Not sure why people care about the reviews.. There was an open beta where everyone could play the game and decide if they like the game themselves.
Not sure why people care about the reviews.. There was an open beta where everyone could play the game and decide if they like the game themselves.
This is BF4, not BF3.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.
Polygonfailingposting random low scores again. I think IGN's is most accurate, imo.
Tacked on MP doesn't seem to be as big a drawback as tacked on SP.
RIP Bad CompanyIt's a shame. The Bad Company campaigns were fun with likeable characters. Plus they didn't even try with co-op this time.
DICE/EA won't stop with the SP, will they?
Is there a reason why the gametrailers review doesn't get added to the OP?
Is it only me by the way or is there a lack of consistency when it comes to judging big multiplayer titles? It's one of the few times when reviewers seem to take the singleplayer into big account.
If you turn it around; do most reviewers give singleplayer games lower scores because they have bad multiplayer components? Not really. It mostly never occurs.
Battlefield 4 is an excellent multiplayer game that makes the most of its ambitions, proving once again that destruction is a valuable strategic addition to competitive combat,
This is BF4, not BF3.
And the 'its half the game' thing I talked about. You can look at it that way if you want to, but I think that's a silly way of doing it for reasons I stated. Is Assassin's Creed multiplayer 'half the game'?
Don't get me wrong, I'd love BF to be multiplayer-only, but from a business standpoint, its perfectly understandable why its not. It would not be 'everybody wins'. Look at how many people are dismissing TitanFall because there's no single-player. Its a checklist feature that DICE understand they need to compete.
Ugh. "Polygon", or indeed this particular reviewer, hasn't posted a 'random low score'. There's an entire written review behind that score, which incidentally, is only 0.5 (shocking I know) below most of the other scores.
And why do you think IGN's is most accurate? How long have you spent playing the game (not beta) to come to an equal opinion?
Maybe Dice should just make it a multiplayer game only. The game is getting points knocked off because of the campaign. Really a shame.
Bad Company was the shit.Somewhere, far away in fun singleplayer land:
I can almost guarantee it would fare worse without single-player. I would bet a lot of money that DICE have done or seen the research to support this. Tons of people on here alone are saying they have no interest in TitanFall because there's no single-player. And these are enthusiast gamers, not the more casual crowd where there'd be even bigger losses.The problem is those 4-5 Hour campaigns, are incredibly expensive, thanks to all the set pieces that have to be designed. That part of the game will have bound a lot of resources and I'm not so sure that they would fare worse without a SP campaign.
And it's fair to drag down the score, you either include a worthwhile campaign, or you focus on multiplayer and provide some bots for training purposes.
Somewhere, far away in fun singleplayer land:
That doesn't mean that they should treat poorly executed campaigns the same way. Either write off both cases and focus on the main piece of the product, or take both into account while looking at the overall product (which they should).
But this is again why I hate scores.
I can almost guarantee it would fare worse without single-player. I would bet a lot of money that DICE have done or seen the research to support this. Tons of people on here alone are saying they have no interest in TitanFall because there's no single-player. And these are enthusiast gamers, not the more casual crowd where there'd be even bigger losses.
As far as it being fair to drag down the score, I've said nothing about that being unfair. I even said in my very first post in the thread that the amount it drags it down largely depends on how much the reviewer 'weighs' the single-player aspect.
Polygonfailingposting random low scores again. I think IGN's is most accurate, imo. Should be higher but I <3 battlefield .
TitanFall is also only made by a relatively small team with less impressive graphics and with the full marketing strength of Microsoft behind them at the moment.If TitanFall is a hit, I think you're going to see DICE pull their campaigns again.
Somewhere, far away in fun singleplayer land:
http://oyster.ignimgs.com/ve3d/images/03/05/30518_normal.jpg
I think DICE hold no credibility in this industry if they can't put out a decent single player campaign in their Battlefield titles, the IP itself is a joke.
I know reviews do sway a lot of people and they're important, but they're not always the primary factor in a game's sales. Simply the amount of people that would completely dismiss the game if it was a 'multiplayer only' game is large enough. There's a demographic out there that isn't buying these games JUST for the multiplayer that we may not see just talking with other people on NeoGAF.Does anyone even play BF for the single player?
In some games, developers have said gamers don't even finish the campaign.
Not only that, but like you said it drags down the score. A lot of gamers, hardcore and casuals, do look at ratings. I'm sure if the game came out with at least 16 maps, instead of 10 maps and a mediocre single-player, it would've gotten better reviews.
I think you're absolutely right that they include it to compete with CoD, but if TitanFall shows the audience is willing to adopt a pure multiplayer experience, then DICE will be in a position where they can just not bother including it.TitanFall is also only made by a relatively small team with less impressive graphics and with the full marketing strength of Microsoft behind them at the moment.
Its an interesting model to watch, but I don't think it'll affect DICE's approach either way. Battlefield is here to dethrone Call of Duty and they need single-player for that.
Like I said, smaller team, ho-hum graphics and full backing of Microsoft make it a little incomparable to DICE and Battlefield's situation and ambitions.I think you're absolutely right that they include it to compete with CoD, but if TitanFall shows the audience is willing to adopt a pure multiplayer experience, then DICE will be in a position where they can just not bother including it.
We'll see, we really haven't seen a major multiplayer only release at full price. If it's getting a metacritic in the nineties, and I think it will, and if it's a big hit, and I think it will be, I could see DICE follow suit.
What?
The Battlefield series is about multiplayer. The actual problem is that DICE stuffs in these campaigns that are built on the foundation of zero effort. SP is only to draw some attention at gaming conventions and for people to say "Wow, look at this... OMG!!!111"
I would love to see some great SP content powered byf the Frostbite engine. But the Battlefield series will probably never deliver that.
Why can't we have the light-heartedness of Bad Company's SP campaigns paired with BF3/4's multiplayer style?
BC2 pretty much nailed that formula and it worked great, merging the two series would keep everyone happy I'm sure.
I don't know. BC2 is the best Battlefield game since BF2 and imo it's better than 2.
DICE said they were ultimately "embarrassed" by BC2.
I would love to ask them why. It is easily the best product they've made this gen.
I put 3 times as many hours in BC2 as I have with any of their other games.
DICE doesn't realize that their self seriousness is their weakness. I loved the fact that you could level an entire stage in BC2. The destruction in BF3/4 is more realistic I guess, but also far less fun.
Or, TitanFall 2 adds a more traditional SP due to EA influence.If TitanFall is a hit, I think you're going to see DICE pull their campaigns again.
I don't know. BC2 is the best Battlefield game since BF2 and imo it's better than 2.
DICE said they were ultimately "embarrassed" by BC2.
I would love to ask them why. It is easily the best product they've made this gen.
I put 3 times as many hours in BC2 as I have with any of their other games.
DICE doesn't realize that their self seriousness is their weakness. I loved the fact that you could level an entire stage in BC2. The destruction in BF3/4 is more realistic I guess, but also far less fun.
If TitanFall is a hit, I think you're going to see DICE pull their campaigns again.
... They must have fired everyone involved. Or they decided to take their job entirely too seriously, what little I've seen of those games via demos and what I watched would've been far better for a BF campaign than that shit I saw for BF3. At the least they were on the right track gameplay-wise.DICE said they were ultimately "embarrassed" by BC2.
I would love to ask them why. It is easily the best product they've made this gen.
Somewhere, far away in fun singleplayer land: