i am referring to them saying that BF1943 would be free to PS3 purchasers, then whooooops it's not there but you can buy BF3 expansion content a few days earlier on the PS3
i am referring to them saying that BF1943 would be free to PS3 purchasers, then whooooops it's not there but you can buy BF3 expansion content a few days earlier on the PS3
Man, what a mess. Battlefield 3 might be the biggest game I've ever reviewed, and I can't imagine a way in which the review situation could have gone worse. 3 days to review the campaign and finalized multiplayer is doable. Obviously, since I put a review up. But it's not ideal.
But less ideal has been everything surrounding the review and Battlefield 3's release. I won't dwell on the weird goalpost moving that DICE and EA have tacitly encouraged over the last few days by insisting that console reviews can't be done because of a day one patch that, I guess, would fix anything anyone could possibly find wrong with the game? That's practically unheard of before a game comes out, and having reviewed… one, two, three, four EA published shooters over the last two years (Bad Company 2, Medal of Honor, Bad Company 2 Vietnam, and Crysis 2), it was especially surprising here. Put more clearly, EA has never done this with any of the games of theirs that I've reviewed. Even Bad Company 2, which I believe also had a day one patch, was reviewed on debug hardware with a near-final version of said patch.
I just think, having played it, EA made some huge miscalculations in aligning it so closely to Modern Warfare 3. It seems obvious to me that they were scrambling to get it done, and they pushed it right down to the wire. I guess we'll see how things pan out, in that regard.
I think the hardest thing in all of this was scoring my review. Usually it isn't so difficult, but here, the lows were so low, and the highs were so high…
I wonder if I was nicer to the campaign than I should have been. It's not actively bad, usually, but it's nowhere near what I would consider good, or even acceptable, really. And co-op stinks.
I essentially had to write off two out of three modes in the game. It's a situation where I have to hope that someone wondering about the game who sees the score will read the review and understand what I tried to say. If they skipped the text, saw the score, and bought the game expecting great singleplayer, then yeah. I feel bad about that.
He scored the game four and a half stars out of five.
Only now look less at the bolded part but instead the portion above it.
Man, what a mess. Battlefield 3 might be the biggest game I've ever reviewed, and I can't imagine a way in which the review situation could have gone worse. 3 days to review the campaign and finalized multiplayer is doable. Obviously, since I put a review up. But it's not ideal.
But less ideal has been everything surrounding the review and Battlefield 3's release. I won't dwell on the weird goalpost moving that DICE and EA have tacitly encouraged over the last few days by insisting that console reviews can't be done because of a day one patch that, I guess, would fix anything anyone could possibly find wrong with the game? That's practically unheard of before a game comes out, and having reviewed… one, two, three, four EA published shooters over the last two years (Bad Company 2, Medal of Honor, Bad Company 2 Vietnam, and Crysis 2), it was especially surprising here. Put more clearly, EA has never done this with any of the games of theirs that I've reviewed. Even Bad Company 2, which I believe also had a day one patch, was reviewed on debug hardware with a near-final version of said patch.
I just think, having played it, EA made some huge miscalculations in aligning it so closely to Modern Warfare 3. It seems obvious to me that they were scrambling to get it done, and they pushed it right down to the wire. I guess we'll see how things pan out, in that regard.
I think the hardest thing in all of this was scoring my review. Usually it isn't so difficult, but here, the lows were so low, and the highs were so high…
I wonder if I was nicer to the campaign than I should have been. It's not actively bad, usually, but it's nowhere near what I would consider good, or even acceptable, really. And co-op stinks.
I essentially had to write off two out of three modes in the game. It's a situation where I have to hope that someone wondering about the game who sees the score will read the review and understand what I tried to say. If they skipped the text, saw the score, and bought the game expecting great singleplayer, then yeah. I feel bad about that.
He scored the game four and a half stars out of five.
Only now look less at the bolded part but instead the portion above it.
So somebody on kotaku thinks that EA rushed the game so that makes it true? Science!
An immediate patch being required for a game isn't a good sign.
That says rushed, not necessarily that persons opinion.
Well not just a day one patch, but a day one patch that prevented reviewers from properly reviewing the multiplayer, on top of some reviewers just not getting a review copy in enough time to properly write a review.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Zynga’s VP of studios, Lou Castle, has resigned from his position to join a casino games company based in Las Vegas.
Castle departs from Zynga after only nine months on the job. He joined the Farmville company in February after his former company, InstantAction, buckled from financial pressures.
He joins Las Vegas based Shuffle Master as chief strategy officer, following six years as a board member for the company.
"The Zynga gig was clearly a 5 day a week, 24/7 requirement,” Castle explained to IndustryGamers. “I have twins in senior year of high school and Shuffle Master's a local job. Life's too short, so I couldn't resist," he said.
Zynga is believed to be making final preparations for its IPO, rumoured to be finalised this month.
Is there . . . something else that is bugging you?
I don't see how an immediate patch for anything could mean anything other then it being a bit rushed, otherwise it wouldn't need to be patched right away. That is pretty obvious.
I mean we have reviews for uncharted 3 already that game releases next week, some places haven't put up a BF3 review yet, and it released yesterday. Gears 3 also had reviews released in advance of the actual game released and again is a huge multiplayer title.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
So every game with a Day One title update means 'rushed'? Science!
I don't think we always need to extrapolate to all games. We're perfectly capable of examining current evidence and making a judgment call based on this particular game's release timing, competition, past precedent of both the developer and the publisher etc.
If we have reason to believe that this particular game was not rushed despite appearances, that's fine, we shouldn't need to use straw men to shout that opinion down.
Zynga’s VP of studios, Lou Castle, has resigned from his position to join a casino games company based in Las Vegas.[/b]
Castle departs from Zynga after only nine months on the job.[/b] He joined the Farmville company in February after his former company, InstantAction, buckled from financial pressures.
He joins Las Vegas based Shuffle Master as chief strategy officer, following six years as a board member for the company.
"The Zynga gig was clearly a 5 day a week, 24/7 requirement,” Castle explained to IndustryGamers. “I have twins in senior year of high school and Shuffle Master's a local job. Life's too short, so I couldn't resist," he said.
Zynga is believed to be making final preparations for its IPO, rumoured to be finalised this month.
Is there . . . something else that is bugging you?
I don't see how an immediate patch for anything could mean anything other then it being a bit rushed, otherwise it wouldn't need to be patched right away. That is pretty obvious.
So you're now saying that if EA didn't have a Day One Title Update and instead waited, oh...two months, that that would prove it wasn't rushed?
That you don't see anything else is pretty obvious. That there is a whole raft of things that might cause Day One updates besides 'rushed to market' should be pretty obvious. Even if you can't think of any.
When you paint with such broad strokes, don't be surprised when you miss the finer details.
Zynga’s VP of studios, Lou Castle, has resigned from his position to join a casino games company based in Las Vegas.[/b]
Castle departs from Zynga after only nine months on the job.[/b] He joined the Farmville company in February after his former company, InstantAction, buckled from financial pressures.
He joins Las Vegas based Shuffle Master as chief strategy officer, following six years as a board member for the company.
"The Zynga gig was clearly a 5 day a week, 24/7 requirement,” Castle explained to IndustryGamers. “I have twins in senior year of high school and Shuffle Master's a local job. Life's too short, so I couldn't resist," he said.
Zynga is believed to be making final preparations for its IPO, rumoured to be finalised this month.
Re-bolded for hilarity.
Maybe he meant 9 to 5 or something, because god knows you can't possibly raise two kids and work a normal work week in america, thats impossible.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
So every game with a Day One title update means 'rushed'? Science!
I don't think we always need to extrapolate to all games. We're perfectly capable of examining current evidence and making a judgment call based on this particular game's release timing, competition, past precedent of both the developer and the publisher etc.
If we have reason to believe that this particular game was not rushed despite appearances, that's fine, we shouldn't need to use straw men to shout that opinion down.
We also shouldn't need to shit on acceptable targets in an attempt to prove anything. But that doesn't stop anybody, does it?
Though I cant think of any game released recently that didn't have a day one patch on PC. At least none of the many I've bought, and I do buy quite a few.
So using that, I'd have to assume all PC releases are rushed. Since such non-specific criteria was given. Now if someone could actually list specific issues that lead to the conclusion, that'd be nice. Simply saying, 'It was botched.' is kind of like saying, 'The sky is purple' and expecting everyone to just nod along with you and not ask why.
As for the review thing, maybe they just didn't want people reviewing it without multiplayer up? I mean, thats the basis of the game and if you watch/listen to a lot of early reviews on multiplayer heavy games they usually spit out the 'But since this was a review copy the multiplayer was sparse' line or some variation therein.
Or, the game was basically ready to go, went gold, they held the beta using old code (which they confirmed they did, so we can exclude that from the "OMG WAS SO BAD!" side) to test the servers, knowing they could release a patch on day one to fix up and optimise anything that couldn't be done server-side. Battlefield 3 is a huge multiplayer game. Gears 3 being reviewed early is a completely different scenario. What's the player count in Gears? And it's exclusive to one console? And is in the third iteration on that same platform, so all the years of work previously done effectively counts towards polishing that final title. Battlefield 3 has way more players, so much more going on in the game (numerous jeeps, tanks, helicopters and jets flying about), destructible buildings and a larger playing area. With that much more going on, I can forgive them wanting to do everything they can to make sure that 1) the players on day one get the best possible experience and that 2) the reviewers don't write about a sub-standard experience that can be fixed up if they just wait a day or two.
So you're now saying that if EA didn't have a Day One Title Update and instead waited, oh...two months, that that would prove it wasn't rushed?
That depends on the state of the game during those two months. If it's extremely buggy, incomplete-feeling, and garners lower reviews than expected...yeah, that'd be rushed.
But if it feels like a full, complete, enjoyable game prior to the patch, that would seem to point toward it not being as rushed.
Again, just like the "lazy" discussion, note that "rushed" is not a binary condition. There are varying degrees of rushed. Outside of small team indie games, all games are rushed to a certain extent. Some more than others, and sometimes we can see evidence that points toward it.
Is there . . . something else that is bugging you?
I don't see how an immediate patch for anything could mean anything other then it being a bit rushed, otherwise it wouldn't need to be patched right away. That is pretty obvious.
So you're now saying that if EA didn't have a Day One Title Update and instead waited, oh...two months, that that would prove it wasn't rushed?
Yes, what you just said by the very definition of what you just said would mean that they were taking their time to avoid an immediate patch instead of going ahead with the launch earlier in which said patch is a requirement. They didn't do this because of wanting to be out before Modern Warfare 3.
And like Uncle Sporky said, there is other evidence of the game being rushed. I don't see why the notion would be hard to believe, at all.
Yeah, Marlowe was the PC. I love the squad banter in the games.
Especially when Sweetwater says something smart and Sarge just says "...Shut up, Sweetwater"
The spanish conversation in 2 was hilarious.
And I don't think people are comparing BF3's single player to MW which also has an awful single player component they are comparing it to other games with a good one like Gears of War 3, which is also a multiplayer title.
The conversations were amazing.
"Don't go all spanglish me."
XBL - ArchSilversmith
"We have years of struggle ahead, mostly within ourselves." - Made in USA
So you're now saying that if EA didn't have a Day One Title Update and instead waited, oh...two months, that that would prove it wasn't rushed?
That depends on the state of the game during those two months. If it's extremely buggy, incomplete-feeling, and garners lower reviews than expected...yeah, that'd be rushed.
But if it feels like a full, complete, enjoyable game prior to the patch, that would seem to point toward it not being as rushed.
Again, just like the "lazy" discussion, note that "rushed" is not a binary condition. There are varying degrees of rushed. Outside of small team indie games, all games are rushed to a certain extent. Some more than others, and sometimes we can see evidence that points toward it.
And as was pointed out just a few posts above, stating something as 'rushed' isn't proof that it was. Neither is Day One Title Update. And again, just like the 'lazy' discussion, it's being used to shit on a game or company because the output was less than desired. (Or, possibly in this case, the output was exactly as expected and people are just getting in free shots.)
Its my favorite part of squad single player games. Like the hilarious juvenile comments the main character makes in bulletstorm, or the trash talking your dudes do in gears 3. Makes me feel more attached to the characters if they act like real people. Its also why I despise silent protagonists in games.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Reviewers expecting early releases of games is really a weird concept, in all honesty. I think it'd be far better if they reviewed it on day one and had the same experience as normal users. I suppose thats an entirely different tangent though.
But seriously, "Don't review our game, because we've got a patch coming, we promise!" is big damn red flag, regardless of who says it.
"We had to pay a large sum of money a long time ago for this shelf space, and certification is a right bitch that takes forever. If we miss our release date, we stand to lose a lot of money and publicity. Consequently, we'd hope you guys can understand us putting out a patch at launch to tighten everything up, alright?"
edit: not to mention, there seems to be some assumption that before the patch/update/magical code, BF3 was an unplayable pile of vomit. Are we basing that on the beta? Because nobody here should admit to being that stupid.
Reviewers expecting early releases of games is really a weird concept, in all honesty. I think it'd be far better if they reviewed it on day one and had the same experience as normal users. I suppose thats an entirely different tangent though.
I prefer reviewers getting a game early, it means on or before release I can potentially stop a sixty dollar mistake. Much the same way movie reviewers seeing a film early means I can avoid a bad night out based on their recommendation.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I think some people are just so used to buying incomplete games that require being patched together that it doesn't even strike them as being questionable anymore. What is a patch if not code being released to fix something they didn't have time for?
So you're now saying that if EA didn't have a Day One Title Update and instead waited, oh...two months, that that would prove it wasn't rushed?
That depends on the state of the game during those two months. If it's extremely buggy, incomplete-feeling, and garners lower reviews than expected...yeah, that'd be rushed.
But if it feels like a full, complete, enjoyable game prior to the patch, that would seem to point toward it not being as rushed.
Again, just like the "lazy" discussion, note that "rushed" is not a binary condition. There are varying degrees of rushed. Outside of small team indie games, all games are rushed to a certain extent. Some more than others, and sometimes we can see evidence that points toward it.
And as was pointed out just a few posts above, stating something as 'rushed' isn't proof that it was. Neither is Day One Title Update. And again, just like the 'lazy' discussion, it's being used to shit on a game or company because the output was less than desired. (Or, possibly in this case, the output was exactly as expected and people are just getting in free shots.)
Actually, the reason I'm willing to buy that the game was rushed is because the texture pack, instead of elevating things from "good" to "holyfuckawesome", is necessary to prevent the core game from looking like absolute ass. There's a comparison video I posted a while back.
Also, Santa... you're coming dangerously close to becoming the "complains about complaining" guy. I speak from experience... I didn't heed the warnings, and now I'm forever known as the Angry Birds guy. No one sees me as a well-rounded human being, with hopes, loves and dreams, all they see is a man who wants nothing but to hurl suicidal avians at flimsy structures. DON'T BECOME ME!!!
I think some people are just so used to buying incomplete games that require being patched together that it doesn't even strike them as being questionable anymore. What is a patch if not code being released to fix something they didn't have time for?
Code being released to fix a problem they weren't aware of previously?
I think some people are just so used to buying incomplete games that require being patched together that it doesn't even strike them as being questionable anymore. What is a patch if not code being released to fix something they didn't have time for?
There were previews before it came out, before the patch, saying it played great. It wasn't incomplete, it wasn't unplayable. They held the beta to get more information, they took that information and made improvements based on it, but didn't deem it worth holding back the game for what would be months to get it recertified, reprinted, and having to tell everyone to wait a bit a longer. You honestly can't understand this? Are you even trying?
Man, I remember the days when I'd get a coverdisc with a whole bunch of patches for games, and I'd sift through to see if there were any that corresponded to games I owned. In the 90s. Patches and updates aren't a new thing.
A lot of games have a day one patch, not a lot of games have a day one patch that they instruct reviewers they need to have to properly do their review/don't give review copies out till late.
Its not just the day one patch for BF3.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Reviewers expecting early releases of games is really a weird concept, in all honesty. I think it'd be far better if they reviewed it on day one and had the same experience as normal users. I suppose thats an entirely different tangent though.
I prefer reviewers getting a game early, it means on or before release I can potentially stop a sixty dollar mistake. Much the same way movie reviewers seeing a film early means I can avoid a bad night out based on their recommendation.
If you're so desperate to get the game first thing, I dunno what to say. I mean, I literally probably have a /problem/ in regards to my game purchasing (My steam list will inform you of this.) and I can still wait a day or two to see what reviews pop up.
Playing big games right away is one of the few ways to avoid getting spoiled on key events. You don't need day one reviews ok, you're not the only person out there and some of us like to be informed if a preorder we have is worth keeping prior to us picking up the game.
Different strokes and all that.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Posts
edit: link
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
Yeah, that's a pretty embarrassing deal, but then Sony have been cosying up to EA and calling dibs on all the content, so.. schadenfreude.
I was referring more to some of the things seen in this body of text, from the last thread.
Only now look less at the bolded part but instead the portion above it.
So somebody on kotaku thinks that EA rushed the game so that makes it true? Science!
That says rushed, not necessarily that persons opinion.
Well not just a day one patch, but a day one patch that prevented reviewers from properly reviewing the multiplayer, on top of some reviewers just not getting a review copy in enough time to properly write a review.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I don't see how an immediate patch for anything could mean anything other then it being a bit rushed, otherwise it wouldn't need to be patched right away. That is pretty obvious.
OMG ur dad works for farmville?!
pleasepaypreacher.net
I don't think that would directly benefit kids, but perhaps I underestimate the facebook virus and how it affects people.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I don't think we always need to extrapolate to all games. We're perfectly capable of examining current evidence and making a judgment call based on this particular game's release timing, competition, past precedent of both the developer and the publisher etc.
If we have reason to believe that this particular game was not rushed despite appearances, that's fine, we shouldn't need to use straw men to shout that opinion down.
So you're now saying that if EA didn't have a Day One Title Update and instead waited, oh...two months, that that would prove it wasn't rushed?
That you don't see anything else is pretty obvious. That there is a whole raft of things that might cause Day One updates besides 'rushed to market' should be pretty obvious. Even if you can't think of any.
When you paint with such broad strokes, don't be surprised when you miss the finer details.
Maybe he meant 9 to 5 or something, because god knows you can't possibly raise two kids and work a normal work week in america, thats impossible.
pleasepaypreacher.net
We also shouldn't need to shit on acceptable targets in an attempt to prove anything. But that doesn't stop anybody, does it?
So using that, I'd have to assume all PC releases are rushed. Since such non-specific criteria was given. Now if someone could actually list specific issues that lead to the conclusion, that'd be nice. Simply saying, 'It was botched.' is kind of like saying, 'The sky is purple' and expecting everyone to just nod along with you and not ask why.
As for the review thing, maybe they just didn't want people reviewing it without multiplayer up? I mean, thats the basis of the game and if you watch/listen to a lot of early reviews on multiplayer heavy games they usually spit out the 'But since this was a review copy the multiplayer was sparse' line or some variation therein.
That depends on the state of the game during those two months. If it's extremely buggy, incomplete-feeling, and garners lower reviews than expected...yeah, that'd be rushed.
But if it feels like a full, complete, enjoyable game prior to the patch, that would seem to point toward it not being as rushed.
Again, just like the "lazy" discussion, note that "rushed" is not a binary condition. There are varying degrees of rushed. Outside of small team indie games, all games are rushed to a certain extent. Some more than others, and sometimes we can see evidence that points toward it.
What you perceive as bad/biased arguments and reasoning legitimizes the use of bad reasoning on your part?
Yes, what you just said by the very definition of what you just said would mean that they were taking their time to avoid an immediate patch instead of going ahead with the launch earlier in which said patch is a requirement. They didn't do this because of wanting to be out before Modern Warfare 3.
And like Uncle Sporky said, there is other evidence of the game being rushed. I don't see why the notion would be hard to believe, at all.
The conversations were amazing.
"Don't go all spanglish me."
"We have years of struggle ahead, mostly within ourselves." - Made in USA
And as was pointed out just a few posts above, stating something as 'rushed' isn't proof that it was. Neither is Day One Title Update. And again, just like the 'lazy' discussion, it's being used to shit on a game or company because the output was less than desired. (Or, possibly in this case, the output was exactly as expected and people are just getting in free shots.)
You decide!
But seriously, "Don't review our game, because we've got a patch coming, we promise!" is big damn red flag, regardless of who says it.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Its my favorite part of squad single player games. Like the hilarious juvenile comments the main character makes in bulletstorm, or the trash talking your dudes do in gears 3. Makes me feel more attached to the characters if they act like real people. Its also why I despise silent protagonists in games.
pleasepaypreacher.net
"We had to pay a large sum of money a long time ago for this shelf space, and certification is a right bitch that takes forever. If we miss our release date, we stand to lose a lot of money and publicity. Consequently, we'd hope you guys can understand us putting out a patch at launch to tighten everything up, alright?"
edit: not to mention, there seems to be some assumption that before the patch/update/magical code, BF3 was an unplayable pile of vomit. Are we basing that on the beta? Because nobody here should admit to being that stupid.
I prefer reviewers getting a game early, it means on or before release I can potentially stop a sixty dollar mistake. Much the same way movie reviewers seeing a film early means I can avoid a bad night out based on their recommendation.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Actually, the reason I'm willing to buy that the game was rushed is because the texture pack, instead of elevating things from "good" to "holyfuckawesome", is necessary to prevent the core game from looking like absolute ass. There's a comparison video I posted a while back.
Also, Santa... you're coming dangerously close to becoming the "complains about complaining" guy. I speak from experience... I didn't heed the warnings, and now I'm forever known as the Angry Birds guy. No one sees me as a well-rounded human being, with hopes, loves and dreams, all they see is a man who wants nothing but to hurl suicidal avians at flimsy structures. DON'T BECOME ME!!!
Ahem. In other news:
Batman Beyond actually made fun of this:
Code being released to fix a problem they weren't aware of previously?
edit: Except the DS games I guess. :P
There were previews before it came out, before the patch, saying it played great. It wasn't incomplete, it wasn't unplayable. They held the beta to get more information, they took that information and made improvements based on it, but didn't deem it worth holding back the game for what would be months to get it recertified, reprinted, and having to tell everyone to wait a bit a longer. You honestly can't understand this? Are you even trying?
Man, I remember the days when I'd get a coverdisc with a whole bunch of patches for games, and I'd sift through to see if there were any that corresponded to games I owned. In the 90s. Patches and updates aren't a new thing.
Its not just the day one patch for BF3.
pleasepaypreacher.net
If you're so desperate to get the game first thing, I dunno what to say. I mean, I literally probably have a /problem/ in regards to my game purchasing (My steam list will inform you of this.) and I can still wait a day or two to see what reviews pop up.
Different strokes and all that.
pleasepaypreacher.net
http://insertcredit.com/2011/09/22/who-killed-videogames-a-ghost-story/
edit: there are multiple pages, not just the first one you see.