Let's sit down for a few minutes and talk about Battlefield 3. It might be hard to see it initially. Multiplayer is Battlefield 3's sharp edge, but the singleplayer is the point of its blade.
That's what I call a score :D
Thank god they released the beta, it helped the game become better. Would have been a mess if they didn't get feedback. Looking good so far.
"Single player sucks and isn't any fun. co-op sucks too. Multiplayer has issues, but it's awesome. 4.5 out of 5." Sorry, something's not adding up here... EDIT: I sure hope Arthur Gies didn't screenshot this toward the END of his review time. http://www.blogcdn.com/www....
Yeah, it just goes to show that despite how big and popular a gaming site is, it doesnt translate to the quality of the writing or reviewing.
Must be one hell of a mp experience to override a "not fun" sp campaign.
Awful premise/ conclusion.. Decadence of gaming journalism..
Joystiq used to be great when it was ps3fanboy and the like but it's getting worse. I'm not just talking about the written quality but in the "news" they choose to cover. This review is confusing. The campaign gets brutal treatment yet it is 4.5/5. That to me doesn't make sense.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.