Something went wrong. Try again later
    Follow

    Battlefield 3

    Game » consists of 15 releases. Released Oct 25, 2011

    Battlefield 3 is DICE's third numerical installment in the Battlefield franchise. It features a single player and co-operative campaign, as well as an extensive multiplayer component.

    Review score predictions

    • 56 results
    • 1
    • 2
    Avatar image for jmrwacko
    jmrwacko

    2537

    Forum Posts

    50

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 2

    #51  Edited By jmrwacko

    I'm all for being pessimistic, but Battlefield 2 got stellar reviews back in 2005 and Battlefield 3, from the looks of it, is Battlefield 2 with ridiculously good graphics and fully fleshed out singleplayer and coop campaigns. Plus EA is dumping millions into advertisement and wining and dining half the world's reviewers before launch, and the lead platform is PC. So I'm leaning toward > 9.0 metacritic score.

    @Evilmetal said:

    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. ]]]]

    The digital download number is probably much higher than the retail preorders. Also, Battlefield 3 isn't a killer app for Xbox 360 or PS3, but it generates BILLIONS of dollars of revenue for PC hardware manufacturers, from which game publishers like EA indirectly receive profits and massive amounts of free advertising.

    Plus, I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "you can't economically diversity with a game dedicated to PC." You mean diversify your profits? That's what multiple platform games are for. Nobody is saying DICE should only develop games for the PC. They got a good approach going toward BF3 - impress people with a PC lead game, make the majority of sales on console platforms, rake in lots of money for developing future games. And once a new generation of consoles comes out, DICE will be able to develop console games again that are very similar to PC games.

    Avatar image for tim_the_corsair
    tim_the_corsair

    3053

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 2

    #52  Edited By tim_the_corsair

    TEN BANANA CREAM PIES

    Also, I am fully expecting that BF3 will get 4 or 5 stars depending on who reviews it. Would be shocked if it scored lower unless it is completely broken.

    Avatar image for thehumandove
    TheHumanDove

    2520

    Forum Posts

    0

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #53  Edited By TheHumanDove

    8.25

    Avatar image for evilmetal
    Evilmetal

    489

    Forum Posts

    5968

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 7

    #54  Edited By Evilmetal
    @jmrwacko said:

    @Evilmetal said:

    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. ]]]]

    The digital download number is probably much higher than the retail preorders. Also, Battlefield 3 isn't a killer app for Xbox 360 or PS3, but it generates BILLIONS of dollars of revenue for PC hardware manufacturers, from which game publishers like EA indirectly receive profits and massive amounts of free advertising.

    Plus, I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "you can't economically diversity with a game dedicated to PC." You mean diversify your profits? That's what multiple platform games are for. Nobody is saying DICE should only develop games for the PC. They got a good approach going toward BF3 - impress people with a PC lead game, make the majority of sales on console platforms, rake in lots of money for developing future games. And once a new generation of consoles comes out, DICE will be able to develop console games again that are very similar to PC games.

    You say that the game will make PC hardware makers rake in lots of money. In the near term, I suppose this is the case. However there are many articles that talk about cloud computing. In the near future the general people will not buy(not able to--economic reasons, debts--"green" movement---taxes--poor paying jobs--lack of freedom) video cards and build hardcore systems. The idea then is to use remote computers to process the data and stream it online via high speed internet (internet 2?).
     
     
    Economically diversify.... I wanted to say that in order to get the most money back (return on investment), you should make the same game across all platforms (with minor differences -if any- amongst them); rather than taking your sweet old time with one platform and putting your all into it.  It's all about the monies.
     
    Some may think "yeah, good that they make money so that they can make newer Battlefield games" .
     
    Why even use the  'Battlefield' name, it's a brand now, why use it when you don't want to remain close to the original game that made you famous?  They use the name because they, EA, want to push forward their own overall business agenda. They use the name because it sells, it's marketing. They are using the Battlefield name as a Trojan horse. 
     
    Also, there's no DICE anymore; it's just a name that strikes a cord within people of past successes that have no relation to modern time. EA wants you to remember the 'good old times', by using the name DICE.  If I am wrong... I'd like to see if DICE can even seek independence [if it wanted to] from EA's buyout of them.
     
    Anyway, this agenda that I speak of is no secret. It is the "games as a service" model.
     

    May 5, 2011
    EA Adopts Games As A Service Model
     
    "Over the coming years, we will transform EA from a packaged goods company to a fully integrated digital entertainment company," 

    EA will start with its stable IP such as FIFA, Madden, Battlefield, Need for Speed, The Sims, Tetris, Dragon Age. "We fully intend to make these properties into year-round businesses that lead their sectors across a range of platforms," Riccitiello said.
    http://www.megagames.com/news/ea-adopts-games-service-model

    And recently Patrick Bach, producer at 'DICE', speaking in generals terms, said that Battlefield was becoming a service.
     

    October 17, 2011  
    Battlefield 3 Producer Talks Attention to Detail
     
    "Games, especially FPS titles with their deep persistence and team play are no longer just hard-coded discs. They are transforming into a service."
    http://www.industrygamers.com/news/battlefield-3-producer-talks-attention-to-detail/

    Riccitiello and Bach are marching to the same beat.
     
    "They are transforming"... the key word is 'transforming. As if the game is moving on its own, but it is not. Time and time again, on the Battlefield forums and interviews, the developers say they are  making the game THEY WANT. So THEY are making the game become what it's becoming, it's not that the gamer wants it. The gamer wants fun, and unfortunately EA wants to re-define FUN. In EA's world fun exists when they make money... when their game is part of a service; when they are in full control.  If it's not part of a service, then the game can't be fun/profitable, in EA's eyes.  
     
    In a CNET article talking about Gabe Newell and his comments on games as a service...
     

    February 19, 2009
    The changing face of 'games-as-a-service'
     
    Newell says the future will be "providing ongoing value." Once you start thinking from a service perspective, he continues, "It starts to help you understand the phenomenon that's out there." The core of Newell's argument is that a service allows "content creators to have a better relationship with their customers."
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13846_3-10167502-62.html


     A "better relationship" ?  "... ongoing value" ?
     
    Why have a gamer buy a Battlefield game once every 6 years or so?  This creates a drop in profits, after the first few years, until the new product is developed and released.  The developer must be active in searching for new game-play ideas... new graphics engines... new everything.
     
    So without the service model, developers must always "one-up" their previous works; time and money into R&D for new technology and gameplay ideas.
     
    With a service model however, you don't need that. You create 'the darn thing once' and that's pretty much it for a long while. You introduce a heavy unlock tree.... after that, you can just go on selling clothing, such as hats, or shoes, etc; or you may choose to sell.... weapons. EA also sells weapons in Battlefield: Play 4 Free (BF:P4F).  And then if push comes to shove... "we want new gameplay" ... then you release a purchasable DLC ADD-ON to the game-- it may have new maps, enemies, weapons, ranks, etc. 
     
    Battlefield 3 introduced an appearance option, so that you can change your character's camouflage. The current camo in BF3 is just to mentally prepare the gamers for the future. EA wants to acclimate the customer to future "new goods".  The idea is that players will become attached to camo clothing now, so that in the future they will not hesitate to drop down $4.95 for a new set.
     
    Again, why pay $49.95 or $59.95 once every several years, when you can make gamers pay year-round in perpetuity?
     
    Creating a game that will make money in perpetuity requires change from the 'old way of the past'. So you see how excessive the unlocks are in BF3, in comparison to BF2; you see the tighter flag placements; you see the general distance from the old ways of the past. 
     
    Maybe in the future (BF4 possibly?), you get an email from EA saying "HEY SOLDIER!!!   We've noticed you like using the AEK-971. For the special introductory price of $6.95 you can unlock all of the AEK-971's weapon attachments!!!"    <--- this example shows the "better relationship" by observing your gameplay habits  and the.... "ongoing value" of offering paid access to content via multiple micro-transactions. Many small payments seem easier to swallow than one lump sum. Since smaller payments are easier, people may even exceed the large lump sum they don't want to surpass... But in order to get here, EA needs to break the bonds of the gameplay the past Battlefield games provided.   "We're making the game WE WANT................ little child"
     
    So when you look at BF3 and you see, tight flags, quick deaths, vast unlock tree, similar game across platforms, etc... you should view these choices as business decisions rather than decisions based on improved "FUN".  
     
    Initially BF3 may seem fun, but they don't care for that I think. They aim for the addictive formula, so that even gamers who hate/(get tired of) the game will still be drawn to the game. Being drawn to the game allows you to still be a potential customer of their business plans. You are to have little say, just as long as it coincides with them making money out of your weakness to the addictive nature of the game.  There's a difference between fun and addiction; they just want to blur this line, for economic and reasons of control.
    Avatar image for winternet
    Winternet

    8454

    Forum Posts

    2255

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 6

    #55  Edited By Winternet

    I'm feeling a 5-star PC and 4-star consoles.

    Avatar image for jameskond
    JamesKond

    243

    Forum Posts

    65

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 2

    User Lists: 11

    #56  Edited By JamesKond

    @nail1080 said:

    "Bad Company 2 Battlefield 3 is a terrific multiplayer shooter that offers the scope and strategy that made the Battlefield series so great in the first place. The single-player, however, feels a little flat this time around"

    4 Stars

    This time around? Compared to the other campaigns for Battlefield games this Campaign rules, but still is mediocre.

    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.