Discussion Forums > Gaming
Battlefield 3
TMRNetShark:
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
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:
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:
--- 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...
--- End quote ---
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:
--- 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...
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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:
Ah so it's released already? Oh well... I guess no changes to this whole battlelog shit?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version