By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - My Battlefield 4 campaign review...

Tagged games:

fatslob-:O on 03 November 2013
curl-6 said:
fatslob-:O said:
curl-6 said:
fatslob-:O said:
curl-6 said:
fatslob-:O said:
curl-6 said:
Mr Puggsly said:

I can't beleive they managed to make a campaign even worse than BF3. Pretty amazing stuff.

Surely you jest. The fucking Conduit games had better campaigns than BF3...

LOLOL. Both of their campaigns suck. To say that conduit had a better campaign is laughable at best. They were both just as bad. What matters the most is that BF4 is a higher quality game than what conduit could ever hope to be as evidenced by it's massive player base.

I never said they didn't suck. I  was using their badness as an example that BF3 being even worse campaign-wise makes it truly awful.

Also, sales do not equal quality.

If sales did not equate to quality then I guess the Wii was an awful system while the virtual boy was the best thing since buttered toast LOL. I guess mario games are less than everything. (It's like malstrom said, people who do not use the business gavel so they will fail to get why something is successful in the first place.) Like it or not sales DOES equate to quality otherwise some publisher would stop funding it. That is why call of duty remains as the top franchise this generation compared to everything else. Call of duty is gold while conduit remains in brown stain.

So then Angry Birds is the best video game ever made? ;)

For it's value absolutely.  

The conduit is sooo bad that I would resort to playing homefront, medal of honor, and even duke nukem forever LOL. The second game only sold like 100K. (I guess not too many gamers actually value it at all heheh.) 

And Wii Play is better game than The Last of Us? Ocarina of Time? Metroid Prime? Half Life 2? Bioshock?

Duh that's an easy answer. Ofcourse it sold more than all of them combined. You actually believe in review sites ? (Oh god I hope your not serious.) The opinions are in SALES people. Those review sites are dominated by hardcore gamers LOL.



Around the Network
curl-6 on 03 November 2013
fatslob-:O said:

Duh that's an easy answer. Ofcourse it sold more than all of them combined. You actually believe in review sites ? (Oh god I hope your not serious.) The opinions are in SALES people. Those review sites are dominated by hardcore gamers LOL.

No, I do not believe in review scores. Reviews are just opinions. So is quality. Sales are quantifiable, quality is not.



fatslob-:O on 03 November 2013
curl-6 said:
fatslob-:O said:

Duh that's an easy answer. Ofcourse it sold more than all of them combined. You actually believe in review sites ? (Oh god I hope your not serious.) The opinions are in SALES people. Those review sites are dominated by hardcore gamers LOL.

No, I do not believe in review scores. Reviews are just opinions. So is quality. Sales are quantifiable, quality is not.

Really ? SALES do tell the quality of a game otherwise the game is not valued by the mass. For a game to sell well it's must have quality or else it's deemed trash. Have you ever noticed that alot of games that sell like shit are shit in the first place ? 



curl-6 on 03 November 2013
fatslob-:O said:
curl-6 said:
fatslob-:O said:

Duh that's an easy answer. Ofcourse it sold more than all of them combined. You actually believe in review sites ? (Oh god I hope your not serious.) The opinions are in SALES people. Those review sites are dominated by hardcore gamers LOL.

No, I do not believe in review scores. Reviews are just opinions. So is quality. Sales are quantifiable, quality is not.

Really ? SALES do tell the quality of a game otherwise the game is not valued by the mass. For a game to sell well it's must have quality or else it's deemed trash. Have you ever noticed that alot of games that sell like shit are shit in the first place ? 

The masses also value Twilight and Justin Beiber. An opinion being popular doesn't make it any more valid.



Ponyless on 03 November 2013
fatslob-:O said:
curl-6 said:
fatslob-:O said:
LOLOL. Both of their campaigns suck. To say that conduit had a better campaign is laughable at best. They were both just as bad. What matters the most is that BF4 is a higher quality game than what conduit could ever hope to be as evidenced by it's massive player base.

 

I never said they didn't suck. I  was using their badness as an example that BF3 being even worse campaign-wise makes it truly awful.

Also, sales do not equal quality.

If sales did not equate to quality then I guess the Wii was an awful system while the virtual boy was the best thing since buttered toast LOL. I guess mario games are less than everything. (It's like malstrom said, people who do not use the business gavel so they will fail to get why something is successful in the first place.) Like it or not sales DOES equate to quality otherwise some publisher would stop funding it. That is why call of duty remains as the top franchise this generation compared to everything else. Call of duty is gold while conduit remains in brown stain.

What a massive straw man of a post you just made.



Around the Network
fatslob-:O on 03 November 2013
curl-6 said:
fatslob-:O said:
curl-6 said:
fatslob-:O said:

Duh that's an easy answer. Ofcourse it sold more than all of them combined. You actually believe in review sites ? (Oh god I hope your not serious.) The opinions are in SALES people. Those review sites are dominated by hardcore gamers LOL.

No, I do not believe in review scores. Reviews are just opinions. So is quality. Sales are quantifiable, quality is not.

Really ? SALES do tell the quality of a game otherwise the game is not valued by the mass. For a game to sell well it's must have quality or else it's deemed trash. Have you ever noticed that alot of games that sell like shit are shit in the first place ? 

The masses also value Twilight and Justin Beiber. An opinion being popular doesn't make it any more valid.

It just means that their better.

It's as simple as that. 



curl-6 on 03 November 2013
fatslob-:O said:

It just means that their better.

It's as simple as that. 

Some of us like to think for ourselves instead of accepting popularity as gospel truth.



fatslob-:O on 03 November 2013
Ponyless said:
fatslob-:O said:
curl-6 said:
fatslob-:O said:
LOLOL. Both of their campaigns suck. To say that conduit had a better campaign is laughable at best. They were both just as bad. What matters the most is that BF4 is a higher quality game than what conduit could ever hope to be as evidenced by it's massive player base.

 

I never said they didn't suck. I  was using their badness as an example that BF3 being even worse campaign-wise makes it truly awful.

Also, sales do not equal quality.

If sales did not equate to quality then I guess the Wii was an awful system while the virtual boy was the best thing since buttered toast LOL. I guess mario games are less than everything. (It's like malstrom said, people who do not use the business gavel so they will fail to get why something is successful in the first place.) Like it or not sales DOES equate to quality otherwise some publisher would stop funding it. That is why call of duty remains as the top franchise this generation compared to everything else. Call of duty is gold while conduit remains in brown stain.

What a massive straw man of a post you just made.

Nothing was exactly strawman. You just proved malstrom even further as to why gamers do not talk about game business. If anything the people with gaming stigma just proves malstroms point how overly infatuated they are with the idea of quality instead of actually looking at the real numbers.



fatslob-:O on 03 November 2013
curl-6 said:
fatslob-:O said:

It just means that their better.

It's as simple as that. 

Some of us like to think for ourselves instead of accepting popularity as gospel truth.

I know we all have different crowds and all but to say that something popular has no quality is absolutely ridiculous when in fact it's the very opposite. People here really hate those numbers LOL.



Ponyless on 03 November 2013
fatslob-:O said:
Ponyless said:
fatslob-:O said:
If sales did not equate to quality then I guess the Wii was an awful system while the virtual boy was the best thing since buttered toast LOL. I guess mario games are less than everything. (It's like malstrom said, people who do not use the business gavel so they will fail to get why something is successful in the first place.) Like it or not sales DOES equate to quality otherwise some publisher would stop funding it. That is why call of duty remains as the top franchise this generation compared to everything else. Call of duty is gold while conduit remains in brown stain.

 

What a massive straw man of a post you just made.

Nothing was exactly strawman. You just proved malstrom even further as to why gamers do not talk about game business. If anything the people with gaming stigma just proves malstroms point how overly infatuated they are with the idea of quality instead of actually looking at the real numbers.

It was a strawman. Curl-6 argued that sales do not equal quality. Instead of you offering anything against, that you took it as him arguing that higher sales= lower quality. He never argued that but you took it as that since you have no idea how to argue against his real point. Also that entire second sentence is completely irrelevant because i don't care for which is right, i just noticed you made a dumb remark and i wanted to point it out. Also are you gonna try to shit up this topic like you did with the "ask a dev anything" thread?