Battlefield 3 might be an incredible game, but it's impossible to know for sure right now -- and buying the game based on a carefully manipulated, early reviews average might not be your best bet.
I'm going to buy it, day one. But I'm probably not going to open it until thrusday or friday. I'm pre-ordering it so I get karkland dlc and heed what reviews have to say. I wasn't blown away with the beta, but I warmed up to it over time. I'm getting from eb, so if I open it, I can't get my money back, hence the waiting game.
so you trust other people's opinions rather than your own?
I wasn't totally thrilled with my first experience, so it would be wise to use my $70 carefully. Especially considering the other options I have this fall.
I'll be getting it tonight at midnight, and I know I'll like it because I played the hell out of BBC2, and because I have a good feeling about it...Not because of early, late, high or low reviews. Hufandpuf, are you getting it for PS3, 360 or PC?
How can he trust his own opinion if he hasn't played the game? If he's not sure he'll have to rely on reviews or word of mouth.
if you have time in the morning, get to a blockbuster...1 day rentals are now $2, and they'll put the boxes up for BF3 when they open...if you can get there early enough (or anytime if you're in a rural area) you'll probably find one... and the best part...or shitty part depending on the stance...is that you'll be the first to rent that copy...so you can still use the code for the multiplayer... been doing that a lot lately for games i wasn't set on buying...and being that reviews are little more than hot trash anymore...it works for me... just don't wait till later in the week, they won't have it for weeks on end... On another note...I'm so sick of websites making such a big deal out of EA/DICE's handling of BF3...yeah its a little shady...but who can blame them?...they are in a lot of ways protecting consumers from ridiculously poorly written reviews and arbitrary scores that plague the gaming media as a whole... EA didn't go silent on presenting the game...they opened the gates for the beta, had no qualms about letting anyone record vidoes or write blogs about the game's state...barely any of which were positive... and they have released gameplay trailers, developer diaries, console footage mashed up in multiple interviews...they ARE NOT hiding the game from the buyers...they are holding it from reviewers...90% of which have put their own credibility on the line in exchange for hits on their website...massive difference... the media is making it look like EA/DICE ashamed of BF3, and therefor afraid to let buyers see it...bull shit...we can all see it through multiple options...its just we can't yet see the same stuff with a poorly written unprofessional essay dangling underneath it...yet...we will in a few days... good for EA...good for DICE...good for us...NOT good for a reviewer, or his manager desperately trying to rush a review up so his site makes more money...I'm pretty sure none of us care...
I could care less about reviews. I'm getting this game day1 because Dice has never disappointed me with any product they've sold me. Dice is the reason why FPS games are good. No metacritic game is going to change that fact.
***the media is making it look like EA/DICE ashamed of BF3, and therefor afraid to let buyers see it...bull shit...we can all see it through multiple options...its just we can't yet see the same stuff with a poorly written unprofessional essay dangling underneath it...yet...we will in a few days...*** I would hardly call GamePro unprofessinoal. They have been around for a long time, when publications was still hot practically predating the internet age. I do put questions on EA/Dice filtering out legitimate review outfits. It's not like they are reviewing amateur blog sites here. Personally, I want a company that sells me a product without fog and cloud trying to hide stuff. I don't excuse them when it does happen and I expect that the number of biased for or against a game tends to even out and that a consensus is made. This is a disservice to gamers. I want the bad and the good, not just the "good reviews". So no, it is NOT OK for EA to do that and "two wrongs don't make one right!"
I don't rely on review scores to make up my mind. That's exactly why I did not buy a COD game after COD4. Youtube footage, and see my friends play the game at their place or my nephew at my place, well, it pretty much tells you the truth. Killzone 3 didn't get outstanding reviews but to me, the Multiplayer of KZ3 has to be one of the BEST I have ever played! Reviews don't matter at all. Just get what you enjoy, what looks and feels great to you and have fun. Gaming is fun, NOT business (for gamers).
This whole article is not even going to matter in a week. The game is still going to get great reviews and his point will be invalid. Sounds like he's just mad that they weren't the first to be able to review the game. It's fantastic so far and based off of my experience deserves these 9/10 scores it's getting.
Sorry, this game isnt very different from what we've already played to death. Gungame is basically BC2. I played too much BC2 on PC to know when enough is enough. School and other shit to do, i'll wait for Skyrim as it hold way better value in my eyes. BF3 isnt bad its a pretty good game, but i've had enough of the modern warfare games. Have fun with the unrealistic sniper scope glint that shows up regardless the direction the sun is shining, cant get over that one...atleast if you make it realistic, make it function properly and not excessively. Its a little to casual around the edges after first glance. Have fun if you bought it; either way i'm saving my bucks for another..
I'll be picking up tomorrow morning
No, this is not spam, N4g filter. http://forums.n4g.com/HEADS...
Pre ordered from newegg should get it by the weekend which is fine, and I grabbed it for $49.99 which is what every PC game should cost no higher for a non collectable version. I just hope the disc based version is not so tied to origin which it probably is for the mplayer.
You know if anyone read the article I can understand why DICE did this... -For one they are not getting a fair shake in the media... Claasic example Look at IGN's review of MW2 VS BF3 both PC version.. - http://i.imgur.com/7pNyp.pn... I mean Come on' you gotta be kidding me, with friends like this who needs enemies... How can IGN even justify this.. Absolutely Ridiculous.. I mean hell they even gave MW2 a 10 on sound, Battlefield 3 got a 9.5 come on' BF3 -has digital surround sound... LoL -(I mean when I'm playing battlefield I actually feel like a huge battle that is going on and stuff is happening all around me, on MW2 it felt like the sound was just right in-front of me) How in the world can that be better sound..??? /This review just seems more like Activision greased the pockets of who they needed too, and IGN seems to be at the top of that list.. -Just wow... IF you disagree at least explain how, how can you disagree with that??? I don't get it?? .____........___...____ .____||......||.......____|| ||.........___||.......____||
Score should be accompanied by year and month... It really is a relative scale, and with the release of BF3 a new bar has been set for what 9.5 means! They are reserving the 10 since they do not really know what will come later this year... But it will be interesting to see what, if any, games gets a 10 within a few months... (read: weeks)
I'm disagreeing with you because you're comparing apples to oranges. 2 years ago when Modern Warfare 2 was released, it probably was the standard. The bar has been raised since then with many great games using new technology and pushing new boundaries. Standards change as technology changes and new games provide much better experiences. So comparing it to a game 2 years old is just silly. Bioshock got a 10/10 for graphics in 2007 and admittedly, in 2007 it looked fantastic but it's far from today's standard now is it? Does that mean Gears of War 3 doesn't look better because it scored a 9.5/10?
@ StanLee you know that's a really good point, which I was indeed not thinking about, which is, at the time it came out it probably did set the bar.. This is a very good point Stanlee, and because of that I guess I will wait to see what MW3 gets.. That would indeed be a better comparison, as I never took into consideration that this was for that time period... I don't know why I over looked that.. As I was just looking at games getting better should score better, but yes, yes.. I did overlook that - you do have to look at the score as in that time period which makes sense.. to all the disagrees, I see your point now, and it's a valid point.. well said stanlee -bubbles for you my friend. .____........___...____ .____||......||.......____|| ||.........___||.......____||
@stanlee & Crazyglues Three years ago Battlefield Bad Company was on the market and that game has far superior sound then any CoD title. Ign gave it a 9.5 in the sound dept....there is no way mw2 raised the bar in sound quality over the first bad company...
I agree jdrm I wasnt even a fan of the first bad company but one thing that stood out was the sound.... it was far superior to MW2... if you go back and play both games BF sound like real guns while MW2's weapons sound muted... The same with BFBC2 and any subsequent COD title... yet How COD managed to get a 10 in sound and BF a 9.5 is beyond me.
Lets be honest here people, standards change that's the truth but for a 2 year old engine to get a 9.5 in graphics is just ludicrous. Meanwhile they're saying that Battlefield 3, the game with a new engine and the game people clamor about whether or not their PC's can run it, gets a 9.5 as well? That's just crazy.
You do know they were reviewed by two different people, don't you?
i have it i played it IM STUNNED this game is f...ng sick. seriously i totally adore this game
Ghoul, you have the PC version? I'm curious as to the final console versions. I'll be holding off purchasing until I see some console gameplay.
i have the ps3 version, and boy it looks gorgeous very awesome graphics pretty solid fps if you want console gameplay youtube battlefield ps3 gameplay there is plenty there from the last 2 days i cant complain, not a bit. had some hickups in mp but the game isnt even officially released, and i had some funky server names :) probably from the review builds. hehe but what can i say BUY THIS GAME
LOL Most retarded thing I've read.. Do the company a favor and don't even buy that game you're not worthy. I'm sick of people without an opinion of their own that listen to reviews like its the second coming.. I played the hell out of Duke nukem forever that got 2/10 and 5/10 and I enjoyed it way more than COD Black ops that got well above 8.. Just play it and judge for yourself.
hahaha I have no interest in battlefield, cod etc. But why is the guy and everyone here hating on it, it doesnt even have that good of a metacritic rating. The PC is a 93 and 360 is at 84 lol. Ps3 isnt rated yet. Im guessing that it will end up around 88-90, not even that great. This guy is a hater for whatever reason, probably because he didnt get his free copy yet. I used to read gamepro and EGM back in the ps1/n64 days, They would have not bickered about metacritic back then. If this is how he feel about metacritic, then the same can be said about any game and review. I guess we shouldn,t trust any review from gamepro that is posted early and one of the first on metacritic. They were paid for sure.
If you like Battlefield multiplayer, you'll like the game. If you were expecting anything deeper than multiplayer or buy it for singleplayer you'll be disappointed. Battlefield is for multiplayer and from what I've read, this is the best Battlefield ever right now.
How can you say that? From the single player I've seen, it's all pretty much really great looking, immersion in the environment you're in, and just looks flat out amazing. I doubt those couple of missions are THAT much better than the rest, I'm expecting an all-around polished and exciting game in all 3 modes included and I highly doubt I'll be under thrilled one bit. :)
@Hufandpuf Well said. @3GenGames All the reviews so far say the SP isn't that great which I'm fine with (I have Uncharted 3 for epic story).
They rather say the SP isn't incredibly good but still decent.
@PhantomT1412 Yes, you're right. Personally all the SP campaigns out there kind of just blend together for me... MP I have hundreds of hours of unlocking and ranking and killing.
It's good(I've played it). It's just really short and easy imo...
actually i love the sp playing on hard disabled the auto aim. fuc..ng intense it really shows you your skills, one wrong position and your instandly dead. i really really like it, great experience and awesome weapon handling
that is exactly how i intend to play it when i pick it up tomorrow...i was gonna go out tonight for the midnight release but i gotta think if i get it right away, the odds are i'm not going to get any sleep tonight cuz i'm gonna wanna play it if course lol. anyway thanks for talking up the game i've been hearing so many poor sounding things about the ps3 game and even though i had a blast with the beta i think the final game with larger scale and vehicles would be rather underwhelming i really like the infantry combat though which is why i'm most looking forward to the SP and yes auto-aim will be turned off and i only play games on the hardest difficulty lol
I dont trust Metacritic scores anyway, since they pick and choose which scores to add and remove from the total. If if had ALL the published scores, THEN it would be worth trusting... but until then...
Some publications aren't very reliable so, they have to weed the undesirables out.
Ahhhh, so this is why G4 is sometimes not allowed lol.
So, you will have the game, look at it for a few days and not playing it? All because of 60$??? AHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!
MIDNIGHT RELEASE!! I don't care about reviews. Decide on your own if you're going to buy it or not. I'm not saying reviews are a bad thing, just that everyone has there own opinions about the game. I played the beta, it wasn't a finished prduct but even if the game was released like that, I would have bought it cuz it what i do :) I will be getting MW3 as well :)
GamePro is butthurt they didn't get an early review copy, so they post this drivel? GG.
I like how they wrote this article, then gave an unreleased Uncharted 3 a perfect score.
lol!!! battlefield never goes wrong
For pc players someone said you can get the game early watch this video. http://www.youtube.com/watc...
I don't do multiplayer so its a single sausage for me. Can't wait to play BF3!!
I wouldn't tell you how to spend your money, but there are some instances where it would really be a waste. Buying Battlefield for single player is at the forefront of these instances.
This is simple, if you liked BC2 or the beta you're probably going to enjoy this, if not you should probably stay away.
i have to disagree with half that statement i really liked th beta on ps3 however i bought bc2 used from gamestop last year while looking to try something new and thought it was the second worst game i'd have played next to the first bad company lol and i returned after i beat the campaign 3 days later on the hardest difficulty. seriously an underwhelming game by all means the only thing i enjoyed was the sound. MoH was a far better game in all aspects in my opinion since i was in afghanistan i really could appreciate the aunthenticity of the project and the excellent SP campaign--MP was lacking as well btu still pretty fun when it first came out but like all FPS's aside from counterstrike the game got dull and cheap and exploited; not to the extent of cod games lol but still. and i'm buying this game for the SP and COOP and the infantry only playlists as vehicles don't really belong in an FPS in my mind.
"Battlefield 3 might be an incredibly game" Got to love the typo in the first line. This is legit. Edit: Well, at least they fixed it in the article or whoever submitted the article screwed up.
I wonder how much Bobby Kotick paid him to write that.
Not a fan of how meta' converts and re-interprets letter grades to numbers, and a 4/5 does not imply the same thing as an 80/100 either. Nice to see someone from GamePro (who gets their 1-5 scale re-adjusted by meta' all the time) share a similar opinion in one of those paragraphs, considering they're one of the ones getting re-scored. Anyways. Meta' averages in the beginning are known to fluctuate rapidly, up AND down. Yakuza 4 shot up over 10 points from where it started, and Demon's Souls didn't fall to and settle in at 89 until its final posted review.
The article is about how EA is trying to manipulate the market so only reviewers that EA believes are going to give favorable reviews are allowed early access to the game thus affecting the early metacritic score. Now that you know that you should assume that the early metacritic score will be significantly higher than the actual score when the other reviewers get their hands on the game. What metacritic does is take averages of scores across different reviews so that it's more difficult for companies to "buy" good ratings. I don't think metacritic is perfect but I find their scores to be better than going to individual sites. I also think this is going to backfire for EA. When the reviewers who were denied access to the game do review it this will likely have a negative impact on the scores they give it causing the metacritic score to drop dramatically in a few days.
Maybe EA is making sure that reviewers are playing the same game that consumers will. The day one patch that is supposed to fix a lot of issues just went live over the weekend. If a reviewer had played a copy weeks ago, those same issues would have definitely hurt the score. EA could be trying to level the playing field because there are some publications that will bash a game for glitches/issues that could have already been fixed by launch.
If they were making sure reviewers were playing the same game that consumers will then they wouldn't have given the game to any reviewers. What they did was give the game only to reviewers that they thought would give positive reviews thus manipulating the early metacritic score. Did you even read the article?!
I read the article and I've been following the situation. The question is why publish a review when you don't have console AND PC versions? Truth is, this is slightly better than a publisher putting an embargo on reviews until release day. If the game has a day one console patch that wasn't issued until last weekend, then that is the version of the game that needs to be reviewed. Why give out copies when that doesn't reflect the release condition of the game? Gamepro is weaving this conspiracy explaining why they didn't get copies in time when a lot of places didn't. Who cares when they got review copies? The date they got to play the game not as important as the review itself. TLDR : No one should care about Metacritic scores in the first place.
"I read the article and I've been following the situation. The question is why publish a review when you don't have console AND PC versions?" That is not an important question. The important questions are "Why is EA preventing access to the console versions of the game for review?" and "Why is EA restricting access to PC version to specific reviewers?" Anyways, to answer your question they only published the PC reviews of the game because EA has prevented reviewers from accessing the console version. "Truth is, this is slightly better than a publisher putting an embargo on reviews until release day. If the game has a day one console patch that wasn't issued until last weekend, then that is the version of the game that needs to be reviewed. Why give out copies when that doesn't reflect the release condition of the game?" I find it very unlikely that the patch changes the game so dramatically that any previous opinion of the game is no longer valid. When a company puts embargoes on reviews and/or prevents access to reviewers it usually means they are doing damage control for the game because they expect low scores. "Gamepro is weaving this conspiracy explaining why they didn't get copies in time when a lot of places didn't. Who cares when they got review copies? The date they got to play the game not as important as the review itself." I care when a company prevents reviewers from accessing the game because it usually means there is something wrong with the game. "TLDR : No one should care about Metacritic scores in the first place." People do care. Gamers have no other way to know the quality of a game on the release date. -- Edit -- Metacritic scores so far are: pc critic 93/100 user 7.6/10 ps3 critic 83/100 user 8.2/10 xbox critic 85.5/100 user 6.4/10 The critic ratings will be more accurate when additional reviews come in.
if you have a gaming pc and like shooters, chances are you already pre-ordered it long ago or were going to buy it no matter what. if you only own a console buy you loved bfbc2, you are going to love this game even more, way more vehicles, and more destruction. if you are a console only gamer but did not like bfbc2, you won't like bf3, it's almost the same game on console, just better/more vehicles.
Going by how much BFBC2 dropped in price, i'll wait.........I am having a good time with Red Orchestra 2.
that game from what i read sounds really amazing but sadly they don't have a console version since my PC days have been done long ago back when i played counterstrike source. now i have a ps3 but i would love to get a hold of that game on here.
"Battlefield 3 might be an incredibly game..." --yup that about sums up N4G.
this fool is crying sour grapes because his little site didn't get the game before the MANY other sites got it... atr8 hilarious!! even siting a story that was later proved to be bogus....str8 hilarious.. everyone do yourself a favor and go pick up this awesome game...
i have the game right now in my hands and been playing single player since this morning. its worth the 50$ i think.
Well IMO nothing, and I mean nothing DICE can do to make BF3s MP as crappy, bug filled, lagfest that was COD Wack Ops last year at launch, Period.
why single out battlefield?
I'd get it regardless of the scores; whether they give it a 7/10 or 10/10. These gaming sites won't dictate my purchase. I enjoyed BFBC2 and I enjoyed the BF3 Beta -- I will enjoy BF3.
How about I play the game on my own and don't depend on some nerd sitting in an office telling me what to like.
I have the X360 retail version. Day 1 patch installed, and HD Texture pack installed. Multiplayer looks like garbage.
game looks awsome on ps3
I have the X360 retail version. Day 1 patch installed, and HD Texture pack installed. Multiplayer looks like freakin honestly amazing....