BF4 Review Thread - Gamespot's scoring rules dont apply here

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

Gamespot gives it a 8.0. For all five versions. Even the current gen versions which feature only 24 player multiplayer.

Eurogamer gives it an 8.0 as well.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/battlefield-4

I will be creating a BF PS4 vs Xbox One Graphics comparison thread so let's keep all that talk out of this thread and keep it focused on the game itself. (Or Gamespot's ridiculously inconsistent scoring policy.

#2 Posted by D3s7rUc71oN (5180 posts) -

So 64 player mp= 24 player mp LoL

I'm surprised they have review copies of the X1 and PS4.

#3 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

So 64 player mp= 24 player mp LoL

I'm surprised they have review copies of the X1 and PS4.

They dont have review copies. I believe EA held a review event.

#4 Posted by BranKetra (48178 posts) -

Gamespot gives it a 8.0. For all five versions. Even the current gen versions which feature only 24 player multiplayer.

Eurogamer gives it an 8.0 as well.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/battlefield-4

I will be creating a BF PS4 vs Xbox One Graphics comparison thread so let's keep all that talk out of this thread and keep it focused on the game itself. (Or Gamespot's ridiculously inconsistent scoring policy.

The GameSpot review does not include all of the Xbox One version because of the embargo that is ongoing for it which lasts two more weeks.

--

Of this series, I have only played Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield 3. I enjoyed both and this looks like an improvement from three. I watched the GameSpot review. The single player experience apparently is not as good as the multiplayer and is actually bolstered by it in some ways. I might acquire it for the PS4 when released.

#5 Edited by c_rakestraw (14606 posts) -
@D3s7rUc71oN said:

So 64 player mp= 24 player mp LoL

I'm surprised they have review copies of the X1 and PS4.

They dont have review copies. I believe EA held a review event.

Yep. It's even mentioned at the end of the review.

#6 Posted by Randolph (10471 posts) -

I think I remember a time when GS pretty specifically did not use review events as the basis for a review.

#7 Edited by BranKetra (48178 posts) -

I would also like to mention that the changes that can affect the maps in small and big ways really is a cool idea.

#8 Edited by c_rakestraw (14606 posts) -
@Randolph said:

I think I remember a time when GS pretty specifically did not use review events as the basis for a review.

They still avoid them, as I understand it. Probably only made an exception because console launches are always weird and require they do whatever necessary to obtain coverage.

#9 Posted by barrybarryk (436 posts) -

I would also like to mention that the changes that can affect the maps in small and big ways really is a cool idea.

It is a cool idea, it was also a cool idea when all the other games that implemented it tried it over the years. The problem is it's only really cool once, the terrain deformation is the same every time so it never really works for MP

#10 Edited by firefox59 (4361 posts) -

@BranKetra said:

I would also like to mention that the changes that can affect the maps in small and big ways really is a cool idea.

It is a cool idea, it was also a cool idea when all the other games that implemented it tried it over the years. The problem is it's only really cool once, the terrain deformation is the same every time so it never really works for MP

Besides it being the same every time, what ended up happening in BF3 was 30 seconds into the map players would destroy most of the tactical places on the map so you would be playing with destroyed buildings for 95% of the game.

#11 Posted by BranKetra (48178 posts) -

@BranKetra said:

I would also like to mention that the changes that can affect the maps in small and big ways really is a cool idea.

It is a cool idea, it was also a cool idea when all the other games that implemented it tried it over the years. The problem is it's only really cool once, the terrain deformation is the same every time so it never really works for MP

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, though flooding a map is not terrain deformation. If map alteration which is what I was talking about were as you say, it would not be used anymore. The design of Battlefield 4 is supposed to be an improvement from past games, so even with the same map changes, it should be engaging at least for a while.

#12 Posted by barrybarryk (436 posts) -

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, though flooding a map is not terrain deformation. If map alteration which is what I was talking about were as you say, it would not be used anymore. The design of Battlefield 4 is supposed to be an improvement from past games, so even with the same map changes, it should be engaging at least for a while.

Are you kidding? Games are far more about what looks cool once or twice now than they ever have been. Why do you think they're full of set pieces, cutscenes and QTEs? They look awesome the first time you see them, but they very quickly get old. It's the exact same with Battlefield 4's destruction set pieces. The first few times you see them they'll look great (and of course in the ads) then after you learn the map you'll just learn where to avoid and when.

That's not to say it's a rubbish game because of it or it even detracts from the game in the slightest, just adding set pieces to MP won't really change MP at all. It just looks pretty for the ads and media coverage the game is getting.

#13 Posted by MirkoS77 (7171 posts) -

No surprise that the SP is worse than the MP.

#14 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18294 posts) -

So the campaign still sucks?

#17 Edited by BranKetra (48178 posts) -

@BranKetra said:

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, though flooding a map is not terrain deformation. If map alteration which is what I was talking about were as you say, it would not be used anymore. The design of Battlefield 4 is supposed to be an improvement from past games, so even with the same map changes, it should be engaging at least for a while.

Are you kidding? Games are far more about what looks cool once or twice now than they ever have been. Why do you think they're full of set pieces, cutscenes and QTEs? They look awesome the first time you see them, but they very quickly get old. It's the exact same with Battlefield 4's destruction set pieces. The first few times you see them they'll look great (and of course in the ads) then after you learn the map you'll just learn where to avoid and when.

That's not to say it's a rubbish game because of it or it even detracts from the game in the slightest, just adding set pieces to MP won't really change MP at all. It just looks pretty for the ads and media coverage the game is getting.

Saying that is easy when you have not played it yet.

#18 Posted by ReddestSkies (4087 posts) -

How can anyone accept to play a Battlefield game with a 24 players limit, and how can a "professional reviewer" just glance over that fact like it's not big deal? Is this 1998?

#19 Edited by Justin_G (198 posts) -

complain complain complain

it's the PS3 version. PS4 version will have more players. who cares what the review states, when these obvious facts are known to all.