EA worried about review scores?

  • 101 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Edited by mikey87144 (1806 posts) -

So Gamespot published in their under review blog that Battlefield's reviews won't start pooring in until after the games release. They said that EA will be giving them a review copy sometime next week, when the game will have been released. I know COD pretty much releases their reviews the day the game comes out but for Battlefield, I wonder if they are holding back reviews because of a lack of confidence in the final product.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6341065/battlefield-3-review-delayed?tag=siteblogs%3Btitle%3B2

Sorry for the hyperlink not working. Here is the link proper.

#2 Posted by amir90 (2178 posts) -

There was a bigger "scandal" when a few gaming review sites in Norway got a survey, where they asked are you a fan of call of duty, BF? Have you played battlefield before? Did you review it? What was the score?

Kinda, lols

#3 Posted by VisariLoyalist (3000 posts) -

I wouldn't pretend to understand their marketing strategy. Yeah that's all I have to say, and I don't think you understand it either. :P

#4 Posted by mosdl (3259 posts) -

@mikey87144 said:

So Gamespot published in their under review blog that Battlefield's reviews won't start pooring in until after the games release. They said that EA will be giving them a review copy sometime next week, when the game will have been released. I know COD pretty much releases their reviews the day the game comes out but for Battlefield, I wonder if they are holding back reviews because of a lack of confidence in the final product.

Another option is that they are going to wait to play the MP with real people at launch before publishing a review?

#5 Posted by NekuSakuraba (7184 posts) -

@mosdl said:

@mikey87144 said:

So Gamespot published in their under review blog that Battlefield's reviews won't start pooring in until after the games release. They said that EA will be giving them a review copy sometime next week, when the game will have been released. I know COD pretty much releases their reviews the day the game comes out but for Battlefield, I wonder if they are holding back reviews because of a lack of confidence in the final product.

Another option is that they are going to wait to play the MP with real people at launch before publishing a review?

Yeah, multiplayer is a big part of the game and I'd imagine they want the reviewers to experience it properly.

#6 Posted by tekmojo (2302 posts) -

There is a lot of information that they probably don't want to break embargo, such as the Dinosaur mode rumor.

#7 Posted by Jolt92 (1584 posts) -

Pretty sure it's because the game will suck total balls! MW3 FOR LIFE YO!

#8 Posted by drag (1206 posts) -

you could at least post the reasons given for doing this, or link to the original article.

which says, there is going to be a fairly hefty patch released on day 1 and they don't really want anyone to review the game without these changes in there.

which seems fine to me but i never was one for conspiracies. game is going to be good and review well.

#9 Edited by MetalMoog (908 posts) -

I always get worried when publishers put review embargos on their games. I look at it like if they have a quality product what have they afraid of? High scores sent out across the net will only increase sales at launch. If the game isn't going to be as good as it's been hyped up to be (RAGE) embargo makes perfect sense, low scores before launch will kill sales.

BF3 is the most over-hyped game of 2011 so it better be pulling perfect scores around the net or EA is in trouble.

Judging by the beta, I can see why the embargo is in place. I want this game to live up to mine and everyones insane expectations, but I really have my doubts.

#10 Edited by RuthLoose (836 posts) -

EA/Dice also probably recognize that there are some pretty huge discrepancies between the console and PC versions and thus want to allow websites time to give both their proper attention.

I am nearly 100% sure Giant Bomb will have Jeff review the PC version and possibly Brad or Drew review the console one with two separate scores.

This is EA's second biggest game (Star Wars: The Old Republic) to come out this year with thus far a much larger marketing budget.

#11 Posted by Zatoichi_Sanjuro (945 posts) -

They saw Geoff Keighley's vague tweet, and went to Defcon 1.

#12 Posted by groin (860 posts) -

Warner Brothers was confident enough to let Arkham City reviews sit on the front page of every website on the weekend before release. Most publishers end their review embargoes on launch day though. It is telling when EA will not send review copies until after the release date.

#13 Posted by Wuddel (2100 posts) -

The game will get a hit for the singleplayer. Because you can not make a good "conventional" modern military shooter single player campaign anymore in 2011. CoD can maybe get away with anything because they will close their trilogy. No matter how good the MP is. Called it. Doesn't really matter to me. Pre-order stands.

#14 Posted by SomeJerk (3393 posts) -

This is standard publisher behaviour.

 
 Sorry to break your innocent world apart :(
#15 Posted by Jeff (3670 posts) -

@MetalMoog said:

I always get worried when publishers put review embargos on their games.

Wow, so you're worried about every single game that gets sent out for review ahead of its release date? That must be exhausting.

You should instead focus your worries onto games that don't get sent out for review ahead of their release date. Sort of like bad movies not getting screened for critics, we're seeing more and more cases of bad games (or at least games that publishers aren't confident about) being "mysteriously lost in the mail" and other stuff like that.

Not that BF3 falls into that camp. They're being pretty upfront about it not showing up in a timely manner, which is oddly refreshing yet deeply troubling for a release of this magnitude. Games that release on this sort of scale are usually done well in advance. Instead everyone's talking about rumored certification failures and (also rumored) massive launch day patches. Someone, someday could probably write a fairly interesting book about the development of Battlefield 3. There are still one or two more twists left in the story, though.

Staff
#16 Posted by thornie_delete (436 posts) -
@Jeff: The plot thickens!  
#17 Posted by Knetic2341 (243 posts) -

I'm just sad that they really have to worry about the metascore, because there IS that kind of market who only looks at that to see if it is or is not a good game.

#18 Edited by Vorbis (2750 posts) -

Reviews released ahead of release date just get accused of paid reviews anyway. They can't win.

#19 Posted by mikey87144 (1806 posts) -

@Jeff said:

@MetalMoog said:

I always get worried when publishers put review embargos on their games.

Wow, so you're worried about every single game that gets sent out for review ahead of its release date? That must be exhausting.

You should instead focus your worries onto games that don't get sent out for review ahead of their release date. Sort of like bad movies not getting screened for critics, we're seeing more and more cases of bad games (or at least games that publishers aren't confident about) being "mysteriously lost in the mail" and other stuff like that.

Not that BF3 falls into that camp. They're being pretty upfront about it not showing up in a timely manner, which is oddly refreshing yet deeply troubling for a release of this magnitude. Games that release on this sort of scale are usually done well in advance. Instead everyone's talking about rumored certification failures and (also rumored) massive launch day patches. Someone, someday could probably write a fairly interesting book about the development of Battlefield 3. There are still one or two more twists left in the story, though.

That's been my worry about the game. AAA games usually arrive 2-3 weeks in advance for reviewers. For example, I think you guys recently got the review copies for Uncharted 3, you guys had Batman for a while, and while COD does embargo the review for their games until the release date, you guys are given ample time to review the game before hand. Like you said though, for a game this big and a game this hyped, the fact that they recently held an event for the game last week and the review copies aren't in has me worried.

I also say this as a person who loved past Battlefield games and have pre-ordered both the PC and PS3 version.

#20 Posted by Swoxx (3008 posts) -

@NekuSakuraba said:

@mosdl said:

@mikey87144 said:

So Gamespot published in their under review blog that Battlefield's reviews won't start pooring in until after the games release. They said that EA will be giving them a review copy sometime next week, when the game will have been released. I know COD pretty much releases their reviews the day the game comes out but for Battlefield, I wonder if they are holding back reviews because of a lack of confidence in the final product.

Another option is that they are going to wait to play the MP with real people at launch before publishing a review?

Yeah, multiplayer is a big part of the game and I'd imagine they want the reviewers to experience it properly.

I'd say this is the most reasonable explanation as well.

#21 Posted by RsistncE (4496 posts) -

@groin said:

Warner Brothers was confident enough to let Arkham City reviews sit on the front page of every website on the weekend before release. Most publishers end their review embargoes on launch day though. It is telling when EA will not send review copies until after the release date.

Possibly. Or it could be that Battlefield 3 is a multiplayer centric game and to get even close to any kind of an objective review you'd need to experience it in the real world playing against other people.

BITCH

ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)

Y U SAY STUPID SHIT?

#22 Posted by Th3_James (2579 posts) -

I am still pissed off i will have to use Origin to play this.

#23 Edited by EnchantedEcho (740 posts) -

@Jeff: Isn't this generally the way EA PR operates anyway? I rarely get early review copies from them, then again, I live in Australia so that may skew things.

#24 Edited by StrainedEyes (1333 posts) -

As long as at least 64 people (less for console versions) , including devs, are playing online before release day, then that should be all that's required to review the multiplayer.

Online
#25 Posted by groin (860 posts) -

@RsistncE said:

@groin said:

Warner Brothers was confident enough to let Arkham City reviews sit on the front page of every website on the weekend before release. Most publishers end their review embargoes on launch day though. It is telling when EA will not send review copies until after the release date.

Possibly. Or it could be that Battlefield 3 is a multiplayer centric game and to get even close to any kind of an objective review you'd need to experience it in the real world playing against other people.

BITCH

ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)

Y U SAY STUPID SHIT?

I know you're a young man but do not be ignorant. That wasn't an issue for any Call of Duty game. Gears of War 3, Killzone 3, Resistance, Halo: Reach, and etc, were given to reviewers ahead of the release date. Uncharted 3 is in reviewer hands right now.

#26 Posted by CrimsonNoir (403 posts) -

I already played and enjoyed the beta, so I will at least like it as much as previous battlefield/bad company games.m Shit, BF2 didn't even have single player, so the campaign sucking doesn't bother me.

#27 Edited by Seppli (10250 posts) -

BF3, I think, is a 'just in time' production and it definitely isn't going to be 'done' at release. That's mostly a good thing for me, since I look forward take the journey that is BF3 MP and grow with the game all the way to whatever BF game comes next. I hope EA/DICE keep the downside of BF3 being 'just in time' at a tolerable level. I'm certain BF3's competitive multiplayer will be my go-to game, that much the beta has made clear despite its countless bugs and glitches.

I can see how EA is afraid of 'political' reviews punishing BF3 for it's 'me too' CoD'ish campaign and being 'generic/authentic military' to begin with. Antagonizing review outlets sure doesn't help them with that though. Don't know why EA keeps on doing that. I still believe the only way to review games like CoD and Battlefield, which are multiplayer affairs first and foremost, is to score both SP/co-op and competitive MP separately. Like the German version of GameStar did for BF:BC 2. They gave SP a 69/100 and MP 90/100. A lower 'generalized' review score wouldn't have been representative for a majority of BF players, because we mostly care about MP. I totally agree with that modus operandi.

That said, I much rather get Battlefield games at DICE's pace (just in time), rather than Blizzard's approach to game design (when it's ready, once every 10 years). DICE is an astounding development house. BF3 will turn out to be a masterpiece despite being on a tight schedule. I think this practice will fly, because this type of FPS games are bound to be a service. I'm sure that's the angle they're working and that's how this production does come together.

#28 Edited by Franstone (1156 posts) -

As clearly stated in the article...

Battlefield 3 is going to have a day 1 patch.

Games go "gold" weeks if not a month before their release to be prepaired for a retail launch. (CDs being pressed, retail packaging printed.)

That means within those weeks or month since their gold submission the developer works hard at crushing any remaining bugs that they can.

The developer does not want the review to be based on old code, they want it reviewed based on the final product that we will all be playing after the day 1 patch.

Pretty cut and dry if you ask me...

Edit: This is what id should have done to avoid all the headaches it created with it's community.

Instead they f'd up and patched on day 6.

This takes place with EVERY game. Some companies make it more transparent than others.

#29 Posted by thechronodarkness (294 posts) -

Have to realize one thing mate, if the beta was any indication, the game needs LOTS of optimization done to it. Not the netcode, but the framerate and graphics themselves were not exactly, great. This is EAs big fall blockbuster, and having it delayed until next spring wouldn't look good on the financial reports.

Dice is working all the way to the last minute to finish the game, and probably has many sleepless nights from this past month working on it. I'm sure the final product will turn out fine, as dice is a trusted developer, but I have a feeling they are working harder on bf3 than they have on any game before it, just to meet deadline. Like, right now, if a game was supposed to be released next tuesday? Most stores probably would have already had the game in a security room for a few weeks now. They probably won't get the game until this weekend at the earliest, or maybe on monday day/nights shipment.

Really isn't going to be, game went gold! Its more like, we've done all we could do before d-day, ship this thing out and sell it!

#30 Posted by wh1terav3n (661 posts) -

@Jeff: I did see on twitter a few minutes ago that they are currently playing the retail 360 version of BF3 at DICE. But the fact that they are posting this NOW, with less than a week to go is...deeply troubling. I know the beta for BF3 was 2 months out of ship code, but nevertheless, that was alpha, not beta. With the amount of glitches in it, to compare it to something like the Reach beta (which was a beta, not a demo), it's shocking the difference. I'm picking it up day one, but only because I know that they will patch the hell out of it. Still, there is a little part of me that is terrified that this game will be broken as all hell.

#31 Edited by RsistncE (4496 posts) -

@groin said:

@RsistncE said:

@groin said:

Warner Brothers was confident enough to let Arkham City reviews sit on the front page of every website on the weekend before release. Most publishers end their review embargoes on launch day though. It is telling when EA will not send review copies until after the release date.

Possibly. Or it could be that Battlefield 3 is a multiplayer centric game and to get even close to any kind of an objective review you'd need to experience it in the real world playing against other people.

BITCH

ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)

Y U SAY STUPID SHIT?

I know you're a young man but do not be ignorant. That wasn't an issue for any Call of Duty game. Gears of War 3, Killzone 3, Resistance, Halo: Reach, and etc, were given to reviewers ahead of the release date. Uncharted 3 is in reviewer hands right now.

Of course it wasn't because they literally sent a copy out to every reviewer. There's really only two choices with multiplayer centric games, and that is either send them out to everyone, or don't send them out at all, since you'll need a reasonable number of reviewers online so that everyone can actually find a game to play in. Additionally, the reason Activision sent the game out for day 1 reviews is so that the reviewers would get to play online while encountering a very light load of players, resulting in a really good experience as opposed to release day where the sheer number of players going online would make first week gameplay pretty shit. Either way, there's a variety of explanations, but assuming that the worst one is the one that is true is kinda stupid.

#32 Posted by mosdl (3259 posts) -

@wh1terav3n said:

@Jeff: I did see on twitter a few minutes ago that they are currently playing the retail 360 version of BF3 at DICE. But the fact that they are posting this NOW, with less than a week to go is...deeply troubling. I know the beta for BF3 was 2 months out of ship code, but nevertheless, that was alpha, not beta. With the amount of glitches in it, to compare it to something like the Reach beta (which was a beta, not a demo), it's shocking the difference. I'm picking it up day one, but only because I know that they will patch the hell out of it. Still, there is a little part of me that is terrified that this game will be broken as all hell.

There have several events where the public was able to play the MP game recently (the Nvidia Lan event for example) and I haven't seen any reports of major issues.

#33 Edited by chilibean_3 (1697 posts) -

@groin said:

@RsistncE said:

@groin said:

Warner Brothers was confident enough to let Arkham City reviews sit on the front page of every website on the weekend before release. Most publishers end their review embargoes on launch day though. It is telling when EA will not send review copies until after the release date.

Possibly. Or it could be that Battlefield 3 is a multiplayer centric game and to get even close to any kind of an objective review you'd need to experience it in the real world playing against other people.

BITCH

ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)

Y U SAY STUPID SHIT?

I know you're a young man but do not be ignorant. That wasn't an issue for any Call of Duty game. Gears of War 3, Killzone 3, Resistance, Halo: Reach, and etc, were given to reviewers ahead of the release date. Uncharted 3 is in reviewer hands right now.

Yeah. This is kind of a crazy attempt to explain away not letting reviewers get an early look at it. All kinds of games with heavy multiplayer components get in reviewers hands before release. Reviewers play against other reviewers, ya'll The seemingly more likely explanation is that it's still very busted and they want that day one patch in there before anyone writes the reviews. Even though this is all speculations and rumor there is no way I'm buying this game before getting some feedback from reviewers and friends.

Man, this release has been a great example of embarrassing marketing.

#34 Posted by Salesmunn (82 posts) -

@mikey87144 said:

@Jeff said:

@MetalMoog said:

I always get worried when publishers put review embargos on their games.

Wow, so you're worried about every single game that gets sent out for review ahead of its release date? That must be exhausting.

You should instead focus your worries onto games that don't get sent out for review ahead of their release date. Sort of like bad movies not getting screened for critics, we're seeing more and more cases of bad games (or at least games that publishers aren't confident about) being "mysteriously lost in the mail" and other stuff like that.

Not that BF3 falls into that camp. They're being pretty upfront about it not showing up in a timely manner, which is oddly refreshing yet deeply troubling for a release of this magnitude. Games that release on this sort of scale are usually done well in advance. Instead everyone's talking about rumored certification failures and (also rumored) massive launch day patches. Someone, someday could probably write a fairly interesting book about the development of Battlefield 3. There are still one or two more twists left in the story, though.

That's been my worry about the game. AAA games usually arrive 2-3 weeks in advance for reviewers. For example, I think you guys recently got the review copies for Uncharted 3, you guys had Batman for a while, and while COD does embargo the review for their games until the release date, you guys are given ample time to review the game before hand. Like you said though, for a game this big and a game this hyped, the fact that they recently held an event for the game last week and the review copies aren't in has me worried.

I also say this as a person who loved past Battlefield games and have pre-ordered both the PC and PS3 version.

I'm somewhat surprised they decided to roll this game out so late in the life of these consoles. It's obvious that the age of the current gen consoles is causing developers some grief.

Then again, it could be 1.5 to 2 years before we see "PS4" or "Xbox 3" so that's plenty of time for an equally regurgitated Battlefield 4...

#35 Edited by Seppli (10250 posts) -

@thechronodarkness said:

Have to realize one thing mate, if the beta was any indication, the game needs LOTS of optimization done to it. Not the netcode, but the framerate and graphics themselves were not exactly, great. This is EAs big fall blockbuster, and having it delayed until next spring wouldn't look good on the financial reports.

Dice is working all the way to the last minute to finish the game, and probably has many sleepless nights from this past month working on it. I'm sure the final product will turn out fine, as dice is a trusted developer, but I have a feeling they are working harder on bf3 than they have on any game before it, just to meet deadline. Like, right now, if a game was supposed to be released next tuesday? Most stores probably would have already had the game in a security room for a few weeks now. They probably won't get the game until this weekend at the earliest, or maybe on monday day/nights shipment.

Really isn't going to be, game went gold! Its more like, we've done all we could do before d-day, ship this thing out and sell it!

Actually, crunch time is over at DICE (at least that's the impression I'm getting from folling some dev twitters via a newsfeed). The latest builds shown a the Nvidia event (Gfore Lan 6) and other events were almost completely bug and glitch free. They've done it. Got ready for release 'just in time'.

Crazy dedicated people at DICE.

#36 Posted by RsistncE (4496 posts) -

@chilibean_3 said:

@groin said:

@RsistncE said:

@groin said:

Warner Brothers was confident enough to let Arkham City reviews sit on the front page of every website on the weekend before release. Most publishers end their review embargoes on launch day though. It is telling when EA will not send review copies until after the release date.

Possibly. Or it could be that Battlefield 3 is a multiplayer centric game and to get even close to any kind of an objective review you'd need to experience it in the real world playing against other people.

BITCH

ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)

Y U SAY STUPID SHIT?

I know you're a young man but do not be ignorant. That wasn't an issue for any Call of Duty game. Gears of War 3, Killzone 3, Resistance, Halo: Reach, and etc, were given to reviewers ahead of the release date. Uncharted 3 is in reviewer hands right now.

Yeah. This is kind of a crazy attempt to explain away not letting reviewers get an early look at it. All kinds of games with heavy multiplayer components get in reviewers hands before release. Reviewers play against other reviews, ya'll The seemingly more likely explanation is that it's still very busted and they want that day one patch in there before anyone writes the reviews. Even though this is all speculations and rumor there is no way I'm buying this game before getting some feedback from reviewers and friends.

Man, this release has been a great example of embarrassing marketing.

Read my response to his ignorant post. There are many possible reasons that the game isn't being sent out for a day 1 review. Assuming that the it's the worst case scenario is dumb. I imagine the real reason is that there's a day 1 patch, since that would make the most sense. However, it could be anything.

#37 Edited by Seppli (10250 posts) -

@RsistncE said:

@chilibean_3 said:

@groin said:

@RsistncE said:

@groin said:

Warner Brothers was confident enough to let Arkham City reviews sit on the front page of every website on the weekend before release. Most publishers end their review embargoes on launch day though. It is telling when EA will not send review copies until after the release date.

Possibly. Or it could be that Battlefield 3 is a multiplayer centric game and to get even close to any kind of an objective review you'd need to experience it in the real world playing against other people.

BITCH

ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)

Y U SAY STUPID SHIT?

I know you're a young man but do not be ignorant. That wasn't an issue for any Call of Duty game. Gears of War 3, Killzone 3, Resistance, Halo: Reach, and etc, were given to reviewers ahead of the release date. Uncharted 3 is in reviewer hands right now.

Yeah. This is kind of a crazy attempt to explain away not letting reviewers get an early look at it. All kinds of games with heavy multiplayer components get in reviewers hands before release. Reviewers play against other reviews, ya'll The seemingly more likely explanation is that it's still very busted and they want that day one patch in there before anyone writes the reviews. Even though this is all speculations and rumor there is no way I'm buying this game before getting some feedback from reviewers and friends.

Man, this release has been a great example of embarrassing marketing.

Read my response to his ignorant post. There are many possible reasons that the game isn't being sent out for a day 1 review. Assuming that the it's the worst case scenario is dumb. I imagine the real reason is that there's a day 1 patch, since that would make the most sense. However, it could be anything.

Pure assumption. IGN's gonna have a review up on Friday. Guess some major outlets don't do early reviews for multiplayer centric games (Gamespot) and EA doesn't want to give out review copies to outlets that aren't inherently about being positive. I'm sure if you wanted to rape BF3, you'd find ways to legitimize that approach to it. Mostly by weighing SP heavily and ripping it for being a script-fest.

I say BF3 scores will range from 7-9.5, maybe even a couple of perfect 10s. There will be some who'll rip it, maybe even tear it apart. Unjustily so. Political or attention-whoring reviews those are.

#38 Posted by RsistncE (4496 posts) -

@Seppli said:

@RsistncE said:

@chilibean_3 said:

@groin said:

@RsistncE said:

@groin said:

Warner Brothers was confident enough to let Arkham City reviews sit on the front page of every website on the weekend before release. Most publishers end their review embargoes on launch day though. It is telling when EA will not send review copies until after the release date.

Possibly. Or it could be that Battlefield 3 is a multiplayer centric game and to get even close to any kind of an objective review you'd need to experience it in the real world playing against other people.

BITCH

ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)

Y U SAY STUPID SHIT?

I know you're a young man but do not be ignorant. That wasn't an issue for any Call of Duty game. Gears of War 3, Killzone 3, Resistance, Halo: Reach, and etc, were given to reviewers ahead of the release date. Uncharted 3 is in reviewer hands right now.

Yeah. This is kind of a crazy attempt to explain away not letting reviewers get an early look at it. All kinds of games with heavy multiplayer components get in reviewers hands before release. Reviewers play against other reviews, ya'll The seemingly more likely explanation is that it's still very busted and they want that day one patch in there before anyone writes the reviews. Even though this is all speculations and rumor there is no way I'm buying this game before getting some feedback from reviewers and friends.

Man, this release has been a great example of embarrassing marketing.

Read my response to his ignorant post. There are many possible reasons that the game isn't being sent out for a day 1 review. Assuming that the it's the worst case scenario is dumb. I imagine the real reason is that there's a day 1 patch, since that would make the most sense. However, it could be anything.

Pure assumption. IGN's gonna have a review up on Friday. Guess some major outlets don't do early reviews for multiplayer centric games (Gamespot) and EA doesn't want to give out review copies to outlets that aren't inherently about being positive. I'm sure if you wanted to rape BF3, you'd find ways to legitimize that approach to it. Mostly by weighing SP heavily and ripping it for being a script-fest.

I say BF3 scores will range from 7-9.5, maybe even a couple of perfect 10s. There will be some who'll rip it, maybe even tear it apart. Unjustily so. Political or attention-whoring reviews those are.

Which is exactly what I said: we're all speculating. At the end of the day I'm not assuming that it's a best case scenario and anyone that assumes it's a worse case scenario should probably rethink their position. Unless one of you guys work for DICE or EA, it's all just guesses.

#39 Edited by Jams (2966 posts) -

@Seppli: @RsistncE: I'm gonna hijack this thread for a second and say that you're two avatars are hilariously similar.

#40 Edited by evilrazer (496 posts) -

There are so many promo videos, interviews, articles and previews of this game on the internet right now and they are spawning so fast and frequently that I'm sick of it now. Don't want to diss the game and I have pre-ordered it already, but I'm not a big fan of heavy and intrusive marketing.

#41 Posted by RsistncE (4496 posts) -

@Jams: Huh? What are you talkin...

#42 Edited by emem (1974 posts) -

What if DICE/EA is playing everyone by acting like they "barely" made it so that people are expecting a half done game? ;)

What I'm trying to say here: None "of us" knows what's going on there and thinking about it can cause mental pain, so... don't hurt yourselves.

#43 Posted by mikey87144 (1806 posts) -

@emem said:

What if DICE/EA is playing everyone by acting like they "barely" made it so that people are expecting a half done game? ;)

What I'm trying to say here: None "of us" knows what's going on there and thinking about it can cause mental pain, so... don't hurt yourselves.

That doesn't work. If you ship a half done game you get reviews that reflect that.

#44 Posted by RsistncE (4496 posts) -

@emem said:

What if DICE/EA is playing everyone by acting like they "barely" made it so that people are expecting a half done game? ;)

What I'm trying to say here: None "of us" knows what's going on there and thinking about it can cause mental pain, so... don't hurt yourselves.

Finally someone in here that has some common sense.

#45 Posted by Hailinel (25205 posts) -

@emem said:

What if DICE/EA is playing everyone by acting like they "barely" made it so that people are expecting a half done game? ;)

What I'm trying to say here: None "of us" knows what's going on there and thinking about it can cause mental pain, so... don't hurt yourselves.

Then that would be the worst PR stunt that they could pull. When launching a game, you don't want to give the impression that it's unfinished or busted. That's just stupid.

#46 Posted by TaliciaDragonsong (8607 posts) -

Ha, EA.

#47 Posted by RsistncE (4496 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

@emem said:

What if DICE/EA is playing everyone by acting like they "barely" made it so that people are expecting a half done game? ;)

What I'm trying to say here: None "of us" knows what's going on there and thinking about it can cause mental pain, so... don't hurt yourselves.

Then that would be the worst PR stunt that they could pull. When launching a game, you don't want to give the impression that it's unfinished or busted. That's just stupid.

I'm assuming he was being sarcastic about the first part, hence the "wink". And the fact that he pretty clearly is just using that as a setup to prove his point.

#48 Posted by RandomInternetUser (6789 posts) -

This won't change the fact that I'll have an absolute blast with this game even if all the problems from the beta are still there, which I bet will be significantly reduced.

#49 Posted by JasonR86 (9728 posts) -

@Jeff said:

@MetalMoog said:

I always get worried when publishers put review embargos on their games.

Wow, so you're worried about every single game that gets sent out for review ahead of its release date? That must be exhausting.

You should instead focus your worries onto games that don't get sent out for review ahead of their release date. Sort of like bad movies not getting screened for critics, we're seeing more and more cases of bad games (or at least games that publishers aren't confident about) being "mysteriously lost in the mail" and other stuff like that.

Not that BF3 falls into that camp. They're being pretty upfront about it not showing up in a timely manner, which is oddly refreshing yet deeply troubling for a release of this magnitude. Games that release on this sort of scale are usually done well in advance. Instead everyone's talking about rumored certification failures and (also rumored) massive launch day patches. Someone, someday could probably write a fairly interesting book about the development of Battlefield 3. There are still one or two more twists left in the story, though.

Regardless of the reason, the fact that it isn't already in the hands of reviewers is a bit worrisome.

#50 Posted by squirrelnacho (332 posts) -

It's probably because the console multiplayer will not be very good with only 24 players on those big maps. They console version probably won't be received as well as the PC version.

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.