Game journalists ;rage; against EA and BF3

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Best thread ever material? If so, translate and post over there.

 

[deus101]

Well most of it are people suddenly bitching about the license and how NRK never airs anything good anyway, which means they are watching shitcoms and reality series on the jew channels. NRK are the one that airs all the HBO series anyway.



Anyway...it goes downwards from here...

The one that really made me snap was retard that defended EA, saying that it was their right to maximise profit....YOU ARE THE CONSUMER!
WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU APPLOGISING EA FOR BYING REVIEWS!

bah...need sleep so...get some swede to translate it for you.

 

[Jaesun]

I wonder if the Unholy Trinity™ (IGN/GameSpot/GameSpy) etc... will even cover this story?

I noticed Blues News did..

A semi translated update:

http://bf3blog.com/2011/10/ea-tries-to- ... in-norway/

There have been some unfortunate developments with EA Norway and the way they’ve been handling access to Battlefield 3 review copies. According to Norway’s top news outlet, NRK, EA has withheld review copies of Battlefield 3 to reviewers whom they thought would give the game a bad score. A number of Norwegian gaming outlets, including popular ones like Gamer.no and GameReactor, have been refused review copies of Battlefield 3 due to their review scores of past Battlefield games.

Furthermore, EA inquired potential reviewers of Battlefield 3 to see whether they were Call of Duty fans, whether they played the beta and if they were frustrated with the beta. You can see the full list of questions above.

EA’s actions in this case have been criticized by Norway’s top journalists, like Gunnar Bodahl-Johansen from Norway’s School of Journalism, calling EA’s actions “unacceptable”, adding, “It is a sad situation for both EA and game journalism that it appears that this is normal.”

EA has been quick to issue an apology, with EA Norway marketing manager Oliver Sveen saying “this should not have been sent out. We have made ​​a mistake and we apologize. This is not something that neither should have happened earlier or what we intend to continue”.

At least they apologized...

 

[deuxhero]

Only when they got caught.

 

[MetalCraze]

"we've made a mistake"
Don't worry, bydlo will be buyin' regardless

What I find weird is that this is news to many of you. Same ol, same ol circlejerk. "Journalists" cream over shitty games, publishers give them more material to cream on and GAMERS are happy because they're playing 10/10 gotys because they're too dumb to rate games on their own.

Some people here think that an overhyped shit they are playing is indeed good. Of course it's a surprise that all cocksucking reviews about games of EA, Ubisoft, Eidos and Activision on notable advertisement websites (known also as "game review websites") are in fact publisher-controlled bullshit

 

[Overweight Manatee]

I'm sure EA is very sorry, and to remedy the situation and make sure they aren't caught again they will permanently blacklist everyone who even mentioned this situation.

 

[Jaesun]

EA, Ubisoft, Eidos and Activision on notable advertisement websites (known also as "game review websites") are in fact publisher-controlled bullshit

Yeah, you don't need to be a Rocket Scientist to see something is VERY wrong....

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

There should be laws against stuff like this.

 

[Zinc]

It is a special circumstance, given the monolithic stature of their main competitor, Call of Duty. The close proximity of the release dates, the obvious similarities shared between the games. EA are frightened. CoD has the potential to completely blow a massive release like BF3 out of the water if marketing and reviews don't go in its favour. I'm not condoning this, oh no. I am just seeing it from the slimebags at EA's point of view.

 

[MetalCraze]

It's an absolutely correct point of view.

BF3, just like BFBC before it, is a CoD clone. BFBC utterly failed to reach marketing figures of CoD - but with BF3 being openly positioned as a Call of Duty game - the risks are higher.

Mainstream games are just business. Mainstream is mainstream not because it's good but because it's flashy and has a lot of hype telling you that playing it makes you a cool dude. Only a complete dumbass will buy into this. Only a complete dumbass will pay for CoD or BF so let them.

 

[Commander Xbox]

So what, this shit is mild compared to some of the outright bribery that is going on in ''video game journalism'', EA selecting journalists that are favorable towards their products is exactly like the White House only letting in journalists/media sympathetic to their administration for questioning. Business as usual

 

[RK47]

HAH! Norway brings the....

YO YO YO DEUS101 IMMA LET YOU FINISH BUT BATTLEFIELD 3 IS THE BEST TEAM BASED MILITARY SHOOTER OF ALL TIME

 

[hoopy]

It's an absolutely correct point of view.

BF3, just like BFBC before it, is a CoD clone. BFBC utterly failed to reach marketing figures of CoD - but with BF3 being openly positioned as a Call of Duty game - the risks are higher.

BF 1942 came out in 2002. The first CoD came out in 2003.

 

[Jaesun]

Someone remember when the Preview Copies go out to websites, see if http://e24.no/media/spilljournalister-r ... s/20111124 get one.

 

[MetalCraze]

BF 1942 came out in 2002. The first CoD came out in 2003.

So what?

 

[hoopy]

2002 precedes 2003, therefore it's not possible for BF to copy CoD. Not without a time machine, anyway.

 

[MetalCraze]

And Fallout 3 is a true sequel to original games since thanks to hoopy we now know that it isn't possible to change the gameplay of the series to copy some unrelated hiking sim without the time machine.

 

[Renegen]

It's an absolutely correct point of view.

BF3, just like BFBC before it, is a CoD clone. BFBC utterly failed to reach marketing figures of CoD - but with BF3 being openly positioned as a Call of Duty game - the risks are higher.

BF 1942 came out in 2002. The first CoD came out in 2003.

And BF 1942 probably drew its inspiration from Tribes and it wasn't owned by EA then, so what's your point?

Hell CoD when it first came out brought something new, a great movie like experience. I think they ripped heartedly from Saving Private Ryan and Enemy at the Gates. But it was fun. Today, hearing the same old Grenade screams is annoying.

 

[hoopy]

Fallout 1/2 is an isometric turn-based game with 2D graphics. Fallout 3 is a first person real time action game.

There is no such vast difference between BF 1942 and BF 3, and CoD and MW3. Both series have remained pretty much the same.

 

[MetalCraze]

Let's see

BF up until 2 included - a strictly MP shooter with relatively medium-sized maps and free, quite fast movement

BFBC and up - EA bought SP levels from CoDMW, changed textures and released it as a game under the different name (BF3 and CoDMW3 both take place in Paris, wanna bet both also feature the same destruction of Eiffel tower?). MP became much slower, maps became smaller. Health regen in MP straight from the big CoD bro.

So the only difference is that there are also "open" maps (considerably smaller than 64p ones from BF2, Caspian Border is no different) with vehicles. Apart from CoD shit like that Metro map. But hey it's called BF.

 

[sea]

I wish I was cool enough to read Norwegian. Or Swedish for that matter. God damn getting stuck with this shit language.

Someone remember when the Preview Copies go out to websites, see if http://e24.no/media/spilljournalister-r ... s/20111124 get one.

If anything it'd be in EA's best interests to extend a gesture of good faith to any affected magazines/websites... or all of them, for that matter. Better coverage and relations, hiring on better PR guys to help answer questions and be more open, communicative, and honest, etc. This is a really shitty thing to happen, but if they're smart, they can turn what is a major PR disaster around into a positive provided they take the right moves to remedy the situation. Of course, it's EA, so I doubt we'll ever get more than a completely phony and half-assed "we're really, really sorry" from them, considering their track record.

 

[hoopy]

The changes aren't anywhere near enough to qualify BF3 as a CoD clone. You're grasping at straws.

 

[MetalCraze]

"a major PR disaster"?

Sea is a bit naive isn't he?

The changes aren't anywhere near enough to qualify BF3 as a CoD clone. You're grasping at straws.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zw8SmsovJc

not a CoD clone at all

 

[Jaesun]

Someone remember when the Preview Copies go out to websites, see if http://e24.no/media/spilljournalister-r ... s/20111124 get one.

If anything it'd be in EA's best interests to extend a gesture of good faith to any affected magazines/websites... or all of them, for that matter. Better coverage and relations, hiring on better PR guys to help answer questions and be more open, communicative, and honest, etc. This is a really shitty thing to happen, but if they're smart, they can turn what is a major PR disaster around into a positive provided they take the right moves to remedy the situation. Of course, it's EA, so I doubt we'll ever get more than a completely phony and half-assed "we're really, really sorry" from them, considering their track record.

Quoting for posterity.

 

[Destroid]

BF3 draws heavily on the look and feel of CoD for it's infantry shooting and it's levelling system with attached ridiculous gun porn. I don't see how it could have much similarity when tanks, IFVs and helicopters are invovled (I didn't get to play Caspian Border). It's quite clear that DICE & EA are targeting the CoD fans with BF3.

The first CoD I thought was actually a pretty solid and innovative shooter in multiplayer - it's dynamic spawn system was novel and it had solid gunplay, once you banned those dirty scoped snipers. I don't think the feel of the original CoD is much like the Modern Warfare games though.