Lets leave possible ''bribes'' out of the reviewing for now: Game reviewers only play the game for a couple of hours before reviewing a game. This is probably due to deadlines and the fact that they have to play another 5 games at the same time.
They don't play the game like a fan of the series would (playing multiple hours every day for months). That's why a lot of these problems won't get noticed by reviewers and sometimes developers fail to filter out, because reviews are the thing that puts the most money on the table.
It happened to me after 3 hours on Monday, and then another 2-3 hours last night. My stats are all gone.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.
Somebody needs to hold EA accountable for this. I haven't bought a game this broken in years.
As for the Bethesda's horrible buggy games like skyrim, they didn't even send out a ps3 copy for reviews if I remember correctly.
Most didn't play the PS3 version at all since Bethesda only sent out PC or 360 review copies. But that didn't stop some from saying the PS3 version was fine in their reviews.Originally Posted by Robobandit
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.
edit - Not defending bethesda for putting out a buggy game, btw..
Come on EA.
Was BF4 one of the games that reviewers played in a highly controlled situation?
Obviously every reviewer didn't experience that, but it's entirely possible that some people who reviewed the game just didn't experience the issues. I mean people are still calling the game unplayable but I haven't had a single problem for two weeks. People are having very different experiences with the game it seems.
Edit: PS4 version
This.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!
I think that the Skyrim issues with the PS3 during months are even worse than this, and they weren't even mentioned in the reviews.
I think your first assertion is correct for many, but your second overestimates them. They're doing the PR thing for free. How many times have we seen games bloggers fall over each other defending companies? And how many times have those same people circled the wagons around their own readers?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!
They aren't being paid directly but they know who will be paying them at their next job, and it ain't us.
They're not all this way, lots of great writers out there. But a huge number of the guys putting scores to games that end up on metacritic fall into this category. As a rule, I trust a publication a lot more if they don't use scores at all.
Ah right, I forgot about that. One site (I forget which) requested the PS3 version and received the 360 one. But for that bug it's unlikely there would have been much difference in the reviews unless sites went Polygon on the game.Originally Posted by Derrick01
Most didn't play the PS3 version at all since Bethesda only sent out PC or 360 review copies. But that didn't stop some from saying the PS3 version was fine in their reviews.
Same here in terms of the crashing and lag. There's obviously a big issue as a lot of people are posting, though. It does make me ignore the people who played the first week and haven't touched it since, though.Originally Posted by mullet2000
Well, I don't know. After the first week I haven't had any issues in Battlefield 4 multiplayer at all aside from a very small number of laggy conquest games. The game hasn't crashed on me at all after that first week of release and has been 100% fine.
Obviously every reviewer didn't experience that, but it's entirely possible that some people who reviewed the game just didn't experience the issues. I mean people are still calling the game unplayable but I haven't had a single problem for two weeks. People are having very different experiences with the game it seems
Not sure how I got so lucky, but it is pretty stupid how barely any console reviews mention how broken the connections seen to be.
The reviewers only have a day or two to finish the game and play some MP matches, and the setup means that it all happens under ideal circumstances. If a problem appears PR will be quick to point out that it will be fixed by launch, and that there is no reason to report it.
The media probably did not encounter half of the problems normal gamers did, and they probably did not play it long enough to see any major issues.
I can't believe sound effects don't work in half of the conquest matches. Game reviewers are useless these days.
Until you stop doing this shit, your criticisms are completely justified.
What the posters above have been saying is about right. Most bugs don't pop up in these controlled environments - you tend to be on hardware that's been tested by the devs, at a location that's near to their server, for a limited period of time (three days in this case, though I don't know how much of that was actual play time.)
If you do spot a bug, you're assured by the PRs that it'll be fixed for launch - which puts you in an odd situation, of knowing there's a bug in there that you might not be able to take into consideration because it could be fixed. I tend to mention them, but then you run the risk of it being fixed before launch and your review looking a bit mad.
And, yes, sites / magazines review games ahead of time because they want to a) get all that launch traffic b) because they want to provide advice to players to buy / not buy. There are compelling reasons to wait, yes, but given how many people buy on launch day, sites need to have that buying advice up on the day or before. How far they should compromise to do this is another question.
Meh. The campaign is fine. The story is horribly told, but the setpieces are great, and it's addictive. It literally rewards good gameplay with more and better guns all the time (no more lifting guns off dead guys only), and the levels are big enough to be replayed in lots of different ways. It's the best FPS campaign on PS4 right now. Is it great? No. It's too short and the story is utter crap really. But is it fucking Warfighter? Hell no.Originally Posted by AHA-Lambda
Oh jesus ._.
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.
Seriously, when it comes to BF games, wait for the patches and you'll save yourself a lot of grief in the long run.
Yep. Its not moneyhats. Its not even incompetence (at least not in the way that these people dont know how to do their jobs). Its just the rush to put the review out day 1.Originally Posted by Pandoracell
They don't play the games enough, or in the right setting (ie not a review event)
To do that, you have to play the game in the setting the publishers wants you to. And you almost certainly wont have time to put more than a handful of hours into it. I am betting that unless its a short SP campaign most reviewers never even finish it.
The only reasonable way to fix this problem is for reviews to go out a week or so after release. But that would NEVER happen.
Agreed. But this is a console launch period. All I needed was pretty graphics and fun gunplay, with highly replayable missions. Plus you keep on unlocking guns and stuff all the time, so it's breezy fun.Considering how terrible the campaigns of KZ: SF and Ghosts are, that's REALLY not saying very much at all.
Single player I ran into the bug where my game save was deleted. Multiplayer, I never ran into any issues. I was playing against people who somehow had copies of the game before launch, but it was always enough people to find games to play against.To be fair, however, I only played Team Deathmatch, not any of the other modes.
So while I knew about the campaign deletion issue, I had no idea of problems with the multiplayer on a personal level until I started seeing postings and whatnot post-launch.
They need to be very clear about the situation they're in, and what bugs they saw. Nobody should ever take PR assurances into account. They have incentives that are 100% at odds with the role of a reviewer. That shouldn't even be up to debate.Originally Posted by GriddleOctopus
Games reviewer here. Was meant to be going to the BF4 review event (at DICE in Sweden, at least for European press, IIRC) but other work came in so I couldn't make it.
What the posters above have been saying is about right. Most bugs don't pop up in these controlled environments - you tend to be on hardware that's been tested by the devs, at a location that's near to their server, for a limited period of time (three days in this case, though I don't know how much of that was actual play time.)
If you do spot a bug, you're assured by the PRs that it'll be fixed for launch - which puts you in an odd situation, of knowing there's a bug in there that you might not be able to take into consideration because it could be fixed. I tend to mention them, but then you run the risk of it being fixed before launch and your review looking a bit mad.
And, yes, sites / magazines review games ahead of time because they want to a) get all that launch traffic b) because they want to provide advice to players to buy / not buy. There are compelling reasons to wait, yes, but given how many people buy on launch day, sites need to have that buying advice up on the day or before. How far they should compromise to do this is another question.
Otherwise we get nonsense like the Polygon Sim City review.
I'm really sick of this shit, i almost never read reviews but it makes me sad that games like Knack will probably never get a sequel and a chance to work on their probles cause they got murdered in reviews and people didn't give them a chance.
I was expecting to pick this game on the PS4 so it could be my go-to FPS Mutiplayer game. I've seen many friends and family members tempted to get this game but I told them to wait explaining all the issues the game had lately. They answered: "But I read the reviews and the scores were good!"
I'm actually happy that we as consumers will always have the final decision upon a purchase. It's up to us to vote with our wallet or not. There's no doubt the game is great -when working- on the PS4 and on the other platforms too but it's pretty clear that the game was rushed (perhaps to get some of the Call of Duty audience?) and that paid a horrible price that, once again, it's the day one adopters who had to pay for it.
I'm a pretty positive person and I tend to focus on the best thing gaming has to offer as a satisfying experience, however, as a consumer and a friend I'm doing my work on spreading the problems Battlefield 4 have been suffering since day one. It's great to see that we can spread these issues to warn possible consumers. It's a shame the game was rushed.
I'm hoping for the best for the game and for the people who bought it day one. They should treat their loyal customers better and start thinking of a way to reward said players. It's the least they could do to avoid -even more- negativity towards their company.
http://youtu.be/Mpx4R9SY98o?t=11m25s
Where you can see how long the reviewers spent on the game. This is incredibly important to the credibility of people reviewing games.
With Mirror's Edge, they made something that they wanted to make. A passion project for them.Originally Posted by AHA-Lambda
Oh jesus ._.
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.
Making a Battlefield single player campaign is something EA has forced them to do in order to get that extra marketing on the back of the box.
It's as simple as that.
You wonder why News outlets constantly treat politicians with kids gloves? Same reason why gaming journalists treat most Publishers with kids gloves.
It's actually more pathetic to be honest, because at least Anchors on TV get pain a metric fuck ton of money while these reviewers probably making slightly above minimum wage.
"Battlefiled 4 lacks in the single-player campaign with a dull and forgettable story, while it still remains a very strong experience in its multiplayer side. Unfortunately it gets dragged down by several bugs capable of impacting the entire experience with hangs, savegame corruption and hitbox problems that we hope will be quickly be fixed."
Edit: obviously reviewed post-launch, in the real world.
You know what happened.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?
Can't risk getting black listed.
A lot of the issues that are now affecting players didn't occur at launch. While others that were present at launch are not an issue anymore.
Dice patches are known to fix one thing and break a completely different one.
Review it anyways! Throw it out there! Who cares if it helps foster misinformation about the quality of a product. That environment just screams honest to the consumer, right?Originally Posted by funkystudent
Who would have guessed that reviewing of a pre released game on pre release hardware in a publisher controlled environment might not give real world results?
I'm not being particularly scientific here cause I feel like being lazy, but roughly half the reviews on Metacritic seem to have been written based on an EA controlled review event. So that's likely one significant culprit.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?
Yeah ok, I'll give you that at least.Originally Posted by Grief.exe
With Mirror's Edge, they made something that they wanted to make. A passion project for them.
Making a Battlefield single player campaign is something EA has forced them to do in order to get that extra marketing on the back of the box.
That said, the state of the game is pretty unacceptable. I expect a DICE launch to be bad, yes, but- and I'm guessing many of the journos felt the same- I also expect them to get through it in a decent amount of time and eventually deliver a solid game. They're breaking new ground with this one, even for a BF release.
Every single review I initially read didn't. Eurogamer, Polygon, Gamespot and IGN. These were all event reviews, all early reviews were. Gamespot and IGN didn't think it relevant to inform readers they didn't review this multiplayer focused game under normal conditions, but ones controlled by the publisher of the game.Look, I think there are plenty of things to call out games journalism on. But plenty of BF4 reviews mentioned the problems and made significant note of them. The scores attached to the game are there to describe their honest impression of the game's quality when it worked- after all, what's the point of trying to compromise (lol Polygon 4) or score the broken aspect? A game you cannot play is a 0, end of story. And yet they could play it, so they reviewed it how they could and let everyone know about the issues. I admit I'm partially a bit vindictive here as I'd actually like to see people suffer for reading the score and only the score. If you didn't read the text, you deserve what you get for making a buying decision off a number alone. Maybe the whole focus on the number bit will disappear from the industry after people get burned too many times from it.
That said, the state of the game is pretty unacceptable. I expect a DICE launch to be bad, yes, but- and I'm guessing many of the journos felt the same- I also expect them to get through it in a decent amount of time and eventually deliver a solid game. They're breaking new ground with this one, even for a BF release.
"The state of the game is unacceptable. 9/10."
What you're saying makes no sense to me. The score should be indicative of the overall quality of the game, which bugs and stability issues affect negatively. Giving a partially broken game a high score is daft.
EA would no longer give them early access to future games
EA would no longer give them review copies of future games
EA would essentially blacklist them
The sooner you realize that the vast majority of game "journalists" are nothing but an unpaid marketers for the publishers, you'll start to see why issues with games get glossed over.
What's wrong with mirror's edge other than cutscenes everyone skips and the occasional time when a land doesn't register?Originally Posted by AHA-Lambda
Oh jesus ._.
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.
Also BC1's campaign was wholey decent.
| Thread Tools | |