So does BF4 not have Co Op?
I quite liked the Co Op in BF3
Welp, looks like getting KZ and maybe CoD.On the other hand, its single-player campaign is a disappointing
It's out. They said they decided not to try it this time around because too few people played it in 3.
This is a far better review tbh focus on multiplayer then bring up a couple pieces on single player
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrozYqHrRS4
Launching with a piss poor number of maps again. Seige of Shanghai is terrible. I guess I'm gonna give this a miss.
Why do reviews place more emphasis on single player than multiplayer in a core multiplayer game? There are soo many single player games with shit multiplayer but they still get great scores. Look at tomb raider for example. It just seems like most reviews dont play multiplayer games ( most podcasts all they do is complain about online gameplay in general) and so dont even bother trying to get invested.
I dont know, this is just the feeling I get from games journalists, most hate multiplayer as they always complain that they dont have time to get invested and complain about getting beat by players more invested.Just seems a bit shallow.
Why do reviews place more emphasis on single player than multiplayer in a core multiplayer game? There are soo many single player games with shit multiplayer but they still get great scores. Look at tomb raider for example. It just seems like most reviews dont play multiplayer games ( most podcasts all they do is complain about online gameplay in general) and so dont even bother trying to get invested.
I dont know, this is just the feeling I get from games journalists, most hate multiplayer as they always complain that they dont have time to get invested and complain about getting beat by players more invested.Just seems a bit shallow.
Any reviews in particular make you say that? They all seem to cover both single and multiplayer *and* recognize that multiplayer is the strong suit for the series.
Because a game like this without a campaign would basically be an expansion pack.
Also normally more time, effort and money are put into SP so thats normally how they are judged.
Imo BC2's campaign is just as Bad as BF3'.
wonder what IGN will give the next COD :/
Why the hell is the 5-6 hour campaign so important in reviews compared to the 500-600 hour multiplayer?
They have to try and keep Battlefield close to CoD scores I guess...
A breathtaking 9.5.
We need a Bad Company SP again.
I think DICE having this at a review event probably hurt scores instead of helping them. Which is a good thing for those who were worried about moneyhats and such.
Hopefully once consoles launch we can have reviews without having to go to review events again.
Forreal. I keep forgetting and almost saying "It's DICE so of course they can't make a singleplayer" but BC 1 and 2 were damn good. I think because they were less linear.
Why would it be an expansion pack? Thats like saying uncharted 3 is a expansion pack of uncharted 2.
Why the hell is the 5-6 hour campaign so important in reviews compared to the 500-600 hour multiplayer?
They have to try and keep Battlefield close to CoD scores I guess...
Battlefield 4 is a few tweaks, swapping around some class gear a couple new vehicles, weapons and maps.
nothing that required a full new game to do so
No, it's their fault for including it. You can't exclude an entire chunk of a game just because it's better in MP. They built a shitty campaign, they have to deal with lower scores. Next time, don't include the damn thing.
Why do these reviews judge a MP oriented game mainly based on its single player mode?
While games which are SP oriented get away with good scores despite shitty MP mode. Like Tomb Raider, Far Cry 3....
Now everything im saying is only for current gen.sigh
Because Single Player is theoretically playable forever, while the vast majority of Multi-player games become literally unplayable when their player-base goes away (which pretty much already applies to those games you've listed).
That's also why I'll wait now I've heard the SP is a turd again. It seems that EA want to Battlefield be like a bi-yearly sports franchise, and I'm not paying full price for a game where the good part will be dead in a few years when everyone's moved on to Battlefield 5/6/whatever.
Hope next gen version get a better score.
You can still play Battlefield 1942, Battlefield 2, 2142 ect. and they all still have a healthy playerbase.
You don't really need to worry about the longivety of BF games, at least if you play on PC.
9 maps is piss poor?
It has 10 maps. One better than BF3 but still a small number for a MP focused game. As someone who is only interested in MP and only interested in the large maps that are unique to the franchise, 10 maps don't really give me enough to play with.
They should drop the SP and release with 16 maps imo.
Don't those games fully support things like mods, and aren't beholden to EA's servers in the way newer ones are?
The earlier Battlefield games are some of the rare MP games that have achieved true longevity, but they come from such a different time (where the players had much more power to add to and shape the game) I'm not sure there's a direct comparison with the newer games in the series. I guess time will tell though.
Lé Blade Runner;87947115 said:I think 10 maps is fine, as long as they are well-designed and varied.
]I can't believe how many reviews focused on SP[/B]. I guess they have to if it's packaged in, but I feel that hurts the overall score.
Just this genHas any military shooter ever had a great campaign? The last decent one I remember playing was Medal of Honor: Allied Assault.
Why do reviews place more emphasis on single player than multiplayer in a core multiplayer game? There are soo many single player games with shit multiplayer but they still get great scores. Look at tomb raider for example. It just seems like most reviews dont play multiplayer games ( most podcasts all they do is complain about online gameplay in general) and so dont even bother trying to get invested.
I dont know, this is just the feeling I get from games journalists, most hate multiplayer as they always complain that they dont have time to get invested and complain about getting beat by players more invested.Just seems a bit shallow.