As a joke, jeff should play the first minute of the game on PC and give it a 6/5 before reviewing it in properly and giving it the score it deserves.

I think Jeff will be able to separate the business side of the game versus the game itself. If he couldn't, he wouldn't be a very good reviewer.

@BlaineBlaine: YES! this right here! Jeff should totally tank a game, because the publisher (not the developer) didnt send out a copy for him to review! that'll show them, goddamn bastards.

stop being such an idiot and take the pants off your head.

@BlaineBlaine: YES! this right here! Jeff should totally tank a game, because the publisher (not the developer) didnt send out a copy for him to review! that'll show them, goddamn bastards.

stop being such an idiot and take the pants off your head.

That's kind of antithetical to everything (I believe and hope) Giant Bomb stands for, besides oversized explosive devices.

Giant Bombcast 8-30-2011, at 2:00:53, ``Reviews are reviews of the product thats in the box`` Jeff Gerstman

I totally agree. The Red Dead bullshit is one of the darker spots in this site's history (and I'm sure they know it). I really hope they don't go there again.

@hbkdx12 said:

@ProfessorEss said:

I totally agree. The Red Dead bullshit is one of the darker spots in this site's history (and I'm sure they know it). I really hope they don't go there again.

Que? What is this Red Dead fiasco you speak of?

Nothing, he seems to making shit up for controversy sake.

@Hailinel said:

Jeff thinks its great and deserves a five star review, then that's what he should give it. There's no sense in using the game as a punching bag just to be a dick to EA. That's ridiculous.

I really want Jeff just to come out and tell me what the full story is behind the whole Battlefield/EA debacle. He kind of skirted around it, but really, that is the mostly interesting parts about the industry that I really want to hear. I have avoided more or less all the raging on the internet about it recently, so I don't exactly know what he is talking about. I know certain outlets got copies of them game, but then they only ended up being the PC version which is the "acceptable" version of the game, being that the PS3/360 versions are kinda gimped.

Well, he handled it pretty well with Arkham City. He gave that game five stars but did heavily critisized the publisher for the whole pre-order and online pass crap

That is the dumbest idea I've ever heard....as Hamz said EA is a huge publishing company and Jeff trolling them will result in them not giving out review copies to Giantbomb.

I feel like i walked into a gamespot forum.

@drag said:

or ... ignore any political bullshit, don't start feeling entitled to special treatment in the first place, get the game and review it to the best of your abilities.

Man speaks the truth.

The game should be reviewed on the game only, not shit surrounding it. If you can't do that then you shouldn't be reviewing games.

Well, having played it a fair bit over the past couple days, I think it's the reviewer's obligation to cut past all the circumstantial and outside issues to just focus on the game itself. They owe it to DICE, not EA, to evaluate the product fairly. You might get it late, EA might be dicks, and it might be derivative (although I disagree with this last statement, modern warfare games are a new staple and here to stay), but just play the game itself and see how enjoyable it is.

I predict 4 stars based on the PC version, I've had no issues whatsoever other than a bit of server lag on day one.

@Jack268 said:

what What's the story here? What does it matter if the review isn't out before the game?

Yeah cause no one ever buys a game after its original release date...

I guess not reviewing it would only cater to EA´s scheme. That is, if this whole thing is about the 5 star rating system.

The worst thing they could do is rate the game lower because of all the shit EA has done. I highly doubt that though. Not because they´re afraid of EA or EA has too much power but because of this: Jeff will never ever let his personal dispute with any company creep into his reviews. This is what I believe in and if that changes I´m the fuck outta here.

@Swoxx said:

@drag said:

or ... ignore any political bullshit, don't start feeling entitled to special treatment in the first place, get the game and review it to the best of your abilities.

Man speaks the truth.

The game should be reviewed on the game only, not shit surrounding it. If you can't do that then you shouldn't be reviewing games.

And that is why I love Jeff as well as the Gamespot crew so much. He has reamed companies such as steam, and oh god, nintendo with the Nintendo download x-press, but still, at the end of the day, he gives everything a fair shake. I feel like this is like the one case where I really don't need to look at multiple reviews for games... like I kind of know what everyone likes and dislikes, so you can gauge there, but also, generally everyone gives everything a fair look and don't have any crazy deep running bias'... or at least ones that affect their reviews... Like Jeff loved Bomberman back in the day, but doesn't give each new re-release or new game that comes out a 5/5.

It's going to get a 4/5, unless he really really loves the multiplayer. I haven't played it, but I can tell.

Have you guys listened to the latest bombcast? Jeff explains a bit. Basically he had booked a trip some time ago, with the anticipation that EA would send out the review copies of BF3 a week or so before release [as generally review copies go out earlier than release date]. This way by the time BF3 was released, the review would've been done and off his plate. But because EA  delayed access to the review copies for some reason, Jeff is now on his trip to an event. Thus no review until he gets back, I think.  
 
Listen for yourselves to the recent Bombcast, just in case I have listening comprehension problems.... start listening from 53:00 mark for BF3.

@Jack268 said:

@MasturbatingestBear: Well they certainly don't buy them BEFORE that do they?

Further proving my point and disproving yours? Exactly.

@Giantstalker said:

Well, having played it a fair bit over the past couple days, I think it's the reviewer's obligation to cut past all the circumstantial and outside issues to just focus on the game itself. They owe it to DICE, not EA, to evaluate the product fairly. You might get it late, EA might be dicks, and it might be derivative (although I disagree with this last statement, modern warfare games are a new staple and here to stay), but just play the game itself and see how enjoyable it is.

I predict 4 stars based on the PC version, I've had no issues whatsoever other than a bit of server lag on day one.

Why do people tend to separate EA and DICE? They're one and the same. They all want the same thing, for BF to be a giant financial success. It's not like they're the plucky indie dev forced for work the man or anything. They sold out to EA like 8 years ago.

I don't like that at all. I come to GB to get unfiltered reviews and opinions about games, not to hear journalists whine about preferential treatment.

You're overreacting.

DICE is a good developer, it would be a douchebag move to burn them just to make some statement towards EA.

EA sucks, I won't deny, in the last 2 years alone they have moved from my "decent publisher" list to my "wtf EA" list, but that's not on the developer, and doing some bullshit like lowballing the score wouldn't do anything except hurt DICE.

This is so fucking stupid.

What do you mean Jeff's review? It's obviously Kessler doing the review!

you are way misinformed

@XII_Sniper said:

@Giantstalker said:

Well, having played it a fair bit over the past couple days, I think it's the reviewer's obligation to cut past all the circumstantial and outside issues to just focus on the game itself. They owe it to DICE, not EA, to evaluate the product fairly. You might get it late, EA might be dicks, and it might be derivative (although I disagree with this last statement, modern warfare games are a new staple and here to stay), but just play the game itself and see how enjoyable it is.

I predict 4 stars based on the PC version, I've had no issues whatsoever other than a bit of server lag on day one.

Why do people tend to separate EA and DICE? They're one and the same. They all want the same thing, for BF to be a giant financial success. It's not like they're the plucky indie dev forced for work the man or anything. They sold out to EA like 8 years ago.

I pretty much agree with what was said here.

But it is interesting hearing Jeff's thoughts about the reception how people have completely written off the singleplayer and Co-Op but the game still gets 9s-10s 5/5s when they are basically saying 2/3s of the game is garbage or just not up to par for FPSs. But he quickly stats that he hasn't played the PC version yet so.. but it is interesting if you think about it

QUE ?

@NickLott said:

In a year when a lot people are catching up on some games and some people (like me) have built their new PCs and come back to check out reviews, nobody will care how bad the launch was screwed up, they just want to know if the game is good or not.

On the other hand, if a launch is sufficiently screwed up, particularly for a multiplayer-focused game, it could have detrimental effects on the wider perception of the game's quality.

@WickedCobra03 said:

@Hailinel said:

Jeff thinks its great and deserves a five star review, then that's what he should give it. There's no sense in using the game as a punching bag just to be a dick to EA. That's ridiculous.

I really want Jeff just to come out and tell me what the full story is behind the whole Battlefield/EA debacle. He kind of skirted around it, but really, that is the mostly interesting parts about the industry that I really want to hear. I have avoided more or less all the raging on the internet about it recently, so I don't exactly know what he is talking about. I know certain outlets got copies of them game, but then they only ended up being the PC version which is the "acceptable" version of the game, being that the PS3/360 versions are kinda gimped.

http://www.giantbomb.com/news/today-in-battlefield-3-screw-ups-battlefield-1943-not-included-with-ps3-copies-as-promised/3770/

The first paragraph is full of links to the debacle.

Regarding this topic: Gamestop got the same late PC version as Giantbomb. I haven't looked into it but I'm sure other sites have as well if one as big as GS did. Seems like EA frakked up universally not being a jerk to GB

Are you stupid?

Jeff would never do that, since he is a good reviewer and a good writer. I still want to see what he thinks about it, since I care about his opinion, as I do for the other stuff on GB. I think they didn't receive this because of the 4/5 to BC2 and the 5/5 to anything COD - they fear an 80 rating on Metacritic to bog down the others on launch. That sucks and all, but not much to do. I think GB is seen as fairly influential (special site, covers weird shit, superduper tight and informed community), and therefore a 80 from them is scary.

@Ertard said:

Are you stupid?

Jeff would never do that, since he is a good reviewer and a good writer. I still want to see what he thinks about it, since I care about his opinion, as I do for the other stuff on GB. I think they didn't receive this because of the 4/5 to BC2 and the 5/5 to anything COD - they fear an 80 rating on Metacritic to bog down the others on launch. That sucks and all, but not much to do. I think GB is seen as fairly influential (special site, covers weird shit, superduper tight and informed community), and therefore a 80 from them is scary.

You clearly don't remember the Red Dead Redemption fiasco, you know, when Rockstar didn't send GiantBomb a review copy so Jeff through a tantrum and refused to review, or even play through the game and then claimed he didn't like it (despite loving GTA IV).

If the community were as 'informed' as you claim then they would know that a review on Battlefield from Jeff is next to useless. Jeff is far from an expert on the Battlefield series as the quick look proved. I expect Jeff's review to say something along the lines of 'COD single player is better; Battlefield multiplayer is like Battlefield multiplayer'.

I think we just have to accept GB probably isn't a big enough site to deserve early copies. It'd be like me or any other nobody writing to EA and asking for early games.

I care what they think about the actual game, not the other bullshit thats going on, its not like the developer of the game is doing it either, its the publisher.

@Stingraymond said:

I think we just have to accept GB probably isn't a big enough site to deserve early copies. It'd be like me or any other nobody writing to EA and asking for early games.

I think it's more likely that EA dislikes GiantBombs 5 star point scale (a 4 star review = 80 on metacritic) and they also know that Jeff historically favours COD games.

@kingando420 said:

@Ertard said:

Are you stupid?

Jeff would never do that, since he is a good reviewer and a good writer. I still want to see what he thinks about it, since I care about his opinion, as I do for the other stuff on GB. I think they didn't receive this because of the 4/5 to BC2 and the 5/5 to anything COD - they fear an 80 rating on Metacritic to bog down the others on launch. That sucks and all, but not much to do. I think GB is seen as fairly influential (special site, covers weird shit, superduper tight and informed community), and therefore a 80 from them is scary.

Your clearly don't remember the Red Dead Redemption fiasco, you know, when Rockstar didn't send GiantBomb a review copy so Jeff through a tantrum and refused to review, or even play through the game and then claimed he didn't like it (despite loving GTA IV).

If the community were as 'informed' as you claim then they would know that a review on Battlefield from Jeff is next to useless. Jeff is far from an expert on the Battlefield series as the quick look proved. I expect Jeff's review to say something along the lines of 'COD single player is better; Battlefield multiplayer is like Battlefield multiplayer'.

Good job spreading bullshit rumours. Jeff was never meant to review that game, it was Brad. He (Jeff) played it, realised he didn't like it and that was that. I liked GTA 4 and I didn't like Red Dead, so I don't exactly get what point you're making here. Cowboys are lame.

Oh, you're not a subscriber, that explais why you think you know this. You didn't get to see the livestream where we got showed the half written Red Dead review sitting in their system.

But hey, you can always count on the internet to post crazy conspiracy theories.

Destructoid and, I believe, GameSpot had the same issue with the PC Origin codes or whatever. They're not singling Giant Bomb out. Chill.

Having a review of a multiplayer game out before it's been released to the public is daft.

And why the hell do so many people rely on reviews so much? Theres plenty of video and coverage. Think for yourselves.

@DeeGee said:

@kingando420 said:

@Ertard said:

Are you stupid?

Jeff would never do that, since he is a good reviewer and a good writer. I still want to see what he thinks about it, since I care about his opinion, as I do for the other stuff on GB. I think they didn't receive this because of the 4/5 to BC2 and the 5/5 to anything COD - they fear an 80 rating on Metacritic to bog down the others on launch. That sucks and all, but not much to do. I think GB is seen as fairly influential (special site, covers weird shit, superduper tight and informed community), and therefore a 80 from them is scary.

Your clearly don't remember the Red Dead Redemption fiasco, you know, when Rockstar didn't send GiantBomb a review copy so Jeff through a tantrum and refused to review, or even play through the game and then claimed he didn't like it (despite loving GTA IV).

If the community were as 'informed' as you claim then they would know that a review on Battlefield from Jeff is next to useless. Jeff is far from an expert on the Battlefield series as the quick look proved. I expect Jeff's review to say something along the lines of 'COD single player is better; Battlefield multiplayer is like Battlefield multiplayer'.

Good job spreading bullshit rumours. Jeff was never meant to review that game, it was Brad. He (Jeff) played it, realised he didn't like it and that was that. I liked GTA 4 and I didn't like Red Dead, so I don't exactly get what point you're making here. Cowboys are lame.

Oh, you're not a subscriber, that explais why you think you know this. You didn't get to see the livestream where we got showed the half written Red Dead review sitting in their system.

But hey, you can always count on the internet to post crazy conspiracy theories.

If you think Brad not finishing the review of a triple A game that he loved, and Jeffs sudden disslike of Rockstar games is unrelated to them not receiving a review copy, then you sir are the crazy one.

@kingando420 said:

@DeeGee said:

@kingando420 said:

@Ertard said:

Are you stupid?

Jeff would never do that, since he is a good reviewer and a good writer. I still want to see what he thinks about it, since I care about his opinion, as I do for the other stuff on GB. I think they didn't receive this because of the 4/5 to BC2 and the 5/5 to anything COD - they fear an 80 rating on Metacritic to bog down the others on launch. That sucks and all, but not much to do. I think GB is seen as fairly influential (special site, covers weird shit, superduper tight and informed community), and therefore a 80 from them is scary.

Your clearly don't remember the Red Dead Redemption fiasco, you know, when Rockstar didn't send GiantBomb a review copy so Jeff through a tantrum and refused to review, or even play through the game and then claimed he didn't like it (despite loving GTA IV).

If the community were as 'informed' as you claim then they would know that a review on Battlefield from Jeff is next to useless. Jeff is far from an expert on the Battlefield series as the quick look proved. I expect Jeff's review to say something along the lines of 'COD single player is better; Battlefield multiplayer is like Battlefield multiplayer'.

Good job spreading bullshit rumours. Jeff was never meant to review that game, it was Brad. He (Jeff) played it, realised he didn't like it and that was that. I liked GTA 4 and I didn't like Red Dead, so I don't exactly get what point you're making here. Cowboys are lame.

Oh, you're not a subscriber, that explais why you think you know this. You didn't get to see the livestream where we got showed the half written Red Dead review sitting in their system.

But hey, you can always count on the internet to post crazy conspiracy theories.

If you think Brad not finishing the review of a triple A game that he loved, and Jeffs sudden disslike of Rockstar games is unrelated to them not receiving a review copy, then you sir are the crazy one.

Or, you know, they could have given up on writing it at a certain point instead of wasting their time writing a review for a game everyone already knew was exceptional. Open world games take a long time to review.

@kingando420 said:

Your clearly don't remember the Red Dead Redemption fiasco, you know, when Rockstar didn't send GiantBomb a review copy so Jeff through a tantrum and refused to review, or even play through the game and then claimed he didn't like it (despite loving GTA IV).

If memory serves, he just didn't see the point in reviewing it late. It was a very long game, and not being able to play it until launch would mean ignoring other pending reviews to review a game that everyone already bought a week ago. There was no tantrum about it.

@kingando420 said:

If the community were as 'informed' as you claim then they would know that a review on Battlefield from Jeff is next to useless. Jeff is far from an expert on the Battlefield series as the quick look proved.

He's far from an expert at COD either--trust me, I've seen him during TNT events--but he reviews those games just fine. He gave Black Ops a four out of five.

@AnimZero said:

Or, you know, they could have given up on writing it at a certain point instead of wasting their time writing a review for a game everyone already knew was exceptional. Open world games take a long time to review.

As 'a subscriber' you would probably realise that GiantBomb often posts reviews long after the game has been released, i believe the review for Trackmania 2 has only just recently gone up, whilst the game was released back in September. You also just said that Brad had written half of the review already, surely he must have played the game to write this half of the review and the other half wouldn't take him that long to write!

You're right though, everybody already knew the game was exceptional - except Jeff. I don't begrudge Jeff for dissliking a game that others think is exceptional, I disslike the Uncharted series that others think is exceptional but the under these circumstances and when the game is really very similar to other games that Jeff loved I think it would be naive not to be somewhat cynical of his motives.