I've been looking forward to Battlefield 4, wanting to get it for my PS4 that's on order and have also ordered a 360 copy for my dad's xmas, and now I feel like I'm about to give him a completely broken game =/
And I've been blissfully ignorant of much of the game since it's release until I see the threads showing just how broken the game is.
But how did this not show up in any of the game's reviews? The only sense I've seen of this has been Polygon doing one of their infamous review updates but nowhere else has it been reflected. Apart from that only 3 other reviews on metacritic seemed to cite low scores due to technical issues; none of them would be seen as major sites.
So what gives? What the hell happened?
Where's that gif of EA handing over money to IGN
Sadly, a lot of reviewers overlook things like that. In the years that I wrote reviews, I noticed that most people just regurgitate press releases or review sheets instead of actually playing the game. That's why a lot of reviews sound like they're just telling you what's included in the game and not actually about the game itself.
I find it completely unacceptable that technical issues this serious are not even discussed. This isn't even just a single occurrence. And I believe reviewers need to be called out on this in every instance.
I find it completely unacceptable that technical issues this serious are not even discussed. This isn't even just a single occurrence. And I believe reviewers need to be called out on this in every instance.
Good question.
I have Battlefield 4 for the PS4 and haven't even played it yet. Waiting for all of this shit to get fixed.
Kind of reminds me of Silent Hill: HD Collection.
The retail release was absolutely terrible and it required about three different patches to make the game even somewhat acceptable. Somehow it still managed to get decent reviews from the major publications and none that I can remember even mentioned the long list of problems with the game. It's like they just blindly worked off of how great the original games (SH2 and 3) were, assumed this was just a graphic bump, and quickly shit out favorable scores.
I have Battlefield 4 for the PS4 and haven't even played it yet. Waiting for all of this shit to get fixed.
Kind of reminds me of Silent Hill: HD Collection.
The retail release was absolutely terrible and it required about three different patches to make the game even somewhat acceptable. Somehow it still managed to get decent reviews from the major publications and none that I can remember even mentioned the long list of problems with the game. It's like they just blindly worked off of how great the original games (SH2 and 3) were, assumed this was just a graphic bump, and quickly shit out favorable scores.
^ this is exactly what I think happened with the SH:HD Collection. A publication like Game Informer, just as one example, probably didn't even play it- as evident by the 8.0/10 review.I noticed that most people just regurgitate press releases or review sheets instead of actually playing the game. That's why a lot of reviews sound like they're just telling you what's included in the game and not actually about the game itself.
Last edited by TheJollyCorner; Yesterday at 06:22 PM.
I haven't had many issues, but today I was having a blast in conquest and the game got an error right near the end of the match. That fucking sucks... now I know how you guys feel :(
I'm not going to get premium until all this crap is sorted out.
I'm not going to get premium until all this crap is sorted out.
It was reviewed at a closed review event, if I remember correctly.
I blame this on the want for early reviews for most sites, it seems like the gaming press need to have reviews up before games are "live" and out in the world. Sure QA should be finding these bugs but until the final code is in the world you can't account for all of the bugs.
I think the games press should wait a little bit and review games once the multiplayer, internet dependent parts can be fully run through. The problem is most sites don't update their reviews and people have already bought them and are running into the issues the devs should have caught.
I think the games press should wait a little bit and review games once the multiplayer, internet dependent parts can be fully run through. The problem is most sites don't update their reviews and people have already bought them and are running into the issues the devs should have caught.
Did reviewers play the MP or just SP?
They don't play the games enough, or in the right setting (ie not a review event)
Why do Bethesda games get away with crippling bugs and even whole versions that don't work at all?
There are one of 2 answers. Reviewers are grossly incompetent at critiquing games or they're paid to be good little PR agents and do nothing to upset the massive hype machines the major publishers created for their $100 million games. Hell, it could be both of those!
There are one of 2 answers. Reviewers are grossly incompetent at critiquing games or they're paid to be good little PR agents and do nothing to upset the massive hype machines the major publishers created for their $100 million games. Hell, it could be both of those!
I love that IGN quote
"ITS FUCKED BUT BEAR WITH THEM, IN A FEW MONTHS IT MAY WORK - 85%"
"ITS FUCKED BUT BEAR WITH THEM, IN A FEW MONTHS IT MAY WORK - 85%"
lol at you ppl and your weak Battlefield 4 problems. Come see NBA 2K14 and it's millions of problems that any of the reviewers didn't mention. This gen will be nothing but moneyhatting and fake reviews going out.
I haven't had any issues on x1. Was it right when it released?
I covered it in my review, and even stated that it lowered the score.
Probably playing the review copies in controlled environments.
Closed review events under above standard network conditions probably. For MP focused games, reviewers shouldn't be putting anything out before day one, but timeliness is really important so I understand why they do it.
I think that reviews will improve in reliability now that we are past the launch and there are less restrictions. We can go back to just sending reviewers copies instead of bringing them out to release events and giving them a very small window to review a bunch of games.lol at you ppl and your weak Battlefield 4 problems. Come see NBA 2K14 and it's millions of problems that any of the reviewers didn't mention. This gen will be nothing but moneyhatting and fake reviews going out.
They play multiplayer in a mostly controlled environment. In that environment the multiplayer works, and it's fantastic. For most sites, getting the maximum number of hits on the review is the point, so they want to have a review up as soon as the embargo lifts. A site like Polygon sort of gets to play it both ways. They get their review up and get the hits when the embargo lifts. That score is included in the metacritic, and the publisher is happy. A month in, there's still huge issues, and they cut the score in half. This gives them something to point the audience towards and say "we're looking out for you." But by that point, a lot of folks have already bought the game. And the publishers don't give a damn, because a review update doesn't affect the metacritic score.Originally Posted by AHA-Lambda
I've been looking forward to Battlefield 4, wanting to get it for my PS4 that's on order and have also ordered a 360 copy for my dad's xmas, and now I feel like I'm about to give him a completely broken game =/
And I've been blissfully ignorant of much of the game since it's release until I see the threads showing just how broken the game is.
But how did this not show up in any of the game's reviews? The only sense I've seen of this has been Polygon doing one of their infamous review updates but nowhere else has it been reflected. Apart from that only 3 other reviews on metacritic seemed to cite low scores due to technical issues; none of them would be seen as major sites.
So what gives? What the hell happened?
Which version, PS3 Skyrim? Didn't that game actually work for about 25 hours before it stopped working? At least that one we have a plausible explanation for.Originally Posted by Derrick01
Why do Bethesda games get away with crippling bugs and even whole versions that don't work at all?
There are one of 2 answers. Reviewers are grossly incompetent at critiquing games or they're paid to be good little PR agents and do nothing to upset the massive hype machines the major publishers created for their $100 million games. Hell, it could be both of those!
Because people went to a controlled review event.
Most of the reviews were based off of play sessions at a controlled EA-hosted review event, where the people setting it up could ensure that network conditions were optimal. The consoles there probably didn't even use the servers that we are using.
Then, EA set the time for the review embargo to go up as a few days before the game released.
Most gaming websites want their review up when the embargo lifts because it brings in a ton of traffic, and sure enough, most reviews went up right after the embargo went up.
Without having played the game on retail servers or the day one patch.
EA played the games press like a fiddle, and it worked fantastically.
Then, EA set the time for the review embargo to go up as a few days before the game released.
Most gaming websites want their review up when the embargo lifts because it brings in a ton of traffic, and sure enough, most reviews went up right after the embargo went up.
Without having played the game on retail servers or the day one patch.
EA played the games press like a fiddle, and it worked fantastically.
I bought it on PC when I was drunk... just waiting to not have it crash after every match. Its like you buy new games now at days, then you have to wait out the beta period after paying retail.
Ridiculous.
Ridiculous.
I think the simple answer is they expect these bugs to not be long term problems.
The review is supposed to be timeless based on the entertainment value of the game. If you chop off points for bugs and then said bugs are fixed the game is better then when you reviewed it, but your bad review # is still hanging overhead, which hurts the game.
Games like Battlefield 4 that have these issues weeks after launch are pretty rare.
That said, I think alot of reviewers did mention that Battlefield 4 was unstable but they expected EA to fix it.
The review is supposed to be timeless based on the entertainment value of the game. If you chop off points for bugs and then said bugs are fixed the game is better then when you reviewed it, but your bad review # is still hanging overhead, which hurts the game.
Games like Battlefield 4 that have these issues weeks after launch are pretty rare.
That said, I think alot of reviewers did mention that Battlefield 4 was unstable but they expected EA to fix it.
Likely the majority of issues were not present until under full load.
Basically, they didn't realize there was an issue until there was an issue due to millions of users on the system.
Though I'd like to think testing would have included fully loaded servers on the various platforms.
Basically, they didn't realize there was an issue until there was an issue due to millions of users on the system.
Though I'd like to think testing would have included fully loaded servers on the various platforms.
Review event with a stable server farm I assume. Maybe...
It's an awesome game - when it works
-when it works
-when it works
-when it works
-when it works
-when it works
-when it works
-when it works
-when it works
-when it works
-when it works
-when it works
-when it works
-when it works
-when it works
-when it works
-when it works
-when it works
-when it works
-when it works
-when it works
-when it works
-when it works
-when it works
-when it works
nope. didn't work there eitherOriginally Posted by JustinBbad
Review event with a stable server farm I assume. Maybe...
http://www.joystiq.com/2013/10/30/ba...up-against-pc/Potentially more worrisome than the pop-in was a consistent error that would dump me back to the PS4's front end. Error CE-34878-0 reared its ugly head five times during my session, and I wasn't alone – other journalists also suffered the game-crashing prompt. I was told that this signified a network error, and we were playing on EA's own internal servers, so it's hard to know if the problem will persist when the game is available to the PS4-owning public in November.
Killzone: SF - 74lol at you ppl and your weak Battlefield 4 problems. Come see NBA 2K14 and it's millions of problems that any of the reviewers didn't mention. This gen will be nothing but moneyhatting and fake reviews going out.
Knack - 55
CoD: Ghosts - 79
Asscreed 4 - 83
Ryse - 60
Dead Rising - 77
These are actually pretty tough reviews going out. Compared to the standard 85+ every big game got for a long time.
Oh jesus ._.That BF4 SP campaign deserves like, a 3, at best. It's fucking offensive. It's Medal of Honor: Warfighter-tier.
I am fully convinced now that DICE can't create a single player campaign to save themselves.
And before anyone says Mirror's Edge, just no.
Last edited by AHA-Lambda; Yesterday at 06:44 PM.
Review event.
And even then it had some, if not all, of the release problems.
And even then it had some, if not all, of the release problems.
it should be illegal to release broken software that can't be returned to most stores
well i still can't even play the sp every time i try it says my save got deleted
and the mp doesnt allow me to play with friends and still crashes all the time
SO GLAD I BOUGHT IT AND PREMIUM, WOULD LIKE MY 110 DOLLARS BACK
well i still can't even play the sp every time i try it says my save got deleted
and the mp doesnt allow me to play with friends and still crashes all the time
SO GLAD I BOUGHT IT AND PREMIUM, WOULD LIKE MY 110 DOLLARS BACK
Controlled environment.
You guys don't get it. Review events are perfectly normal and reasonable because my job depends on me going to them and writing reviews.
this excuse would almost work if single player didn't ship broken tooOriginally Posted by superchunk
Likely the majority of issues were not present until under full load.
Basically, they didn't realize there was an issue until there was an issue due to millions of users on the system.
Though I'd like to think testing would have included fully loaded servers on the various platforms.
Money money......MONEY! (Brian Griffin voice)Originally Posted by AHA-Lambda
I've been looking forward to Battlefield 4, wanting to get it for my PS4 that's on order and have also ordered a 360 copy for my dad's xmas, and now I feel like I'm about to give him a completely broken game =/
And I've been blissfully ignorant of much of the game since it's release until I see the threads showing just how broken the game is.
But how did this not show up in any of the game's reviews? The only sense I've seen of this has been Polygon doing one of their infamous review updates but nowhere else has it been reflected. Apart from that only 3 other reviews on metacritic seemed to cite low scores due to technical issues; none of them would be seen as major sites.
So what gives? What the hell happened?
Are there expert gamers that still trust reviews?
How many of Battlefield 4's problems are caused by lots of people playing at once?
Because they're videogame "journalists", dummie. Those people don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
when will people realize that the gaming press doesn't actually play games?
Rev3 did that "joke" at ComicCon (i think) but if you've paid attention to reviewers over the past 5+ years you would know it's pretty much what the review process is.
Rev3 did that "joke" at ComicCon (i think) but if you've paid attention to reviewers over the past 5+ years you would know it's pretty much what the review process is.
Pretty sure they didn't play 80 hours of skyrim on each platform before they wrote their reviews. The PS3 problems didn't become apparent until the save games got large enough after several 10s of hours of gameplay, if I understand it correctly.Originally Posted by Derrick01
Why do Bethesda games get away with crippling bugs and even whole versions that don't work at all?
There are one of 2 answers. Reviewers are grossly incompetent at critiquing games or they're paid to be good little PR agents and do nothing to upset the massive hype machines the major publishers created for their $100 million games. Hell, it could be both of those!
edit - Not defending bethesda for putting out a buggy game, btw..
True. Adam Sessler will sit down and play the game, but there's only so much time a reviewer can put into one game.Originally Posted by Omega Rex
when will people realize that the gaming press doesn't actually play games?
Rev3 did that "joke" at ComicCon (i think) but if you've paid attention to reviewers over the past 5+ years you would know it's pretty much what the review process is.
I bought the game over the weekend, since it was $27 (Digital Deluxe). So far the only issue I've had is the inability to connect to a server 1 out of 20 times. Pretty rare. No crashes as of yet.
I didn't have any issues 35 hours in. When Digital Foundry went for it they had to have a huge save game and with very long running sessions and fast-traveling in that session with lots of playtime on the save game.Which version, PS3 Skyrim? Didn't that game actually work for about 25 hours before it stopped working? At least that one we have a plausible explanation for.
I think that PS3 Skyrim issue is way easier excused than anything discussed in the OP.
| Thread Tools | |