorbed an ungodly amount of hate from the early on haters of EA and has been a sheep ever since.

Don't even get him started on ME2. (You have been warned!)

OP: I kinda sucked at the BF3 Beta (though in all fairness I didn't play much), though I am hoping to have as many good times as I did with BC2.

 

[Porecomesis]

Zephyr, Supertegwyn, please cut it out. There's nothing wrong with listening to other people's opinions; you may learn something from them. At the same time, no critic/reviewer is always right. Reviews are subjective and, no matter how many reviews you watch or read, nothing will tell you the quality of a game like playing it will.

 

[Da Orky Man]

I didn't think it was possible for a hugely hyped up game by a major developer to score less than 90. Isn't that usually how it goes? I don't even pay attention to reviews at this point. Of course, you've played one war shooter, you've played them all.

I believe IGN gave Black Ops a 8.5, Eurogamer a 8/10, Gamespy 8/10, Destructoid a 6/10, and PC Gamer 64/100.

 

[Freakzooi]

I still think it's a bummer that they can get away with shitty single player as long as the multiplayer rocks.

Yes I can be petty like that. I was expecting huge praise for this hype train anyway.

Because Campaign has always been less important than Multiplayer in a Battlefield game? The games didn't even had a singleplayer mode until Bad Company 1, and that was a spin-off from the main games. You should be grateful there IS a singleplayer mode.

Actually BF1942 had a pretty enjoyable single player mode, albeit more of a tour of the multiplayer maps - it was well worth playing through. Battlefield Modern Combat on the 360 had a more thought out, but incredibly pointless single player campaign. Battlefield has always been multiplayer orientated, but sometimes I like to practice against bots, or in single player, before humiliating myself online. Nothing would make me happier than a co-op Battlefield campaign though.

Incidently, does anyone know when BF3 is due to be released? - they're cutting it pretty close to the Skyrim release, I wanted to be sick fed up of BF3 by the time Skyrim appears .

It's due to release on October the 27th, so when Skyrim releases on November the 11th, you probably won't be sick of BF3 yet

Atleast I know I won't be

 

[Chesterfield Snapdragon McFisticuffs]

I didn't think it was possible for a hugely hyped up game by a major developer to score less than 90. Isn't that usually how it goes? I don't even pay attention to reviews at this point. Of course, you've played one war shooter, you've played them all.

Uh... RAGE? Short-term memory loss there buddy?

 

[MercurySteam]

Only sheep take heed of what other people have to say. In this case what reviewers have to say. If you have doubts about a game and need to see what other people say about it just to make up your mind, well you're just weak minded.

Honestly though should really make up your own mind based entirely on your own feelings.

See, I think you're wrong and here's why: at this stage we can only make decisions whether or not to buy the game by watching trailers, playing the beta and reading reviews. Agreeing with a reviewer does not make you a sheep and because some people don't have the money to waste, they want input from others who have played the game to help them justify their purchase. Not being able to make up you're mind about something doesn't mean you're weak minded, it means you're fucking human.

E.g I don't know about you, but I get a lot of 'feelings' when staring at Lara Croft's ass. With my interest piqued, I go off to read about what others have said to judge the game worth pursuing or not. Typically if a game draws my attention I will read into it a bit more to see if it's a worthy purchase or not as explained in my example. This is what I regard as intelligently shopping for games. Reviews, like trailers and gameplay vids are all resources to help you determine whether to buy a game or not.

Trust me when I say that 'feelings' are the last thing you want to rely on when buying games.

 

[Supertegwyn]

I still think it's a bummer that they can get away with shitty single player as long as the multiplayer rocks.

Yes I can be petty like that. I was expecting huge praise for this hype train anyway.

Because Campaign has always been less important than Multiplayer in a Battlefield game? The games didn't even had a singleplayer mode until Bad Company 1, and that was a spin-off from the main games. You should be grateful there IS a singleplayer mode.

Actually BF1942 had a pretty enjoyable single player mode, albeit more of a tour of the multiplayer maps - it was well worth playing through. Battlefield Modern Combat on the 360 had a more thought out, but incredibly pointless single player campaign. Battlefield has always been multiplayer orientated, but sometimes I like to practice against bots, or in single player, before humiliating myself online. Nothing would make me happier than a co-op Battlefield campaign though.

Incidently, does anyone know when BF3 is due to be released? - they're cutting it pretty close to the Skyrim release, I wanted to be sick fed up of BF3 by the time Skyrim appears .

Aye, the bot mode was fun but it wasn't a singleplayer campaign. I also don't include Modern Combat as a true Battlefield game, it was more of a iffy console port at best.

 

[TacticalAssassin1]

I still think it's a bummer that they can get away with shitty single player as long as the multiplayer rocks.

Yes I can be petty like that. I was expecting huge praise for this hype train anyway.

Shitty single player? Have you played Battlefield 3 single player?
Do you actually know from experience or are you just guessing?

 

[A Gent of Villainous Intent]

I didn't think it was possible for a hugely hyped up game by a major developer to score less than 90. Isn't that usually how it goes? I don't even pay attention to reviews at this point. Of course, you've played one war shooter, you've played them all.

I gots two words for ya boy.

Duke

Nukem.

 

[Zhukov]

I love how a bunch of people skip straight to accusations of bribery.

I reckon I'll give that a try as soon as the Skyrim reviews hit the wires.

 

[Eventidal]

I still think it's a bummer that they can get away with shitty single player as long as the multiplayer rocks.

Yes I can be petty like that. I was expecting huge praise for this hype train anyway.

I think this game will get by on its online multiplayer and graphics alone. It doesn't need to do anything more to please everyone but me.

But honestly, I can't bring myself to care much about online MP in a shooter. Even if it's amazing and brilliant. I'm glad they're raising the bar with this game, but it seems more like raising the bar in terms of detail and scope rather than something we can expect to see other developers learn from. The lesson for all the other "me too" games out there is try harder and do crazy graphics to sell millions and get perfect scores.

I won't be buying this game, but I knew that from the start. Nice graphics, but it's a war shooter, and by the sounds of it, as generic as they come. Just not my cup of tea by any stretch of the imagination...

 

[Pandabearparade]

It's funny how AusGamer starts by saying 'There's certainly room for improvement...' after having given it a score of 98. The reviews for games receiving scores below and 85 must be scathing.

To be fair, -every- game has room for improvement.

I could rant for several pages on the flaws of Fallout 3, but it's still a very solid 9-9.5 game.

 

[Andy Shandy]

I love how a bunch of people skip straight to accusations of bribery.

I reckon I'll give that a try as soon as the Skyrim reviews hit the wires.

But you can't do that :O That would give the impression that it's not only EA that apparently does this sort of thing :O

Anyways, good for EA and DICE, however Modern Warfare 3 will probably have the same sort of score.

 

[Jandau]

An overhyped multiplayer focused modern military FPS from a major publisher is getting inflated review scores! This is new and unexpected!
[/sarcasm]

Seriously, though, gun porn army games are as mainstream as you can get in western gaming at the moment and the lowest common denominator, so both reviewers and gamers are more likely to ignore a game's shortcomings than they would for other games. Add to it the ungodly amount of hype the game got from the publisher and even if it was an actual piece of poop inside the box it still wouldn't drop bellow 80 on Metacritic.

Finally, add to all of this the early review copies are more likely to go to reviewers that the publisher deems "favourable", the aforementioned piece of poop can't go bellow 90 on Metacritc in the first few days.

Mind you, I'm not saying BF3 is bad by default, just that the scores you are seeing aren't in any way indicative of the game's actual quality. It might be worth such praise, it might not. The circumstances surrounding the game muddy the waters too much...

 

[wooty]

I absolutely LOVE how people think BF3 is overhyped and "ololol ea paiz 4 da scor!!!!111", yet nearly every post on other threads is frothing at the gash for Skyrim........ Is it because its a shooter?

Me personally, im looking forward to it, the nainstream battlefield games have always provided long long term entertainment for me. The bad company games dont count.

 

[5t3v0]

I still think it's a bummer that they can get away with shitty single player as long as the multiplayer rocks.

Yes I can be petty like that. I was expecting huge praise for this hype train anyway.

Battlefield is a Multiplayer game, deal with it.

The first 4 games (and also Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield 2, of which Battlefield 3 is a Sequel of) didn't have a SinglePlayer Campaign at all and they didn't really need one. Only their ugly stepbrothers, the Console-SpinOffs triggered this "need" for a Campaign.

You'll probably play the Campaign once in 6-8 hours and likely never touch it again while people spend hundreds of hours (I got like 400 hours on BF2 alone) playing the Multiplayer and that's what the game should be rated for.

This. All this. While Battlefield 2 (BAD COMPANY 2 IS NOT FUCKING BATTLEFIELD 2 KIDS!) only sold 2 million copies in 2 years or so (PC exclusive, BF2: Modern combat for console,[ Yes, Battlefield had a name of that magnitude first] is a different game technically) People put in World-of-warcraft-casual-player-esque hours into battlefield 2, whereas far fewer probably played the Modern Warfare games for half of that.

Battlefield has always been a multiplayer focused game. Half of the Battlefield 1942 veterans didn't even want a campaign as it detracted from MP, and the other half were indifferent. Me, I'm only a BF2 vet so I didn't care. But still, Bashing on BF for having crap singleplayer is like bashing shakespearian works for not being very good at protecting you from the rain.