Game journalists ;rage; against EA and BF3

[hoopy]

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

not a CoD clone at all

Oh, so now we're suddenly talking about the singleplayer. How convinient.

 

[sea]

"a major PR disaster"?

Sea is a bit naive isn't he?

Outright proof that EA is paying off journalists and effectively hand-picking reviews? Sure, people have their suspicions, but for such a major release, and one which is expected to already sell millions and get huge review scores, this comes across as extremely dirty even for a big publisher like EA. Maybe "major" is a bit of an overstatement, but I think it will really make people think a bit more not just about EA, but about the validity of all game reviews.

More importantly, this kind of shit is embarrassing to the entire games industry and still pretty much confirms just how young and immature it still is - it's no wonder why others tend to look at it with derision and scorn when the standards are so low that publishers are pretty much outright using payola. A professional in any other field would be utterly disgusted with this sort of thing and it could be potentially career-wrecking. In the games journalism industry, it's kind of just par for the course and already confirming what people suspected, and there is a huge problem with that.

 

[MetalCraze]

Oh, so now we're suddenly talking about the singleplayer. How convinient.

And we weren't? I think I've mentioned SP quite a few times, do you read what I write?

Outright proof that EA is paying off journalists and effectively hand-picking reviews? Sure, people have their suspicions, but for such a major release, and one which is expected to already sell millions and get huge review scores, this comes across as extremely dirty even for a big publisher like EA. Maybe "major" is a bit of an overstatement, but I think it will really make people think a bit more not just about EA, but about the validity of all game reviews.

Do you think somebody gives a fuck? On the Codex, that is supposedly a "monocle" website, people don't give a jack shit about reading previews and reviews. Why do you think some average moron in EA's target audience will care? All that matters is flashy pre-release videos and reviews giving shiny 10/10. Nobody reads anything in between "Battlefield 3" and "10/10". Fanboys themselves will take a huge dump on a website that dared to give less than 9/10.

Mainstream gaming is like mainstream music - the average IQ of a target audience is 2 digits.

Do you see any outrage anywhere? No - one day passed and nobody gives a shit anymore.

 

[hoopy]

And we weren't?

Of course not. Who cares about BF singleplayer? It's irrelevant.

 

[MetalCraze]

Last time I've checked SP campaign wasn't a free download for BF3, so quit bullshitting.

 

[hoopy]

It's still irrelevant. BF has never been about singleplayer.

 

[MetalCraze]

Why do they make SP campaign? Why do they charge money for it?

It is now.

 

[Trash]

This is not about wether BF3 is a CoD clone but about EA being a fucking shit corporation that could easily play the villain in a Bond movie.

BF3's sp is not irrelevant since it's the first BF were some attention was spend to a SP campaign. Even with the SP being a blatant CoD clone that is an improvement. Playing through a popamole Hollywood rollercoaster is more fun than butchering inept bots. Caspian Border showed that the MP is good ol' Battlefield, though they obviously tried to cater to the CoD crowd with maps like Metro. Will the game be good or shit? Can go both ways depending on mp map quality.

Anyway, those EA chaps eh?

 

[MetalCraze]

BFBC was the first CoD clone, this is a third one already

 

[thesoup]

Why did this get no attention anywhere?

This is exactly the perfect new blow EA needs after their shittastic Origin.

 

[Elim]

90% of Gamers, don't care. Because they like the taste of Shit. I gave up on Battlefield a long time ago.
The Bf3 Beta felt like such a damn poor excuse for a Game.
You can't see Stuff because 10000 Particles fly in your damn Face, and if you are not blinded by Particles, you will be by Bloom. And if it is not bloom, half the Screen is blocked by the fucking Weapon.
And i did not find a option to change the FoV.
You know what i miss? Damn Ghost Recon or Rainbow Six, no Weapon, only a Crosshair.

 

[Oriebam]

Why did this get no attention anywhere?

This is exactly the perfect new blow EA needs after their shittastic Origin.

Someone make an escapist conspiracy thread saying this isn't getting enough attention and should get it, you probably get banned but at least you get some sheeple to spread this

 

[anus_pounder]

Found Battlefield 3 on TPB. Not sure if its legit or not. I'll wait a bit.

 

[Jaedar]

It's possible that this hasn't circulated because they're waiting for "the whole story".


It is infinitely more likely they're all cowards and don't dare to stick their necks out on the chance that they might not get an early review copy.

 

[MetalCraze]

You know what i miss? Damn Ghost Recon or Rainbow Six, no Weapon, only a Crosshair.

I miss them because they were much better than most modern warfare shooters today

 

[Secretninja]

do you read what I write?

Personally, I am torn on this subject. Everything you say is so utterly moronic, but sometimes it is quite lulzy because of this.

:itisamystery:

 

[Elim]

I miss them because they were much better than most modern warfare shooters today.

Yep, that of course, too.
I do not remember 1 Level from the last Singleplayer Shooters...but the bombed City with the Church Tower or the Museum still haunt me. Damn, Rogue Spear was so awesome.

 

[skuphundaku]

f that EA is paying off journalists and effectively hand-picking reviews? Sure, people have their suspicions, but for such a major release, and one which is expected to already sell millions and get huge review scores, this comes across as extremely dirty even for a big publisher like EA. Maybe "major" is a bit of an overstatement, but I think it will really make people think a bit more not just about EA, but about the validity of all game reviews.

More importantly, this kind of shit is embarrassing to the entire games industry and still pretty much confirms just how young and immature it still is - it's no wonder why others tend to look at it with derision and scorn when the standards are so low that publishers are pretty much outright using payola. A professional in any other field would be utterly disgusted with this sort of thing and it could be potentially career-wrecking. In the games journalism industry, it's kind of just par for the course and already confirming what people suspected, and there is a huge problem with that.

I disagree with your idea that this is in any way linked to the immaturity of gaming as a medium. The games industry didn't invent payola and, most likely, they won't be the last ones to use it either. Crap like this is inherent to jounalism in general when marketing, PR or outright manipulation gets involved, not to games journalism in particular. I think that considering this a sign of immaturity is a self-defeating approach. If gaming wants to be treated seriously it first needs itself to believe that it deserves to be taken seriously. It's a vicious circle: the gaming world doesn't take itself seriously, then EA and the like pull shit like this because, "Why the hell not? Gaming is not serious business anyway. At least not when it comes to ethics.", then the gaming world takes it lying down because, well, "We all know gaming is not serious business, so who cares? We can see EA's point so that makes it OK." and round and round it goes. Until enough people put their foot down and say "This shit has to stop. For me, as a client, EA's point means nothing. I want demand to be trated with respect just as they demand their right to be paid be treated with respect.", nothing is going to change.

To me, the relationship between gamers and the gaming press, on one hand, and the game publishers and developers, on the other, is very similar to a an abusive relationship. The gamers and the gaming press are the beaten wife while the publishers and the developers are the abusive husband. The rational solution would be for the wife either to stand up for herself or to leave, but in most abusive relationships she is psychologically incapable of doing either, and until she gets past that mental block, chances of things changing for the better are slim to none.

 

[MetalCraze]

I found raven shield to be more bro-game since it had more of everything, more complex.

R6 had one big downside though, you could've spent 30 mins planning the mission, but it was taking only 5 minutes to get completed. I always felt too rushed.

SWAT4 which was similar was better when it comes to this. But OTOH SWAT4 didn't have patrolling enemies, they were just standing inside rooms waiting.

SWAT3 also didn't have a weapon, only crosshair btw.

Was my first tactical shooter ever when it came out. Never managed to complete it at the time, unfortunately, but got quite far.

 

[Angthoron]

Loved R6 and R6 - RS myself, awesome games both. Never got into SWAT series though, am I missing out?

 

[MetalCraze]

Yes. I remember SWAT3 very vaguely, but I did enjoy it. SWAT4 is a good one too, also has coop MP (I'm sure SWAT3 also has it).

But both games get repetitive after a while. That's why I've never completed both. Doesn't mean they are boring.
They are both quite long (20+ missions in each AFAIR) and I got quite far.

SWAT games before that are not shooters. Hmm so it means SWAT is like the first series to get "dumbed down" into a shooter - and look - at a 3rd game.

 

[Oriebam]

SWAT4 suffers from some shitty shit, get it for MP

community is still somewhat not completely inactive as of last year, you probably will find some good, working servers unless you're connecting from some small thirdworldia country, but I recommend getting it only if you have a few bros to play with and they don't know how to play it yet, as you can exploit the vanilla game(soloing missions epileptic batman style, for example) somewhat easily, also MP works on pirated versions

 

[Angthoron]

Thanks. I'll give it a go.

Actually, I recall why I didn't get into it, now. I played the demo of SWAT 2 quite a bit, and thought it was pretty good, then when I could finally get full games, found out that 3rd SWAT was a "shooter", got disgusted and never really tried it. Heh.

If any of you played the second SWAT, how was that? Was it actually a good game, or was that just my wide-eyed innocence talking back then?

 

[Coyote]

"a major PR disaster"?

Sea is a bit naive isn't he?

Outright proof that EA is paying off journalists and effectively hand-picking reviews? Sure, people have their suspicions, but for such a major release, and one which is expected to already sell millions and get huge review scores, this comes across as extremely dirty even for a big publisher like EA. Maybe "major" is a bit of an overstatement, but I think it will really make people think a bit more not just about EA, but about the validity of all game reviews.

Actually, I have to agree with skyway on this one; the idea that this will prove a "major PR disaster" seems a bit naive to me.

For one thing, it'll depend on how much the word gets out there. Mainstream gaming sites don't have any incentive to publish an article that portrays them in a negative light, and more obscure sites are... well, more obscure. Besides which, most casual gamers, if they even follow gaming news closely enough to hear about this in the first place, will probably just shrug it off, whether due to cynicism ("every publisher probably does this"), apathy ("why should I care? It doesn't affect me personally"), or other reasons.

For another, lots of people are very willing to rationalize away things the companies they like do. Restrictive DRM? They have a right to defend their product against piracy! Dumbing down? With the skyrocketing costs of developing games these days, they have to reach out to a larger audience to recoup their investment. And so on. Whether or not you agree with these statements as true/false, the degree to which people are willing to defend policies that screw over or disregard the customer in favor of gaming companies is absurd. (Indeed, the "it doesn't affect me personally" I wrote above doesn't reflect attitudes very well; a more accurate portrayal would be "it doesn't affect me enough to affect my decision to purchase". The few apparent exceptions, such as when Bioware cut that one guy off from his games for something he posted on their message boards, generally come down to cases where people see their own interests threatened to a more severe degree than they are in this issue, which only directly affects gaming journalists - even if it affects gamers as well in the larger picture.) In this case, the defense will most likely be something along the lines of "These are free review copies. They're a privilege, not a right, and EA can choose send or not send them out to whoever they want". I also suspect that while many people may agree with you that they're effectively hand-picking reviews, they won't see it as paying off journalists since sending out review copies is a long-established tradition in the gaming industry (much like how they don't see any problems with ads for a game appearing in a publication that's supposed to review it without bias).

Also, I wouldn't classify something as a major PR disaster for a company unless it actually causes them to lose revenue or face other tangible consequences. The problem is, many gamers are simply not that principled/disciplined; if they really want a game, they may protest aspects of it and threaten to boycott but frequently end up purchasing it anyway. See, for example, this image of a "Boycott Modern Warfare" Steam group that's been posted around here a few times before.

Finally, even among those informed, angry, and principled enough to want to take a stand - a group which will, BTW, probably consist largely of people who already have a low opinion of EA due to previous PR issues - if they do want to punish EA for this action, some may not see themselves as having any options. After all, if they decide to boycott game X, which is produced by EA, they're not just punishing EA but the developers (who may be innocent of any wrongdoing) as well. Any boycott is likely to have a much more marked effect on the developer than on EA, so if they're interested in game X, they may opt to support the devs anyway in the hopes that more games like it will be made. And if not, a boycott is ineffective since they likely wouldn't have purchased it in the first place.

 

[Davaris]

You don't review EA. EA reviews you.