Originally posted by capcom_suicide
View Post
-
Goes a long way to prove most website reviews are a load of wank -
Metacritic seems to show the PC version in the upper 90% bracket, but the console versions are struggling to break 89%.
So far.Comment
-
Eurogamer UK's 10/10's will raise that, lolComment
-
-
Seems the single player is pretty tosh in their opinion which sounds fair enough as with its same old QTEs, scripted AI team mates leading you around every level getting in your way, and lack of huge expansive 'battlefields' like the multiplayer.
Doesn't bother me really as it's only something I would play once and not again. I know it will still be enjoyable, an audio visual feast for fans of war games but I guess it is a shame they didn't try to make the single player more like the multiplayer aspect rather than another me-too effort as EG review says.
Also remember the other day seeing a quote from someone at DICE saying they will be releasing more DLC for this in the long run and it won't just be map packs so hoping something else along the lines of Vietnam.
Anyway, bring on the multiplayer mayhem!
Comment
-
Wasn't much interested in the MP aspects of this, and with so many awesome SP games coming out next month, this was never likely to make my list. And after reading that, it's definitely not going to.Comment
-
How are these people possibly reviewing the multiplayer. I tried doing it for RDR review and there were never enough other journos online to get a good feel for it.Comment
-
Elpresador's exclusive MP Live commentary on Tehran, & as usual the commentary is hilarious!
Comment
-
They aren't reviewing the multiplayer. Not the multiplayer that the likes of us will experience anyway! Zero server load compared to a million? What's the point?Comment
-
So what are they meant to do? Not do a review at all? If they waited a month for the MP to be how we're expecting it to be before doing any reviews the publishers would go mental and stop sending them any product, and pull adverts.Comment
-
Just saying that the multiplayer reviews are pointless right now. Not just for this game but any game. Eurogamer's reviewer got the game 7am yesterday. I appreciate the review sites have to compete, I'm just saying that an important part of multiplayer gaming is matchmaking, server stability, lag etc. NONE of those things have been tested in a meaningful way. I don't have a solution but that doesn't mean there isn't a problem.Comment
-
I'm confused and concerned about this so-called HD pack for consoles. Two facts I think are true are..
Its on the PS3 disk
Its not on the 360 disk (for some reason) and has to be downloaded (1.5GB).
I checked the XBL Marketplace today for anything Battlefield 3 related and it is not there. Does this mean then that the 360 HD pack is part of some wonky EA-pass cobblers that will end up only being available for the gamertag that unlocks it? If so this will be different than the PS3 version.
Also, does the HD pack work for Mulitplayer? Does this mean that new DLC maps will have to also have a HD pack too?
Would of liked to pre-download this massive HD pack before I get the game. Alas it seems to be the 1st+ hour of the game will be downloading updates and the like. How very PC-like.
Messy.Comment
-
The 360 version comes on two DVDs. One is single player. One is HD install disc.
Simples.
Comment
-
The HD textures are indeed on the second disc, you have to run an install process, so if you ain't got enough HD space you don't get them. And it's apparently proper rough without them.Comment
-
I imagine I'll end up getting this at some point, despite everythign I may have said to the contrary. Oddly though the differences between the PC and Console are really blurred here. Installations on consoles, with a choice of graphical fidelity (like a PC usually has) and no dedicated private servers on PC (like consoles gamers are used to). Given this I wonder if I ought to go for the PC or PS3 version. Hopefully someone will do a PC / PS3 comparison.Comment
Comment