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?
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 arrivesMr. 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?
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.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
As youll have noticed, RPS is yet to have brought you a review of Battlefield 3. This is because, unfortunately, EA seemed to forget to give us a copy in advance of release. So instead, below is a picture of a puppy on a unicorn.
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?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.
derFeef said:
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?
There's one by Planet 360 or something like that, 88, says campaign isn't worth it, but multiplayer is pretty fun aside from glitchinessTomat said:Any console review yet?
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.D23 said:modern warfare 2 graphics gets a 10.. lol
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.Vire said:I don't know where you gather that it's "good" but alright.
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.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?
Its not a download, its a disc install.Macintosh360 said:First console review went live, crazy about the 1.5GB download on 360:
http://www.planetxbox360.com/article_17318/Battlefield_3_Review
Macintosh360 said:First console review went live, crazy about the 1.5GB download on 360:
http://www.planetxbox360.com/article_17318/Battlefield_3_Review
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
IT'S CINEMATICInterficium said:not this "more realistic weight" nonsense.
To be fair, they're usually snarky about mainstream shooters even when they get review code.derFeef said:
shagg_187 said:Single-player is definitely a bit linear but goddamn the shooting is fun, fun, fun!
Sn4ke_911 said:
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.
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?shagg_187 said:Single-player is definitely a bit linear but goddamn the shooting is fun, fun, fun!
SuicidalSteve said:
It seemed pretty typical to me. Campaign is nothing to write home about, MP is excellent.Sn4ke_911 said:That's pretty harsh.
Yes, 8s are scathing critiques nowadays.Sn4ke_911 said:That's pretty harsh.
Sn4ke_911 said:That's pretty harsh.
DaBuddaDa said:Yes, 8s are scathing critiques nowadays.
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.
Sn4ke_911 said:That's pretty harsh.
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.
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.Nostalgia~4ever said:it's the usual. SP sucks and multiplayer excellent. DICE should skip SP next game as it drags down the score.
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.
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.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.