• 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

N

Natiko

Banned
Prophet Steve said:
Seriously, did not live up to the expectations? Why did he have large expectations for the sp anyway?

Coin Return, there was the option I think.
Click to expand...
Considering the devs have said that they put just as much effort into the SP and that they didn't want to skimp out on it....
 
F

Foliorum Viridum

Banned
Prophet Steve said:
Seriously, did not live up to the expectations? Why did he have large expectations for the sp anyway?

Coin Return, there was the option I think.
Click to expand...
SP has been a huge focus of the game + that launch trailer was really fucking epic.

I'm doing SP before MP, so if it's not up to scratch I'll be pretty gutted. I've heard mixed things I don't know what to believe, haha.
 
X

Xanadu

Banned
Foliorum Viridum said:
SP has been a huge focus of the game + that launch trailer was really fucking epic.

I'm doing SP before MP, so if it's not up to scratch I'll be pretty gutted. I've heard mixed things I don't know what to believe, haha.
Click to expand...
battlefield SP should have just been multiplayer maps with terrible bots again. thats the shit
 
J

JaseC

gave away the keys to the kingdom.
Prophet Steve said:
Seriously, did not live up to the expectations? Why did he have large expectations for the sp anyway?

Coin Return, there was the option I think.
Click to expand...

Point me to the post where I expressed my supposedly "large expectations".

Edit: It seems you've misunderstood "falling short of expectations" to refer to myself, when in fact I'm referring to the many reviewers that found the campaign either unimpressive or middling.
 
D

DGRE

Banned
Foliorum Viridum said:
SP has been a huge focus of the game + that launch trailer was really fucking epic.

I'm doing SP before MP, so if it's not up to scratch I'll be pretty gutted. I've heard mixed things I don't know what to believe, haha.
Click to expand...
Really, though? You'll be gutted?

If it was solid all the way through, it would be the first campaign bearing the battlefield name to do so.

I think people are confused...
 
R

Raide

Member
I will play the SP, I will play the co-op missions and I hope DICE expands with more co-op content but the real meat will be MP.
 
F

Foliorum Viridum

Banned
DGRE said:
Really, though. You'll be gutted?

If it was solid all the way through, it would be the first campaign bearing the battlefield name to do so.

I think people are confused...
Click to expand...
Yup, I have high hopes for the SP after everything they've said and that trailer.

Although after BC2 part of me still thinks DICE won't be able to do it.
 
N

nib95

Banned
I'm pretty surprised with the reviews given the impressions I read from people playing the game earlier. All of them seem to completely go against these highly positive reviews so I'm truly confused.
 
S

Sn4ke_911

If I ever post something in Japanese which I don't understand, please BAN me.
Joystiq reviewer talks about his BF3 review.

The times where Battlefield 3 does its damnedest to go toe-to-toe with Call of Duty are the times it stumbles the hardest. But when DICE is doing what it’s always done best, Battlefield 3 is a uniquely mesmerizing multiplayer game with a seemingly endless number of ways to feel like a success.

Man, what a mess. Battlefield 3 might be the biggest game I’ve ever reviewed, and I can’t imagine a way in which the review situation could have gone worse. 3 days to review the campaign and finalized multiplayer is doable. Obviously, since I put a review up. But it’s not ideal.

But less ideal has been everything surrounding the review and Battlefield 3’s release. I won’t dwell on the weird goalpost moving that DICE and EA have tacitly encouraged over the last few days by insisting that console reviews can’t be done because of a day one patch that, I guess, would fix anything anyone could possibly find wrong with the game? That’s practically unheard of before a game comes out, and having reviewed… one, two, three, four EA published shooters over the last two years (Bad Company 2, Medal of Honor, Bad Company 2 Vietnam, and Crysis 2), it was especially surprising here. Put more clearly, EA has never done this with any of the games of theirs that I’ve reviewed. Even Bad Company 2, which I believe also had a day one patch, was reviewed on debug hardware with a near-final version of said patch.

I just think, having played it, EA made some huge miscalculations in aligning it so closely to Modern Warfare 3. It seems obvious to me that they were scrambling to get it done, and they pushed it right down to the wire. I guess we’ll see how things pan out, in that regard.

I think the hardest thing in all of this was scoring my review. Usually it isn’t so difficult, but here, the lows were so low, and the highs were so high…

I wonder if I was nicer to the campaign than I should have been. It’s not actively bad, usually, but it’s nowhere near what I would consider good, or even acceptable, really. And co-op stinks.

I essentially had to write off two out of three modes in the game. It’s a situation where I have to hope that someone wondering about the game who sees the score will read the review and understand what I tried to say. If they skipped the text, saw the score, and bought the game expecting great singleplayer, then yeah. I feel bad about that. For the number, or stars, or whatever, I just looked at the joystiq rubric again and again, going back and forth between four stars and five.

That sounds silly, I know. But I take my job seriously. A four on our scale is a must play for (and I hate this phrase) fans of the genre, a five, a must play for everyone. So eventually I just decided to split the difference. Battlefield 3 is a must play for anyone who likes multiplayer games. So I gave it the four point five.

Is that a cop out? I don’t know. I hope not.

Other things… I wonder why I got a copy of the game when so many other people in the press didn’t. Joystiq is a big, big site, don’t get me wrong, but still. People I greatly respect got shafted, and it’s hard to understand why that would be. I’m hoping I wasn’t selected on the basis of what EA thought I would give the game. That’s the kind of shit that keeps me up at night, figuratively speaking.

Speaking of being kept up at night, it’s late, and I worked all weekend. So I guess that’s all I have to say about it for now.
Click to expand...

http://pragmagic.tumblr.com/post/11857637784/quick-thoughts-about-the-battlefield-3-review
 
M

MrDaravon

Member
Scores don't seem surprising at all for the PC version; I'm really curious how the console versions pan out. Day 1 patch bullshit and no (?) reviews for it makes me wary.
 
G

GavinGT

Banned
For the number, or stars, or whatever, I just looked at the joystiq rubric again and again, going back and forth between four stars and five.
Click to expand...

He admits single-player is unacceptable and co-op stinks, yet he was still considering giving it a perfect score? WTF?
 
N

nib95

Banned
Sn4ke_911 said:
Joystiq reviewer talks about his BF3 review.

http://pragmagic.tumblr.com/post/11857637784/quick-thoughts-about-the-battlefield-3-review
Click to expand...

So it really is a case of the multiplayer being the game here, which is a shame, as I was really excited about the SP campaign as well. Still hoping I'll really enjoy it though. For some reason I don't have this drive to get in to BF3's MP just yet, perhaps an overkill of war shooters in the past or something. But I most likely will get hooked on it either way.

I will say though, that with his comments on the SP and Co-Op, I would have expected a lower score. I honestly do think more weight needs to be put on those two things especially when a lot of players might only just play them, and most of the marketing campaign is footage from just the SP campaign.
 
N

Natiko

Banned
GavinGT said:
He admits single-player is unacceptable and co-op stinks, yet he was still considering giving it a perfect score? WTF?
Click to expand...
Perhaps a testament to the multiplayer. Also probably easier to justify when the entire series has been based around multiplayer more or less. Kind of fucked up either way though lol
 
Woo-Fu

Woo-Fu

Banned
GavinGT said:
He admits single-player is unacceptable and co-op stinks, yet he was still considering giving it a perfect score? WTF?
Click to expand...

Because he recognizes the only part of BF that matters is the multiplayer. Taking the campaign and co-op into consideration is like taking the box art into consideration. :D
 
I

I'm an expert

Formerly worldrevolution. The only reason I am nice to anyone else is to avoid being banned.
Do reviewers really think that people read their reviews (or look at their scores) and then run off to the store because of that? That keeps me up at night (figuratively speaking).
 
M

Manager

Member
GavinGT said:
He admits single-player is unacceptable and co-op stinks, yet he was still considering giving it a perfect score? WTF?
Click to expand...

I think he meant that if he had a couple days more to write the review, he would've praised it less (having more time to think, less stress). Now he was forced to play and review in three days.

But, I still wouldn't think it would be bad to give it 5/5. It's primarly a multiplayer game and should be graded as such. And it seems to easily be a 5/5 multiplayer game.

Sure, people who want to play single player may be disappointed, but they gotta read through the review and understand it's mainly a multiplayer game. Like World of Warcraft.
 
C

Cosmo Clock 21

Banned
Woo-Fu said:
Because he recognizes the only part of BF that matters is the multiplayer. Taking the campaign and co-op into consideration is like taking the box art into consideration. :D
Click to expand...
At the same time, EA's been pushing the single-player portion like it's a Big Deal. Shouldn't reviews treat it as a significant portion, then?
 
G

GavinGT

Banned
Woo-Fu said:
Because he recognizes the only part of BF that matters is the multiplayer. Taking the campaign and co-op into consideration is like taking the box art into consideration. :D
Click to expand...

Not everyone is of the "skip single player and go right to multiplayer" mentality, though. $60 is a lot for some, and if they see 5 stars (or even 4.5) they're expecting a well-rounded package. Plus, this is the first Battlefield game to include single player, so it's not like fans even know what to expect. Most would probably expect something along the lines of Bad Company, I would think.

He should have just labeled it a multiplayer review, if that's how he was treating it.
 
LabouredSubterfuge

LabouredSubterfuge

Member
As a side note, I like the idea of reviewers doing a reflection/post-mortem piece on their review, see if they feel the same in a week or so afterwards. It would be a nice practice to see.
 
D

DaBuddaDa

Member
There really are no surprises anymore are there? Average, forgettable SP, amazing MP, low 90s scores; the most obvious outcome imaginable.
 
Z

zoukka

Member
nib95 said:
So it really is a case of the multiplayer being the game here, which is a shame, as I was really excited about the SP campaign as well. Still hoping I'll really enjoy it though. For some reason I don't have this drive to get in to BF3's MP just yet, perhaps an overkill of war shooters in the past or something. But I most likely will get hooked on it either way.

I will say though, that with his comments on the SP and Co-Op, I would have expected a lower score. I honestly do think more weight needs to be put on those two things especially when a lot of players might only just play them, and most of the marketing campaign is footage from just the SP campaign.
Click to expand...

Make no mistake, BF is a multiplayer game and the SP is just slapped there because some unwritten law requires so.
 
M

Manager

Member
GavinGT said:
Not everyone is of the "skip single player and go right to multiplayer" mentality, though. $60 is a lot for some, and if they see 5 stars (or even 4.5) they're expecting a well-rounded package. Plus, this is the first Battlefield game to include single player, so it's not like fans even know what to expect. Most would probably expect something along the lines of Bad Company, I would think.

He should have just labeled it a multiplayer review, if that's how he was treating it.
Click to expand...

So maybe the poor:ish SP made it a 4.5/5 instead of a 5/5? I mean it's not completely worthless, still sounds pretty cool. It's no Ocarina of Time, sure.
 
S

Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew

Banned
DaBuddaDa said:
There really are no surprises anymore are there? Average, forgettable SP, amazing MP, low 90s scores; the most obvious outcome imaginable.
Click to expand...
Read game reviews for the content, not the score. The score is more of a moneyhatting overrated overinflated bullshit. It's a way they ensure they keep their job.

Deciding between 4 and 5? It's his way of saying "deciding between extra pay or not". The game is clearly 4, and I'm happy with it.
 
N

nib95

Banned
darkwing said:
who plays a BF game for the sp anyway
Click to expand...

Me :(

My thing is, if you're going to do a SP, do it well, or don't do it at all. I mean, it's the most showed off aspect of the game with respect to visuals and gameplay alike which just makes it all the more irritating. There's no reason a competent dev couldn't do a great SP to match a great MP experience either right?

Lets not act like they just 'threw' this SP together. It is quite clear a shit load of time, money and assets were put in to this thing. Where it falters is in design basics not in overall technical or visual merit.
 
M

mr_nothin

Banned
nib95 said:
So it really is a case of the multiplayer being the game here, which is a shame, as I was really excited about the SP campaign as well. Still hoping I'll really enjoy it though. For some reason I don't have this drive to get in to BF3's MP just yet, perhaps an overkill of war shooters in the past or something. But I most likely will get hooked on it either way.

I will say though, that with his comments on the SP and Co-Op, I would have expected a lower score. I honestly do think more weight needs to be put on those two things especially when a lot of players might only just play them, and most of the marketing campaign is footage from just the SP campaign.
Click to expand...
It's no different from a SP game having a MP mode thrown in the package. BF is a multiplayer game with SP added on. Do you expect reviewers to deduct major points from Mass Effect 3 for having a dull multiplayer when everyone knows it's a SP game?
 
N

nib95

Banned
mr_nothin said:
It's no different from a SP game having a MP mode thrown in the package. BF is a multiplayer game with SP added on. Do you expect reviewers to deduct major points from Mass Effect 3 for having a dull multiplayer when everyone knows it's a SP game?
Click to expand...

Didn't even realise ME3 did have MP lol. But in it's defence the campaign is probably going to be 25+ hours long. With BF3 you just don't know how much time could be invested in to the MP, especially if it is as buggy or problem riddled as the BETA was. Heck the no reviews till day 1 patch on the consoles front in itself doesn't exactly incite confidence...
 
Z

zoukka

Member
nib95 said:
My thing is, if you're going to do a SP, do it well, or don't do it at all. I mean, it's the most showed off aspect of the game with respect to visuals and gameplay alike which just makes it all the more irritating. There's no reason a competent dev couldn't do a great SP to match a great MP experience either right?

Lets not act like they just 'threw' this SP together. It is quite clear a shit load of time, money and assets were put in to this thing. Where it falters is in design basics not in overall technical or visual merit.
Click to expand...

Stop kidding yourself please. And no, there's no reason at all why they should've focused more on the SP. It's a controls tutorial for most people and the MP is the thing that brings in the money, keeps people playing the game and what the devs are known for.

You should be happy they put so much effort into the SP as they did on its current state. I don't understand why you would even consider paying for the SP campaign alone at launch...
 
Woo-Fu

Woo-Fu

Banned
derFeef said:
I hate this. The SP is part of the package and there is no reason it should not be enjoyable.
Click to expand...

Sounds like it is enjoyable, to me, if you're somebody who enjoys the sort of linear slog vs. braindead AI that is the staple of modern singleplayer FPS.

They can try all they want, good MP will always be infinitely better than good SP. Humans are just more interesting opponents, opponents that can keep something fresh whereas compstomping the AI gets old nigh instantly for anybody who is interested in challenge.

Lastly, considering the average amount of time a player spends with each mode the campaign should be coming out with the shortest end of the stick if DICE appropriately distributed their resources.
 
M

mr_nothin

Banned
nib95 said:
Didn't even realise ME3 did have MP lol. But in it's defence the campaign is probably going to be 25+ hours long. With BF3 you just don't know how much time could be invested in to the MP, especially if it is as buggy or problem riddled as the BETA was. Heck the no reviews till day 1 patch on the consoles front in itself doesn't exactly incite confidence...
Click to expand...
Well, going off of impressions of the "final" code (minus day 1 patches)...it's MUCH less glitch prone than the beta. Lots of things ironed out and improved too.

I dont see the problem here. Reviewers are rating/scoring the game based on it's merits. You dont review a summer blockbuster movie in the same way you would review Schindler's List. They are pointing out that MP is THE reason why you should get the game, even if SP is lackluster.
 
S

strata8

Member
I can honestly say I respect a game that excels in it's SP more than one that does the same with MP.

Though it depends just how good the MP actually is.
 
N

nib95

Banned
zoukka said:
Stop kidding yourself please. And no, there's no reason at all why they should've focused more on the SP. It's a controls tutorial for most people and the MP is the thing that brings in the money, keeps people playing the game and what the devs are known for.

You should be happy they put so much effort into the SP as they did on its current state. I don't understand why you would even consider paying for the SP campaign alone at launch...
Click to expand...

I would say then that at the very least this is disingenuous to layman or non Battlefield savvy gamers. For example, I've never really played much of the Battlefield franchise and would have never even really known it never had a focus on SP until you guys told me.

If I was an average or casual gamer (like some of my relatives and cousins), they look at the trailer and gawp and nearly all of them do so with intent to play it's SP. Because it's the SP that is almost exclusively shown in the Launch trailer. To market the hell out of a feature which is simply tacked on seems idiotic at best, and whilst perhaps you with your vast Battlefield knowledge might no better, the average gamer won't.

Also begs the question, with so much money, time and resources invested in the SP, why couldn't they make it better? I'm willing to bet that BF3's SP cost more money and man power than many AAA SP games out there.
 
Woo-Fu

Woo-Fu

Banned
nib95 said:
Also begs the question, with so much money, time and resources invested in the SP, why couldn't they make it better? I'm willing to bet that BF3's SP cost more money and man power than many AAA SP games out there.
Click to expand...

If I gave you lots of time, money, and resources you probably still couldn't paint the Mona Lisa. Making a great game isn't just about putting your time in, after all. When you get right down to it, DICE doesn't have much experience crafting singleplayer experiences. They seem to be getting somewhat better at it, though. :)
 
N

Nostalgia~4ever

Banned
lol at the people saying that SP is a Battlefield staple. Battlefield 2 didnt even had a campaign and still got great review scores.

Battlefield 4 without SP please.
 
M

MrCookiepants

Member
I'm not going near this game with a ten foot pole until I read GAF's impressions. Too much fishy business going on with EA and these reviews.

moo.gif
 
D

derFeef

Member
Nostalgia~4ever said:
lol at the people saying that SP is a Battlefield staple. Battlefield 2 didnt even had a campaign and still got great review scores.

Battlefield 4 without SP please.
Click to expand...
So you are not going to play the SP I guess, why suggest to remove it, then?
And no... there were multiple teams working on the game.
 
Z

zoukka

Member
nib95 said:
I would say then that at the very least this is disingenuous to layman or non Battlefield savvy gamers. For example, I've never really played much of the Battlefield franchise and would have never even really known it never had a focus on SP until you guys told me.

If I was an average or casual gamer (like some of my relatives and cousins), they look at the trailer and gawp and nearly all of them do so with intent to play it's SP. Because it's the SP that is almost exclusively shown in the Launch trailer. To market the hell out of a feature which is simply tacked on seems idiotic at best, and whilst perhaps you with your vast Battlefield knowledge might no better, the average gamer won't.

Also begs the question, with so much money, time and resources invested in the SP, why couldn't they make it better? I'm willing to bet that BF3's SP cost more money and man power than many AAA SP games out there.
Click to expand...

Battlefield is a synonism for multiplayer war games.
Single player footage looks the best, so it's used in marketing.
Single player campaign is a gateway for people to go into MP. It's been trash in the past BF games and nobody gave a shit.
DICE specializes in MP games so of course the SP is not up to par.
 
F

FreeMufasa

Junior Member
I was just wondering, if BF3 pulls COD type numbers (or just high sales), can we expect BF4 the year after and then yearly sequals?
 
M

Metalmurphy

Member
Wait... Gametrailers said that there's no boats on the PC version but they're on the console? What?



Is this true or is it just Gametrailers being gametrailers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Homeworld 3 | Review Thread
Analysis Review
22
2K
amigastar replied
Persona 3 Reload | Review Thread
Analysis Review Hype 2 3
107
8K
Grildon Tundy replied
Payday 3 | Review Thread
Analysis Review
15
2K
Arsic replied
Tekken 8 | Review Thread
News Analysis Review 2 3 4 5 6
263
18K
Klosshufvud replied
Suicide : Squad; Kill The Justice League | Review Thread
Analysis Review 4 5 6 7 8
355
29K
Certinty replied
Top Bottom