• 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

C

ctrayne

Member
The music is really cool from what I've heard. It's not really dubstep, it's more like something out of Tron. Really cool.
 
M

Massa

Member
Socreges said:
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?
Click to expand...

Sure. In fact some reviews gave it really high scores (1UP, Joystiq) and still completely write off the single player as being bad or terrible.
 
M

Mr. B Natural

Member
I always wondered how people review MP parts of games without the game being out yet. Games that require a 1 vs 1 or something, sure, they can find some other reviewer and connect there, but 32 vs 32? or even 6 vs 6?
 
S

shintoki

sparkle this bitch
Mr. B Natural said:
I always wondered how people review MP parts of games without the game being out yet. Games that require a 1 vs 1 or something, sure, they can find some other reviewer and connect there, but 32 vs 32? or even 6 vs 6?
Click to expand...
By the sounds of it, they had it for a few days and were most likely playing others who were reviewing. So yeah, probably like every other shooter. Most issues are going be unknown till the actual playerbase arrives
 
W

WickedCobra03

Member
shintoki said:
By the sounds of it, they had it for a few days and were most likely playing others who were reviewing. So yeah, probably like every other shooter. Most issues are going be unknown till the actual playerbase arrives
Click to expand...
They have multiplayer sessions where there will be like a 3-6 hour window of time that is set by the developer where the games press will all usually play the games multiplayer game modes.
 
B

Baptizer

Neo Member
gosh....I think I've preordered/canceled my amazon order 3-4 times so far. I just preordered it again. I'd love to see some console reviews. Any idea when these will hit the street?
 
M

Mr. B Natural

Member
WickedCobra03 said:
They have multiplayer sessions where there will be like a 3-6 hour window of time that is set by the developer where the games press will all usually play the games multiplayer game modes.
Click to expand...
Do they even have 64 people reviewing this game at the moment and in the same country/ area and the same platform and the same mode and map? And even if they did, would that be indicative of anything?

I reiterate, getting 12 people together like that would be tricky and already a horrible example of how it would be like in the real world with people jumping in and out every second, trolling, trying hard, playing for kdr and certainly not to review a game, etc. 64 people? That's not a task, it's a feat.

And let's not forget games like this where things unlock after playing 100 hours...I mean c'mon. Who are they kidding? And I'm not bashing BF or DICE. It's not their fault that's the kind of game they designed, but then the reviewers have to be honest and say "look, I only got a jist of the mp, but it seems _______ and _____ so far."
 
S

Sn4ke_911

If I ever post something in Japanese which I don't understand, please BAN me.
derFeef said:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/10/24/rps-exclusive-lack-of-a-battlefield-3-review/
Click to expand...

Haha what the hell

uni.jpg
 
D

Derrick01

Banned
Mr. B Natural said:
I always wondered how people review MP parts of games without the game being out yet. Games that require a 1 vs 1 or something, sure, they can find some other reviewer and connect there, but 32 vs 32? or even 6 vs 6?
Click to expand...

I think it was the joystiq review, but they said they played the multiplayer with other reviewers and EA people.
 
N

Neiteio

Member
D23 said:
modern warfare 2 graphics gets a 10.. lol
Click to expand...
Modern Warfare 2 came out in a different year and was evaluated according to the standards of the time. Perhaps in IGN's estimation, Battlefield 3 isn't as graphically immaculate by this year's standards as MW2 was in its year of release.

Same deal with sequels rated lower than their predecessors. Does it ever occur to people that perhaps the first installment is worse but still scores higher because there is nothing else like the first when it arrives? For example, I'd say Majora's Mask is superior to Ocarina of Time, yet I totally understand why OoT scored higher on release, as it was revolutionary while MM was evolutionary.

That being said, I'm NOT implying MW2 had revolutionary graphics when it released (or revolutionary anything). Also, I -do- think MM was revolutionary in terms of being the first (and only) 4D game (as in, space and TIME), but that's a whole different topic.
 
N

NullPointer

Member
Vire said:
I don't know where you gather that it's "good" but alright.
Click to expand...
From these reviews it looks like all my fears about the single player came true. Still, I have it downloaded and read to unlock tomorrow and I'll see for myself, but I'm going in with low expectations.
 
G

george_us

Member
Grecco said:
The Reach campaign starts slow, and has one of the worst missions ever (the one with the sniper spartan) but picks up steam and ends up being brilliant. Maybe thats why he didnt finish it?
Click to expand...
I thought everything that wasn't Tip of the Spear or New Alexandria was boring as hit. Reach is one of the most mechanically sound shooters on the market but the scenario design was a massive disappointment after the brilliance of ODST.
 
I

Interficium

Banned
Macintosh360 said:
First console review went live, crazy about the 1.5GB download on 360:

http://www.planetxbox360.com/article_17318/Battlefield_3_Review
Click to expand...

Battlefield 3 (and all prior Battlefields on console) runs at 30 frames per second and in my opinion stand outs positively for it. The lower frame rate for me provides a more realistic feel and gives the character and the guns a sense of weight
Click to expand...

Listen, lifelong console gamer here, never been part of the master race, blah blah blah. But seriously, a pro-lower-framerate sentence in your review? Jesus man.

AT LEAST put it into the context of being for 30fps if it means better graphics and higher resolutions and all that (which, at least on consoles it does), not this "more realistic weight" nonsense.

//edit: directed at writer of the planet xbox review, not Macintosh360.
 
T

TrojanBlade

Member
shagg_187 said:
Single-player is definitely a bit linear but goddamn the shooting is fun, fun, fun!
Click to expand...

I don't mind linearity at all as long its well executed and the A.I is not dumb shit. KZ2/KZ3 are linear as can be but the great A.I made playing it fun and challenging, specially at higher difficulty level. Also see Uncharted 2, linear but an amazing experience from start to finish.

So linearity is not too bad if its executed well. And I think there is place for both kinds of games (linear/open).
 
B

bill0527

Member
george_us said:
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.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly.

No way EA was going to allow this game less than 9s and 10s from the major gaming outlets.
 
J

jdmonmou

Member
shagg_187 said:
Single-player is definitely a bit linear but goddamn the shooting is fun, fun, fun!
Click to expand...
I'm curious as to what other people think of the single-player campaign. I started playing this at first and it was just OK for me (I didn't get very far though). I'm having more fun playing the multi player now. Does the campaign get better?
 
S

Sn4ke_911

If I ever post something in Japanese which I don't understand, please BAN me.
DaBuddaDa said:
Yes, 8s are scathing critiques nowadays.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about the score. I couldn't give a shit about a 8, 9 or whatever.

Some quotes seems pretty harsh like this one:

Those who buy the game for multiplayer likely won't care that these elements aren't up to par, but what stings most is the thought of what DICE could have done to evolve and expand its multiplayer design skills if the mantra of "BEAT COD" hadn't been drummed so relentlessly into the development process. Battlefield didn't need to be more like Call of Duty to succeed, it just had to double down on what it was already good at. Hopefully that's a lesson that will be learned by the time Battlefield 4 roars into view.
Click to expand...

but he's probably right.
 
C

Cyberia

Member
A fair, well written review.

Those who buy the game for multiplayer likely won't care that these elements aren't up to par, but what stings most is the thought of what DICE could have done to evolve and expand its multiplayer design skills if the mantra of "BEAT COD" hadn't been drummed so relentlessly into the development process. Battlefield didn't need to be more like Call of Duty to succeed, it just had to double down on what it was already good at. Hopefully that's a lesson that will be learned by the time Battlefield 4 roars into view.
Click to expand...
 
N

NullPointer

Member
Nostalgia~4ever said:
it's the usual. SP sucks and multiplayer excellent. DICE should skip SP next game as it drags down the score.
Click to expand...
I'd rather they made a single-player/co-op experience that befits the Battlefield name. You could see a glimmer of the possibilities at work in Bad Company 1, but it did have the basics: Very large maps, a variety of approaches in and out, choice of weaponry, vehicles and equipment available to tackle objectives if different ways. It wasn't perfect, and the ideas needed some serious refinement, but if they had kept on that path rather than aping COD and putting graphics and QTEs above gameplay we'd have a real solid package here, for single player, co-op and multiplayer. Maybe then they could have had a chance to own this space they're so hellbent on acquiring.

But I guess I agree on one point: If this is how they think a single player campaign should be crafted they'd be better off to just leave it out of the next game.
 
R

Red Dolphin

Member
NullPointer said:
I'd rather they made a single-player/co-op experience that befits the Battlefield name. You could see a glimmer of the possibilities at work in Bad Company 1, but it did have the basics: Very large maps, a variety of approaches in and out, choice of weaponry, vehicles and equipment available to tackle objectives if different ways. It wasn't perfect, and the ideas needed some serious refinement, but if they had kept on that path rather than aping COD and putting graphics and QTEs above gameplay we'd have a real solid package here, for single player, co-op and multiplayer. Maybe then they could have had a chance to own this space they're so hellbent on acquiring.

But I guess I agree on one point: If this is how they think a single player campaign should be crafted they'd be better off to just leave it out of the next game.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. It's unfortunate the success of CoD has "forced them" down this path for the single player campaign.
 
S

SapientWolf

Trucker Sexologist
SuicidalSteve said:
Eurogamer's Review

Those who buy the game for multiplayer likely won't care that these elements aren't up to par, but what stings most is the thought of what DICE could have done to evolve and expand its multiplayer design skills if the mantra of "BEAT COD" hadn't been drummed so relentlessly into the development process. Battlefield didn't need to be more like Call of Duty to succeed, it just had to double down on what it was already good at. Hopefully that's a lesson that will be learned by the time Battlefield 4 roars into view.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
BF3 does offer some new MP features over its predecessors. Strange that the reviewer kind of glossed over them. Although at this point he might not have seen or unlocked the new toys.
 
A

ACE 1991

Member
Alright, I really don't understand why people are docking points for Battlefield's ho-hum single player campaign. Is it because the campaign was positioned as being an important part of the game? The last two games (Battlefield proper) had shit single player components that were far more bare bones than what's offered here, and reviewers didn't care as this series has always been all about multiplayer. Someone explain, because I are confuse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Persona 3 Reload | Review Thread
Analysis Review Hype 2 3
106
7K
Ferdimage replied
Payday 3 | Review Thread
Analysis Review
15
2K
Arsic replied
Tekken 8 | Review Thread
News Analysis Review 2 3 4 5 6
263
17K
Klosshufvud replied
Suicide : Squad; Kill The Justice League | Review Thread
Analysis Review 4 5 6 7 8
355
27K
Certinty replied
Meta Quest 3 | OT + Review Thread |
Analysis Review 16 17 18 19 20
983
62K
Romulus replied
Top Bottom