How will this game be reviewed?
"All new games that look nice, get top scores" mentality?
There is a "3" at the end of the title, which means "look back at the previous versions".
If you look back at 1942... was there any other game out there with massive maps and war on a grand scale? Was DICE trying to mimic another game? How about with BF2? These are questions that should be answered in a review I think of BF3.
With BF3, it seems like they left the playing field. Battlefield 3 is just a name that has root to a past style. If you can accept this, then you must agree EA are just using the name to get sales for a product that has moved on to an altered path. You know how some movie commercials go? "From the emmy award-winning director of XYZ, comes... dun dun dun... BLA, BLA, BLA!!" . In the common folk's mind "OMG, he made XYZ... aaaaaa!!... I'm going to go watch BLA BLA BLA too!!! OMG OMG"... Battlefield 3 is just trying to strike a cord with the past, it seems, so that people will buy it even though it has moved on from its past. It's a common strategy, it must be working.
People will argue "oh those dumb people feel they've been betrayed by DICE, how stupid". I think the 'betrayed ones' are saying "DICE told us the sky was blue and now DICE are saying the sky is green". Following this example there are many people who don't mind 'moving on' and forgetting that the sky was blue[1942, BF2, etc..], they are content with accepting that the sky is green[BF3 with a COD twist] now; they even go to lengths to attack people who still believe the sky is/was/should still blue.
I'd say I'm one of the people sticking with the 'sky is blue', but I don't feel 'betrayed'. I think EA changed up the game style because from their "telemetry data" <-- hehe --- they have found that it will give them more business, more money. I bet many of the developers at EA don't even like their game a lot, they just play it to make sure the game follows the specific "formula", the recipe if you will, that will allow them to reap loot from the masses.
Anyway.... I think if reviewers look at BF3, without looking at the past TOO MUCH, they'll say BF3 is excellent. Graphically BF3 is better than the past (it should be, right?) and it seems immersively evolved with respect to audio than the past.
But will reviewers have their attention to the gameplay of the past? Will they observe how the past Battlefield games had large open areas with massive battles; planes carpet bombing targets where you could hear the bombs scream as they approached their target; planes attacking ground targets; ground forces fearing aircraft; air vs ground; ground vs air; ground vs sea; sea vs ground; etc, etc... Battlefield 3, however, is a more consolidated experience now. It's apparently not that vast anymore, though it seems as if it could be; but it's not. Will the reviewers identify this? or will they just glaze over the past and head over to comparing it against other modern shooters.
Reviewers should reach back into the recent past to bring forward some differences with respect to the original Battlefield games. BF3 attempts to mimic COD and TF2 styles of gameplay, frequent deaths; lack of organization; many rewards [like psychological reinforcement or something]; and just mindless interactions.
[[[[[ A side comment/observation
I'm sure you guys remember in the past people would say "If you release map packs DLC, it will divide the community." You remember that? In fact I think EA has already 'divided the community' by releasing BF3 with the same name across ALL platforms. This means that whether you play on console or PC, gameplay wise, you should all have more or less the same experience. This division enters because dedicated console players have PCs, they will enter the fray and say "no you elitist PC user, the console gameplay is better; larger maps are boring".
It created a lop-sided wedge in the favor of the console players. You may read this and this and think "you are PC elitist". I feel you neglect various things, but one item in particular that is neglected is the hand the large corporate powerhouse Microsoft has in all of this. They have many billions of dollars and companies that make game for the X360 make many millions in sales. In order to publish a game on the Xbox console the game must meet certain accessibility guidelines and what not... In essence, Microsoft is defining gaming, and possibly Sony too, but mainly Microsoft. You make a game "fit" into Microsoft's standards, what are you going to do? redevelop it without those requirements for the PC? Hell no. Why waste money on that. You want to make money and thus a product that is portable. This is the reasoning. Going out of one's way to please a handful is not worth it, with their mindset.
If you look at VG charts, their pre-order chart shows barely 150,000 PC pre-orders for BF3. Some say that it is incomplete data. Give it 250,000? 300,000? for PC... that's still nothing compared to the almost 1million for X360 alone. "PC lead" my ass, who gives a shit about PC players today? Small developers. The big players want to diversify. You can't economically diversity if you make a game dedicated for the PC. I guess it's the natural path or something. When you were a kid, you rode a bicycle; you grew up and now you drive a car. It doesn't have to be that way though, you can still ride a bicycle all the time rather than a car. But they chose a car because that's what their business needs require, apparently. ]]]]
Log in to comment