First reviews for Battlefield 3

[Phlakes]

So? My thought is simple, BattleField 3 only gains such a high score because of hype, read anything on the Faults of Game Reviewing to understand further.

Everyone says this about every game that has hype. You're forgetting that reviewers are people too, they know about hype, and they didn't get their jobs for nothing.

 

[BlueOnBlue]

Portal 2 had a single player and co-op. And it was brilliant. Deus Ex: Human Revolution had single player only. And it was brilliant. Team Fortress 2 focused on the multiplayer, and it's brilliant. BF3 (and likely soon to follow MW3) get bad single player, good multiplayer, and its brilliant? Frankly, I would weigh a game on whats in the package. If 50% of your game is crap, why is it over 90%? Don't half ass or don't try at all.

and note to self: Do not trust reviews in Denmark was it? Where EA will send review copies to fans only?

The average bc2 player put about 6-10 hours in single player and over 100 hours in multiplayer. That means that less than 10% of the total time spent playing is on singleplayer. Why should we base 50% of the review score on less than 10% of the game?

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Its surprising, these are reviews for the PC version of the game.

 

[Euhan01]

The reviews have convinced me not to buy it, single player is typically poor bieng a Battlefield game, and whilst multiplayer looks good i'm not a fan of Battlefield's multiplayer (too snipe happy)

 

[Captain Pirate]

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.

Hahaha, this made me genuinely laugh IRL.
I'll join you; we can see how long it takes before the general populace of the Escapist puts a price on our heads and hires hitmen.

OT: Oh no, good reviews. That can't possibly mean that the game is simply good can it?!

Oh, and to everyone saying about over-hyped games getting good reviews.... I will simply say these words: Black Ops, Duke Nukem, and RAGE. In fact the only example I can think of of hype carrying over into reviews is MW2, due to everyone now viewing it as having a poorly-told story, too many explosions, and an utterly broken multiplayer, but back when it was released all I remember is 9/10, 10/10, 'A masterpiece', 'Greatest game of all time' etc etc. Hell, I even remember myself and all my friends thinking that for a month or two.

and note to self: Do not trust reviews in Denmark was it? Where EA will send review copies to fans only?

It was Norway, and this was proven bullshit, rectified by the actual gaming sites/magazines that were accused of having been checked to see if they were fans by EA.

 

[AlternatePFG]

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.

Hahaha, that's a good idea actually. Guess Bethesda is exempt from that particular rule.

OT: That sounds pretty cool, but I have no room for Battlefield 3. I already bought the one game I wanted to buy this month (Dark Souls) and I'm getting plenty of entertainment out of that already.

 

[NewYork_Comedian]

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

What did you expect? It has a ton of hype on its shoulders, and you know how the escapist community gets riled up on popular games with a lot of hype.

OT: Good to know, I already decided after a long argument with myself that I would get this before Modern Warfare 3, so I'm glad the praise helps justify my decision.

 

[PeePantz]

Portal 2 had a single player and co-op. And it was brilliant. Deus Ex: Human Revolution had single player only. And it was brilliant. Team Fortress 2 focused on the multiplayer, and it's brilliant. BF3 (and likely soon to follow MW3) get bad single player, good multiplayer, and its brilliant? Frankly, I would weigh a game on whats in the package. If 50% of your game is crap, why is it over 90%? Don't half ass or don't try at all.

and note to self: Do not trust reviews in Denmark was it? Where EA will send review copies to fans only?

The problem behind your reasoning is that the single-player isn't 50% of the game. Look at bad company 2, most people that played the game put around 6-10 hours in the singleplayer, but 100+ in the multiplayer, meaning that for the average player of the game, the singleplayer only makes up 90% of the time spent playing the game will be in the multiplayer? Why should we give a game a 50% total because 10% of the game may be a bit sub-par (and we don't even know that, none of us have played the game yet) while the other 90% is absolutely phenomenal?

You sir/ma'am have just stated the most intelligent thing in this whole thread. You are 100% correct.

Why are people so obsessed with hating multiplayer? I don't understand it. Around these parts, multiplayer is akin to child pornography. Only terrible, horrible monsters enjoy it.

The same people who demand the game get penalized for an underwhelming single player/campaign mode are the ones who brush of bad multiplayer in games they enjoy. They're the same who will just say that the multiplayer is unnecessary and just thrown in to attract more people to buy the game. That multiplayer should bear no weight when judging the game. It isn't a one way street, people.

 

[Alphonse_Lamperouge]

If a multiplayer focused game is going to bother including a major component such as a single player campaign, then perhaps it should be judged based on an honest comparison between its contemporaries. If the campaign doesn't stack up against what similar games are offering, that issues should be addressed in the review. A 98% score for a hum-drum campaign even with stellar multiplayer, doesn't sound quite right.

On the other hand, the strength of the Battlefield series has always been multiplayer. In fact, the series had never really contained a single player component that wasn't just "multiplayer with bots" until this current console generation (as a previous poster mentioned). I don't judge Madden based on it's narrative content. I don't complain when Final Fantasy doesn't even have at least a bare bones multiplayer component. Each of those games focus on their strengths, and are judged accordingly. In the case of Battlefield, I would suppose that the weight of the critique should fall on the multiplayer component, their greatest strength, rather than a campaign that falls a bit short.

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

Then I guess games like Team Fortress 2 and the elder Counter-Strike titles are real crap sandwiches then? Because they are oh-so rich treasure troves of narrative content....

I'm sorry, but that particular statement ranks right up there with some of the dumbest things that Yahtzee has ever said. It's like saying that because I don't like red sauce or cheese, I judge pizza solely on the merits of its crust alone. What irks me is not that he blurts out 100% self-serving biased junk (that's 90% of the internet...), it's that so many posters on here treat his word as law. Come on guys, you've given someone with a once curious little internet comedy routine, a diamond studded soapbox from which to spout his nonsense. Please try to take his statements with tad more than a grain of salt...(more like an ocean really)

dude i form my own opinions, i just happen to find Zero Punctuation hits the mark 99 times out of 100. im so sick of reviewers like IGN and GAMESPOT salivating into the assholes of every AAA game that is released. games SHOULD be ripped to shreds and the review process should be BRUTAL, its the only way for consistently high quality games to be released all year round. And for the record crap sandwich doesn't even do justice to how monumentally awful TF2 is. i would instead liken it to a baby diarrhea filled taco left baking in the sun, with terrible graphics. as for counter strike, i wouldn't know, i never played them. but with its rabid fan base defending it maniacally with such impotent pre pubescent rage, i imagine it to be the godfather of CoD. and i dont mean that in a good way.

 

[Supertegwyn]

If a multiplayer focused game is going to bother including a major component such as a single player campaign, then perhaps it should be judged based on an honest comparison between its contemporaries. If the campaign doesn't stack up against what similar games are offering, that issues should be addressed in the review. A 98% score for a hum-drum campaign even with stellar multiplayer, doesn't sound quite right.

On the other hand, the strength of the Battlefield series has always been multiplayer. In fact, the series had never really contained a single player component that wasn't just "multiplayer with bots" until this current console generation (as a previous poster mentioned). I don't judge Madden based on it's narrative content. I don't complain when Final Fantasy doesn't even have at least a bare bones multiplayer component. Each of those games focus on their strengths, and are judged accordingly. In the case of Battlefield, I would suppose that the weight of the critique should fall on the multiplayer component, their greatest strength, rather than a campaign that falls a bit short.

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

Then I guess games like Team Fortress 2 and the elder Counter-Strike titles are real crap sandwiches then? Because they are oh-so rich treasure troves of narrative content....

I'm sorry, but that particular statement ranks right up there with some of the dumbest things that Yahtzee has ever said. It's like saying that because I don't like red sauce or cheese, I judge pizza solely on the merits of its crust alone. What irks me is not that he blurts out 100% self-serving biased junk (that's 90% of the internet...), it's that so many posters on here treat his word as law. Come on guys, you've given someone with a once curious little internet comedy routine, a diamond studded soapbox from which to spout his nonsense. Please try to take his statements with tad more than a grain of salt...(more like an ocean really)

dude i form my own opinions, i just happen to find Zero Punctuation hits the mark 99 times out of 100. im so sick of reviewers like IGN and GAMESPOT salivating into the assholes of every AAA game that is released. games SHOULD be ripped to shreds and the review process should be BRUTAL, its the only way for consistently high quality games to be released all year round. And for the record crap sandwich doesn't even do justice to how monumentally awful TF2 is. i would instead liken it to a baby diarrhea filled taco left baking in the sun, with terrible graphics. as for counter strike, i wouldn't know, i never played them. but with its rabid fan base defending it maniacally with such impotent pre pubescent rage, i imagine it to be the godfather of CoD. and i dont mean that in a good way.

Wait what? Somebody liking Team Fortress 2 doesn't mean they are wrong, it simply means they have a different opinion to you. Last time I checked that wasn't a crime.

 

[sir.rutthed]

Mmmm... all the off topic rage here is simply delicious.

OT: I don't plan on getting BF3, so I honestly couldn't care less. The shooter wars are one of the less interesting parts of gaming culture as far as I'm concerned. Now give me Skyrim so I can get my rabid fanboy rage on, damnit!

 

[Athinira]

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.

Short answer: No.

How late Battlefield was about adding single player or not is completely irrelevant. Bottom line is that it's a $60 AAA super title now, and Single Player (or lack of) can and should in any way possible figure into the review scores. You can't just use the history of the past to say "Single Player doesn't really matter in Battlefield 3, because they didn't always have that, so be happy it's there" and then go on to review Modern Warfare 3 and take both the Single and Multi-player into account there. That's not really a non-biased reviewing technique, now is it? Every game should be judged on it's own merits, and the only way past games should affect the scores of a future game in the same series is in how consistent the story is with the previous installments (as in, if the two games have a connecting storyline, that connection obviously matters).

I don't give a sh*t about how late the BF series was about adding a single player: Bottom line is that it's there now, and should be reviewed like everything else, and if it wasn't there, the lack of it should also be reviewed like everything else. You don't just go and review half a game. Period.

 

[GaltarDude1138]

The only opinion that matters is your own.

If you haven't played the game, you have no opinion. There's a difference between reading about someone else's experience with a game and actually playing the game. All I'm gonna say.

 

[Netrigan]

Going back to the days of Quake, I still find it funny how insanely positive reviews can turn my interest off... pointing out pretty major flaws in the single player campaign (such as it being extremely short and nothing remotely new) is not a good review in my mind.

But that's a review doing its job. They not only told me that they liked the game, but exactly why they liked the game. By putting their opinion into perspective, I can gleam from an overwhelmingly positive review that the game is not for me... at least not until it drops below $20... maybe.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

You know what, I'm getting BF3 in oh, maybe 8 hours. I can already tell you what's going to happen. The campaign will be incredibly bland, as all BF campaigns are, even BFBC, but the MP will kick ass and take way longer to get old than MW simply because of the diversity in the ways you can play. I can charge from the front lines, suppress and support from the second rank, or mark and eliminate as a sniper. If the enemy is entrenched in a building, I can rocket launch the shit out of it.

 

[TilMorrow]

Personally I'm not getting Battlefield 3. At all. Unless EA changes its EULA/TOS/whatever it's called to something a little more customer friendly. So I'm saving my money Skyrim.

Oh yes, I thought Battlefield was only Multiplayer. B2 and B1942(or whatever year it was) and B2142 all only had multiplayer and the single player was just multiplayer with bots. Now for story you want Bad Company.