
|
|
|
|
All pictures were taken off of google because when I played BF3, it was on a 360
So let's pretend TF2 weren't free for a second, and that copies of it were still pretty cheap. I remember picking mine up about a year ago for $10 from Best Buy's bargain bin. I promoted it being “The Best thing I've ever spent $10 on” and I would probably still say so with a solid 300+ hours on it. So what's with the title of the topic? What if I were to review TF2 based on its story mode, or even use it as a factor? TF2 had no story mode, so how would I do it? I wouldn't. It's a game centered around the multiplayer, and it promotes it self as it is. As I write this, a better example comes to my head. Mirror's Edge. Can you factor in the mediocre combat? Yes, you can, because it exists. But it's nothing score defining. Combat isn't the main focus of the game, and it is used at times, but at most it's minimal enough to make the story believable and not have the main character miraculously bullet-dodging everything flying at her.
Where am I going with this, is right here: Jim Sterling should not have made such high emphasis on BF3 having a bad story. The game was promoted around the idea of multiplayer, and yes they showed missions from the story, but that was never the truest intention. The majority of the time was spent promoting or showing off BF3's multiplayer. So then why make such an emphasis on something that's not part of the game that's most impressive. The idea originally was that the story of games had to be good, but the times have changed. Games have proven to be completely digestible without a mere hint of a story. So why even have a story? It was a meaning to satisfy those who would have raged about it not even existing. Instead of saying “Why did the story suck so badly”, you can look at it more of a side-bonus. It's a bit of a stretch to say that, and I hope none of you take me the wrong way. The story shouldn't be a side bonus for a story-oriented game, but if it's a game that wants to make replayability it's key aspect, the story is one thing not necessary.
[i]As a quick note, I have not played Battlefield 3's story, but I have played the multiplayer for a while. By saying this, I want to point out that I am not trying to establish myself as saying “BF3 story sucks” but as though this is what has been said by Jim Sterling. And honestly, I loved the multiplayer. I am also not disagreeing with Jim's overall decision or score, but I am disagreeing with how he looked at the story with such emphasis. I realize the title may me misleading, however there was no other way to convey my idea to the cblogs. I do not believe Jim was wrong with his score or overall viewing of BF3, but I believe he was wrong with how he saw BF3's story being so terrible.[/i] As time goes on, I see Jim Sterling as a less funny Yahtzee, and I mean that as no insult. But Yahtzee had the same problem, and I view that as incredibly ignorant too. Team Fortress 2 is probably one of the greatest games of all time in my opinion, and it lacked an entire story. But it made it up with some of the best FPS gameplay of all time, so high of a model as though I hate calling it a FPS because that's putting it in the same genre as “Brink”. I loved BF3's multiplayer, but I can say that it's Bad Company 2 with graphics and a better engine. Not too game changing, but enough to earn my money. Bad Company 2 had a pretty bad story too, but it scored a point higher than BF3. This is probably because the reviewers of games were different (because they were), but then it brings another question to mind; Should a review of BF1 continue reviewing the games throughout the series? (I'll probably talk about his later on). To summarize, I feel as though it's unfair to judge a game heavily on what it's not centered on. It's like hating Sno-balls (Hostess treat) because of little white piece of paper it sits on when you get it. It's on the side, and it's not the main part, so why the emphasis on it so heavily? Yeah, that piece of paper sucks because it has no use and no one's going to eat it/enjoy it. But let's focus more on the actually Sno-ball, because that my friends, is delicious.
|
|
|
|
Post a comment! You can also post a photo below:
|
Comment with FacebookClick connect and comment instantly! |
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds |
Comments policy
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!

Follow
RSS
Contact
But i think that TF2, like you said, is one of the best multiplayer of all time, but that's because it is a multiplayer only game, and Valve never showed a singleplayer part.
but Battlefield 3 made a Single player, and made a novel about its story.So they really wanted us to play like a formal war story.
I had to go and read the Battlefield 3s review because of this and I felt like we read different reviews. In the review I read there was about two sentences about the story of BF3 and if you by story don't mean writing and narrative of the game, but instead the single-player campaign, well that was about two paragraphs in the review. Hardy a focus, barely a mention and I feel that if something is a part of the game it should at least be mentioned in the review.
Let's say that I made a game with a optional game mode in it. In the optional game mode that game forces you to eat shit. If now I asked you to review that game, would you not mention the shit eating? Would you not take it in consideration while giving a score to the game? And if you answer no and no, then you are just wrong, in my opinion.
I felt it was a good representation for the blog though. Aimed so high, but that happened.
TF2 was never judged for a bad campaign because it never included one to begin with. Reviewers judge games on what they are, and BF3 has been judged by the overwhelming majority as a game with a shitty campaign.
"Combat isn't the main focus of the game, and it is used at times, but at most it's minimal enough to make the story believable and not have the main character miraculously bullet-dodging everything flying at her. "
The poor combat in Mirror's Edge did come into account in many reviews--as it should--because it's a part of the game. If that game succeeds at all (and I think it does) it's because it has strengths elsewhere. Still, that does not eliminate the negatives.
"The game was promoted around the idea of multiplayer, and yes they showed missions from the story, but that was never the truest intention."
The very first footage of BF3 was campaign. They hyped the hell out of it for months. This is just plain false. While multiplayer may be the focus of the game, including such a poor singleplayer component earns it the right to be judged.
"Games have proven to be completely digestible without a mere hint of a story. So why even have a story?"
This is the worst part. Your argument is that game's stories suck and we shouldn't even want more from our games. Say what? Sure, a poor story can be forgiven if the gameplay is solid, but you're saying we shouldn't even want good stories because games are stupid anyway. Also, from everything I read the campaign is just plain boring and not just because of the story.
"It's like hating Sno-balls (Hostess treat) because of little white piece of paper it sits on when you get it."
What? The singleplayer campaign is a significant part of the experience not the box it shipped in. This analogy makes no sense.
If you were saying the multiplayer is so good in BF3 that it makes the singleplayer campaign issues negligible I could accept that. Instead this entire argument is centered around the idea people aren't supposed to expect their games to be good. I'm a gamer that loves singleplayer experiences and you're basically saying I have no right to judge BF3 for it's poor campaign because the devs didn't bother trying to make it good. Isn't calling them out for half-assing it something a review should do?
I've actually heard how good it looks on consoles, which surprises me. Probably wouldn't bother me to get the console one as compared to usually trying for the PC one this time around.
I hate hearing people say it looks crappy on the consoles compared to PC. Of course it is not gonna look as good as the PC version. The PC has the hardware to handle such a beast, whereas the consoles are running on 5 year old mother boards and graphics cards. You know what though, BF3 looks better than 95% of the other games on consoles right now and I would even go as far as to add Crysis 2 to that list.
Maybe the moral of the story here is that Dice should have not wasted their time and money making an uninspired single-player campaign that their core fanbase couldn't give two whits about. If nobody cares about another "Army-Man fights generic terrorists" story mode, why waste time on it? Throw in an option for bots and call it a day.
The added a single player mode and it was a uninteresting and short affair. When you have Halo, Gears of War and Uncharted making equal efforts on both sides a "focus" is never a good excuse for a half-hearted effort.
Having an online pass restricting the only good part of the game and having codes that don't work for new buyers isn't doing the game any favors.
@kidplus,
I'm not saying games stories suck, and how you drew that out of my mouth is beyond a dentist or doctor's knowledge. But games have been proven to be solid without a story, so everyone emphasizing that BF3 has a shit story needs to realize that, that doesn't really matter. And yeah, they showed the story first, but only to keep in anticipation of the actual multiplayer. It would not be smart for EA to release multiplayer first, because no eventual momentum could be built up.
@Apsup,
If the shit were not the main part of the game, and the main part of the game were fantastic, I wouldn't really see the shit in the game any longer. Why would I even eat shit when I could just play what the game was made for?
@Lenigod,
I'm not saying Jim's wrong with his opinion, but he's wrong with what he's looking at.
@Kraid,
Part 2 will probably be "The Discourse on Scoring" which I plan to make soon. It will have BF3 mentioned, but not fully revolve around it as this one did.
Also when you say "The idea originally was that the story of games had to be good, ", it's hard to relate to you. "Originally", games didn't have stories, and a lot of the best selling games ever, from Tetris to Nintendogs to Super Mario Bros., barely had any story.
Like others have said, if you don't think story is important to your game, then don't include one! If you include a story, especially a 6 hour long story, then you should prepare to have that aspect of the game critiqued as part of the whole.
Basically he said the game was great when it worked, and a frustrating mess otherwise, and the score he's given the game seems to synch fairly well with the tone of his review.
He didn't focus on the story, simply mentioned that the DICE team shouldn't have bothered with it if they were going to have one. I play a lot of my games (including Gears of War 3) for the single player, amazingly enough. Learning that a game has a crappy single player campaign is relevant to a review.
...
Sorry man, I just had to! :)
My whole point is that you're making the argument that a significant and hyped up portion of a game shouldn't be judged harshly because DICE never intended to put in the effort in the first place. I think that's silly. This blog is weird because you're saying journalists should limit the scope of their reviews because developers decided one portion of the games they ship is more important than the other. What about judging the game as is? Doesn't that make more sense? Saying "it doesn't matter anyway so Jim should've ignored it" doesn't hold up to me. The campaign does matter to gamers and reviewers have a responsibly to assess all aspects of the game.
Hardly knew ye, cred.
If you're going to do something, might as well do it well.
Fair enough.
@kidplus,
It wasn't about totally ignoring the story, but about putting a lot less emphasis on it, which I felt he did through the review and in 1 or 2 other posts he made on the front page.
@Kraid,
I realized that might be the case, but I said it anyway. Congratulations. Sarcasm over the internet.