• 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.

Be Advised: Battlefield 3 Review Scores

zoukka

Member
nib95 said:
There are times where I'll decide to play SP over MP, and from what I've played of the BF3 BETA, it wasn't exactly such a spectacular effort that I could justify the notion that all development quality was being injected in to the MP alone, though I do appreciate it was only a Beta. As a consumer I want more value for money and part of that involves getting a more whole gaming package. I think if more gamers felt like this, instead of being apologists that don't even bat an eye lid to a sub standard or average campaign, we might actually put more pressure on devs to deliver a better experience in both MP and SP.

No this is how things are. Increased consumer awareness does not bode well for devs like DICE, who specialize in one thing and then have to put resources into something they are not good at, just because fanboys can't buy an MP focused game without some sort of campaign, when the competition has one. It's a shitty situation, and pouring even more effort and resources into this nonsense will just drive all non god-level, 1st party assisted devs to oblivion.

Some crazy folk would probably like that vision.
 
Manager said:
The direct quote is even:
Games like Crysis and Rage simply looks noticeably better.

B....but but i thought Crysi ehh BF3 was the ONE game to show that pc games are a whole generation ahead of consoles...:-(
 
BunnyLifeguard said:
B....but but i thought Crysi ehh BF3 was the ONE game to show that pc games are a whole generation ahead of consoles...:-(

it is in multiplayer, because I cannot think of a better looking multiplayer game designed for 64 players with its vehicles, scale and destruction.

single player, probably not.
 

george_us

Member
IMACOMPUTA said:
There was no way this game was going to get bad review scores.
My thinking as well. This could be the worst game released this year and it'd still get 9s and 10s. Too much money invested in it not to.
 

Syringe

Member
Nostalgia~4ever said:
syringe, I know you're Jonas Mäki. How the hell do you give this game an 8 in graphics for PC?
Quite a detective find there. It's not like it's obvious when you look in my profile, or is it ;)

I said everything I wanted about Battlefield 3 in my review and also did a bit of commenting that's been quoted here on Neogaf. And that is pretty much my five cents to the debate.
 
Nostalgia~4ever said:
it is in multiplayer, because I cannot think of a better looking multiplayer game designed for 64 players with its vehicles, scale and destruction.

single player, probably not.

Besides that i could not care less about CQ, or even CQ 64 (where YOU have an effect on win or loss like a fly against a nuclear power plant), that's still not a "whole" generation.
 
Syringe said:
Quite a detective find there. It's not like it's obvious when you look in my profile, or is it ;)

I said everything I wanted about Battlefield 3 in my review and also did a bit of commenting that's been quoted here on Neogaf. And that is pretty much my five cents to the debate.

I assume it is based on single player mostly? Because the multiplayer aspect is more impressive for what it is going on in the screen.
 

djtiesto

is beloved, despite what anyone might say
Big Ass Ramp said:
What we all came for:



SOUNDTRACK REVIEWWWW

Dubstep is faaaaaaar from my favorite genre but it's better than another generic hollywood-wannabe score so typical of these games.
 
Disappointing seeing such high scores. I was hoping the single player would drag it down enough that they would decide not to bother in the future, or at least be forced to acknowledge that linear scripted whack-a-mole campaigns hurt the game more than round it out.
 

ACE 1991

Member
Confidence Man said:
Disappointing seeing such high scores. I was hoping the single player would drag it down enough that they would decide not to bother in the future, or at least be forced to acknowledge that linear scripted whack-a-mole campaigns hurt the game more than round it out.


Never change, NeoGAF.
 
Vire said:
Uhhh good? Most reviews said it was pretty lackluster.

Game Informer said:
Battlefield fans hoping for the most polished entry in the series won’t be disappointed by this massive sequel. Multiplayer maintains the high level of quality DICE is known for, and the campaign is the best in franchise history. Outside of the annoying Battlelog and a tacked-on, uninspired co-op mode consisting of six short standalone missions, the only downside to Battlefield 3 is the lack of substantial changes to the multiplayer formula. However, that shouldn’t stop longtime fans and newcomers from enjoying one of the best FPS experiences in gaming.

http://www.gameinformer.com/games/battlefield_3/b/pc/archive/2011/10/24/review.aspx
 

Darklord

Banned
Vire said:
I said most...

Not all. Don't make me dig out the 10 reviews that said it was garbage.

Well I'm looking through most and the common thing is basically, it's good but unoriginal. Not that it flat out sucks.
 

rdrr gnr

Member
I think the biggest issue is what gamers would have gotten in exchange if EA/DICE had decided to not include a single-player campaign. I've said this in other threads: I'd take a single extra multiplayer map over the entirety of the campaign.

Many of the complaints in this thread have to do with a similar notion, rather than what appears as just mild disappointment about the SP.
 

Vire

Member
Darklord said:
Well I'm looking through most and the common thing is basically, it's good but unoriginal. Not that it flat out sucks.

Fine then:

Joystiq said:
Battlefield 3's campaign isn't just a straight line, it's tactically linear. Firefights almost always unfold the same way. This is partly due to enemy AI that often seems stuck to a six foot leash from where they initially appear, but it goes deeper than that. For all the talk of destruction and immersion, Battlefield 3's campaign is a step backward from the manic calamity of Bad Company 2. There's no more blowing holes through walls to make an alternate route. Environmental destruction is cosmetic or scripted.
"Battlefield 3's campaign never quite figures out what it wants to do."

None of that is a death sentence -- Modern Warfare drew the blueprint for the modern linear shooter, and it still managed to be fast, fun, and exciting. But Modern Warfare always gave you something to do, and enemies that were fun to shoot. Battlefield 3 is clearly referencing that blueprint, but it fails in this regard. There aren't that many enemies to shoot, and DICE has made up for that by allowing them to fire through geometry with pinpoint accuracy. It leads to a lot of trial by death and memorization. It's not fun.

IGN said:
Battlefield 3's campaign does hit some memorable moments (especially in the graphics department), but as a whole it's trite and frustrating. The campaign jams Battlefield 3's multiplayer into a linear box where freedom of choice gets thrown out a non-destructible window. There are only a few buildings to blow holes in, barely any vehicles to take the wheel of, and quicktime events adorn enemy encounters in almost every level. While you can literally crash a helicopter on an opponent's head while parachuting to safety if you so choose in multiplayer, campaign makes you hit spacebar at just the right moment to avoid getting punched -- they're two different games.

1UP said:
Before diving into the heart of Battlefield 3, I should address the window dressing: Namely its single-player campaign. As I mentioned in a preview several weeks ago, this portion of the game really is a round of terrorist whack-a-mole, just like Call of Duty. You'll face an unending wave of brain-dead suicidal terrorists until you manage to inch your way up to whatever checkpoint controls enemy spawning, take a few seconds' break, and do the whole thing all over again. It's not bad, but it is frankly uninspired. The gameplay itself is indistinguishable from COD, though the narrative trappings are a bit more down-to-earth. While this works well (in the sense that it's one of the few elements of the campaign that distinguishes itself from the game's competition), BF3's reach exceeds its grasp near the end of the campaign when the story takes a sharp left turn into crazy town. The campaign trades in its pseudo-realistic credentials for a finale straight out of an '80s action movie, with giant plot holes to match. The schizophrenic nature of the single-player is disappointing in light of the campaigns in the Bad Company spin-offs, which also take cues from COD but manage to maintain their own narrative voice.

3DJeugos said:
Maybe Battlefield 3's off-line side is a little bit irregular, but its multiplayer options and amazing graphics justify the necessary upgrade of our computers.

Gametrailers said:
It features a stellar multiplayer suite with practically limitless replay value and a mostly forgettable campaign.

BigPond GameArena said:
It's pretty easy when it comes down to it. If you're looking for an offline experience, look elsewhere. Battlefield 3 has a decent singleplayer - it's certainly better than some other games I've played recently - but it's not mind-blowing. If it's the best multiplayer game in the world that you're after, get your affairs in order. You're re-enlisting soldier.

I don't know where you gather that it's "good" but alright.
 
Vire said:
I said most...

Not all. Don't make me dig out the 10 reviews that said it was garbage.

dig them out, because i have never read it was garbage.

edit: 3 reviews , and neither said it was garbage.

Battlefield 3 has a decent singleplayer - it's certainly better than some other games I've played recently

that sound like garbage to you?
 

FGMPR

Banned
It should of been a MoH type arrangement with Danger Close taking over SP duties. For all the shit it copped, MoH has the best whack-a-mole, CoD style FPS campaign out there, imo. It was infinitely better than BC2's, anyhow. Just let DICE do their thing, which is creating amazing MP experiences.
 

Grecco

Member
MuseManMike said:
I think the biggest issue is what gamers would have gotten in exchange if EA/DICE had decided to not include a single-player campaign. I've said this in other threads: I'd take a single extra multiplayer map over the entirety of the campaign.

Much of the complaints in this thread have to do with a similar notion, rather than what appears as just mild disappointment about the SP.


If it was multiplayer only EA wouldnt be able to charge 59.99
 

CrankyJay

Banned
Battlefield 3's campaign isn't just a straight line, it's tactically linear. Firefights almost always unfold the same way. This is partly due to enemy AI that often seems stuck to a six foot leash from where they initially appear, but it goes deeper than that. For all the talk of destruction and immersion, Battlefield 3's campaign is a step backward from the manic calamity of Bad Company 2. There's no more blowing holes through walls to make an alternate route. Environmental destruction is cosmetic or scripted.
"Battlefield 3's campaign never quite figures out what it wants to do."

I hope this is confined to SP only or else this is a huge fuck up by DICE.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Nostalgia~4ever said:
eh yes, of course it is. You think you cant take alternate routes in multiplayer?
That is a really hilarious mental image now. I just picture a long corridor with spawns at either end.
 

Burli

Pringo
Yeah this is just another notch in the 'BF being under-appreciated while the massively inferior COD gets showered in praise' belt. They would be brilliant scores for any other game, but MW will most certainly do better now which is full on voodoo bullshit.
 

Nert

Member
SamuraiX- said:
smfh @ Gamereactor Sweden.

Battlefield 3 Score - 80
CoD: Black Ops Score - 90

The two numbers are different from each other. What part of the reviews' actual content do you disagree with?
 

x-Lundz-x

Member
I hope this does well, but I had to cancel my pre-order and wait for it to drop in price. Just too much else going on in the gaming world and I am getting overwhelmed. And with the SP and Co-op mode not getting stellar praise then I can wait.
 

LiquidMetal14

hide your water-based mammals
shagg_187 said:
I fucking hope not. I just wanted a coop mode that is equal to spec ops and horde mode. Looks like it ain't. Dammit, DICE! :mad:
Co op will be fun with friends. It takes absolute filth to make even co op sour. So don't take that one to heart :p
 
shagg_187 said:
I fucking hope not. I just wanted a coop mode that is equal to spec ops and horde mode. Looks like it ain't. Dammit, DICE! :mad:

Hmm, not sure.

Gamespy:

Things go from good to great in the game's co-op mode, which can only be described as short and sweet. Comprised of six missions, playing through on normal should see you breeze through them all in just a couple of hours. Cranking it up a notch to hard sees the challenge spike massively, and due to the lack of any in-mission save, makes the experience last a lot longer. This is a good thing, as the missions within are resoundingly fantastic. From the opening level, where you and a pal fly over-watch in a Cobra, to the finest co-op level ever created, a sniping mission in the heart of Paris, it's just a shame that more of these kinds of experiences weren't included in the singleplayer campaign. I've already put my credit card aside for the inevitable DLC co-op downloads; if they're anywhere near as good as the six included at launch I have no hesitation in paying for more.

IGN:

The co-op missions surround the events of the campaign, yet feel more enjoyable as individual levels. Working with a teammate leads to more creative approaches of attacks, though the same AI frustrations are in place. While opening doors and during other set animations, AI enemies gain invulnerability. They also have an uncanny ability to pick you out of the crowd. Even while using an AI teammate as cover -- not standard operating procedure, I know -- enemies still find you.

Additionally, most levels feature a bottleneck where death hits out of the blue. Whether it's a grenade exploding without an indicator, a blast from an unseen enemy, or late-game quicktime event that introduces a new button, the campaign and co-op levels are a minefield of frustration -- especially when cranking the difficulty up to hard. All told, it's a brief affair -- I burned through the single-player portion in under six hours, the co-op content adds another two or three.

1UP:

When it's just you and a friend who want to play, you can jump into a series of co-op missions. These levels are best when they change things up from the single-player campaign -- for example, by putting one team member in the role of helicopter pilot and the other in the gunner's seat. However, many of the missions revolve around putting down enemy troops -- just like the single-player game -- and they suffer from the same flaws plus one additional issue: There is no mid-mission save or checkpoint in co-op. That means if you fail, you'll have to start from the beginning, and these missions are long. While some fans will love the challenge, far more will do what I did: Say "screw this" and go back to competitive multiplayer.

Kinda sounds like if you enjoy co-op by virtue of it being co-op, you'll enjoy it. But doesn't seem to be many memorable levels, unless you go by the Gamespy review.
 

Socreges

Banned
Maybe he was disappointed? Why would his opinion need to reflect metacritic?

My roommate is getting this. I haven't played a Battlefield since 1942 (hah). Shame about the SP, but I'm only interested in the MP anyway. It sounds awesome. There's no split-screen, though, is there?
 
Top Bottom