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:

bazmeistergen said:
It was a strawman.

There's no point arguing that sales can mean quality when Curl never said that they couldn't. He only said they were not equivalent. They aren't. One is subjective, the other objective. After all, many people buy things they later decide is rubbish.

Seems pretty straightforward.

Read my other post from 2 minutes ago. 



Around the Network
fatslob-:O said:
@OT I'm not surprised at all. People play battlefield for it's multiplayer. Atleast the online is COD quality.


Then why do they put the campaign on the disc? Obviously the campaign sells more copies, that's why they advertise it.



Recently Completed
River City: Rival Showdown
for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

fatslob-:O said:
curl-6 said:
fatslob-:O said:

Your right LOL. It's capitalism that dominates and what better way to show that is consumers supporting the product. 

Quality is subjective opinion, commercial success doesn't make a game any better to those for whom it does not represent quality.

I say that quality CAN be be defined quantitatively. Just because some else may not think it's good doesn't exactly mean that it has less quality. If there are more gamers buying a piece of software then it is that piece of software that has the greatest value for alot of people. Quality in this case means the better value as mass consumers see it. Just because I don't like bethesda games doesn't mean that I will discount everyone elses value of the experience. Even though JRPGs have been dissapointing, (Which is one of my favourite genres.) I realize that bethesda games have more qualities due to consumer support. If people value a product more it's honestly that simple that more people see quality in the title. Just because hardcore gamers keep shouting that wii sports sucks doesn't devalue my thoughts on it because in the real world their opinions are mostly irrelevant. (Just like how some people say that the ps vita is a better system. In the real world it doesn't match with the fact that the 3DS has better games, period.) 


Belief in quality of a product doesn't mean it has objective quality. Quality is a subjective experience. You cannot quantify actual quality - though reviewers believe otherwise, I guess - you can quantify belief in quality, however. I wouldn't use sales numbers to do this as marketing manipulates many purchases. There's also the issue of following trends - FIFA, for example, promotes mass migration each year. Is the game of better quality than the previous or is there much more complexity in purchasing than quality?



Yes.

www.spacemag.org - contribute your stuff... satire, comics, ideas, debate, stupidy stupid etc.

Mr Puggsly said:
KylieDog said:
Mr Puggsly said:
Areym said:
Well , yeah. BF is all about multiplayer apparently. You would think people would have caught up by now.

This is such a stupid argument. If EA is gonna market the campagn, maybe they deliver a half decent campaign.

CoD is about the multiplayer as well. Yet year after year they make a solid campaign.


No they don't...

Thanks for the useless response. You're a great contributor to this forum.

What you say is soo true. If call of duty didn't have a solid campaign they wouldn't even be able to sell as much otherwise why every game before modern warfare did well ? It's obvious that alot of hardcore gamers are responsible for discrediting it's when they grew from single player originally. In any case I agree that it's campaign is decent. 



bazmeistergen said:
fatslob-:O said:
curl-6 said:
fatslob-:O said:

Your right LOL. It's capitalism that dominates and what better way to show that is consumers supporting the product. 

Quality is subjective opinion, commercial success doesn't make a game any better to those for whom it does not represent quality.

I say that quality CAN be be defined quantitatively. Just because some else may not think it's good doesn't exactly mean that it has less quality. If there are more gamers buying a piece of software then it is that piece of software that has the greatest value for alot of people. Quality in this case means the better value as mass consumers see it. Just because I don't like bethesda games doesn't mean that I will discount everyone elses value of the experience. Even though JRPGs have been dissapointing, (Which is one of my favourite genres.) I realize that bethesda games have more qualities due to consumer support. If people value a product more it's honestly that simple that more people see quality in the title. Just because hardcore gamers keep shouting that wii sports sucks doesn't devalue my thoughts on it because in the real world their opinions are mostly irrelevant. (Just like how some people say that the ps vita is a better system. In the real world it doesn't match with the fact that the 3DS has better games, period.) 


Belief in quality of a product doesn't mean it has objective quality. Quality is a subjective experience. You cannot quantify actual quality - though reviewers believe otherwise, I guess - you can quantify belief in quality, however. I wouldn't use sales numbers to do this as marketing manipulates many purchases. There's also the issue of following trends - FIFA, for example, promotes mass migration each year. Is the game of better quality than the previous or is there much more complexity in purchasing than quality?

You have to ask yourself this question then. Do people actually lie about what they truly want ? (Answer me this seriously!) 

Marketing alone will not push a game. (Duke Nukem Forever taught us a lesson here and minecraft was able to reach mass market without any real advertsing out there. They were mostly indie so how could they pony up the money to do it ?) 

FIFA has no competition! They are exactly what I'd call blue ocean games. EA is doing the correct thing to take advantage of this fact! It remains uncontended like the WII was! 



Around the Network
fatslob-:O said:
curl-6 said:
fatslob-:O said:

Your right LOL. It's capitalism that dominates and what better way to show that is consumers supporting the product. 

Quality is subjective opinion, commercial success doesn't make a game any better to those for whom it does not represent quality.

I say that quality CAN be be defined quantitatively. Just because some else may not think it's good doesn't exactly mean that it has less quality. If there are more gamers buying a piece of software then it is that piece of software that has the greatest value for alot of people. Quality in this case means the better value as mass consumers see it. Just because I don't like bethesda games doesn't mean that I will discount everyone elses value of the experience. Even though JRPGs have been dissapointing, (Which is one of my favourite genres.) I realize that bethesda games have more qualities due to consumer support. If people value a product more it's honestly that simple that more people see quality in the title. Just because hardcore gamers keep shouting that wii sports sucks doesn't devalue my thoughts on it because in the real world their opinions are mostly irrelevant. (Just like how some people say that the ps vita is a better system. In the real world it doesn't match with the fact that the 3DS has better games, period.) 

Again, an opinion being more popular doesn't make it objective truth.



curl-6 said:
fatslob-:O said:
curl-6 said:
fatslob-:O said:

Your right LOL. It's capitalism that dominates and what better way to show that is consumers supporting the product. 

Quality is subjective opinion, commercial success doesn't make a game any better to those for whom it does not represent quality.

I say that quality CAN be be defined quantitatively. Just because some else may not think it's good doesn't exactly mean that it has less quality. If there are more gamers buying a piece of software then it is that piece of software that has the greatest value for alot of people. Quality in this case means the better value as mass consumers see it. Just because I don't like bethesda games doesn't mean that I will discount everyone elses value of the experience. Even though JRPGs have been dissapointing, (Which is one of my favourite genres.) I realize that bethesda games have more qualities due to consumer support. If people value a product more it's honestly that simple that more people see quality in the title. Just because hardcore gamers keep shouting that wii sports sucks doesn't devalue my thoughts on it because in the real world their opinions are mostly irrelevant. (Just like how some people say that the ps vita is a better system. In the real world it doesn't match with the fact that the 3DS has better games, period.) 

Again, an opinion being more popular doesn't make it objective truth.

Sales numbers are the objective truth.  

Big publishers can already see that. 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on what quality means then. For you it's about personal opinions and for me I see it the same way as publishers do since there the ones making the money. 



Mr Puggsly said:
fatslob-:O said:
@OT I'm not surprised at all. People play battlefield for it's multiplayer. Atleast the online is COD quality.


Then why do they put the campaign on the disc? Obviously the campaign sells more copies, that's why they advertise it.

I guess EA feels the need to put more pointless shit in the games. I'm not too sure about the campaign being the main reason games sells anymore. For others it will matter I guess and for some the online matters just as much.



I'm thinking about this game. Should I wait for next-gen?



Yes.

www.spacemag.org - contribute your stuff... satire, comics, ideas, debate, stupidy stupid etc.

bazmeistergen said:

I'm thinking about this game. Should I wait for next-gen?

You look like your mostly a nintendo gamer so why not now ? (Even though to me it looks awful on current gen consoles.)