Battlefield 4 Review – A Tale of Two Manshooters | Gamer Horizon

Battlefield 4 is an exceptional game – if you can get past the crashes.

[TrueJerseyDevil]

Just because it crashes doesn't make it a 6/10 smh

[asmith2306]

It crashes on me the odd time, the sound drops in and out, there is no f**king squad up system, but I still give it an 8.5/10. DICE will get it fixed and this will long be forgotten about. BF3 had issues when it first released too but now its top class. BF4 had to release on 5 different platforms, so I expected issues.

[N2NOther]

Lots of games were released on 5 platforms that didn't have issues at launch.

[Utalkin2me]

Well i am sure they will get the multiplayer lined out. But i wouldn't even give it a 6 right now. As you said crashing and losing sound and the hit detection is worse then COD. Has clipping issues with bullets.

But the single player erases your save game file. The single player is only 4 hours long and to be honest it's just meh.

So really to me its the worst BF launch of any game and it deserves a low score.

[Blachek]

@ N2NOther

Did lots of games launch with large scale combat (32 players per team), top end visuals (Upscaled 1080P & 60 FPS), clean presentation (Dynamic Destruction, Character Modeling, Voicing, Dynamic Organic), and an upgraded game engine (Frostbite 3)?

Or did you miss the point asmith206 was making in that Dice sets the bar higher for other Dev's with what they are trying to do, and will continue to roll out patches and updates to streamline and fix their product. Anything that gets created for multi-platform is going to have discrepancies. Dice has proved that they can iron them out.

[TrueJerseyDevil]

yea issues were expected especially when DICE said they wanted to delay next gen versions of the game, but EA wouldn't let them

[N2NOther]

@Blachek

Here's the thing though. When you pay $60 for a product, no matter how ambitious, there are expectations. The biggest one being that the game works. Battlefield doesn't.

It really shouldn't matter at all, that they will fix it later. 3 weeks is a long enough time for a game to be out and an informed opinion to be formed.

I'm not a fan of Battlefield for a lot of reasons, but I respect that it has a fanbase and I will never begrudge anyone enjoying the game but I don't get how you can argue on defense of a game that is clearly broken and was reviews under those conditions.

I loved Skyrim and got the platinum on the PS3 before they patched it. I was able to do so with minimal issues. But I sure as hell wouldn't argue with someone who did have issues and gave it a lower score. I guess that's me though.

[plumber15]

I give it a 6 because they put this over power aim assist , and yes i understand BF3 had some sort of assist but the fact that if there an enemy that crosses paths the your original target it will follow that person and you lose the gun fight , or when your sniping and your tracking a target and you can accually feel help you lead him .

[3-4-5]

I would give it a 8.8-9.1/10 for me so far. It's been a lot of fun.

[G-Ham]

Battlefield 4 is an exceptional game...So it's not a 6/10 then is it.

[N2NOther]

It is to our reviewer. Did you read the review? He backs up his reasons pretty well.

[Blachek]

Not much of a review, more a complaint, followed by a disqualifying statement and a complete cop-out to the game being buggy.

Early adopter = bugs.

Why wouldn't he just wait till the game has been out for a bit, it's not like that website is getting paid by Dice or EA to provide positive feedback for their product that would help drive sales. He might want to revisit how to write a review as well, one that identifies the components of a game and grades them accordingly.

Edited: Added a sentence.

[kythlyn]

He actually did wait quite a bit. And his save file was lost again and again, despite the patches, and the crashes continued. Frankly, this score isn't nearly as harsh as some of the reviews that criticized SimCity back in March, though I suppose that situation was even worse.

[Blachek]

I'm alright with his score, i'm just not impressed with how he came up with it. It looks arbitrary.

A review should be broken down, weighted, and explained.

For ex.

Story = 1 points
Multiplayer = 9 points
Visuals = 8 points
Sound = 8 points
Engine = 9 points
Level Design Single Player= 8 points
Level Design Multi Player = 7 points
Replayability = 1 points
x-Factor = 9 points
Bugs = 1 points

1 being lowest, 10 being highest. He should paint a picture of what he graded, it's grade, and why he graded it that way.

[Thoth2020]

I'm the reviewer here. I actually had no idea what I was going to give this as a score, even though I had the whole review planned out in my mind.

In my perspective, severe bugs (crashes, file wipes) are indication of a non-functioning product. These kind of games get the lowest score.

The problem is, Battlefield 4 is really fun. It's an awesome multiplayer experience. I can't deny that.

So how do I resolve these two things? I went with that score as a way to resolve that dissonance. Is it perfect? Of course not. You obviously disagree with me. If this game were working, it would get either an 8 or a 9, depending on how bad I feel the silly campaign hurts it.

Regarding Blachek's comment, who I want to reply to but I can't, I'm personally responsible for defining our website's review score definitions. A score means something specific. I don't add up individiual pieces.

The problem is that this game falls under the definition of an 8 or a 9 with a huge "BUT". I've never had to deal with a game with this kind of a "BUT".

I made a judgment call.