Mageman

@kingando420 said:

@Mageman said:

@kingando420 said:

@Video_Game_King said:

@kingando420 said:

On top of this, alot of reviewers (I'm looking at you Jeff) seem to resent the game due to EA's obnoxious marketing strategy and the way that they have treated review copies.

The fact that the game is still getting reasonably high review scores is a testament to how strong the multiplayer is.

"A lot of reviewers really hate the game. It's a good thing it's getting high marks from reviewers." You may wish to word that more carefully.

Sigh, I think that you are being a little pedantic but ok I will explain this for you......

The game has scored relatively highly because most reviewers 'have' in fact chosen to ignore the single player. Some (see Destructoid) have not. If this game had been released as a pure multiplayer game, like BF2 was, I think that it would have universal praise and higher scores than it currently has.

Even the higher scoring reviews are extremely negative in tone for the most part, Jeff comments on this in the bombcast. Also alot of the buzz surrounding the game is extremely negative at the moment. This is all because of the tutorial (single player) and EA's marketing strategy/review copy policy.

Judging by Jeffs open negativity towards the game on the bombcast and in the quick look I expect that he will take the Destructoid route.

You see, but if you use this ''system'' then Games like Assassin's Creed II are ''objectively shit'' and should not even get above 50% because they don't even HAVE multiplayer. At least BF3 has a ''shitty'' single player, and something > 0.

I'm not sure if you have miss understood me or If you are agreeing with me. Using your example, I suggest that if Assassin's Creed II had a really poor multiplayer bundled in that it may actually receive a lower score overall.

I was agreeing with you, and yes if Assassin's Creed II had a poor multi player implemented in it it should not have received a lower score. But it would, yes, that is the point. It's wrong to view the whole package, pure and simple.

@kingopork said:

@Mageman: You aren't making much sense anymore. Some games have multiplayer modes that are pointless additions. Then the MP usually barely touches the score. It's on how it's advertised mainly. If Assassin's Creed Brotherhood's multi was mediocre, it wouldn't have been a huge deal to reviewers. Mainly because the game advertises itself based on it's SP content. I know you don't like replying to me, mainly because you'd have to admit that EA advertised it 90% of the time in it's SP form.

Brotherhood's multi was heavily advertised. I didn't really care for how BF3 was advertised because I mostly cared about the mp gameplay footage (like you know, 99% of the Battlefield fanbase). Advertisements should still have no real influence on the judgement of a product.

@slightconfuse said:

@Mageman said:

I am pissed that it could in some cases somehow affect the verdict yes. Not because I own the game, not because I care so much because of Battlefield 3, but because it's wrong. Again, should Assassin's Creed II be considered a bad game because it has NO multi player ?

But it's not a multi player game, it doesn't need a multi player !

It's the same and opposite for Battlefield 3

Thats the most flawed thing i ever heard. IF assassin creed 2 had a shit multiplayer, reviews should call it out. Evaluating the whole package is a reviews job. Leaving things out is a bad practice. the truth is BF3 has a single player and multiplayer and both need to be examined fully. saying one half of the game does not count is crazy talk.

Well it has no multi player, reviewers should have called THAT out according to your logic.

@Sammo21 said:

@Mageman: A flaw in the system? Who cares if DICE didn't want to make it (I haven't read any interviews saying they DIDNT want to make it...as I said the last 2 games with BATTLEFIELD in the title have had a single player campaign as did Mirror's Edge...a DICE game), the single player is part of the game and game reviewers review what? The game...again, your choice of words and tone indicate you are just pissed the game isn't getting a specific score for the hell of it. If a car manufacturer makes a decent car but the automatic seats are fucked, don't move properly, and are uncomfortable why would that not factor into a final review of the car? You bring it on yourself. "Anti-fanboys" aren't "anti-fanboys", we are just gamers who don't understand irrational "logic" and the defense force mentality.

I haven't seen a reviewer yet "bash" the single player, but critique and say "the single player is a poor experience but the multiplayer is awesome". If that ruffles your feathers then you have more than just a problem with Battlefield 3 reviews to work on. A game reviewer reviewing a game isn't bashing. Show proof, quotable proof, of a reviewer "bashing" the single player and we'll talk.

I am pissed that it could in some cases somehow affect the verdict yes. Not because I own the game, not because I care so much because of Battlefield 3, but because it's wrong. Again, should Assassin's Creed II be considered a bad game because it has NO multi player ?

But it's not a multi player game, it doesn't need a multi player !

It's the same and opposite for Battlefield 3

But BF 3 has a single player, and it's not so good, and it is part of the game, so it should affect it !

By such reasoning the fact that x single player game does not have multi player, that should affect it also in a negative way. At least

BF3 has a mediocre single player instead of having no single player.

@kingando420 said:

@Video_Game_King said:

@kingando420 said:

On top of this, alot of reviewers (I'm looking at you Jeff) seem to resent the game due to EA's obnoxious marketing strategy and the way that they have treated review copies.

The fact that the game is still getting reasonably high review scores is a testament to how strong the multiplayer is.

"A lot of reviewers really hate the game. It's a good thing it's getting high marks from reviewers." You may wish to word that more carefully.

Sigh, I think that you are being a little pedantic but ok I will explain this for you......

The game has scored relatively highly because most reviewers 'have' in fact chosen to ignore the single player. Some (see Destructoid) have not. If this game had been released as a pure multiplayer game, like BF2 was, I think that it would have universal praise and higher scores than it currently has.

Even the higher scoring reviews are extremely negative in tone for the most part, Jeff comments on this in the bombcast. Also alot of the buzz surrounding the game is extremely negative at the moment. This is all because of the tutorial (single player) and EA's marketing strategy/review copy policy.

Judging by Jeffs open negativity towards the game on the bombcast and in the quick look I expect that he will take the Destructoid route.

You see, but if you use this ''system'' then Games like Assassin's Creed II are ''objectively shit'' and should not even get above 50% because they don't even HAVE multiplayer. At least BF3 has a ''shitty'' single player, and something > 0.

@Sammo21 said:

Apparently you feel you have a dog in this hunt as a review score and how the reviewer performed that review really have no bearing on you as you clearly were going to buy this game either way.

Just because its a part of the game you feel in negligible doesn't make it so. Battlefield 3 has a single player and it has a multiplayer; it means you review the product's part but the product's whole. DICE shouldn't have made the single player if they didn't want to be judged on it. Yes, Battlefield has been known as a multiplayer only studio in the past (until Bad Company and Mirror's Edge) but they decided to do a single player...and they did...and they kind of failed.

I don't know if you think this is mean, but get over it. The review doesn't matter to you as you obviously already own the game and are either upset over the reviews as it is contrary to your opinion or feel that the review is going to skew someone else's opinion and they may not buy the game. Considering MANY people on consoles and PC alike buy shooters for the single player as well as the multiplayer I feel its a tad dumb just to ignore large parts of the game just because.

I have not bought the game yet, don't make such assumptions please. DICE and their product do not want to be judged on single player, EA pushed them into making this crap and DICE quickly made some crap and stuck it on just so it could get it's game (Battlefield 3 - Multiplayer) out. If reviewers bash it for the use of battle log that is completely fine, I do not care about the score.

But yeah, a guy points out a flaw in the system and he gets a ton of self righteous ''anti-fanboys'' raping him. Fuck

@chilibean_3 said:

@Mageman: Your "judging a movie by trailers/popcorn" comparison makes absolutely none sense. It's more like judging a movie based on all of it's acts instead of just the final, climactic act.

Well you can turn this, twist it around, expand it etc, and in the end we won't agree. But consider the following for fun if not anything else multi player is the core of the Battlefield experience. And a movie is the core of a movie going experience. You don't just pay for the movie, you also pay for the time you sit in x place etc. It's the same way you also pay for the single player, but it should not be the thing to review.

@tourgen said:

@Mageman:

a) single player is part of the game so we are not "fooling ourselves" by pretending it's not. Actually, precisely the opposite.

b) you are free to ignore any part of the review that you please. However the reviewer should review the full game.

c) I get the feeling you are more concerned with the review scores than the actual review.

a) In Battlefield's case it is not, really, it's battlefield. BATTLEFIELD

b) I don't really care about the actual reviews, I care about the ''system'' of reviews. He may review the single player but it should not have significance on the judgement of the game.

c) Look at b

@Niche said:

@Mageman said:

I remember Jeff saying in the quick look that the single player is part of the game and that is strange that some review gave it a high score despite them viewing the single player as not that good and I completely disagree with that.

I found this statement by Jeff a little strange, because it kind of goes against some past Giantbomb reviews. Both MGS4 and GTA4 received very favourable reviews and scores despite the multiplayer being mediocre at best. I haven't listened to the Bombcast yet so maybe he explains this viewpoint better there but to me it seems like it's acceptable to essentially ignore multiplayer in reviews when that is not the main focus of the game but not vice versa.

Yes exactly, In the case of MGS the multi player should also not be seen as an integral part of the ''experience''.

@CptBedlam said:

@Mageman said:

The single player can be reviewed but not taken into account when actually judging the game.@solidlife said:

Yes let me review half of the content on the disk because the other half could bring down the score...

It shouldn't bring down the score, because most people who are fans of battlefield and who have been supporting it will not even play it. Bad popcorn should not influence on how good a movie is.

Are you sure you're not just a whiny fanboy who cares more about the score than the actual game?

I don't even own the damn game, but it's retarded that people trash it because of single player and not trash it enough because of battlelog and origin.

@Axxol said:

@Dagbiker said:

if its in the game, its part of the game. and cant be ignored.

Exactly. You don't sweep the bad stuff under the rug and focus on the good elements.

But it's not about that, the negative stuff about the multi player has more weight for example.

@Vodun said:

So what if someone's looking for a single player experience, have never played any of the BF games, and want to buy this? Fuck that guy?

They put SP in the game, SP is going to get a review. Anything else is stupid. The fact that they actually put a fucking SP part in a BF game is what is stupid here.

The single player can be reviewed but not taken into account when actually judging the game.@solidlife said:

Yes let me review half of the content on the disk because the other half could bring down the score...

It shouldn't bring down the score, because most people who are fans of battlefield and who have been supporting it will not even play it. Bad popcorn should not influence on how good a movie is.

But the single player is not really part of the game, it's not the ''point'' of it. It's like seeing a movie and then in the review also taking into account how good the trailers were.

It should be reviewed separately or clearly stated that the game focuses on multiplayer.

Let me explain what I mean. For example, Battlefield games are obviously about the multi player. Battlefield has always been a multi player experience, I know Dice tried putting in campaigns but let us not fool ourselves, the game is a multi player game. The game ''experience'' should come from the multi player, it is designed so, and reviews should offer an opinion of x person about how good of an experience the game gives you. So in Battlefield 3's case the issues of the single player should be ignored but the issues with the multi player (such as battlelog) should be ''multiplied''. I remember Jeff saying in the quick look that the single player is part of the game and that is strange that some review gave it a high score despite them viewing the single player as not that good and I completely disagree with that. But what do you think ?