|
On October 24 2011 17:48 Westy wrote:I would ignore that PC IGN review, its obviously talking out of its ass. http://imgur.com/7pNypTo think they could give MW2 and BF3 the same score on graphics, and give MW2 a better score on sound? Everyone knows Battlefield 3 sounds are the best there is.
I'm not sure whos talking more out of their ass. IGN, or people trying to compare reviews of games that came out 2 years apart.
Let's shit on IGN for giving Half Life 2 a better graphics score than BF3! Obviously BF3 looks better, those fools!
|
On October 24 2011 17:56 Westy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 17:51 Torte de Lini wrote:
Never compare reviews of one game over another. You don't account if the reviewer is the same, if the reviewer has played both games or used one to compare the other.
The screenshot is just flamebait. Honestly, Couldn't care less about those factors. If an IGN reviewer can give MW2 a better sound score over BF3, then there is a big problem with IGN reviewers.
At the time, the sound score may have been equal to that value.
In addition, a 9 for that reviewer may be arbitrarily viewed differently than the other reviewer.
Lastly, stop whining about someone else's views and an abstract number, you clearly know what you believe.
|
On October 24 2011 14:21 Insomniac22 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 12:00 Insomniac22 wrote:
so idk if my download messed up or something but it says it's at 100%
my download is 12.2 GB / 11.4 GB
but it's still downloading?
is that normal? help? Does this mean my download is broken lol :[
No, i guess you paused the download. I had the same problem in beta where my dowload was 8.4/3.9 GB.
Everytime you pause the dl and than start it again, he starts to dl the incomplete files from the beginning but keeps data from the old dl's. So for excample my metro map was like 1.5GB instead of ~500mb. When the dl completes a file the useless data will be deleted and the file have the correct size.
Just don't pause the download if its possible. When he is rdy you will be at 11.4 GB again.
|
20 MORE HOURS!!! CANT WAIT!@!@
|
On October 24 2011 17:59 DannyJ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 17:48 Westy wrote:I would ignore that PC IGN review, its obviously talking out of its ass. http://imgur.com/7pNypTo think they could give MW2 and BF3 the same score on graphics, and give MW2 a better score on sound? Everyone knows Battlefield 3 sounds are the best there is. I'm not sure whos talking more out of their ass. IGN, or people trying to compare reviews of games that came out 2 years apart. Let's shit on IGN for giving Half Life 2 a better graphics score than BF3! Obviously BF3 looks better, those fools!
I'm with you. IGN gets too much hate for 0.5 of a mark, no wonder they're often scared to score things as is.
Basically, BF3 appears to have a weak single player. Should IGN ignore this? I don't know what people expect to be honest. If this was multiplayer alone, it might be 10/10. But for the entire game package, they're saying there's something lacking specifically with single player. The video review cited quick time events, lack of vehicles, little to no destructible debris and cheap deaths. If almost feel he wanted to give it a lower score, but anything less than a 9/10 (which btw means an almost perfect game...something I don't honestly believe exists...) would have more rage.
Lay off reviewers backs. If IGN had a bit of freedom maybe it would stop being the butt of all jokes for giving all reviews something between 7-9.5 out of 10 =/
|
A review is an opinion
Get over it. Why do you care what they think so much anyway?
|
Because no one in their right mind would give BF3 less score on sound than MW2. If they give MW2 a 10 for sound, they HAVE to give BF3 a 10 too. Otherwise the review means nothing?
|
|
|
On October 24 2011 19:35 Westy wrote:
Because no one in their right mind would give BF3 less score on sound than MW2. If they give MW2 a 10 for sound, they HAVE to give BF3 a 10 too. Otherwise the review means nothing?
Noone gave MW2 a 10 for sound and BF3 a 9.5. Diferent people gave diferent abstract numbers that don't actually represent much for the diferent games, at diferent times, but in the end said the same thing, it's an almost perfect score. Giving 10's is ussually an exageration, they are hardly ever flawless. I could understand the hate if they gave it a 7-8, but I just can't see how people be so mad at a 9.5. You just can't compare score, unless done by the same person, it makes no sense.
|
They don't have to do anything. I guess the review means nothing for you.
|
3 days left, fucking bullshit T_T
|
United States22883 Posts
On October 24 2011 19:46 zeru wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2011 19:35 Westy wrote:
Because no one in their right mind would give BF3 less score on sound than MW2. If they give MW2 a 10 for sound, they HAVE to give BF3 a 10 too. Otherwise the review means nothing? Why compare reviews which are several years apart? Lets compare game review X that came out 10 years ago to bf3 and say they are stupid for giving game X such high scores when bf3 has so much better graphics and sounds than a game from 10 years ago!
The point is more that even for its time, MW2 wasn't a great game and wasn't much of an advancement beyond MW1. Especially on PC, MW1's multiplayer was better. And MW2's SP was also pretty shitty and short, in comparison. It's somewhat understandable if they were comparing the Xbox or PS3 versions, but MW2 PC was a serious hunk of shit. But like others have said, IGN generally isn't worth reading anyways and you shouldn't care what their writers think.
Reviewers should also keep in mind (even though they're not) that BF3 is selling for $40 (or at least was), MW2 sold for fucking $60. I'm not even that much of a fan of the BF franchise, but it's obnoxious when games like MW2 or Halo 3 get called a second coming, when there's nothing innovative or spectacular about them.
EDIT: To be fair, EA has been trying to buy off writers too. As far as official review numbers are concerned from most of the major websites, it's just a PR war between EA's people and Activision's people.
|
Hmm as much as I would want to read through 231 pages in one sitting in the hour before class I have, I think I'll have to pass that up.
For more seasoned FPS gamers who happened to play the beta a few weeks ago- What do you think of the skill-level required to perform well in BF3? Is it too volatile and you can be gunned down from nearly every angle? Is it possible to completely dominate a game without having to resort to some really awful tactics? Or do you guys think there is a systematic (based on your own genius algorithmic tactical decisions) to play the game and get ahead of everyone else.
I asked this because although I can play games light heartedly, it's always a lot of fun for a competitive SC2 player to try to find a way to compete for the #1 spot on the pub server.
|
I'd say the skillcap is way higher than any CoD game at least, but there are some moments when an opponent will kill you simply because he's got a weapon better suited for that particular situation. Headshots do matter though, and there is quite a bit of recoil on most guns, so most of the time it comes down to whoever has got better aim.
There are random deaths for sure, but if you move around methodically and are patient it's not a big problem.
If you play with a squad of friends you can no doubt make a huge impact on the outcome of the game just by playing well, without resorting to "awful tactics".
|
|
|
Korea in 38min..
BF3 Finghting~!
|
OOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHH mannnnnn this midnight!
|
its slowly getting there eh? 
|
See you guys on there tomorrow! Hit me up on skype if you want to squad up. I won't be joining the vent because it just gets too crowded. Skype: syntax._.error
|
Battlelog is completely overloaded. ^_^
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
