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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

No surprise that the SP is worse than the MP.

So the campaign still sucks?

CVG review:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGVz-i_74fw

Rev3Games

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_02nfldGoA

IGN:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUs7qUzP4GU

Machinima

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dn-F80kLX5o

Rev3Games

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lNREhvoz-w

Machinima

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrozYqHrRS4

IGN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nASpvb96iM

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

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?

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.