Zero Punctuation: Battlefield 3

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 

Yes, lets take a multiplayer focused game and review it as a single player shooter.

Next thing you know, CS:GO will be reviewed in a bot round.

cmdrmonkey:
Absolutely no one buys Battlefield games for the single player. You're probably the only person on the planet who even played it Yahtzee.

Funny you should say that, because my friend (who pre-ordered, no less) played through the single player twice in the first week or so he had the game. Although that probably has more to do with the multiplayer not even bloody working for him that whole time. FPS games have been doing the whole internet multiplayer thing for what, 15 years or so? You'd think studios would have that shit sorted by now.

thirion1850:
Yes, lets take a multiplayer focused game and review it as a single player shooter.

Well, EA did take a multiplayer focused game and market it as a single player shooter.

And the singleplayer does suck all the balls.

If DICE didn't want their single player to be criticized then they shouldn't have made it in the first place. EA certainly seemed to think the single player part of the game was good because a great deal of the advertising for the game was about it.

Single player campaigns need to be of a certain quality if they are going to be release it to the market, I assure you if the multiplayer had been as half-assed as the story mode was people wouldn't be so quick to defend Battlefield 3. The game shouldn't be half price because it is a multiplayer focused game, it should be half priced because the whole package isn't of the utmost quality. Single player games are worth 60 dollars too, it isn't about the quantity of the content but the quality.

That_Sneaky_Camper:
If DICE didn't want their single player to be criticized then they shouldn't have made it in the first place. EA certainly seemed to think the single player part of the game was good because a great deal of the advertising for the game was about it.

Single player campaigns need to be of a certain quality if they are going to be release it to the market, I assure you if the multiplayer had been as half-assed as the story mode was people wouldn't be so quick to defend Battlefield 3. The game shouldn't be half price because it is a multiplayer focused game, it should be half priced because the whole package isn't of the utmost quality. Single player games are worth 60 dollars too, it isn't about the quantity of the content but the quality.

Multiplayer has always been and will always be far more important to the "Battlefield" series than the campaign. It has always been a multiplayer-first game. Only this game and the "Bad Company" series have had singleplayer campaigns. But the multiplayer in this game is just SOOOOOOOOOO damn good! Therefore, I do love this game VERY much, despite actually agreeing with most of the stuff Yahtzee says in this review.

I don't know about the console versions, though. I have heard that they aren't as good.

"From our prescription medication we have a weird yellow something creature hanging from the ceiling"" . Har...har?

HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR! YOU ARE HILARIOUS CROSHAW. Seriously. Get a life, Croshaw. More than normal. And I mean this even more every time I watch one of your reviews. Your shtick is old now.

[zonking great]:
"From our prescription medication we have a weird yellow something creature hanging from the ceiling"" . Har...har?

HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR! YOU ARE HILARIOUS CROSHAW. Seriously. Get a life, Croshaw. More than normal. And I mean this even more every time I watch one of your reviews. Your shtick is old now.

Oh, come now. His shtick can't possibly be any older than your shtick for continually watching ZP eps when you know you won't like them.

On-Topic:

Online multiplayer is pointless to review. At best, the only thing you can review for it is whether or not the mechanics and programming make the game playable or unplayable. At worst, the only thing you'll be reviewing is the shiny new feature the company spent the greater half of their marketing campaign pushing as revolutionary. After that, your entire multiplayer experience is at the mercy of who you play with. It also doesn't help that a big-budget title like BF3 will render its multiplayer irrelevant when BF4 comes out. No one will be paying BF3 then. Kind of sort of the same way that Madden clutters the bargain bins whenever we reach a new year. Then there's the inevitable removal of gaming servers for irrelevant multiplayer titles. Does the first Battlefield still have its servers? Even if it does, I bet no one's playing on them.

The only way an online multiplayer experience can be properly reviewed is if the same game continues to update itself without putting a higher number after its title, because in that case the changes are being made to further enhance the experience people are having with other players. For that reason, games like Team Fortress 2 continue to be relevant even though they've been out for roughly half a decade.

Singleplayer experiences in a game are things that are highly unlikely to change. They will likely be the same for a game 5 seconds down the line or 30 years down the line. The player's enjoyment of that experience is based largely on what the developers have presented. For that reason, they are perfect specimens for review. They showcase what the developers thought the player would enjoy, and the player determines whether or not this is true after they've played it. A memorable singleplayer experience can be replayable, classic, or even timeless. There is no such thing as a timeless multiplayer experience if the multiplayer keeps jumping ship at the next installment but with only a few minor tweaks to already familiar gameplay.

Let's say we're in 2017 and Battlefield 5 is out, alongside Madden 2017. How likely are you to put in Battlefield 3 or Madden '08 at that time? You're not? Why not? They're certainly the same ga--oh... never mind. The only multiplayer games that people will actually put in older installments for are generally fighting games or party games, and even then it will only be for multiplayer than can be enjoyed offline and among friends.

fieryshadowcard:

[zonking great]:
"From our prescription medication we have a weird yellow something creature hanging from the ceiling"" . Har...har?

HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR! YOU ARE HILARIOUS CROSHAW. Seriously. Get a life, Croshaw. More than normal. And I mean this even more every time I watch one of your reviews. Your shtick is old now.

Oh, come now. His shtick can't possibly be any older than your shtick for continually watching ZP eps when you know you won't like them.

On-Topic:

Online multiplayer is pointless to review. At best, the only thing you can review for it is whether or not the mechanics and programming make the game playable or unplayable. At worst, the only thing you'll be reviewing is the shiny new feature the company spent the greater half of their marketing campaign pushing as revolutionary. After that, your entire multiplayer experience is at the mercy of who you play with. It also doesn't help that a big-budget title like BF3 will render its multiplayer irrelevant when BF4 comes out. No one will be paying BF3 then. Kind of sort of the same way that Madden clutters the bargain bins whenever we reach a new year. Then there's the inevitable removal of gaming servers for irrelevant multiplayer titles. Does the first Battlefield still have its servers? Even if it does, I bet no one's playing on them.

The only way an online multiplayer experience can be properly reviewed is if the same game continues to update itself without putting a higher number after its title, because in that case the changes are being made to further enhance the experience people are having with other players. For that reason, games like Team Fortress 2 continue to be relevant even though they've been out for roughly half a decade.

Singleplayer experiences in a game are things that are highly unlikely to change. They will likely be the same for a game 5 seconds down the line or 30 years down the line. The player's enjoyment of that experience is based largely on what the developers have presented. For that reason, they are perfect specimens for review. They showcase what the developers thought the player would enjoy, and the player determines whether or not this is true after they've played it. A memorable singleplayer experience can be replayable, classic, or even timeless. There is no such thing as a timeless multiplayer experience if the multiplayer keeps jumping ship at the next installment but with only a few minor tweaks to already familiar gameplay.

Let's say we're in 2017 and Battlefield 5 is out, alongside Madden 2017. How likely are you to put in Battlefield 3 or Madden '08 at that time? You're not? Why not? They're certainly the same ga--oh... never mind. The only multiplayer games that people will actually put in older installments for are generally fighting games or party games, and even then it will only be for multiplayer than can be enjoyed offline and among friends.

That didn't make any sense at all. In 2017, "Battlefield 4" will probably be released, not "Battlefield 5". Also, it just doesn't make any sense what you and so many others on this board have said about reviewing multiplayer essentially being the same as reviewing the players. That's not true. You don't think any design at all goes into the multiplayer?

Furthermore, if you bought this game for the campaign, you're an imbecile. It's a "Battlefield" game, and "Battlefield" = multiplayer.

"you must reach a minimum level of SUCK MY COCK BF3." <------LOL :D

COD FTW

Markunator:

That didn't make any sense at all. In 2017, "Battlefield 4" will probably be released, not "Battlefield 5". Also, it just doesn't make any sense what you and so many others on this board have said about reviewing multiplayer essentially being the same as reviewing the players. That's not true. You don't think any design at all goes into the multiplayer?

Furthermore, if you bought this game for the campaign, you're an imbecile. It's a "Battlefield" game, and "Battlefield" = multiplayer.

And theres the problem, in a few years when the next one is released, almost NOBODY will be playing this incarnation, and so on and so forth. You can put so much planning into the game's multiplayer only for it to become abandoned. Good Griefing grief CoD games all the time because its just that easy to turn a fun experience into a horrid one.]

Single Player games = Structured to be fun.

Multiplayer Only Games = Structured to TRY and be fun, but is completely reliant on the player base to keep that fun up.

Yahtzee's review is 100% backed up by Dice and the people who worked with them to bring us this game. They believed that their single player was good enough and were behind the idea of single player. Although the single player was just a giant QTE.

thirion1850:
Yes, lets take a multiplayer focused game and review it as a single player shooter.

Next thing you know, CS:GO will be reviewed in a bot round.

I've said this before, the dev team was 100% BEHIND their shitty single player, and since you can't rate multiplayer since its fun quality is at the hands of players, your better off with a single player game because you know it will always be good.

Aprilgold:

Markunator:

That didn't make any sense at all. In 2017, "Battlefield 4" will probably be released, not "Battlefield 5". Also, it just doesn't make any sense what you and so many others on this board have said about reviewing multiplayer essentially being the same as reviewing the players. That's not true. You don't think any design at all goes into the multiplayer?

Furthermore, if you bought this game for the campaign, you're an imbecile. It's a "Battlefield" game, and "Battlefield" = multiplayer.

And theres the problem, in a few years when the next one is released, almost NOBODY will be playing this incarnation, and so on and so forth. You can put so much planning into the game's multiplayer only for it to become abandoned. Good Griefing grief CoD games all the time because its just that easy to turn a fun experience into a horrid one.]

Single Player games = Structured to be fun.

Multiplayer Only Games = Structured to TRY and be fun, but is completely reliant on the player base to keep that fun up.

Yahtzee's review is 100% backed up by Dice and the people who worked with them to bring us this game. They believed that their single player was good enough and were behind the idea of single player. Although the single player was just a giant QTE.

thirion1850:
Yes, lets take a multiplayer focused game and review it as a single player shooter.

Next thing you know, CS:GO will be reviewed in a bot round.

I've said this before, the dev team was 100% BEHIND their shitty single player, and since you can't rate multiplayer since its fun quality is at the hands of players, your better off with a single player game because you know it will always be good.

I honestly don't care what EA/DICE said about the singleplayer. Even if it had been a fifteen-hour-long, completely original masterwork of sublime storytelling, it still wouldn't have been as much fun - or have had the staying power - of the multiplayer. This is the sequel to "Battlefield 2", which was multiplayer only, so if you went it wanting to get your money's worth out of the singleplayer, that's your own fault.

And if you're playing on the PC, you won't really have many problems with the community. They know that "Battlefield" is about teamwork, unlike a certain other game I know.

And so what if there's a new "Battlefield" released in 5-6 years? Can't we just enjoy this game now? New installments will always replace the old ones, so WTF is your point?

Markunator:

Aprilgold:

Markunator:

That didn't make any sense at all. In 2017, "Battlefield 4" will probably be released, not "Battlefield 5". Also, it just doesn't make any sense what you and so many others on this board have said about reviewing multiplayer essentially being the same as reviewing the players. That's not true. You don't think any design at all goes into the multiplayer?

Furthermore, if you bought this game for the campaign, you're an imbecile. It's a "Battlefield" game, and "Battlefield" = multiplayer.

And theres the problem, in a few years when the next one is released, almost NOBODY will be playing this incarnation, and so on and so forth. You can put so much planning into the game's multiplayer only for it to become abandoned. Good Griefing grief CoD games all the time because its just that easy to turn a fun experience into a horrid one.]

Single Player games = Structured to be fun.

Multiplayer Only Games = Structured to TRY and be fun, but is completely reliant on the player base to keep that fun up.

Yahtzee's review is 100% backed up by Dice and the people who worked with them to bring us this game. They believed that their single player was good enough and were behind the idea of single player. Although the single player was just a giant QTE.

thirion1850:
Yes, lets take a multiplayer focused game and review it as a single player shooter.

Next thing you know, CS:GO will be reviewed in a bot round.

I've said this before, the dev team was 100% BEHIND their shitty single player, and since you can't rate multiplayer since its fun quality is at the hands of players, your better off with a single player game because you know it will always be good.

I honestly don't care what EA/DICE said about the singleplayer. Even if it had been a fifteen-hour-long, completely original masterwork of sublime storytelling, it still wouldn't have been as much fun - or have had the staying power - of the multiplayer. This is the sequel to "Battlefield 2", which was multiplayer only, so if you went it wanting to get your money's worth out of the singleplayer, that's your own fault.

And if you're playing on the PC, you won't really have many problems with the community. They know that "Battlefield" is about teamwork, unlike a certain other game I know.

And so what if there's a new "Battlefield" released in 5-6 years? Can't we just enjoy this game now? New installments will always replace the old ones, so WTF is your point?

My point is that your complaining about him reviewing the same exact way he always has. I Don't care if its a sequel to the god given Jesus baby of our industry, the sequel has singleplayer, and its a load of horse shit. EA / Dice have been screwing over PC gamers throughout the whole god damn dev cycle, its a silly thought to thik that the Multiplayer will be around longer past the next sequels multiplayer.

Dice made the fucking game, thus if they built a single player, you can't complain, because they made the fucking thing. Unless YOU have a job in the industry then you would not quite understand their mindset, they made a single player and tried to sell the game off of it. This is a blatant lie since the single player is a giant QTE, you have nothing to argue here. The single player was shit, and the multiplayer is a random experience, it isn't structured past 'is the multiplayer playable?' Which was my point the whole fucking time.

The multiplayer is like a fucking dice roll, you roll and you will either get below a fifteen for a failing match or utter pub stomp or large amounts of trolls / hackers, then if you make it ABOVE it then you have a winning match, then you have to get a eighteen to see if you don't have hackers, EVEN THEN you have to get a natural 20 just to have no problems. The better the match, the less likely it is to enjoy the game.

Even if we take Good Grief, heres a video of them doing their thing on a game.

I chose this video out of their hundreds simply over the fact that this is a example of what I mean. All it takes is one asshole on a 16 player game match to ruin EVERYONE'S time. In Battlefield this can be god damn worse, its like Feeding a Feeder in LoL, you will lose because they just became more powerful then you. In battlefield, if a greifer kills 9 other players in a attack helicopter and crashes into the side of a building, your team just lost 9 players for several minutes because NOW you and your team have a losing disadvantage, its even WORSE if you are winning because since you just lost those people, you are now going to have the blunt force of the attacking team onto a point, if this happens frequently enough, your going to lose due to the incompetence of one team mate.

No, a multiplayer ONLY game will not be as fun, all the time, as a single player game will be. Because a singleplayer game is structured to give you the most fun, while a multiplayer game, like said previously, is random on the amount of fun. I can't tell you how many times I loved playing Team Fortress 2 and how many times I rage quited from a match due to incompetence of team.

Eh, got the game and I have to say the following: Singleplayer = crap. The Multiplayer has way too many glitches still present and the game feels like a beta. Heck, one of my mates has a tank cannon attachment that, as of about a few days ago, does not fire a bloody round. You get the recoil, but no round. Then there's the unlock system, especially the two separate starting guns for each side that have their own bars, meaning a good streak on one side will have you favouring that class on that side, or just farming the EXP until you get a gun you can use for both sides.

But perhaps the most annoying thing is how DICE claimed ten times the unlockables, a statement only true because - you guessed it - you have to unlock most everything ten bloody times, which discourages experimenting with guns, which is what should, if anything, be encouraged. What will happen is you will get one gun far enough along, and you will use that gun and ONLY that gun from that point on, because the other guns without the unlocks might as well be paintball guns for all the practicality they offer.

But what really sets the issues aside is the fact that I have to run the game on the lowest settings, and the game plays worse than Bad Company 2 on the medium settings, and there's bugger-all graphical difference. I know the scale is larger, but some of the maps are at BFBC2 scales, which should lead to a small hit in performance, not a choppy, nearly unplayable game. There's a whole lot that needs fixing, and a whole lot that could be done better. Still, it has potential under all that beta, so I'll wait a bit.

But folks, if you don't have this game yet, wait until the first wave of patches is through, then get the bugger. It has potential, EA just need to get it out of the Beta stage it painfully shows itself to be in.

Aprilgold:
My point is that your complaining about him reviewing the same exact way he always has. I Don't care if its a sequel to the god given Jesus baby of our industry, the sequel has singleplayer, and its a load of horse shit. EA / Dice have been screwing over PC gamers throughout the whole god damn dev cycle, its a silly thought to thik that the Multiplayer will be around longer past the next sequels multiplayer.

Dice made the fucking game, thus if they built a single player, you can't complain, because they made the fucking thing. Unless YOU have a job in the industry then you would not quite understand their mindset, they made a single player and tried to sell the game off of it. This is a blatant lie since the single player is a giant QTE, you have nothing to argue here. The single player was shit, and the multiplayer is a random experience, it isn't structured past 'is the multiplayer playable?' Which was my point the whole fucking time.

The multiplayer is like a fucking dice roll, you roll and you will either get below a fifteen for a failing match or utter pub stomp or large amounts of trolls / hackers, then if you make it ABOVE it then you have a winning match, then you have to get a eighteen to see if you don't have hackers, EVEN THEN you have to get a natural 20 just to have no problems. The better the match, the less likely it is to enjoy the game.

Even if we take Good Grief, heres a video of them doing their thing on a game.

I chose this video out of their hundreds simply over the fact that this is a example of what I mean. All it takes is one asshole on a 16 player game match to ruin EVERYONE'S time. In Battlefield this can be god damn worse, its like Feeding a Feeder in LoL, you will lose because they just became more powerful then you. In battlefield, if a greifer kills 9 other players in a attack helicopter and crashes into the side of a building, your team just lost 9 players for several minutes because NOW you and your team have a losing disadvantage, its even WORSE if you are winning because since you just lost those people, you are now going to have the blunt force of the attacking team onto a point, if this happens frequently enough, your going to lose due to the incompetence of one team mate.

No, a multiplayer ONLY game will not be as fun, all the time, as a single player game will be. Because a singleplayer game is structured to give you the most fun, while a multiplayer game, like said previously, is random on the amount of fun. I can't tell you how many times I loved playing Team Fortress 2 and how many times I rage quited from a match due to incompetence of team.

Well, my point still remains that no one who knew anything at all about this franchise cared about the singleplayer, regardless of what EA or DICE said about it. It is a "Battlefield" game. And anyone who buys a "Battlefield" game for the singleplayer is an idiot. The multiplayer has always been the most important thing to that franchise. Hell, up until the first "Bad Company" game, it was the ONLY thing for that franchise!

The multiplayer gave me everything I wanted out of this game. It emphasizes teamwork and tactics; it actually takes some skill in order to be good at it. True "Battlefield" players (which can mostly be found on the PC) know this.

And what Yahtzee said about the multiplayer being endless repetition is simply not true in this case. The maps are huge, and the games can last for very long. No match is ever identical to another.

Like I said: I didn't care much for the campaign at all; it has none of the stuff that makes the multiplayer so amazing. I actually agree with most of the stuff Yahtzee says about it in this review. Thing is, the campaign is just one fraction of a per cent of all the enjoyment that you can get out of this game. And while I do think that EA and DICE made a mistake in hyping up the campaign so much, that doesn't take any enjoyment away from the multiplayer in any way at all.

Markunator:

And what Yahtzee said about the multiplayer being endless repetition is simply not true in this case. The maps are huge, and the games can last for very long. No match is ever identical to another.

I'm going to have to disagree: I used to play a lot of TF2 and that got repetitive after a while. And that's got way more variety than battlefield: 9 radically different classes and play styles, completely different maps and game modes and slews of weapons and buffs. And that still got old because the competitive element just meant I was finding out what to do in every map or fight and just doing that. Competitive multiplayer is repetitive. It's what you put up with for the fun of the occasional kill-steak where you feel like god, but it is true.

This game sounds terrible. Maybe that's just because I'm playing Skyrim. I've been done with the Mo-war and B-field games since BC:2 and MW:2. For some odd reason, those are the first two of the series I tried and all the games before and after feel extremely similar.

ph0b0s123:
As I predicted here some weeks ago, no mention of the multi player game which is the main point of the Battlefield series. The justification for this by Yahtzee was pretty laughable.

The bit complaining about not being able to fly a plane and that the engine would be good for a flight sim, would been very funny if that was not precisely what happens in the multiplayer game.

Yahtzee should just recuse himself from reviewing battlefield games if he is only capable of reviewing at most half the game. I have an excuse for not reviewing it as well. Blame the spyware you would have had to have loaded to play the best version on the PC. That could have been quite funny....

But it was a good justification? He has explained in the past, that he doesn't play multiplayer, as he finds it arbitrary and repetitive.
lol i like how you think he needs rescuing because he didn't review the portion of the game that you played. Nawwwwww. Anyway Multiplayer is annoying especially in BF because there is absolutely no niceness towards people who don't have all the new weapons. By the time all the peons can afford this game, all the freaks at this game will have unlocked all the good weapons, gadgets, pistols etc. and they'll just completely dominate. then again perhaps i am the bias, because i have it on 360.

OT: I can fricking relate to nearly everything in that video in regards to the campaign. I was looking forward to flying jets, but NOOOO.

I still cannot believe EA is forcing players to buy an online pass for online play. I rent all my games from Gamefly before I buy, but I'm not wasting $10 just to see if I like BF3's multiplayer considering the single player was garbage. And I don't care about the argument "Oh it's just $10, what are you a cheapskate!?" - no, I have tons of money relative to my needs. I could pay it no problem, it's is PRINCIPLE that I have a problem with. EA thinks they have some right to charge players because god forbid they didn't buy the game BRAND NEW for $60 (Can't tell you the last time I've bought any new console game).

And I don't want to hear that "Mutiplayer is extra, they don't have to give it to you!" bit either. So you're telling me each component of a game can be taken away from me if the game company thinks I have not sufficiently provided them with what they want? So for TF2, lets say I never paid for anything - so guess that means I should have no weekly item drops then unless I pay them money. But they don't do that, because Valve isn't greedy. I'll say stuff like DLC is extra and they can do whatever with that - although I disapprove of Activision's $15 shoddy map packs, along with companies that release DLC on release day of the game for an additional fee.

Too bad I'm apparently one of a few who are ticked off by EA's move here. Then again most people seem to waste their money buying new games constantly, being disappointed, then selling them for far less than they paid to repeat the process again. I'm smarter than that, I try and sample games - either via demo, trial, or rental (Do not believe in piracy whatsoever, not even for "trials") before I buy them. If a game is cheap enough, I'll fore-go this sampling and just rely on lots of user reviews and personal thoughts on a game. EA posts large profits most quarters, it's just shameful that they resort to this kind of tactic for money gouging.

I was hoping the console version would be better, as I have no desire to install EA's bloatware/spyware Origin on my computer. EA's refusal to sell their game through Steam says enough about what kind of A-holes are working at EA. I trust Steam, I do not trust EA or their "digital distribution client" - Steam is the only one I will tolerate on my PC, I will never trust EA not to retroactively decide "Hey you haven't bought a game from us in awhile - pay us more money or you won't be allowed to play your old games until you do." And then Origin will be a monthly subscriber service to have access to your favorite games...I'd believe it, if EA will resort to this nonsense they're not above doing that either.

I can honestly say I'll never buy another EA game again though. This was their only upcoming title I was interested in. Oh well EA, may you plummet to the bottom of the market and crash and burn into bankruptcy. Maybe then some GOOD game companies will get ahold of some of their franchises and fix them since EA is just crashing all their game series anymore.

Zhukov:
I have to say, Yahtzee's whole ignore-that-multiplayer-exists routine is getting a bit stale. Yes, the single player was woeful, but it's a primarily multiplayer game. I mean, would you review Left 4 Dead without including the multiplayer? After all, it can be played solo.

Although, I guess that EA was kind of asking for it in this case, considering how much they hyped up BF3's bloody campaign.

They were also asking for it because they locked the multiplayer behind that online pass crap. I rented it and all I got to play was that weak campaign. I don't see how they were expecting me to buy it based on that.

CronoT:

Oh well, no game is perfect since the Tetris/SMB3 Cabal.

I humbly submit to you that there is such a game. And its name is Peggle!

Markunator:

Like I said: I didn't care much for the campaign at all; it has none of the stuff that makes the multiplayer so amazing. I actually agree with most of the stuff Yahtzee says about it in this review. Thing is, the campaign is just one fraction of a per cent of all the enjoyment that you can get out of this game. And while I do think that EA and DICE made a mistake in hyping up the campaign so much, that doesn't take any enjoyment away from the multiplayer in any way at all.

That wasn't my argument, was it? I never said the multiplayer was bad, but

Campaign - Structured to be fun.
Multiplayer - Is completely random and everyone has a different mileage.

This is just un-argueable, you can never, ever review multiplayer only games unless the player base stays EXACTLY the same, you can only recommend it.

Stop trying to argue this shit man, there is nothing you can really prove here, if the single players point was to ready you for Multiplayer, then it should have done a better job making a mission exactly like a multiplayer game, fly in on a plane or drive a van, practice hitting targets with a rifle, practice on maps on a campaign with a story.

Ea and Dice have more control over their own product then fans, if they felt like it, they could make Battlefield a fucking dating sim, would it sell, hell no, but can they do it? Yes they can, they can do whatever they want with their intellectual property.

Fans control over a game < Developers control over their game.

42:
Anyway Multiplayer is annoying especially in BF because there is absolutely no niceness towards people who don't have all the new weapons. By the time all the peons can afford this game, all the freaks at this game will have unlocked all the good weapons, gadgets, pistols etc. and they'll just completely dominate. then again perhaps i am the bias, because i have it on 360.

They added vehicle upgrades, effectively making someone late to buying the game worse then someone who has been playing it for a while. Its a large balance issue, just give me the gun I want to use or the plane I want to fly and I'll do my best to win, win should not be by early buyers, but a all around fair game.

I think I played about forty hours of multiplayer before I even loaded the singleplayer. It was hilariously slapped together. Every plot point was dealt with such implied, clichéd, drama I couldn't help but roll my eyes and let out a sound suitable for a dying cow.

The gameplay in singleplayer is alright, I actually enjoyed a the Russian missions when they weren't trying to force you into some emotional pigeonhole for two whole goddamned minutes.

The Co-op is genuinely fun, even when you don't know the person you're playing with.

The multiplayer is excellent, they've added an astounding number of features, weapons, vehicles and game modes. It's Battlefield but...more nuanced, they've refined the experience and it's better than ever.

42:
Anyway Multiplayer is annoying especially in BF because there is absolutely no niceness towards people who don't have all the new weapons. By the time all the peons can afford this game, all the freaks at this game will have unlocked all the good weapons, gadgets, pistols etc. and they'll just completely dominate.

Domination is not about weapons, gadgets or perks. It's about skill which you don't have because you haven't played it yet.
High-level weapons don't have more firepower than starter ones. You can have all unlocks and you will still suck because you don't know how to use them.

uberhippy:
Why must we have the next in the streek of brown-Grey shooters,,,

We should have a technicolour, fantasical shooter, you know,, one thats fun?? :)

Have you ever seen flower warfare? Pretty awesome.

Just curious, because I will (probably) never get around to playing this game: Is he kidding, or being hyperbolic, about that "This escape has not reached a sufficient level of excitement" line?

Zhukov:
I have to say, Yahtzee's whole ignore-that-multiplayer-exists routine is getting a bit stale. Yes, the single player was woeful, but it's a primarily multiplayer game. I mean, would you review Left 4 Dead without including the multiplayer? After all, it can be played solo.

Although, I guess that EA was kind of asking for it in this case, considering how much they hyped up BF3's bloody campaign.

I'm late here, but Yahtzee's point is that focusing on multiplayer makes *every single other aspect of your game suck shit*. If your focus is on multiplayer, don't include a single-player component if you don't want people to discuss exactly how much faecal matter it can hoover up.

Even the multiplayer isn't that good. It feels like the wildly disappointing and exceptionally...unexceptional Medal of Honor, except this time big buildings go boom-boom and you can drive shit--like in older Battlefield games.

There is literally no reason you should enjoy this game.

I'm caughtu p with glee that he used the Halo Reach chain gun for the rail shooter bit

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here