Gamespot's Bf4 review

Anyone find it ridiculous that gamespot gives one review for 5 different platforms and they all score the same? Bf4 is a different game on xbox one, ps4, and pc than it is on current consoles yet they all score the same. Gamespot is getting lazy in it's old age, and their reviews have lost a lot of credibility over the last few years. Also, online games like battlefield aren't tested properly before a review is rushed out. The pc version is currently unstable and crashing for people constantly, yet the rushed reviews didn't catch this. People read and trust these reviews and expect a similar experience. If a game ships with problems reviewers should catch this and reflect it in their reviews.

The reason why it got an 8 is because of the terrible campaign mode. No amount of graphics can fix a bad campaign.

Game don't need arbitrary (and often purchased) numbers to define their quality. Any game can be enjoyed by the right audience.

the reviews were done most likely in a closed environment so they did not run into some of the issues. Many youtubers played the release version at a DICE event and praised it, only to be surprised by all the launch problems. Also, the issues aren't only with the PC version

why you say terrible and 8/10 on the same sentence?

well if you read the review the only negative is the campaign

Yet many games with multiplayer don't get marked down because they are terrible. look at tomb raider, all the crysis games ect.

double standards. BF's campaign is there as an extra, the main game is multiplayer.

Usually, I would agree. I'm just saying BF will never get another 9 until they get rid of campaign mode altogether.

While online is an option you don't even have to touch, single player mode is a pretty big deal. Besides, last I checked, neither of the games you have mentioned got a free pass over their multiplayer mode. It's no coincidence Crysis 2 and 3 went downhill when they added an online mode.

all crysis games have had an online mode

@lostrib: Touche. Still, there is a good reason why Crysis 3 is so uninspiring, and I feel that developers are using graphics as a cop out for bad game design and uninspired gameplay for badly written movies.

well yeah, that has to do with changes from Crysis/Warhead to the later games because Crytek just decided, "you know all that great stuff we did in Crysis, yeah let's just say **** that"

Back on topic, would you say the same thing is happening with the BF series? Bad Company 1 had some excellent banter and has self aware humour. DICE went away from it in BC2 and ditched it altogether in BF3. When is DICe going to move away from COD-style campaign and begin to have their own signature ideas to breath something fresh into a stale genre?

well bad company and BF are different styles. I don't think they should have added a campaign to either BF3 or BF4, they were just attempts to compete with COD--even though majority of COD audience just wants the MP

Yet the fact that Titanfall doesn't have a single player won't get counted off in the final score for the game. This is why reviews mean nothing.

well they rated the campaign because it was included

It shouldn't get counted, it would be stupid to count it. its a multiplayer game. and thats what THEY WANT. Its like complaining about an MMO not having asingle player... stupid.

BF is stupid for HAVING a singleplayer imo. was better when the singleplayer was jsut bots on a map.

but noo those people that like mindless michael bay 6 hour corridor fests would cry about it.... e.g "titan fall no SP OMG HOW COULD THEY?"

I dunno why people bash on crysis 3 so much, I mean its not that great of a game but the way people talk about it its as if its terrible. If crysis 3 is boring bland crap, then what is killzone? even more boring bland crap?

Here is some perspective, Both reviews by Kevin VanOrd so one cannot say its a different reviewer for the scores .

Crysis 3 = 7.5 on gamespot http://www.gamespot.com/crysis-3/

Killzone Shadow fall = 7.0 on gamespot http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/killzone-shadow-fall-review/1900-6415536/

Cows bash away at crysis 3, and then look at that killzone flop

I think cows are breathing a sigh of relief on this, they can only take so much bad news in one day

The difference being that when Crysis 3 was reviewed GS was using decimals while when they reviewed Killzone SF they were using a full number scale

try again

btw, I liked both killzone games and all Crysis. In fact, I thought Crysis 1 was the worst of the series. I'll never understand why that game gets so much praise from gamers and 2 and 3 are so bashed when they're in fact better games altogether. Yes Crysis one was more open, but what does it matter if its world was as empty and flawed as it was. People bash FarCry2 for enemies seeing you from thousands of miles away when Crysis 1 suffers from the same thing. Too often did I died because I didnt know who and from where were enemies shooting me. I still liked the game but I enjoyed Crysis 2 and 3 way more then I did Crysis 1

little things may be differernt on each system

BUT

THE base game is the same ACROSS the board

I thought the campaign was great. I really did enjoy it.

It is a major improvement over the SP from BF3, but I guess that is not saying much.