More EA-Battlefield 3 Review Shenanigans

From Gameranx:

'So we realize that a localized branch of EA may have been withholding review copies from jounalists unlikely to give Battlefield 3 a close to perfect score. That's annoying and the localized branch apologized and said that sort of thing hasn't happened before and wouldn't happen again.

Flash forward less than a week and it's happened again.

Arthur Gies' review of Battlefield 3 is largely positive. He highly recommends the multiplayer but disliked the single player and co-op modes. The game recieved a very respectable 4.5, but the review has a backstory that is rather interesting.

Posted to Tumblr, Arthur discusses the backdrop to his writing the review.'

[killyourfm]

So a reviewer "writes off" 2 out of the 3 game modes, and still gives it the equivalent of a 90%?

On the other side of the fence, we have the Gametrailers review, whose reviewer was puzzled over the omission of boats...(funny, since there are boats)

Something is wrong here.

[jetlian]

all reviews have been pretty strange. And a lot of it is to finagle top awards for the end of the year. Thats why I hate this crap.

I haven't played a single game this year that was really ground breaking. Nothing new in any of them! But someone gonna pretend "oh this is a major break through." I bet you on that

[matgrowcott]

On his blog, Gies defines what a 4/5 means on Joystiq: "must-buy for fans of the genre", and it's difficult to argue with that. The 4 doesn't represent 90%, it represents a statement.

Still, I agree that it gives the wrong impression, and it'll definitely over-inflate the overall score.

[hot111]

Looks like EA cherry picked bunch of no-name sites to review this game.Lack of big sites is pretty telling.
Console reviews are delayed and game launches tomorrow...shady tactics

[killyourfm]

No-name sites like Joystiq, Gamespy, IGN, Gametrailers, and GameInformer? . . .

[jetlian]

most reviews are pc version not consoles on those sites. And doesn't matter who got what its odd they wanted them to wait after even the game comes out.

At that point theres no reason to wait for EA to ship them a game they can go buy at the store! clearly an FU was in order

[WiIIiam]

This kind of thing sickens me, but I'm exactly why it's allowed to continue. I continually buy games made by companies that make a business out of cheating their customers. Let's call a spade a spade, because cheating customers is exactly what online passes, paranoia-based DRM, and review score manipulation is- no way around it.

Gamers hold a lot more power than they think. If we all held off on buying a game we were looking forward to because we disagreed with a company's practices, we could watch their stock prices literally take a free fall because no one bought their game on day one. The company would panic and be forced to change their ways or else risk bankruptcy.

Really, think about it. If no one bought their stupid games, they'd all be out of a job. In the end, we gamers would win because we'd show the suits in corporate that we won't eat shit and like it, and they would ultimately give us what we want. That, or they can enjoy watching the competition make all the money.

[hot111]

"No-name sites like Joystiq, Gamespy, IGN, Gametrailers, and GameInformer?"

+ twice as much barely known websites,min score=9
It's almost like lower than 9 scores are embargoed until tomorrow.
We shall see...

[hadriker]

This is why I never pay attention to number or letter grades. They are always arbitrary and mean nothing.

[Chuk5]

I still believe EA has been absolutely terrible with the whole campaign for this game by conducting seriously heinous PR practices that have taken the consent of the developer and twisted it. I'm not saying DICE's hands are totally clean, but it's clear EA is pulling their strings when is all is said done.

Like Arthur said, BF3s situation is unprecedented. How do you score a game that quite possibly has some of the most amazing competitive multiplayer games have ever seen from one of the best multiplayer studios in history, verses a less than spectacular campaign and co-op? Context is very important here and it shouldn't be ignored for a total objectivity, but how much subjectivity is too much? I think I'll awnser that when I have the game.

Other sites have stated they flatout have no review copies because they wanted to review the console versions, which EA have kept under lock and key. There is a strange shroud of mystery over the game right now, almost like it's gone dark because EA don't want us to see some things about the console versions. I am worried we have another MOH on our hands in terms of the console versions, but that's because of the dark room conferencing EA is doing which is making me very suspicious.

I think it'll turn out okay once every gets their hands on it, but everything is so shady that I am questioning purchasing the game at times.