Interesting read. I've read some things on your profile page outlining your struggles, and it's great to see that you're (or at least seem to be) thriving at GS. Too bad some gamers are apparently terrified of mixing social issues and moral quandaries with their games....And some are quite simply ignorant fools. But I digress. Cool article.
I feel like I may be in the minority of people commenting here who believes Tom is a solid reviewer. It seems like understands the objective qualities that make certain games stand out from the others. I'm not saying that he's right all the time, and there are (like any reviewer, if you follow their work long enough) some options upon which I 100% disagree, but all in all, he can look at a game with a rather unbiased opinion.
I've noticed that within the last few weeks the editorial team at GS has gotten their silly on. From playing Meta Game to whatever the heck this is, there is something seriously (and very humorously) wrong with the fine men and women that run this site!
@Devils-DIVISION Ah, but whose standards are you following? A game could universally receive a mediocre score from various reviewers, but that still cannot accurately represent what you, personally, may think of the game. A 7.5 in the eyes of a GS, IGN, etc. reviewer may still be a GOTY contender from your own perspective. Long story short, if the game and genre appeals to you, and the faults mentioned are ones that you think you can let slide, try out the game. BTW I didn't mean to get all preachy just on you; you happened to be the first comment I actually read!
@Frostyballoon Well that's just it. If the gameplay is ahead of the curve-- which seems to be the case for BF3-- that should, in theory, be enough to hook a hardcore gamer. Unfortunately it is how you explained: the trend in MP is to constantly provide rewards and unlocks, which has now spoiled gamers into wanting those rewards more than rewarding gameplay (neat little word play, no?). I would say I'm among those people; when I got to the rank where I could no longer get new stuff in BF:BC 2, I kinda stopped playing it--even though I think the core gameplay is far more fun than any COD since MW1.
I think it's going to be a tougher call than most people think. When you have two franchises such as these, where they both have gameplay that is so heavily refined, I personally think that it's going to come down to how each studio surrounds that gameplay with incentives--the game around the game, so to speak. COD has been masterful in that regard; the thrill of getting that new gun, perk, attachment, or even a challenge worth XP is what truly drives the experience. BF games have always had a richer, more dynamic combat experience, with more depth to the gameplay than any COD game to date, but as strange as it may sound, they more or less rely soley on the gameplay itself to bring players back. Today's gamers want constant gratification, to be constantly rewarded, beyond just the joy of shooting someone in the head (case in point, we want a sweet accolade for 250 headshots). BF will need to have that stream of rewards that go beyond amazing gameplay, or the average gamer will simply lose interest. I suppose its worth mentioning that I think BF3 looks like one of the best FPS games in years.
Whoa, the PC really does put the consoles to shame here. But whatever, you get what you pay for, and while I'm no computer jokey, high end PCs are at least a couple hundred dollars more expensive than either the 360 or the PS3 (I think...). So all things considered, I'd say that this is a reasonable comparison between systems -- I know I'D be pissed if I spent upwards of $800 and still not have a more powerful gaming device than any of the consoles (Wii excluded :P).
Chunkman's comments