-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Battlefield 4 Review Thread
- Thread starter Poetic.Injustice
- Start date
FunkyMunkey
Banned
Polygon
.I don't think their scores for a lot of games make much sense, at least to me.
The difference between a 7.5 and an 8.5 is actually pretty large. Especially with the "anything below a 7 is garbage" system videogame reviewing has become.
EDIT: Changed my wording, didn't mean to crap-up the first post.
In what way?
nogoodnamesleft
Banned
Polygon failing again. I think IGN's is most accurate, imo. Should be higher but I <3 battlefield
They failed because they Gave it a point less than ign and half a point below GameSpot.
Oh boy what can you say.
Unknown One
Member
Maybe Dice should just make it a multiplayer game only. The game is getting points knocked off because of the campaign. Really a shame.
9.5 from Gametrailers and Editor's choice award.
http://www.gametrailers.com/reviews/oxobi5/battlefield-4-review
http://www.gametrailers.com/reviews/oxobi5/battlefield-4-review
Or Polygon keepin' it real, some would say. You say potato, I say truffles. It's all words in the end.Polygon failing again. I think IGN's is most accurate, imo. Should be higher but I <3 battlefield
Vire
Member
Lot's of reviews not in the OP.
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/battlefield-4
Has an 85 on Metacritic so far.
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/battlefield-4
Has an 85 on Metacritic so far.
Mihael Mello Keehl
Banned
In giving the game he loves a higher score
XANDER CAGE
Member
IGN said:
"A disappointing." -IGN
unfortunately I checked and this was OP's mistake and not IGN's
Rated-Rsuperstar
Member
At least this time around some journalists are calling out Dice on their crappy SP and adjusting the scores accordingly. Instead of the usual campaign sucks, but multiplayer so 10/10.
SolidSnakex
Member
I just don't get what's going wrong with their single player campaigns. I know people say that "You don't play Battlefield for the single player", but why were the Bad Company games pretty damn good in that area while the mainline games are so lacking?
nogoodnamesleft
Banned
Kenshin001
Member
Polygon said:
Interesting.
Unknown One
Member
The original BC guys are gone I think. BC didn't take itself seriously and I prefer that.
Kenshin001
Member
Or they could just make a decent campaign. How hard can it be?
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
I dunno... Why don't you try it?
I'm guessing it would delay the game by quite a bit and cost them a lot more money, as length seems to be the big issue.
TemplaerDude
Member
Ehhhhhhh
doniewhalberg
Member
Ah well. I am seriously bad at multi in Battlefield, but I love the visuals of the engine so I would have bought for the SP had it reviewed well (or at least been a good length for once with these games). Fair play though, I'm well aware that's not the focus of this series.
Kocolino67
Member
the internet is not place to argue about semantics, but yes, you are right
It just shows how meanlingless scores are. If the MP is a 10 (and that's what most are interested in) but the SP is a 6 the most accurate thing to do would be to post both scores. Not this wierd mixing that doesn't mean anything and helps no one make a purchasing descision.
Mushroomer25
Member
Hmm. So, are some outlets claiming to have only played the single player? I wonder if they were only showing that off at review events, which some outlets are morally object to.
Exactly my thoughts.
I'm hoping by the time their next BF game appears the idea of shoe horning a SP campaign is dropped completely. Like with BF3 I have little interest in the campaign. At least Respawn seem to be sticking to their guns and making Titanfall MP focused.
Just having it at all helps them, sales-wise. They can take a bump in the review scores, but the bump in sales if it was multiplayer only would be far more massive and crippling.
I only wanted it for singleplayer. For multiplayer I find COD much more accessible (more action, less running/driving towards the action).
catotheyounger
Member
Opinions will be opinions. They are inherently subjective and informed by the reviewer's experience with the game and the context that the game exists in. There is nothing to be 'accurate' about. This whole notion among enthusiasts during review coverage is deeply problematic.
Kenshin001
Member
Really? BF3's campaign was diarrhea.
SolidSnakex
Member
That's part of the reason with BF4. But BF3's lead designer was the lead designer on BC2. The lead designer for BC1 moved on to become the lead designer of BF3's multiplayer.
I thought that the mainline Battlefield single player would be more in line with the original Bad Company, which involved really large open areas to fight in instead of being funneled from set piece to set piece. You'd think that they'd take advantage of BF's more open nature with the single player instead of making an ultra linear experience.
Two things:
- Disappointing is not the same as 'crap'. Most of the complaints seem to be about the length, not the quality of the gameplay.
- I'm really thinking that 'half the game' is a somewhat misleading way of looking at it. Obviously the focus is on multiplayer and there are hundreds of hours to spend there, making the single-player part quite miniscule in comparison.
Except DICE, who make a lot less money.
Believe it or not, review scores are not the end all, be all of how well a game does.
Razgriz-Specter
Member
Its really sad when they say how much effort they are putting into the campaign,
Bad Company 1 & 2 make Battlefield 3 & 4 look like a joke.
Even putting Danger Close in charge of the campaign would have turned out much better.
Imo BC2's campaign is just as Bad as BF3's. Well maybe slightly better because of the lack of QTE's.
If the SP of BF3 is anything to go by it will be crap by my standards. It is half the game. The game has 2 parts and one of it doesn't stack up. You can also bet that a lot of resources were spent during development to produce a SP campaign which is could have been omitted for a even better MP experience.
No one was complaining about the "singleplayer" in BF1942 so they should go back to that. A essentially multiplayer-only game that has largely terrible (they were good at shooting down planes with mounted MGs) AI that you can you use to practice if you want.
I never played BC1 since I don't play console FPS, but BC2 had a singleplayer campaign almost as bad as recent CoD titles so even going back to that won't help them.
I never played BC1 since I don't play console FPS, but BC2 had a singleplayer campaign almost as bad as recent CoD titles so even going back to that won't help them.
Razgriz-Specter
Member
Dear god no.
Not as good as 1 sure but it isn't even the the ballpark of how awful 3's was.
that was the worst campaign I have ever played, in every aspect.