EG: "Battlefield didn't need to be more like Call of Duty to succeed, it just had to double down on what it was already good at."
What is with the 8s Eurogamer? Are you saving a 10 for Skyrim?
Eurogamer giving alot of 8s...wonder what Skyrim or Zelda will get :P
They also gave BRINK an 8. So BF3 is only as "good" as BRINK? :D
I forgot about that. No accounting for taste I guess. Brink was poor. I really wanted BF3 campaign to be special. I'm not really a fan of MP in general. I really can't decide. I loved BC2 so I tempted to give it a go. Even if it's just once.
Two different people reviewed the game. Keyword - different.
They also gave Uncharted 3 an 8. So according to them, BRINK, UC3 and BF3 are all on the same level...
I just about always disagree with eurogamer scores. I still consider all reviews though.
"Which leaves multiplayer, which is predictably - and thankfully - excellent......If Battlefield was a superlative multiplayer game in previous incarnations, it's never been better than this." DONE. Everything else is irrelevant to me (and dare I say most experienced BF fans). I can't wait to play this tonight. Tomorrow's gonna be rough. :-)
^truth, that's all I needed to hear.
Bad premise on review. *smh*
hey ada orang indo
Why are we all comparing it to Call of Duty as a reviewer? I not once have compared it to COD. Instead compare it to Bad Company 2 or even Killzone for that matter. COD is COD, this is clearly not COD.
By the sounds of it SP and Co-op is just like COD!
Maybe because the campaign is a linear experience styled after COD, rather than a more open Battlefield experience like BC1? And honestly, if you want to blame anyone for all the COD references, blame EA. They're the ones who have been relentlessly trumpeting BF3 as the game to replace COD.
Wasn't blaming anyone, it was literally a question lol. As a reviewer I don't see it fit to review the game based on it being a COD "clone." or anything of that nature. When people review COD they base the new one off the previous one. Bad Company 2 was a killer game, so why cant BF3 be compared to that instead within a review? I've yet to jump into the SP. Want my surround sound on for it, and well playing it at midnight like that isn't a great idea. In otherwords I don't have an opinion on that just yet.
Soldierone, the problem seems to be that they tried to be like CoD in the campaign, and from what I'm hearing the campaign doesn't even feel like it's part of the same game. But if one part had to be underwhelming, I'm glad it's the single player. Historically, BF *is* online play (none of the BF games outside of BC1 and BC2 even had campaigns). Frankly I think they should have just left the campaign out entirely. And according to this review, the online play is the best in the entire series. To me, nothing else matters. Honestly, how many people WON'T just go straight to online play when they fire this up?
MW3 to get a 10. You can quote me on that.
if MW3 get's a 10 it's only because they paid for a 10
"Those who buy the game for multiplayer likely won't care that these elements aren't up to par, but what stings most is the thought of what DICE could have done to evolve and expand its multiplayer design skills if the mantra of "BEAT COD" hadn't been drummed so relentlessly into the development process. Battlefield didn't need to be more like Call of Duty to succeed, it just had to double down on what it was already good at. Hopefully that's a lesson that will be learned by the time Battlefield 4 roars into view."
I don't get why they said that...I picked it up at Midnight, then played for 7 hours straight even though I had to get up with my twin babies at 8 in the morning, blood shot eyes and all because I was too damn addicted to the online...and nothing, I mean NOTHING resembles CoD in this game.
All that shit dice was talking and they got a 8 lol
All those great scores Uncharted 3 is getting...and they gave it an 8.
BFBC2's online was clearly superior to MW2's, and yet it tended to get lower reviews. It's because of the single player stuff that CoD games get such high marks. If you actually read the review, it sounds like the online piece was a 9 or 10 easily. All I know is this: I like both series, but I've easily put 10x more online hours into BF games than CoD games. If you prefer CoD's online, more power to you...but I think you're crazy. All the score mongering in the world won't change my opinion on this. It does bug me that some reviews seem to be treating the campaign as the main feature of the game and letting that dictate the bulk of their opinion, when everyone knows the BF series is online-oriented.
CoD and BF have very different multiplayer components. One is more of a arena, twitch-based shooter, the other is more of a sandbox, team-oriented shooter. How is it crazy to prefer one over the other? Some people don't like the slowness of BF games. CoD provides quick gameplay and tight mechanics. That's why it's so popular.
EA was talking shit, not DICE.
Blimey looks like Eurogamer keep on churning out 8's, you can bet your house MW3 is gonna get a 10.
Why are so many people so quick to call bias? Eurogamer gave MW2 a 9/10 which is well below its metascore, so I don't see where this theory you all have that they are CoD fanboys is coming from.
They're kinda right tho, should've stuck with successful BF formula rather than incorporating COD.
nothing about it is similar to cod other than you die just as fast which makes sense if your trying to be somehwat realistic, i mean can you get shot with 5ish bullets and walk away or sprint rather?
and fyi just becuase there are some maps/modes more infantry based doesnt make it cod either becuase if thats the case every military shooter is cod
i personally like the change of pace there are plenty maps vehicle focused and plenty infantry and plenty both, its a nice variety imo
Nothing wrong with a 8. Still keeping mine.
Really? QQing about a number? Because THATS exactly what your doing. how sad the gaming community is these days that they cant go out for themselves and find out if a game is good or not.
Yes but to find out if a game is good or not might cost me 60 euros. If it's good, then that's great. If it sucks then I just blew 60 euros.
I don't know about game reviews nowadays. I mean if any other game had floating objects, peoples legs & arms sticking out through walls & buildings, men sinking into the mountains, ai in single player useless, a short pretty average single player. I mean all these things I've read in all he reviews, and it's getting amazing reviews, How ?, if this was say Forza or Uncharted it would be slaughtered, it's as buggy as hell that IGN couldn't review the console version untill the release day patch.
Why did i get disagrees when i stated that MW3 will get a 10. Most people should know COD is immune from 8's and 9's. EA and Dice made a mistake with the single player. U dont take on COD at their game. Most of us was crying out for something different to COD and what do we get? A giant hollywood set-piece. Regardless of the 8, my point stands that MW3 will get a 10 even if its more of the same sh!t from the past 3 iterations. Eurogamer is becoming a joke site.
Eurogamer gave MW2 a 9/10 and Black Ops an 8/10, both of which are below metacritic average.
So maybe that is why you got disagrees, a little reasearch disproves all of your points.
Jaded reviewers... SMH.
Well, at least we know now that Eurogamer doesn't stand for the majority. I think I'll go elsewhere for a good idea of whether or not to buy a game.
Eurogamer is just mad cause they didnt recived a early copy of the game from EA. This game is awesome 9.8/10 for me.
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.