October 20, 2011 - 11:54am
The Norwegian division of Electronic Arts is taking fire from the press there after it was found that it has tried to send Battlefield 3 review copies only to reviewers who are likely to give it high ratings.
As dumb as it looks, the Norwegian division actually sent out a semi-straight forward survey to gaming media outlets, in order to weed out the reviewers who wouldn't rate the game highly.
The survey included questions such as:
- Did the reviewer personally review BFBC2 or Black Ops?
- What score did he give it?
- What is his past experience with Battlefield?
- Is he a fan of Battlefield?
- Is he a fan of Call of Duty?
- Has he been playing BF Franchise? BFBC2? 1943? BF2?
- Has he expressed enthusiasm or concern for BF3? What are they?
- Did he play the beta? Did he enjoy it / get frustrated with it?
- What is his present view on the game?
EA has acknowledged and apologized for the scandalous survey and brushed it off as a "mistake" caused by "human error." Good to know that this wasn't caused by another type such as a "computer error" or may be an "alien error."
Comments
? enough of this nonsense
oke there is this race going on between first person shooters right i dont wanna give a name . dice did a great thing and released a beta cause they want everyones own opinion and improve whats bad or bugged so anyone should have their own idea about the game why even read reviews ???? u had like 3 weeks to play this game buy it if you like , thats it innovation is not always good its called first person shooter for a reason you shoot at first person and it has its limits too much innovation is not good battlefield is great both single player and multiplayer dont read those cheap reviews.
Lol
Lol @ metacritic! Check this out: in the critics reviews all 10... and... this is the most funny part, in the public, there are immense 10's too, but from who? "Sharkiller", 10 to BF, 0 to COD, 4 reviews in his entire log. "dirkhinkly", 10 to BF in all 3 platforms just.. all starting with: "amazign game greatest youl ever play get it now dotn (...)" lol. "kshastry", 8 reviews, all EA games, all 10, except one for COD which was zero. "Finrandojin", 10 too, only one review in his life.... As you can see, I can go all the way pointing paid EA minions trying to raise the bar for Battlefield 3... "human error", they say... lolol
the frandchise
strikes again. I never buy their reprocessed shit anyhow.
Creative and thought provoking games like red faction Armageddon (thought this game was absolutely brilliant)
appeal more to me
So what?
So they got caught whoopdidoo and you think Blizzard does the same? or Activision? or any of the others...
Activision and Blizzard are
Activision and Blizzard are owned by Vivendi Universial.
They are? didnt know that
They are? didnt know that actually... but dosnt change the facts :)
True
Can't spell ignorance without IGN
NOT TRUE, I'm from Norway.
They sent out the form, but they never tried to filter out the good review.
who takes notice of random reviewers?
If a review site says a game is great and then you find it`s not then surely you are not going to go to that site and want their opinion on the next game your going to buy?
I personally only buy a game after a demo of some kind.If they submit no demo then i get my own, if you know what i mean.If it`s good, then i go out and buy it.If it`s not, i wont.
fuck the system
If you base your own opinion about a game based on a review, your a fucking idiot. Every since ive stoped watching game reviews ive been enjoying my games ALOT more, we dont need them.
Another case of synergistic back scratching.
Doesn't everyone use Metacritic anyway? I don't know of any more diversified source for meaningless personal opinion than that, so who really gives a shit about any other single source? It's pretty obvious w/out being behind the scenes that the profiteers in the game industry will do what's necessary to achieve what they're after. All NFSs are the same, all CoDs are the same, all NFLs are the same, all of ids games are the same (either the same as their own previous developments or someone elses) & all of Cryteks games are the same graphical showcase. There are very few innovators, because there can be only a very few. How many new ideas are there? How many things haven't been done, generally speaking? Aside from Valve, I don't know of anyone else doing anything too radical. In the absence of a deep story my attention in lost. The only game I'd put down over $30 for would be a Fallout or Elder Scrolls title with lots of play time, lots of story & lots of freedom. Portal/2 was innovative so I gave Valve credit for that & bought them both for $45. Wouldn't do it again though. I've never played a CoD unless it was free, and I never will. Still felt like I wasted my time afterwards. The same thing over & over is one thing, the same price for the same thing over & over is another. All they're doing is building on what's already there, or modifying what's already there. You keep buyin' 'em they'll keep bakin' 'em.
Don't Trust Reviewers
game companies have been doing this for a while now. There are several gaming websites out there continually giving games 90's while everyone else grades the game in the 70's to low 80's. PcGamer.com are just one of the man companies who give games High Scores when the game itself is rated really low by the players. PcGamer and others just like it are corrupt and should never be trusted. As for this game, it's decent but it's more like an expansion pack than an entire new game. Is Battle Field 3 good.... yes. Is it worth $60 dollars... no. It's the same shit year after year. Kind of like why would someone continually buy a new football game every year when the game itself only has minor improvements.
As for this game, and the companies who sell their souls to the man, I would say it's been going on for years. Here is a small example of this, GameSpot was paid alot of money to advertise Kayne&Lynch but once their game was reviewed by Jeff Gerstmann from Gamespot, he was essentially fired for giving Kayne and Lynch and honest review. Basically the game was garbage. Because of this, many game reviewers give shitty games good scores to save their bacon.
Seriously People
Don't be naive enough to think that all developers don't try to do this at some point.
Ignore this person
I never have. --Ubisoft
Thats why I never
Thats why I never read/consider prof. reviewers articles. User oppinions in forums and only!
Ha
"Alien error" like it. Nice to have a little bit more personal stuff in these articles like that instead of just fact frenzies.
For sure.
It's not like megagames has anything to lose, so be real about it. You offer cracks to almost every game, so come on.
Oh EA, how we love to hate
Oh EA, how we love to hate you, and you just keep on giving us more reasons to do so.
and yet...
and yet despite the hate people will still go out and buy EA's games. why do they even bother complaining when they're still gonna run out and buy it?.... I wont be. and no im not a COD fanboy.
Objection!
The facts provided by the previous poster is not good enough evidence to prove that he is going to buy any of EA's games.
Really?
The fact that this is the 8th game in the battlefield franchise does.
Probably...
Probably, because there are some who have been saying companies like EA and Activision are just scamming players of their money for some time and haven't bought any of their "awesomesauce" sequels. They are basically doing the same as the sports games, pumping out sequels that contain nothing new, just a slight update. They charge a ridiculous $60 trying to claim they put so much work into it that it is justifiable. It's a joke.
More of the same
How many more FPS titles can gamers stand? i for one got sick and tired of them 5 or 6 years ago, same games with different scenery etc etc, these games are boring as hell i can't believe people actually pay to play the same game year after year, i miss the old days when games actually had a plot and you couldn't wait t get home and play.
Kids these day will grow up
Kids these day will grow up and say "whats with games these days, everything is too real and different, i remember when everything used to be the same, and you could beat a game without even trying, oooh those were the days".
Kids these days will say anything about stuff they dont know...
Beat an old game without even trying? Haha, that's how you beat games nowadays with checkpoints, autosaves, aim assists, objective markers and other handholding techniques. Only someone who doesnt know how tough games used to be would say something so absurd.
Real and Different
Games nowadays are too real and different. Where the hell are all the crazy new worlds like back in NES/SNES Mario games? They don't really make sense, they are colorful, and so much different than the real world. Game companies should try to come up with innovative ways to render the game, similar to how Outlining/Cel-shading has created some really cool worlds. Borderlands used it plus making hand drawn textures that made the world look more drawn, XIII used some really cool cameras everytime you killed an enemy, etc. These things are much better than CoD 87: Black Modern War of Ops Combat and Battlefield 202042: Bad Heroes Company Combat.
The irony...
captcha: "Well done".... Oh the irony :)
On the subject of the matter, personally I don't think this is all to uncommon. Pretty sure plenty of bigtime reviewers get a little "extra" for giving a few more points and space in their papers/homepages, it is after all them who hype games up.
But then, I don't have any real proof to back my statements up, they are just my own personal beliefs :)
Cheers at ya all!
Don't Trust Reviewers
So many get paid off or rate games highly just so they can continue to review games in the future. Companies have been hand selecting reviewers for a long time now, they know if the game gets in the hands of actual reviewers that they will just go, "Wow, this game is the same as all the others. Nothing new, but it's playable, 5/10." They all have to spam their high reviewer ratings all over their websites, ads, and game boxes. It's all about the money with those companies and they should be shot. Here's a hint, make good games and ALL the reviewers are gonna give you good scores.
wow big whoop
The reason why big time reviewers like PC gamers get recognised and quoted by almost every game trailers is that their livelyhood depends on keeping the game developers happy. How do they do it? By writing some of the most vaguely dishonest reviews ever conceivable. Just like a politician that is too chicken to say their policies in plain english.
(captcha: too late)
Add new comment