Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert03570k 
You retroactively edited your post to counter the point I brought up about what you said.
Every time I have mentioned the fact that Battlefield 2 rates higher in polls with both gamers and reviewers, I get the same excuses for why its not a "valid" result. There aren't enough votes. There are too many. The poll only reflects what was out at the time.
The fact is again, that if Battlefield 3 was satisfying its player base more than or even approaching the degree to which Battlefield 2 did, it shouldn't be rated nearly a full point out of ten less by gamers and reviewers in various online polls and collections of polls. And if multiple game site polls of both reviewers and gamers are not enough to host an argument, your own reasoning isn't either.
If Battlefield 3 really is going in the right direction according to its players, why do its players rate it lower than prior games in multiple polls?
Where are we going to get a better reflection of gamer opinion about the quality of the game than how they rate it in polls of gamers?
Battlefield 2 is rated the superior game by both critics and gamers, with the actual evidence that is available (not your opinion-reinforcing logic). And there is more to a game than map desgn. I personally never enjoyed the close quarters maps as much as the large scale battles like in Oman, Dalian Plant, Dragon Valley, and Kubra Dam.
You retroactively edited your post to counter the point I brought up about what you said.
Every time I have mentioned the fact that Battlefield 2 rates higher in polls with both gamers and reviewers, I get the same excuses for why its not a "valid" result. There aren't enough votes. There are too many. The poll only reflects what was out at the time.
The fact is again, that if Battlefield 3 was satisfying its player base more than or even approaching the degree to which Battlefield 2 did, it shouldn't be rated nearly a full point out of ten less by gamers and reviewers in various online polls and collections of polls. And if multiple game site polls of both reviewers and gamers are not enough to host an argument, your own reasoning isn't either.
If Battlefield 3 really is going in the right direction according to its players, why do its players rate it lower than prior games in multiple polls?
Where are we going to get a better reflection of gamer opinion about the quality of the game than how they rate it in polls of gamers?
Battlefield 2 is rated the superior game by both critics and gamers, with the actual evidence that is available (not your opinion-reinforcing logic). And there is more to a game than map desgn. I personally never enjoyed the close quarters maps as much as the large scale battles like in Oman, Dalian Plant, Dragon Valley, and Kubra Dam.
It is actually subjective my favorite bf game remains 1942 and yet that got a lower score than bf2 and bf3; so what do I give a damn what gamespot polls say. Bf2 had alot of problems, I would say more than bf3. Terrible hit detection, overpowered air vehicles to the max with no real counter, unbalanced guns and classes, nade spam, dolphin diving, connection issues etc. Yet I still enjoyed the game. Also good luck finding a big map server on bf2, it was always 24/7 karkand.
I remember the upcry when bf2 had no ships and large vehicle centric maps compared to bf1942. If you think bf2 maps were large and vehicle centric you have not play operation aberdeen, coral sea, battle of britain etc. Hit detection for all games was bad, but bf3 has the best hit detection in the series hands down. I do not like CQC either but there is still armored kill which will be very vehicle centric.
Also bf3 is tactical and involves alot of teamwork; things such as the soflam, mav, citv station, spawn beacon. The problem is people cannot use these assets properly so they complain there is no teamwork.
Redbox
(14 items) |
|
Redbox
(14 items) |
