Quote:
Originally Posted by thestand
Reviews are hugely dependent on goalposts, and that's what we were discussing, the early reviews. Your post I quoted was in a response to discussion about reviews. Reviews are the subject here.
So if they had promoted it as the newest iteration of the BF series, and not as "the definitive CoD killer", with the tagline "Go Above and Beyond the Call", set to Jay-Z's "99 Problems", then yes, absolutely, without a doubt, reviews of the single-player would've been a bit less harsh. Same game, but more favorable single player reviews. Because if we set the goalposts at "well, Battlefield has always been terrible at campaigns, and this is just another BF game," then your reaction to a boring, but not outright bad campaign is better than when you were promised a CoD killer.
|
I guess I was just talking about what makes Battlefield 3 a battlefield game compared to a COD game. I even said the single player probably isn't the best ever in BF3. I personally don't care about the review scores at all for either game.
My point was basically if you buy BF3 because of the single player campaign, you probably bought it for the wrong reason. EA can advertise it however they want, but Battlefield has always been known for its multiplayer. Most people know that. The ones that don't may buy it for the single player, but they will keep playing it because of the multiplayer.