Quote:
Originally Posted by
Delirious84 
Yes it is

Like the stache said...it isn't negative enough. Any big named title that is released seems like it automatically gets the highest rating on most gaming sites. They will hardly even mention any of the negative things about the game, but there is a reason for this. They want their readers to be happy when on the website. If they get a negative feeling or feel negative about it they might lose a reader/viewer.
You're right and the fact they don't want to upset the developers or rock the boat as so to speak. Too scared to have an opinion. The approach they should take is the good old 'constructive criticism' approach that way they can be as detailed as they want without being rude about it.
I've never seen a single interview for BF3 along the lines of 'what the hell DICE, where did everything go that made battlefield, battlefield. VOIP, 6 man squads, commander, team/squad tools, team work, sandbox gameplay etc. why is the game a featureless, dumbed down console shooter with vehicles.' instead Bach just rambles on like a marketing employee that was hired that day. Saying nothing important or actually acknowledging questions just throwing out buzz words every now and then, like 'frostbite 2.0' and 'destruction'.
Same stuff that happens with successful music artists that slowly start producing dribble to the point they no longer sound the same and all their original fans hate them. If the producers and people around them in the music studio had the balls to be critical instead of just nodding and agreeing with everything they did and said then the outcome would be hugely different. I guess its the same with everything. Once you become successful enough and caught up in being successful (expecting everyone to kiss your ass all the time) no one ever wants to be critical of your work out of fear of you pushing them away or you causing them to loose their job. Where as your own criticism and the feedback of others you once depended on, that helped make the great things that made you successful, is gone and without it you just make mediocre things that you would question yourself a little more if the situation was different.
Of course deadlines, money, politics and pressure always contribute but as a professional you should be able to deal with those things and if you can't you hire people to assist you.
The potential for battlefield will always be there. It's just up to them what they do with it and I predict them taking the same route as BF3. Alan Kertz was soo arrogant with BF3 I don't see it being any different. I want you to play battlefield the way I want you to, I know what's best and that's how things are going to be. And he has retained that attitude the whole way through the game despite constant battering from battlefield fans on twitter. He still retains the attitude of he knows what's best for the franchise and everyone that complains don't know what they want.
Anyways I'm rambling again...