Top
290°

OXM: Why it hurt me giving Battlefield 3 an 8/10

OXM UK: "Soul-searching from our reviewer Edwin on the eve of release."

The story is too old to be commented.
Hufandpuf2242d ago (Edited 2242d ago )

instead of ranting about how SP doesn't matter, I'm going to agree with this guy. The campaign should have NOT tried to mimic COD and I think that was it's greatest downfall.

Sure the campaign is enjoyable, it's not horrible. But if you are looking for an in-depth, fleshed out story with amazing characters, your looking in the wrong place.

The missions are straight forward and they play out the same way each time. A different angle from the Bad Company sandbox-like missions.

DICE tries to make watch you everything going on, even when you don't want too or try something else.

The graphics and tech are amazing, so is the sound, but gameplay-wise, it's a point and shoot campaign with little interaction with the environment and full of QTEs and following orders.

It's not bad, but I think if DICE tried to put their own flavor into it, without drawing so much from other shooters the SP would be much better.

Hellsvacancy2242d ago (Edited 2242d ago )

I aint buyin it for a "in-depth, fleshed out story with amazing characters"

I just wanna slaughter mofos and blow stuff up online

Thats where my moneys goin, ill play the SP of course, ill dip in and out

kaveti66162242d ago

They say piracy is hurting the industry.

I think mindless people who buy mindless games enable developers to create more crappy, shallow shooters, and that is what hurts gaming.

Neckbear2242d ago (Edited 2242d ago )

Nonetheless, kaveti, gaming has never been a particularly "deep" hobby- not that it needs to be. There is place for both shallow shooters of silliness and thought-provoking experiences; not that the latter isn't terribly absent from any medium in general, but that's an unrelated topic.

evrfighter2242d ago (Edited 2242d ago )

one real desert strike like chopper mission. One air-to-ground A10 and one air-to-air f18 jet mission not on rails would have sealed the deal.

I know this isn't for everyone but maybe even some blackhawk flying. Moving squads to a hotzone, medevac, lifting troops out of a hotzone all in one mission. I would have enjoyed it.

Kleptic2242d ago

I agree with many that the single player is almost a different game...

not saying I dislike it...but has the same fallbacks that all linear shooters have, which is sort of surprising as DICE kept saying this is now a pillar of the franchise...

your dude and 4 other characters moving through a 'hot zone'...and all eyes are on you?...immediately?...its kind of ridiculous...and I hate the parts where you're being yelled at to move forward, and are faced with a infinite spawning enemies that will nearly instantly drop you...

I don't know...i guess I am a little let down by the single player...6 hours of laying prone isn't exactly earth shattering...but the MP is even better than I expected, so i'm still happy...

zeeshan2241d ago

SP still remains a problem these days. It's like they don't even care about that anymore. Bf3 sp makes kz3 sp look great.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2241d ago
Baka-akaB2242d ago (Edited 2242d ago )

why are you guys even searching for a "in-depth, fleshed out story with amazing characters" there to begin with ?

Modern warfare doesnt even have that , however some guys wanna pretend otherwise . Its characters are just a bit more fleshed out over the course of three games already , but it's literally michael bay with a stick .

One stupidly controversial sequence or two doesnt change that

Hicken2242d ago

It's odd: you play a man in the military, trained to follow orders and not go off on your own, but people want to go off on their own, and complain when they can't.

JellyJelly2242d ago

Battlefield 3 focuses more on the MP yet reviewers seem to focus most on its SP.

It's ok to make a SP game with a tacked on MP but not the other way around. At least not when DICE is making it, it seems.

SJPFTW2242d ago

its true. Looking at Jim Sterling's review of Dead Space 2 he gives it a 9.5 greatly praising the single player even when he admits the multiplayer is really bad.

Yet gives BF3 a 7.5 saying the multiplayer is one of the best out there but single player is disappointing? like WTF?

So game reviews from these "journalist" are single player bias. If you want to know

Jobesy2242d ago (Edited 2242d ago )

When you see BF3 trailers what are they showing? Thats right, single player! They're advertising what looks to be an epic campaign, which it isn't.

For EA/DICE trying to bring new players to the franchise by advertising the campaign they failed. For trying to bring new players by advertising the beta, they failed. They're full of fail right now.

lumley6662242d ago

^^ cod fan boy lol

i hate cod and battlefield lol fps in genral an i can see your fanboyism lol

Shackdaddy8362242d ago

Jim Sterling is an idiot though. Have you read his review? It sounds like he played the game for an hour then quit.

frostyhat1232242d ago (Edited 2242d ago )

Maybe he thought single player was a 10 and took .5 for the multiplayer, and maybe he thought the multiplayer was only a 9 for battlefield 3?

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2242d ago
iamnsuperman2242d ago (Edited 2242d ago )

"Battlefield 3 focuses more on the MP yet reviewers seem to focus most on its SP"

Single player is an integral part of a game considering everyone can play it. Last year in America roughly 24% of PS3 we not connected to the internet (360 was higher). I am glad some reviewers are looking at the single player and is affecting the score because it is part of the package/product you are buying. That is what the review should look at not just one aspect a lot like. Bit like Uncharted 3. I am only really going to be playing single player but there are people out there who probably want to play the multiplayer. Should the multiplayer be accounted into the score. Of course because it is part of the product you are buying on the disc. It seems Dice have created a great multiplayer but a flawed single player and they should be called out about it.

Singe player creation is hard because not only gameplay mechanics have to be thought of but a detail/interesting story and great voice acting to sell the story are integral parts of single player who few developers have mastered. Taking on a single player to tick the boxes doesn't work. A great deal of thought needs to be put into it.

For me there are good developers that excel in either single player or multiplayer but its the best developers who can excel in both.

denimsky2242d ago

"Singe player creation is hard because not only gameplay mechanics have to be thought of but a detail/interesting story and great voice acting to sell the story are integral parts of single player who few developers have mastered."

But you should remember that making a great multiplayer is as hard as making a great SP. Balancing the mutiplayer game modes and removing all the exploits and at the same time making the game fun is extremely difficult. You never know how people will play the game before release. The optimization with the scale of Battlefield with all the players on line is also really hard.

KonGreat2242d ago

BF2 didn't have a SP, just the MP with bots, but that game still received great scores!

Captain Qwark 92242d ago

@iamnsuperman....

i agree and disagree with you. your right that its part of the package so yes it should be judged as such but at the same time your wrong becuase it depends on the individual and the game.

for example, me. yes i bought the game and the sp comes with it however i couldnt care less if the sp was worse than superman 64 becuase i went out and bought it for mp only with full intentions to never play the sp. in my book i give it a 10 becuase i think the mp is the best out there. however if i was trying to tell somebody how great the mp is and they were like "on a scale of 1-10 what would you give the game?" i cant suddenly take the whole game into account and give it a 7 becuase that would be wildly misleading.

also what would happen if it was multiplayer only? then sp isnt part of the package and this game you would rate as a "7" becuase of its weak sp suddenly becomes a 9 or 10? its almost as if its being punished for trying to offer you more for your money.

this is actually something that could be vary debatable and to be honest, imo if a game has both sp and mp then it should get two different scores. one for each becuase typically there different enough to be considered two games anyway. this would also solve the situation i mentioned earlier with a drastically changing scale.

HeavenlySnipes2242d ago

be the other way around. Games originated with NO MP. MP is something that took storm THIS GEN. That doesn't change the fact that what's supposed to give a game its identity is the SP portion. MP is always supposed to be looked at as a bonus. You ever notice that the highest rated games this gen are all SP based? Mass Effect, Uncharted, GTAIV, GOW, Gears, Super Mario etc..

Reviewers would be more lenient if the game had NO SP because that would only leave the MP to be criticized. As it is now, BF doesn't have its own universe or background. Its just a faceless military shooter. Without a proper storyline, that's all it can ever be seen as. (That's not to say its not awesome)

Fishy Fingers2242d ago (Edited 2242d ago )

This is why it's improtant to READ reviews. Not just look at the score and celebrate/rant. Because the few "low" (they're only low by fanboy standards) reviews are so mainly because of the SP campaign, something I, and many, many other BF fans dont really care about.

Edit: Honestly, whats this recent trend of justifying, explaining, defending etc your reviews. The review is enough.

user8586212242d ago

Cant be worst then OPM admitting BF3 was "shooter of the year" guess they aint a big fan of r3 and killzone 3

Fishy Fingers2242d ago

Maybe they're just being honest.

Shackdaddy8362242d ago

r3 and kz3 are not going to be shooters of the year. I can guarantee you that...

2242d ago Replies(1)
Show all comments (33)
The story is too old to be commented.