Support NeoGAF

[Massa]

what about someone buying it for the campaign if he thinks it isn't good at all then his review is misleading and makes me question whats behind it.

His review is not misleading for those who actually read it.

So that makes it ok to pass off garbage in a review without docking points? Why bother reviewing it at all then?

Because some people can actually read?

 

[Grecco]

Well, again. If you have a great single-player game, is it diminished by adding lackluster MP?

Diminished in scores? or diminish the game?

 

[Cobra84]

Well, again. If you have a great single-player game, is it diminished by adding lackluster MP?

I'd also like to know that since singleplayer only games are acceptable, is it ok to make a multiplayer only game?

 

[dimb]

Well, again. If you have a great single-player game, is it diminished by adding lackluster MP?

If you were reviewing the whole package then obviously yes.

 

[I H8 Memes]

It's probably weird to have to score a game like this. Just from watching enough videos of the single player it looks really uninspired and at best a 1 playthrough experience. But that is how I'm starting to feel about most of these fps single player games now. I would give it a 5 out of 10 just to emphasize how middle of the road it looks. It has a big budget behind it, tries to create the exciting set pieces, but in the end it just looks so plain. FPS single player color by numbers.

However the multiplayer Beta was great and the videos of the other maps have not disappointed. BF2 was without a doubt the most fun large scale mutliplayer game I've ever played and BF3 has outdone it. If it's the best in the genre then I would have to score that a 10 of 10.

Put the two together and where do you score it? If BF3 had released with no single player mode like it traditionally has then it would score a 10/10. But add in a boring single player mode and it takes the score down.

Likewise there are many single player centric games with tacked on multi modes. But no matter how bad the multi mode is it will not affect the rating or score of the game if single player is good enough.

 

[LuchaShaq]

Spec Ops mode is also great fun.

I'm more excited for spec ops than the multiplayer and single player in both games combined.

That said I understand where he is coming from, Single player looks like a shitty knock off of black ops even down to the story, but apparently multi is the best shooter multi currently.

Also apparently the 360 version "is a mess" which doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

 

[The Faceless Master]

looks like EA's marketing campaign paid off... all these dirty tactics and shady tricks were exposed and now everyone is looking at reviews to see which reviewer will score the game badly to stick it to the man instead of scoring it badly based on their experience with the game and that has reviewers second guessing their own scores as they don't want to look like the guy who judged EA and not the game in their review.

 

[Confidence Man]

If you spend 80% of your time playing BF3 single player then you missed the point of the game like you missed the point of the article. Regardless of whether or not people buy this game for it's single player it was built primarily as a multiplayer game so that portion of the game should carry significant more weight in a review. A split review for games like these would probably be preferable, they could have even divided it up to different reviewers in order to meet their deadline easier.

Lots of people taking their opportunity to jump on this guy, but there's no doubt that the article raises some valid points.

For a primarily multiplayer game only 9 maps is pretty weak. Maybe if they didn't waste their time with SP we would have gotten at least a dozen like BF2.

 

[Derrick01]

Well, again. If you have a great single-player game, is it diminished by adding lackluster MP?

Yes. It's part of the game and if it sucks it's part of what you're paying for. Just like it's not fair to knock a game for not having multiplayer since it wasn't intended to. If BF3 is not intended to have a SP and Dice is incapable of making a good one then don't put it in.

 

[Enkidu]

If BF3 was multiplayer only then reviewers would have nothing to look at but multiplayer and judge it accordingly. Reviews should be looking at everything a game has to offer and judge each one fairly. Scoring a game high because "so what 2/3 of it blows, the 1 mode is awesome" encourages publishers to just toss more garbage to get those check marks on the back of the box. Have some balls and dock some points if 70% of the game sucks.

Honestly now, while 2/3 of the modes might suck that doesn't mean that 2/3 of the game sucks. Since this is Battlefield we all know what to expect. Singleplayer and coop might be two of the three modes, but I'd say they represent more like 10% of the game than 70%.

I just don't understand this mentality. Should Half-Life 2 be considered a 7/10 because HL2M is kind of crappy?

 

[Nostalgia~4ever]

Yes. It's part of the game and if it sucks it's part of what you're paying for. Just like it's not fair to knock a game for not having multiplayer since it wasn't intended to. If BF3 is not intended to have a SP and Dice is incapable of making a good one then don't put it in.

Metroid Prime 2 92% at gamerankings, the lackluster MP mode did not drag down all the reviews.

 

[Patryn]

Yes, BF is traditionally a MP series, but BF3 seems to be trying to reach out to a broader audience that may not be familiar with BF. And, shockingly, a chunk of that audience is probably only interested in single-player. This score doesn't serve them in the least.

I can understand still giving it a high score if the MP is amazing, but to only knock half a point off when 2 out of 3 of the main modes are "unacceptable" is mind-boggling.

 

[Fallout-NL]

Whose buying BF3 for singleplayer? Honestly why does the game even have single player if it's supposedly so shitty?

CoD: MW

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

Yes, BF is traditionally a MP series, but BF3 seems to be trying to reach out to a broader audience that may not be familiar with BF. And, shockingly, a chunk of that audience is probably only interested in single-player. This score doesn't serve them in the least.
I can understand still giving it a high score if the MP is amazing, but to only knock half a point off when 2 out of 3 of the main modes are "unacceptable" is mind-boggling.

That's why there is text to go along with the score.

 

[Derrick01]

Metroid Prime 2 92% at gamerankings, the lackluster MP mode did not drag down all the reviews.

That doesn't mean anything. If anything it brings us right back to what we're talking about now. Should it have scored as high with a shitty MP?

Oh and your PM was real mature and as usual has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

 

[Nostalgia~4ever]

That doesn't mean anything. If anything it brings us right back to what we're talking about now. Should it have scored as high with a shitty MP?

meanwhile you think that SP is 70% of BF3, laughable.

 

[Kaltagesta]

Whether a series is traditionally X or marketed at Y should be irrelevant. Reviews should be a barometer of fun. A review can say alot about a game, but a score can't - it's a single number/letter, that's meant to encompass everything you've written. What kind of nut case suggests that this number should be based not on how much fun you can have with the game, but how little fun you can have if you only choose to play that crap modes? In what way is that ever a useful metric that's helpful to anyone?

 

[distrbnce]

There is a 99.9% chance that I will never play the Multi Player on this.

You are the .01%

 

[Htown]

So, what's supposed to be the problem with the single player? It seems pretty solid to me, at least up through Night Shift.

I don't see how it fares worse than say, the Modern Warfare games. I'm actually probably liking it more than MW2 so far, since I'm not finding it nearly as annoying.

And it helps that it looks FUCKING AMAZING.

 

[SkyMasterson]

You like the COD single player games? Different strokes I suppose. I always find them pretty terrible

Subtle.

Terrible in what way? Over the top action movies? Instead of watching an over the top action movie, you're controlling it. I think that's pretty awesome.

To say they are "terrible" is such hyperbole. People need to learn theres a difference between something that is terrible and something that just isn't for them. When this happens the internet(and real life) will be a better place.

 

[I H8 Memes]

I just don't understand this mentality. Should Half-Life 2 be considered a 7/10 because HL2M is kind of crappy?

HL2M is the example I was going to use but I'm not sure if it is still included with every HL2 purchase. But even if it was it should have no impact on the score for HL2.

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

You are the .01%

Occupy Dice

So, what's supposed to be the problem with the single player? It seems pretty solid to me, at least up through Night Shift.

I don't see how it fares worse than say, the Modern Warfare games. I'm actually probably liking it more than MW2 so far, since I'm not finding it nearly as annoying.

Even worse AI, even more QTE's and setpieces aren't nearly as good, IMO.

 

[dimb]

That's why there is text to go along with the score.

Great excuse. Reviewers can pretend that anyone actually cares about what they have to say and EA gets the inflated metascore they want. Win-win situation.

 

[Kaltagesta]

Great excuse. Reviewers can pretend that anyone actually cares about what they have to say and EA gets the inflated metascore they want. Win-win situation.

Yeah, it makes far more sense to tailor your score to the people who only want to play the worst bits, not the best.

 

[Genesis Knight]

Also apparently the 360 version "is a mess" which doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

360 version isn't a mess. I played the retail release.

 

[chickdigger802]

from what I can tell, it does seem SP did have some impact on most scores. Just not as much as some people... hoped for?

 

[Mr. B Natural]

Why do people keep saying BF3 isn't about the SP when the game was being sold as an SP game first and an MP game second from the very get go and still is to this day?
Yes, YOU might not care about the SP but the majority of people EA expects to buy it are the opposite.
And I already said this, but it needs to be said again, there is NO way these reviewers played the MP enough to get a good enough grasp on whether it's good or not or whether they actually like or dislike something about it. I'm sorry. Not enough time. Not enough players. Not enough testing. And that's the case for any MP grind heavy game when reviewers ARE given enough time to review the product, let alone when they're clearly not in this case. Did they really play 64 player games? Cause I'm guessing no. Are they playing with devs of the game? Cause that's cutting it close to the heart too, no?

Considering people are willing to make articles like this, it doesn't sit pretty for me. Its like their subconscious is finally starting to peak out a bit. This never happens. Can't swallow this pill this time? Why this pill? And why now?

 

[scar tissue]

The whole game was 4.5/5. I don't agree with the score because he thought most of the game sucked. I don't care if BF is for multiplayer, if it's there in the overall package and it sucks it should count negatively

So if it had no SP at all (like BF2) it should be scored higher?
I don't agree.
500 hours of AAA multiplayer fun stay 500 hours of AAA multiplayer fun, no matter the other modes. There should be some remark that the score is for online only or something like that tho.

 

[chickdigger802]

Why do people keep saying BF3 isn't about the SP when the game was being sold as an SP game first and an MP game second from the very get go and still is to this day?
Yes, YOU might not care about the SP but the majority of people EA expects to buy it are the opposite.
And I already said this, but it needs to be said again, there is NO way these reviewers played the MP enough to get a good enough grasp on whether it's good or not or whether they actually like or dislike something about it. I'm sorry. Not enough time. Not enough players. Not enough testing. And that's the case for an MP grind heavy game when reviewers ARE given enough time to review the product, let alone when they're clearly not in this case.

Considering people are willing to make articles like this, it doesn't sit pretty for me. Its like their subconscious is finally starting to peak out a bit. This never happens. Can't swallow this pill this time? Why this pill? And why now?

it is? From what I can tell, the most recent trailer was the first time they even bother talking about the 'plot'.

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

Also apparently the 360 version "is a mess" which doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

Apart from a select few people that seem to be glitching, it's perfectly fine and MUCH better than the beta.

 

[Chinner]

So if it had no SP at all (like BF2) it should be scored higher?
I don't agree.
500 hours of AAA multiplayer fun stay 500 hours of AAA multiplayer fun, no matter the other modes. There should be some remark that the score is for online only or something like that tho.

oh, so we can ignore negative aspects of a game?

oh well this game is really bad, but boy the graphics are good and the publisher said that if we didn't review it positively we would be blacklisted!

 

[Mr. B Natural]

it is? From what I can tell, the most recent trailer was the first time they even bother talking about the 'plot'.

They didn't show MP for a LONG time and when they did, it was behind doors and tdm. Of the trailers and all the marketing, how much was Mp related?

Sp != plot.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

Why do people keep saying BF3 isn't about the SP when the game was being sold as an SP game first and an MP game second from the very get go and still is to this day?
Yes, YOU might not care about the SP but the majority of people EA expects to buy it are the opposite.
And I already said this, but it needs to be said again, there is NO way these reviewers played the MP enough to get a good enough grasp on whether it's good or not or whether they actually like or dislike something about it. I'm sorry. Not enough time. Not enough players. Not enough testing. And that's the case for any MP grind heavy game when reviewers ARE given enough time to review the product, let alone when they're clearly not in this case. Did they really play 64 player games? Cause I'm guessing no. Are they playing with devs of the game? Cause that's cutting it close to the heart too, no?

Considering people are willing to make articles like this, it doesn't sit pretty for me. Its like their subconscious is finally starting to peak out a bit. This never happens. Can't swallow this pill this time? Why this pill? And why now?

did i miss the singleplayer beta?

 

[Htown]

oh, so we can ignore negative aspects of a game?

oh well this game is really bad, but boy the graphics are good and the publisher said that if we didn't review it positively we would be blacklisted!

What's your problem with Battlefield 3, Chinner? I mean, really. Because there isn't a BF3 thread that you don't show up in to toss your duck droppings all over the place.

 

[Chinner]

i'm the dark knight of videogames, basically.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

Struggling to put up a review in a limited time to make sure you get hits, instead of holding back a few days to make sure you get it right.

Well done!!

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Raine]

Why do people keep saying BF3 isn't about the SP when the game was being sold as an SP game first and an MP game second from the very get go and still is to this day?
Yes, YOU might not care about the SP but the majority of people EA expects to buy it are the opposite.

What game have you been paying attention to? ...No seriously.

 

[lockload]

For me the rules should be simple;

If the patch is to fix multiplayer then fine hold the review for patch.

If its to fix single player issue then the review should be on the disc version at not everyone has their console online

 

[rar]

how about they just rate the sp, coop, and mp separately

problem solved

 

[NullPointer]

What game have you been paying attention to? ...No seriously.

Battlefield 3. Look at their marketing.

how about they just rate the sp, coop, and mp separately

problem solved

That'd work too, although I figure metacritic would get confused. Can't have that.

 

[Socreges]

This whole BF3 reviews fiasco obviously raises serious issues about the credibility of videogame 'journalism'. You've got a high-profile launch at an important time of the year against a high-profile and incredibly popular competitor (MW3) that releases shortly afterwards. EA, a company that has always been very competitive, has a lot riding on BF3 sales, particularly in its first days.

Right there you can see the motive for manipulation. But if EA isn't able to influence things, then there isn't a problem! Of course... it sounds like they're definitely trying to influence who reviews, who reviews early, and how they review**. I'm sure this happens in subtle ways generally and we're unaware, but EA doesn't seem interested in taking any chances with BF3.

** Beyond the Norway situation, if reviews are going out exclusively, sites/mags would want to maintain that access with EA by not displeasing them. Not good.

 

[Cobra84]

Whether a series is traditionally X or marketed at Y should be irrelevant. Reviews should be a barometer of fun. A review can say alot about a game, but a score can't - it's a single number/letter, that's meant to encompass everything you've written. What kind of nut case suggests that this number should be based not on how much fun you can have with the game, but how little fun you can have if you only choose to play that crap modes? In what way is that ever a useful metric that's helpful to anyone?

Perfect. A game only needs one mode that can hold you attention for hours to be good. I know people that only play CoD's team deathmatch and love the game. They don't like singleplayer, co-op, or any other multiplayer mode and it doesn't matter to them at all.

 

[frequency]

I have no interest in this game. But I just felt like I had to say that Arthur's post really highlights the silliness of reviews.

Why does Battlefield 3 get a pass on 2/3 of the modes being bad? Other non-AAA or less hyped games get docked marks for having some bad aspects... but not BF. BF is AAA and super hyped, so it's alright to ignore its faults in the final score... because that one part of it is really cool!

So dumb...

It's double standards like these that discredit pretty much all professional reviews for me.

 

[Chinner]

how about they just rate the sp, coop, and mp separately

problem solved

less useful for the consumer having to go to multiple reviews to find out about the game they want to buy. bit of a sad day if we have to justify poor game launches by giving leeway to publishers who have oh so obviously rushed their games out.

 

[JaxJag]

Good old Gies, thinking his opinion actually matters.

 

[NullPointer]

Perfect. A game only needs one mode that can hold you attention for hours to be good. I know people that only play CoD's team deathmatch and love the game. They don't like singleplayer, co-op, or any other multiplayer mode and it doesn't matter to them at all.

So what if the campaign was stellar and set a new bar for shooters, but the multiplayer was mediocre? Should it still be heaped with praise and a high review score? For this game?

 

[Kaltagesta]

oh, so we can ignore negative aspects of a game?

In a score? Yes, if it doesn't negatively impact on a load of stuff that IS fun. Why would you use a score as a metric of the lowest common denominator? How does that help anyone?

If you're aiming your scores at people you only look at the score, surely the metric you should use is "did I have fun playing this game?" In this instance, it's entirely possible for parts of the game to be awful and it still get an amazing score, for the same reason reason that the Jurassic Park Blu-Ray Release Celebration plastic dinosaur in my Corn Flakes doesn't detract from my enjoyment of the cornflakes. I enjoy them in spite of the crappy plastic toy.

The alternative is to aim the score at people who aren't interested in how much fun they can have with the game, but rather how little fun they can have if they only play the worst bits. How is that helpful in any way?

Edit: I wish to stress that this doesn't mean a game with a single decent element should get a pass. that good part has to be a "game" unto itself - what I'm disagreeing with is the idea that adding a crap mode to something that would have been an amazing game without this addition should ever have its score reduced as a result. OK, it wasn't added until after launch in a patch, but Deus Ex's multiplayer was dogshit. Had that been present at launch, it would have been duly mocked. But the single player is, in its own right, an incredible computer game, and deserves a stellar score. The worst a crap element should do, in such a case, is fail to increase this score.

 

[distrbnce]

So basically this confirms that the multiplayer is awesome. Thanks for that, ready to play now.

 

[RaidenZR]

Struggling to put up a review in a limited time to make sure you get hits, instead of holding back a few days to make sure you get it right.

Well done!!

.

 

[scar tissue]

Whether a series is traditionally X or marketed at Y should be irrelevant. Reviews should be a barometer of fun. A review can say alot about a game, but a score can't - it's a single number/letter, that's meant to encompass everything you've written. What kind of nut case suggests that this number should be based not on how much fun you can have with the game, but how little fun you can have if you only choose to play that crap modes? In what way is that ever a useful metric that's helpful to anyone?

Well said. How much fun can be gained out of a game for how long a time should be what the score is based on.
Derrick01, you might want to try playing 1 on 1 if you're so hell bent on getting the least out of a game.