Author Topic: Battlefield 3 (Read 16912 times)

Takeshi · « **Reply #240 on:** October 20, 2011, 03:14:14 PM »

Quote from: TMRNetShark on October 20, 2011, 01:36:24 PM

Battlefield 3 already looks like it's going to get good scores, so why did they do it?

This. I reckon' DICE know they've made a good product. I guess EA isn't that certain.

bloody000 · « **Reply #241 on:** October 25, 2011, 06:05:47 AM »

I'm not going to sleep tonight. I'll take caffeine pills and go to work tomorrow.

SeventyX7 · « **Reply #242 on:** October 25, 2011, 06:20:10 AM »

Quote from: Takeshi on October 20, 2011, 03:14:14 PM

Quote from: TMRNetShark on October 20, 2011, 01:36:24 PM
Battlefield 3 already looks like it's going to get good scores, so why did they do it?
This. I reckon' DICE know they've made a good product. I guess EA isn't that certain.

EA is a corporation, their sole goal is to make money. If they can eliminate even the small chance that a few bad reviews would reduce sales, they would do it.

Seems like common sense to me.

TMRNetShark · « **Reply #243 on:** October 25, 2011, 01:24:48 PM »

I have no idea why they needed to filter out reviewers (well, except maybe IGN because they are a bunch of hypocrites)... but this game is AWESOME. Been playing it for a couple of hours now and I definitely deserves a metacritic rating in the 90's. I have a strange need to play on Metro, but I'm blazing through the single player first (which is actually done quite well).

Sosseres · « **Reply #244 on:** October 25, 2011, 02:28:04 PM »

Quote from: SeventyX7 on October 25, 2011, 06:20:10 AM

Quote from: Takeshi on October 20, 2011, 03:14:14 PM
Quote from: TMRNetShark on October 20, 2011, 01:36:24 PM
Battlefield 3 already looks like it's going to get good scores, so why did they do it?
This. I reckon' DICE know they've made a good product. I guess EA isn't that certain.
EA is a corporation, their sole goal is to make money. If they can eliminate even the small chance that a few bad reviews would reduce sales, they would do it.

Seems like common sense to me.

It is horrible for the end user though. This means that positive reviews will be the norm if you ever want to review another of their titles prior to release or get the game for free.

TMRNetShark · « **Reply #245 on:** October 26, 2011, 02:29:19 AM »

Quote from: Sosseres on October 25, 2011, 02:28:04 PM

It is horrible for the end user though. This means that positive reviews will be the norm if you ever want to review another of their titles prior to release or get the game for free.

But that's the thing, there are very much inconsistencies even within the press. Is it biased? YES... does it stop publishers from doing it? NOPE. Does it ultimately affect us (the end user)? Eh, to a degree. Like a game given a bad rating effects sales but doesn't change the personal opinion that one person might have over another (as in us). If you give a game an inflated score... then people expect more and we get less... therefore hurting us even more than the under-scored game.

Although, I would give Battlefield an 8.5 or 8.0 for the single player... but it gets a 10 for balanced multiplayer. As long as your good with the gun you are using, you'll get kills regardless of what the other guy is using (unless you are using an SMG against a sniper that is 500m away XD).

bloody000 · « **Reply #246 on:** October 26, 2011, 06:47:58 AM »

I would say the campaign is pretty lame. motherfucking QTEs in a Battlefield game. Linear and scripted to death, we got none of the freedom in multi-player. I was expecting something Crysis-ish.

Muk666 · « **Reply #247 on:** October 26, 2011, 12:52:04 PM »

Quote from: TMRNetShark on October 26, 2011, 02:29:19 AM

Although, I would give Battlefield an 8.5 or 8.0 for the single player...

lol

95% of all fps games these days dont deserve more then a 5/10 for the singleplayer, not played the single player for BF3 yet and never will because I know exactly what its like. So many "casual" people buy games based on reviews and hype and dont really know what they get, and alot of them dont play multiplayer so they get screwed over by games like these.

TMRNetShark · « **Reply #248 on:** October 26, 2011, 03:00:34 PM »

Quote from: Muk666 on October 26, 2011, 12:52:04 PM

Quote from: TMRNetShark on October 26, 2011, 02:29:19 AM
Although, I would give Battlefield an 8.5 or 8.0 for the single player...

lol

95% of all fps games these days dont deserve more then a 5/10 for the singleplayer, not played the single player for BF3 yet and never will because I know exactly what its like. So many "casual" people buy games based on reviews and hype and dont really know what they get, and alot of them dont play multiplayer so they get screwed over by games like these.

That doesn't make sense. How can someone base a game on reviews and not know what to expect? If yout read unbiased reviews, you should know what the game focuses on. True, most single player campaigns in FPS's are junk compared to the multiplayer... But Battlefield 3 doesn't NEED a single player to make the game great. For example, if BF3 shipped without a singleplayer/co-op, and maybe 3-4 more maps, would the game rating change? I bet it would because reviewers would then butthurt over the lack of solo operations, thinking it will alienate people from buying the game.

PULEASE!

If DICE went multiplayer only (like everything up to Bad Company), the game would have been just as fun. Personally speaking, the story is thin... But the set pieces are great and it's more of a tutorial for infantry combat in the multiplayer.

AceHigh · « **Reply #249 on:** October 26, 2011, 04:48:58 PM »

Ah so it's released already? Oh well... I guess no changes to this whole battlelog shit?

shabutie · « **Reply #250 on:** October 26, 2011, 06:04:07 PM »

Quote from: AceHigh on October 26, 2011, 04:48:58 PM

Ah so it's released already? Oh well... I guess no changes to this whole battlelog shit?

Nope...

It's very Battlefield: Facebook.

TMRNetShark · « **Reply #251 on:** October 26, 2011, 07:31:25 PM »

Quote from: AceHigh on October 26, 2011, 04:48:58 PM

Ah so it's released already? Oh well... I guess no changes to this whole battlelog shit?

There is an in-game menu though! Only for SP.

As of right now, the only problems I've encountered was the 64 player servers are laggy compared to what they were during beta (I blame the servers >.>).

Tatsujin · « **Reply #252 on:** October 27, 2011, 10:42:41 AM »

this game is so fucking amazing, i can't log online for the life of me (not)

lapa321 · « **Reply #253 on:** October 27, 2011, 03:54:04 PM »

Quote from: shabutie on October 26, 2011, 06:04:07 PM

Nope...

It's very Battlefield: Facebook.

That's a perfect way of describing it.

Glyllin · « **Reply #254 on:** October 27, 2011, 04:56:23 PM »

Dunno wether i should buy this for xbox or ps3??? I know ppl that play battlefield on xbox but some of my ps3 friends can finally afford the net lol

AceHigh · « **Reply #255 on:** October 27, 2011, 07:34:12 PM »

Oh boy... Origin doesn't work, anyone else is surprised?

There is also a problem with bad punkbuster that kicks random people... randomly.

This reminded me again why I never buy or at least play any multiplayer games on the first day of release.

mgz · « **Reply #256 on:** October 27, 2011, 10:51:29 PM »

Quote from: AceHigh on October 27, 2011, 07:34:12 PM

Oh boy... Origin doesn't work, anyone else is surprised?

There is also a problem with bad punkbuster that kicks random people... randomly.

This reminded me again why I never buy or at least play any multiplayer games on the first day of release.

call of duty 1 worked just fine first day
but dice does shitty work look at the last medal of honor and how big it flopped

TMRNetShark · « **Reply #257 on:** October 28, 2011, 01:34:03 AM »

Quote from: AceHigh on October 27, 2011, 07:34:12 PM

Oh boy... Origin doesn't work, anyone else is surprised?

There is also a problem with bad punkbuster that kicks random people... randomly.

This reminded me again why I never buy or at least play any multiplayer games on the first day of release.

I had the punkbuster problem too on launch day... turns out the people who pre-loaded the game never got to pre-load the entire game with punkbuster. I just uninstalled and reinstalled the game and it worked fine. It was annoying as shit to do that though!

Origin not working? Not a shocker either, I don't mind the browser launcher as much as I mind Origins being a bitch and a half.

AceHigh · « **Reply #258 on:** October 28, 2011, 02:45:06 AM »

Quote from: TMRNetShark on October 28, 2011, 01:34:03 AM

I don't mind the browser launcher as much as I mind Origins being a bitch and a half.

Indeed, how long will it take before EA drops their Origin idea and just omits that part all together? I mean isn't having a battlelog account is already a good copy protection?

TMRNetShark · « **Reply #259 on:** October 28, 2011, 04:29:45 AM »

Quote from: AceHigh on October 28, 2011, 02:45:06 AM

Indeed, how long will it take before EA drops their Origin idea and just omits that part all together? I mean isn't having a battlelog account is already a good copy protection?

Reasons to have to have Origins on:

"It's like Steam but better!"
Cause Steam does it too... so why not us (EA)?

Reasons to NOT have Origins:

Not everyone has a super computer to have Origins run in the background
Battlelog already takes care of anti-pirating
As of right now, EA is just using their pride and joy (BF3) to promote their service
Which sadly does what people HATE about Steam (run in the background)
All the "Friends" and social features in Origins is already done in Battlebook... I mean Battlelog!