Disappointment of the year?

  • 105 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Posted by Stingraymond (85 posts) -

Long-time lurker, first-time poster here.

I remember one of these threads appearing a little while ago and I disagreed with it, can't even remember what game it was about but it was wrong.

So, my question today has to be, is this game the biggest disappointment of 2011? EA wanted to make something that could compete with MW, and yet again, they've failed. If they ever want to rival CoD, not only do they have to make a game that actually works for all the console kids, but they can't go including so much crap like battlelog and no steam support for our great PC version. As a sequel to one of the finest PC games of all time, I am supremely disappointed with this package. EA games seem to just consistently want to be in your face with "LOOK HOW AWESOME WE ARE, GO ON FACEBOOK AND TELL YOUR FRIENDS! EA EA EA! USE OUR SERVICE CAUSE STEAM SUCKS AND WE CAN ADVERTISE DUMB SHIT LIKE GUN CLUB!"

The game looks great and plays a lot like every battlefield game, but I wanted more, and any true battlefield fan would agree with me. The lazy ass mainstream PC game development is being taken to whole new levels lately, we get 10 year old games up-ressed and touted as the best things on the planet, Starcraft, Diablo, Battlefield, all they're doing is appealing to nostalgia and sadly on many of you it seems to work and you end up blind to the shockingly poor quality of some of these games.

Battlefield deserves to be bigger than CoD, but if EA keep this up, it never will be, they have completely failed in every possible way. If they'd even just managed to make the PC version perfect and advertised it well, sold it on steam, not included crappy features like battlelog, maybe they'd have been able to at least compete with MW3 on one platform, but they couldn't even do that. The game handles poorly, has been presented poorly, has a shocking number of bugs for something that has been in development for so long, and the console versions are useless! They couldn't even make a campaign that you want to play for more than 5 minutes! Pathetic.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big big big bf fan, I'm 40 years old and BF1942 was my bread and butter for about 5 years straight. Nothing compares to this great series and it is a clear sign that PC games are infinitely better than anything on consoles, but this latest instalment is a disgrace. If EA keep trying to play the pathetic little one-up game with Activision, they'll lose sight of what made them great in the first place and churn out more crappy games like this one. A total disappointment and it has really saddened me to think of all those little console fanboys out there who will laugh in my face when CoD comes out. They don't know what made FPS games great and they never will because they're ignorant of our great platform and EA are just doing the opposite of what they set out to do. I will be returning my copy forthwith and urge any true bf fans to do the same, we have been robbed of our pride yet again. Sometimes I wish consoles had never been thought of.

#2 Posted by DeanoXD (608 posts) -

OK, i disagree with you but OK.

#3 Posted by Funkydupe (3311 posts) -

You must really love Battlefield. You've lurked all this time, but this pushed you over the edge and made you sign up and create your first thread in which you flame your beloved Battlefield. Lurker principles be damned.

I've taken your opinion to heart, and I believe we're both ready to move on.

#4 Posted by Raineko (433 posts) -

So did I get this right: your reasons are that they didn't sell it on steam, didn't advertise the PC version well enough and battlelog is crappy?

#5 Edited by kingando420 (210 posts) -

Remember not everybody can afford a new gaming PC every three years and game developers need to appeal to the largest market possible due to the exponential growth of development costs.

Do you include yourself in the 'console kids' category? I noticed you have a green name suggesting you favour the xbox 360 (troll?).

#6 Posted by Bollard (5425 posts) -

Wait a minute, did you just say Starcraft II is "shockingly poor quality?"

I didn't read past that cause anything else you said is clearly invalid.

#7 Edited by Canteu (2821 posts) -

You're 40 years old. You know better.

Battlefield has been going for 9 years and technically they're only up to the 3rd game.

Modern Warfare (not CoD as a whole) has only been around for 4 years and are already up to the 4th game. It will not last forever and you know this, but Battlefield will continue to exist for several more years.

When you buy into a franchise, that is what you are getting. Iterations of the same core idea and formulae, expecting revolutionary changes with every iteration is childish and will never happen of any title regardless of era.

Competing with MW3 is like competing with WoW at this stage, it's completely pointless so all we can do is wait out till it dies (Activision seems to have this effect on beloved franchises). MW has been on the decline since the first game but Battlefield has only gotten better since the first.

Why do you need Battlefield to make more money than a different game, when they still make plenty of sales and continue to provide you with what you want? i.e. More Battlefield.

You say Battlefield will never be bigger than MW, in that you are wrong. For a good 5 years prior to that piece of shit ever existing Battlefield was the best (and still is) FPS had to offer.

You say you're a big fan of BF, then you should know that every single release has been completely fucked upon release. Battlefield didn't even have a campaign until BF2 so i fail to see why you're complaining about it when it can be ignored completely.

You sir, as a true Battlefielder, rob yourself of pride. EA hardly had a hand in it.

#8 Posted by Funkydupe (3311 posts) -

That was fun! Let's see what else we can do to waste some time... I do love me some tinkering.

#9 Posted by Seppli (10251 posts) -

Battlelog is the shit son. Beats the hell out of previous server browsers and 3rd party stats websites.

Ignorance?

#10 Posted by RobertOrri (1121 posts) -

It's unfortunate that EA chose this game to deliver Origin to the masses, but understandable from their point of view. I don't inherently dislike the thing, as everything has to start somewhere. Let's not forget that Steam was originally made mandatory for Counter-Strike 1.6, and the internet was abuzz with unhappy users that were having problems with it. That was 8 years ago.

@Stingraymond said:

If they ever want to rival CoD, not only do they have to make a game that actually works for all the console kids, but they can't go including so much crap like battlelog and no steam support for our great PC version.

If Steam was an open platform, I could understand this. Since it's not, I'm surprised how everyone wants to willingly have every game locked to it. Yes, it's convenient, but isn't variety and competition a good thing?

#11 Posted by Gav47 (1542 posts) -

Say what you want about Origin, but Battlelog easily beats Steam's stats component and is pretty easy to use as well.

#12 Posted by xdaknightx69 (449 posts) -

i'm so bored of these threads.

i dont care for COD, i loved the COD WW2 series more then MOH , but once they start doing the same shit i stop caring .

BF3 might have its problem but they are gonna get patched because Dice/EA cant afford to lose a IP like BF, Dice listens to its players and works to make them happy as much as they can.

origin and battlelog is great and the only reason they want u to use origin is to prevent piracy which i'm fine with. COD will never be better then BF3 in terms of gameplay unless they totally decide to change the core game.

COD players might laugh in ur face if MW3 is better than BF3 ( which it wont be ) and u care about that and ur 40yrs old u might have more things to worry about then just COD or BF.

#13 Posted by MildMolasses (3219 posts) -

@Canteu said:

Modern Warfare (not CoD as a whole) has only been around for 4 years and are already up to the 4th game.

What? How is MW3 the fourth game?

#14 Posted by JerichoBlyth (1044 posts) -

Ignore Jim Sterling and you will be fine with this game.

#15 Posted by Jimi (1126 posts) -

@MildMolasses: Black Ops

#16 Posted by Zapbrader (174 posts) -

@xdaknightx69 said:

i dont care for COD,

That makes all of us.

#17 Posted by Jack268 (3387 posts) -

How can you say this in the same year that Crysis 2 and Duke Nukem Forever was released?

#18 Posted by sheira (136 posts) -

Thanks for entertaining me while i eat my breakfest. Now lets kick some ass in bf3!

#19 Posted by Herocide (440 posts) -

@Chavtheworld said:

Wait a minute, did you just say Starcraft II is "shockingly poor quality?"

I didn't read past that cause anything else you said is clearly invalid.

YUP, same here.

#20 Posted by kingando420 (210 posts) -

badger badger badger badger, badger badger badger badger, badger badger badger badger, mushroom mushroom!

#21 Posted by MildMolasses (3219 posts) -

@Jimi said:

@MildMolasses: Black Ops

That isn't a MW games

#22 Posted by WinterSnowblind (7615 posts) -

@Jack268 said:

How can you say this in the same year that Crysis 2 and Duke Nukem Forever was released?

Duke Nukem doesn't really count, did anybody actually expect anything from it?

Otherwise, yeah.. I think after every big game that's been released this year, I've seen a topic labeling it as "disappointment of the year".

#23 Posted by Korwin (2845 posts) -

This one time I ate a whole chicken all by myself.

#24 Posted by Canteu (2821 posts) -

@MildMolasses: Black ops is clearly a MW game. Just because it isn't named thusly doesn't mean it isnt.

#25 Posted by Vodun (2370 posts) -

@Stingraymond said:

and any true battlefield fan would agree with me.

Don't paint yourself as the spokesperson for BF fans. Your opinions are your own and you'll have to stand by them on your own.

Sincerely fuck off,

A true BF fan

#26 Posted by bwmcmaste (838 posts) -

@Jack268 said:

How can you say this in the same year that Crysis 2 and Duke Nukem Forever was released?

Well, let's be fair now: Duke Nukem Forever wasn't ever going to live up to the fantastical latent version that the fans had imagined it to be. The same problem occurred with BF3: expectations were far beyond anything that a developer could/would produce for the market, and those who held the aforesaid expectations were naturally disappointed.

On the topic: our fair OP is a good example of this conundrum; he is, despite his professed age, yet unable to grasp the concept that EA is a publisher that makes game for a market that is larger than a single individual.

#27 Posted by phrosnite (3518 posts) -

2011 was disappointing as a whole. Pass. Let's hope the big games of 2012 don't fail too.

#28 Posted by PrivateIronTFU (3874 posts) -

@phrosnite said:

2011 was disappointing as a whole. Pass. Let's hope the big games of 2012 don't fail too.

You have impossible standards if you thought this entire year was disappointing.

#29 Posted by bwmcmaste (838 posts) -

@PrivateIronTFU said:

@phrosnite said:

2011 was disappointing as a whole. Pass. Let's hope the big games of 2012 don't fail too.

You have impossible standards if you thought this entire year was disappointing.

Although I disagree with him, if you take the position of someone who hates videogames in general and does not play them it is a valid argument.

#30 Posted by niamahai (1405 posts) -

Brink, demons forge and to a certain extent rage

#31 Posted by Zaxex (583 posts) -

Labelling yourself as a "true/real fan" is nonsense. Your opinion of the game is just that, your opinion. There's no entitlement here.

I hated the BF3 beta and have no intention of buying the game for that reason. Still, in the original post; you ask a rhetorical question, call someone else's similar criticisms wrong, flaunt your PC superiority, hate on the publisher of a series you profess to be a big big big fan of, call the last bastion of mainstream PC developers lazy-ass (the few on your side who aren't catering to the "console-kids"), call fans of some of the best recent games blind and the games in question "shockingly poor". I can't be bothered to go into the last two (longest) paragraphs.

Just go play something else, if there's anything else you don't hate. In that case read a book or something.

#32 Posted by Funkydupe (3311 posts) -

@Gav47 said:

Say what you want about Origin, but Battlelog easily beats Steam's stats component and is pretty easy to use as well.

I actually enjoyed the Browser /Joining servers. The game loads up minimized allowing you to surf around the web while waiting, and it gives you a message when to maximize it. When you do you're already in-game.

#33 Posted by Witzig (327 posts) -

@Zaxex said:

Labelling yourself as a "true/real fan" is nonsense. Your opinion of the game is just that, your opinion. There's no entitlement here.

I hated the BF3 beta and have no intention of buying the game for that reason. Still, in the original post; you ask a rhetorical question, call someone else's similar criticisms wrong, flaunt your PC superiority, hate on the publisher of a series you profess to be a big big big fan of, call the last bastion of mainstream PC developers lazy-ass (the few on your side who aren't catering to the "console-kids"), call fans of some of the best recent games blind and the games in question "shockingly poor". I can't be bothered to go into the last two (longest) paragraphs.

Just go play something else, if there's anything else you don't hate. In that case read a book or something.

Completely agree with sir, you have earned a following.

#34 Posted by Twisted_Scot (1177 posts) -

I don't know what you were expecting TBH. If you thought console versions were going to be as big and well done as PC then you were miss informed, if you honestly thought it was going to be a real BF2 game and not a tweaked BC game you should have known better and as for biggest disappointment? I have to go with the other posters and throw out Crysis 2, THAT game was a huge disappointment (at least for me).

#35 Posted by TaliciaDragonsong (8698 posts) -

Wait, wasn't *insert any other big title's name that already came out a lil while back* the disappointment of the year already?

#36 Edited by Hilikus (279 posts) -

I thought Dragon Age 2 was the disappointment of the year, wasn't that the consensus?

#37 Posted by Sputty (143 posts) -

@Hilikus said:

I thought Dragon Age 2 was the disappointment of the year

Most people forget DA2 exists until someone mentions it to them and then they're like "oh, yeah! what a piece of shit!"

#38 Posted by Funkydupe (3311 posts) -

DA2 was crap! Utterly.

They've managed to ruin Stronghold 3 as well. Both bigger disappointments than a good not awesome BF game.

#39 Posted by project343 (2817 posts) -

@Stingraymond: a) I like Battlelog a lot. So there's that.

b) with how EA likes to handle DLC, they cannot use Valve's platform to deliver their content. There are technical/policy reasons as to why nearly every EA game with DLC has been removed from Steam.

#40 Posted by wolf_blitzer85 (5254 posts) -
@Funkydupe said:

DA2 was crap! Utterly.

They've managed to ruin Stronghold 3 as well. Both bigger disappointments than a good not awesome BF game.

Aww really?
#41 Posted by matthias2437 (985 posts) -

@Herocide said:

@Chavtheworld said:

Wait a minute, did you just say Starcraft II is "shockingly poor quality?"

I didn't read past that cause anything else you said is clearly invalid.

YUP, same here.

Pretty much.

What I read from this article was pretty much "I don't like good things".

But to each his own.

#42 Posted by scarace360 (4828 posts) -

Eh i think they could have made the maps a bit bigger or at least spread the flags out a bit more.

#43 Edited by Funkydupe (3311 posts) -

@wolf_blitzer85 said:

@Funkydupe said:

DA2 was crap! Utterly.

They've managed to ruin Stronghold 3 as well. Both bigger disappointments than a good not awesome BF game.

Aww really?

- Terrible combat. I mean? Come on. It lacks life and most of all effort.

- UI what? UI where? This is how we're supposed to navigate and play the game. They should look into it, and you know, maybe try to make it compliment the game instead of working against it.

- Awfully outdated 3D graphics. They promised us a good looking Stronghold. What were they thinking.

- Feeble to non-existent physics

- Retarded AI

- They completely removed the Skirmish mode. The Player versus AI option.

- Bugs. Bugs. Oh and Bugs.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this of course. I really wanted this to be good, simply because there are no games like Stronghold anymore. Now I guess we know why. So when's Stronghold 4 coming, and what will they promise us?

Sorry for the slight digression. :)

#44 Posted by MoseSSesoM (235 posts) -

Stopped reading at "console kids", if you want to pretend to be relevant atleast try to do it with some class.

#45 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -
@Stingraymond said:

The game looks great and plays a lot like every battlefield game, but I wanted more, and any true battlefield fan would agree with me. The lazy ass mainstream PC game development is being taken to whole new levels lately, we get 10 year old games up-ressed and touted as the best things on the planet, Starcraft, Diablo, Battlefield, all they're doing is appealing to nostalgia and sadly on many of you it seems to work and you end up blind to the shockingly poor quality of some of these games.

Great first post. You, sir, are followed.
#46 Posted by Tesla (1918 posts) -

Poor first post if you ask me.

An old man's ramblings about console kids and how PC gamers are super elite, with a bit of criticism towards the most minor elements of BF3 thrown in for good measure. If you wouldn't have posted your age I would have never guessed. Grow up and critique something intelligently if that's what you want to do. This is just e-penis stroking at the thought of how much more sophisticated a gamer the OP is than all of us ignorant children.

#47 Posted by MikkaQ (10283 posts) -

Oh god there is so much wrong with the OP's post and none of it has to do with BF criticism.

I can't stand PC game elitists, they assume everyone has 1500$ to blow on a gaming PC and can't even conceive why someone would play something on a console. As the owner of every current console AND a fancy gaming PC, I can safely say there are experiences that work on PC and some that plain don't. Same goes for consoles.

#48 Edited by awe_stuck (800 posts) -

@MildMolasses said:

@Canteu said:

Modern Warfare (not CoD as a whole) has only been around for 4 years and are already up to the 4th game.

What? How is MW3 the fourth game?

You counting Black Ops, and WaW. OMG YES !!! You are my favorite person today. LOLLOLOL

Seriously though BF3 is a great game, if they made the SP twice as long you would not be able to complain. The SP was added to quench the thirst of the player, some people dont enjoy buying a game that is essentially bots in a warzone with some flimsy dialogue (BC2).

When I read reviews not enough enemies. I'm like fuck why is that. Cus in real war zones you cant kill 20 or 30 guys in 5 seconds using a riot shield....

BF2 was one of the best games i've ever played. MC2 had amazing multiplayer which I dominated at. MW2 was more fun then BF2 when I got killstreaks, but that game has huge issues. At least in BF2 theres a reason I failed. In MW2 its cus they thought giving olympic runners infinite running would be hilarious (it detracted from realism that they had a little of in CoD 4)... Obviously, a more arcade shooter. I havent played BF3, trust me I will add a rant and rave when I do.

I like battlelog. Its server system works fine once you get used to it, but everything else on it is great. BF3 did make a mistake not selling the game on Steam. No question about that. However, battlelog is pretty good. Considering I find play4free was shit. They have come quite a way. Origin isnt a bad system, its just they shouldnt force it on users. Nonetheless I had zero problems with it. It is a little annoying installing 3 programs for 1 game, but nonetheless no one who is playing 64 player games is going to complain long after all those programs are installed.

I'm sad I have to wait to get paid... I also have a gf so I cant just ditch her ass and play it with my bestfriend all day. Nonetheless, the only game I have ditched anything for was Halo 3. Not even CoD 4 made me miss a single class when it came out. Used to play HC HQ and rain killstreaks on the enemy all day long with full parties..

Anyway dont worry about EA they just bought the 2 original creators of Modern Warfare, gave them their own game studio with the 20 out of 26 IW employees that left after Zampelli (or, whatever) and that other guy got fired. Trust me EA is only gonna get better.

Take me to the Modern Warfare leader!

#49 Posted by Vinny_Says (5700 posts) -

@Stingraymond said:

If they ever want to rival CoD, not only do they have to make a game that actually works for all the console kids, but they can't go including so much crap like battlelog and no steam support for our great PC version.

Once again the master PC race has been betrayed by the filthy devs pandering to the sub-human console kids.

#50 Posted by TekZero (2671 posts) -

I don't know, the game looks alright. I might get it for myself at christmas.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.