Reviewers reviewing wrong parts of the game...

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 ?

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

@Dagbiker said:

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

This. Only reviewing the good parts is ridiculous.

Just because Battlefield started out as a pure multiplayer game, you can't dismiss their decision to add in a proper single-player campaign in the latest addition. It is what it is, not what it once was.

That is ridiculous. Dice and EA have been hyping the single player campaign of Battlefield 3 for months now. It is a a big part of their marketing. Their last game in the Battlefield franchise (Bad Company 2) was also sold partly on its single player content (which was fantastic), so it is not unreasonable or unrealistic for reviewers to consider the single player content as part of their score.

review mah balls

While the campaign needs to be counted, it's interesting that despite the fact that the campaign is meant to be terrible (haven't played it myself yet, not released) the majority of review I've read have somewhat ignored the campaign. The multiplayer seems to make up for it thankfully. Heard from American friends playing the PC version that the multi-player is an absolute blast and that's all I care about. Might give the campaign a look.

All parts of a game should be judged in a review. It's up to the reader to decide whether or not a certain part of the game matters to them.

There is no "wrong" parts to review. The singleplayer for Battlefield 3 is in the full game and is a part of it. Deal with it being reviewed

More time should be spent critiquing the box art.

One should review the entire game. That's kindof the point of reviewing a game.

If the total package isn't great, the score should reflect that. Those reviews are just a byproduct of the metacritic age. No one has the balls to score below 9 it seems.

The product includes single player (it is half of the discs on 360 so it's essentially half the game). To ignore it in a review would be disingenuous to the reader and irresponsible. There are millions of consoles not connected to the internet. Somewhere around 30% of 360s and PS3s aren't. To only review multiplayer leaves out a large chunk of the game buying public. If the single player is busted then the game isn't great because at least half of it is busted. A review should reflect that.

@CptBedlam said:

@Dagbiker said:

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

This. Only reviewing the good parts is ridiculous.

This. It's kind of crazy they are getting a pass for a genuinely bad single player and co-op. I understand where you are coming from but they took the time and effort to develop and market those modes. Two thirds of the game is garbage and people who don't care about multiplayer are going to get burned by the good review scores.

Fuck that, Battlefield does not have any Batman in it and because the only way to review it "right" is by how many Batmans there are in the game. So 0 stars for Battlefield.

It's like if a movie came out and there was a part that was just plain bad. You can't just say "Oh fuck this movie is amazing because the scenes I liked were amazing!" You have to say "This part worked but for some reason they included this other part. The other part? Kinda terrible."

@rjayb89 said:

Fuck that, Battlefield does not have any Batman in it and because the only way to review it "right" is by how many Batmans there are in the game. So 0 stars for Battlefield.

but arkham city would only get one star then? are you proposing a one star rating system?

@rjayb89 said:

Fuck that, Battlefield does not have any Batman in it and because the only way to review it "right" is by how many Batmans there are in the game. So 0 stars for Battlefield.

and 1 start for Arkham Asylum and Arkham City.

Both equally shitty games :P

@Animasta said:

@rjayb89 said:

Fuck that, Battlefield does not have any Batman in it and because the only way to review it "right" is by how many Batmans there are in the game. So 0 stars for Battlefield.

but arkham city would only get one star then? are you proposing a one star rating system?

One Batman is enough Batmans.

@Animasta: Each individual character skin for Batman adds another star. Therefore Batman shall only get better.

@Animasta said:

@rjayb89 said:

Fuck that, Battlefield does not have any Batman in it and because the only way to review it "right" is by how many Batmans there are in the game. So 0 stars for Battlefield.

but arkham city would only get one star then? are you proposing a one star rating system?

Zero stars or all the stars. You're either bad or good and no in between. Bold. I like it.

@rjayb89 said:

@Animasta said:

@rjayb89 said:

Fuck that, Battlefield does not have any Batman in it and because the only way to review it "right" is by how many Batmans there are in the game. So 0 stars for Battlefield.

but arkham city would only get one star then? are you proposing a one star rating system?

One Batman is enough Batmans.

Does this system use half stars?

@Mageman said:

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 ?

I agree that there are games where the focus is clearly on some mode of play, and if that mode is great it justifies a high score. The focus of Battlefield 3 is multiplayer and the singleplayer (and perhaps co-op) sucks, but if that doesn't detract from the mutliplayer, that's fine. Hell, MGS4 was focused on singleplayer and the multiplayer wasn't all that great was it? That still doesn't mean the game couldn't be highly recommended nonetheless.

No part of a game should be ignored in a review, especially if it's a less than stellar part, but it's consideration doesn't necessitate that x number of points be taken off of a score. Reviewing vidja games isn't a matter of just number-crunching. Bah, that's just another problem with scores in reviews: people assuming there's some sort of science to getting to a final number.

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

I have not seen the Quicklook yet, but Jeff also restated this on the Bombcast, (I am paraphrasing / inferencing here - again did not see the gameplay) that despite the single player that is 2/3's of the whole game is not that impressive....  it still received high scores. 
I find it kind of strange as well, imagine exact same game but with a different title would it had got the same pass? Or is the multiplayer just that impressive to warrant those scores?  While I could be reading way too much into this, do you think there is a stigma of everyone in the gaming community wants this game to be awesome, so some reviewers aren't as critical with scores. Personally I wouldn't think that is the case, but recent stuff like, IGN Uncharted review only getting 8/10 and the internet getting up and arms about it some people just care about review scores, and if as a reviewer you don't give an acceptable score you'll get a ton of backlash.

I disagree .... if it comes in the game it should be judge in its entirety , altho I have not played it there is no excuse to deliver what seems a mostly carbon copy of a COD plot , as if Dice couldn't make interesting stories (Bad Company was good and funny) .

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.

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

Problem is there are still people out there that shun multiplayer. They just view it as hate speech 12 year old fest. I know a guy who buys COD every year just for the SP. So it needs to be addressed regardless. So even if a game is 90% about it's multi, if it's campaign blows, it should lose points. Especially considering it advertises the shit out of said campaign.

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

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.

@Mageman: It's not the point? Ok, here's the trailer many people may buy it based on.

@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.

@Dagbiker said:

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

This. Only reviewing the good parts is ridiculous.

Problem is there are still people out there that shun multiplayer. They just view it as hate speech 12 year old fest. I know a guy who buys COD every year just for the SP. So it needs to be addressed regardless. So even if a game is 90% about it's multi, if it's campaign blows, it should lose points. Especially considering it advertises the shit out of said campaign.

I was wondering if they should write seperate reviews for single player and multiplayer for these types of games. You know, for all these people who don't read the text but just look at scores..

@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.

They should never have added singleplayer.

@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.

@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.

@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?

@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.

@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.

@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.

Your analogy is flawed. Popcorn is not part of the movie, the singleplayer component of Battlefield 3 *is* part of Battlefield 3. The meat of the game is going to be multiplayer, as almost everyone will already know, and if people wish to have information on just the multiplayer, they can read the parts of the reviews that cover multiplayer and ignore the parts about singleplayer.

However, it stands to reason that when you enjoy action movies, and you go see an action movie that has really terrible dialog scenes next to its terrific action scenes, that movie critics will review it as a whole, including the scenes where things aren't exploding. It ultimately has no bearing on whether you watch or enjoy the movie, because you like action movies, but for people who are paid and listened to for their professional assessments of products of entertainment it would be a no-no to just ignore parts of a product because 'that's not what it's about'. What about those people out there that are wanting to know if they will get a satisfactory single-player experience out of Battlefield 3? Do they not deserve to get that assessment?

The single player for Battlefield 3 kind of sucks. Played some of it yesterday. :{

Ah well, still like the game lol.

I think the reviewer should review the whole game, that includes single player. People don't JUST play the multiplayer, at some point they'll want to play the single player/co-op portions. Well, some people just get a game for multiplayer which is kind of a waste, if you're just paying $60 for multiplayer you might as well wait for a price drop. Single player encompasses/completes the experience.

@rjayb89: Can games get half a Batman for mentioning Batman?

agreew with everyone, if its in the game its should be put under the microscope. if the campign sucks, people should know.

seems like you only care about the score

@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.

I feel for DICE. The Battlefield community only care about the multiplayer, and DICE even came out and said that the single player is merely an extended tutorial for the multiplayer. I think if DICE were independent of EA then they probably wouldn't even bother with the single player.

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.

@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.

Now this is a much more interesting discussion point. Maybe because MGS4 and GTA4 didn't tout their multi-player as much? I don't really remember. I didn't try either. I just remember MGS's multi having a more annoying process to sign up for then I felt like doing. Were they actually received as mediocre at best by the gaming community or is that just your opinion?

@rjayb89 said:

@Animasta said:

@rjayb89 said:

Fuck that, Battlefield does not have any Batman in it and because the only way to review it "right" is by how many Batmans there are in the game. So 0 stars for Battlefield.

but arkham city would only get one star then? are you proposing a one star rating system?

One Batman is enough Batmans.

Does this system use half stars?