We're just a few short days away from the launch of EA and DICE's biggest game of the year -- however, with reports of platform variations, limited server availability and day-one patches, we've seen no small amount of uncertainty about how we'll be handling our review of Battlefield 3. It's going to be unprecedented territory for us (the existence of this very post should be evidence enough of that), so we thought we'd be as up-front and transparent as humanly possible before said reviews go live.
Yes, reviews. We have received from EA the PC version of the game and, after hearing reports about the differences between the PC and console SKUs -- as well as news of a day-one patch for console versions of the title -- we've decided to review the two individually.
Our review of the PC version -- which, despite reports of day-one NVIDIA and ATI driver updates, our reviewer has running in single-player at maximum graphical settings at 60 fps -- will go live next Monday morning at 3 a.m. ET. We'll be playing on private multiplayer servers which EA has set up for early reviewers, giving us ample time to play through the title's campaign and online multiplayer offerings before this embargo.
Our plans for the console version of the game are a little less iron-clad -- we anticipate we'll receive the game on Monday, though it won't be in any reviewable state until we get our hands on its "day-one" patch. We're unsure whether this update will go live on Monday or Tuesday, but we won't be able to really dig in until it's been obtained, which will push our review back to the middle of next week -- again, without a firm date for the update, we can't determine a firm date for the review.
To my knowledge, we've never split up different SKUs of a game like this -- we certainly haven't during my time as Reviews Editor -- but in a case like this, the decision is somewhat out of our hands. The two reviews may end up being completely identical, as the two versions of the game may end up being completely identical. They may be different. They may have different star ratings, if those differences merit a re-evaluation of our bottom line. It's uncharted territory, and we hope we'll have your patience as we explore it.
We would never run a review for a version of a game that wasn't representative of the version that you, our beloved readers and video game consumers, would be spending your hard-earned money on. Similarly, we wouldn't run a review for a game that we hadn't spent enough time with to see everything it has to offer its purchasers and players. This plan, while unorthodox, is the only way to ensure we fulfill both of these two requirements while still delivering our review in a timely manner.
Reader Comments (99)
Posted: Oct 21st 2011 6:18PM MystcLazrDragon said
I'm glad that they're doing this.
Posted: Oct 21st 2011 6:23PM toidnugget said
@MystcLazrDragon
most reviewers will. its the sensible thing to do.
Reply
most reviewers will. its the sensible thing to do.
Posted: Oct 21st 2011 6:46PM Solid Sean said
@MystcLazrDragon Same here. I have it preordered on pc, but it's cool to see they are waiting for the console patch too.
Reply
Posted: Oct 22nd 2011 10:11AM PR0F3TA said
@MystcLazrDragon
they have done it in the past where games have 2 very different sides to them. The multiplayer and the single player. Sure they control the same but they are 2 very different modes played very differently with one another. They did it with BFBC2
Reply
they have done it in the past where games have 2 very different sides to them. The multiplayer and the single player. Sure they control the same but they are 2 very different modes played very differently with one another. They did it with BFBC2
Posted: Oct 21st 2011 6:19PM Marshillboy said
Day one patch, haha. Sucks to be you, console players with poor internet.
Posted: Oct 21st 2011 6:28PM T24 said
@Marshillboy I'm a console player, and I download content from the PSN at a steady 1.0-1.5 MB/s. Just because our machines are inferior (c'mon guys, we can't deny that the PC version isn't superior, we've got 5+ year old tech) doesn't mean our internet connections are shit. There are plenty of people on PC with crappy connections too.
Reply
Posted: Oct 21st 2011 6:30PM King Johngie the Fourth said
@Marshillboy
Really? I mean, really? It takes two posts for the dumb ass PC fanboyism to come out?
Reply
Really? I mean, really? It takes two posts for the dumb ass PC fanboyism to come out?
Posted: Oct 21st 2011 6:36PM Oopacsunoo said
@Marshillboy It isn't that poor. Longest my xbox has taken for an update was 15 minutes, and that was for the newest dashboard. The longest a game update took me was 5 minutes, which was nothing.
Reply
Posted: Oct 21st 2011 6:50PM xiLeShadow said
@Marshillboy
You rere, there is a Day One Patch for the PC game as well.
Btw: It adds Comma-Rose. =D
:yes:
Reply
You rere, there is a Day One Patch for the PC game as well.
Btw: It adds Comma-Rose. =D
:yes:
Posted: Oct 21st 2011 7:02PM Author X said
@T24
He said, "console players with poor internet."
That is, it sucks for console players that also have poor internet - you'll be fine for downloading the patch, but if you were a) a console owner AND b) had poor internet, you'd be screwed if the patch is a huge download and fixes major problems.
Reply
He said, "console players with poor internet."
That is, it sucks for console players that also have poor internet - you'll be fine for downloading the patch, but if you were a) a console owner AND b) had poor internet, you'd be screwed if the patch is a huge download and fixes major problems.
Posted: Oct 21st 2011 7:11PM DarrylKensley said
@T24 Amen brother, nicely said.
Clearly a good head on your shoulders and nice to see someone else speaking the truth without sounding off like a fool.
Reply
Clearly a good head on your shoulders and nice to see someone else speaking the truth without sounding off like a fool.
Posted: Oct 21st 2011 11:38PM daytripper said
@Marshillboy
How awesome are Gears 3 and Arkham City on PC?
Reply
How awesome are Gears 3 and Arkham City on PC?
Posted: Oct 22nd 2011 2:13AM Marshillboy said
@daytripper
They're even better on my PS3, but thanks for asking.
I like the part where the inference was that all console players had bad internet when I specified "console players with bad internet", implying an outlying overlap of the two demographics.
I wouldn't expect the average reader of an internet blog to be able to put down their pitchforks long enough to learn how to properly read though.
Reply
They're even better on my PS3, but thanks for asking.
I like the part where the inference was that all console players had bad internet when I specified "console players with bad internet", implying an outlying overlap of the two demographics.
I wouldn't expect the average reader of an internet blog to be able to put down their pitchforks long enough to learn how to properly read though.
Posted: Oct 22nd 2011 8:34AM LEONLEONLEON said
@Marshillboy I dont get the "poor internet" part.
Reply
Posted: Oct 22nd 2011 10:58PM (Unverified) said
@Kougeru Console or PC has nothing to do with the speed you download at. It all comes down to the internet provider you use.
Also, 3.5-5.0 MB/s is slow as hell. My ISP (Shaw) just brought out their 250mbps package, which has a limit of 32MB/s. I break 25 MB/s all the time.
Reply
Also, 3.5-5.0 MB/s is slow as hell. My ISP (Shaw) just brought out their 250mbps package, which has a limit of 32MB/s. I break 25 MB/s all the time.
Posted: Oct 23rd 2011 1:35AM Adventfire said
@daytripper - "@Marshillboy
How awesome are Gears 3 and Arkham City on PC?"
Marshillboy said - "@daytripper
They're even better on my PS3, but thanks for asking."
LOL This made me laugh, especially when I know Gears 3 is a XBOX 360 ONLY game.
Reply
How awesome are Gears 3 and Arkham City on PC?"
Marshillboy said - "@daytripper
They're even better on my PS3, but thanks for asking."
LOL This made me laugh, especially when I know Gears 3 is a XBOX 360 ONLY game.
Posted: Oct 21st 2011 6:20PM APCMice said
I may be in the minority here but I'm very interested to see how the singleplayer holds up (that will dictate whether or not I buy at launch).
Looking forward to reading both reviews!
Looking forward to reading both reviews!
Posted: Oct 21st 2011 6:32PM Copybass Ah jeez zombies said
@APCMice
I'd be happier if they didn't try and sell an On-Rails experience for the Single Player. Watching AIs drive vehicles for you, in a game that SUPPOSEDLY has vehicle controls; is quite droll.
Reply
I'd be happier if they didn't try and sell an On-Rails experience for the Single Player. Watching AIs drive vehicles for you, in a game that SUPPOSEDLY has vehicle controls; is quite droll.
Posted: Oct 22nd 2011 12:06AM Axcalibur said
@APCMice
Sorry... did you just take a stab at Mirror's Edge and Bad Company? Bad Company 2 had an awesome single player campaign - the characters in it were great. Much better than the bland army boys you play as in other modern war shooters. And Mirror's Edge - such a brilliant concept, design, execution topped with a unique story... can't fathom anyone having issue with it...
While I'm with you that single player is important - I just can't agree with your examples for concern.
Reply
Sorry... did you just take a stab at Mirror's Edge and Bad Company? Bad Company 2 had an awesome single player campaign - the characters in it were great. Much better than the bland army boys you play as in other modern war shooters. And Mirror's Edge - such a brilliant concept, design, execution topped with a unique story... can't fathom anyone having issue with it...
While I'm with you that single player is important - I just can't agree with your examples for concern.
Posted: Oct 22nd 2011 12:11AM APCMice said
@The Alex
I wasn't a fan of either games' story to be honest. Yea, Bad Company does have lovable characters but aside from that there really wasn't much else for me to cling to
As for Mirror's Edge, the story was very meh in my opinion, I saw the twist coming a mile away and there wasn't much character development for me to actually care about Faith and the world she was in.
Not saying these were bad games, I look forward to what DICE could do with Mirror's Edge 2 and I did enjoy my time with both Bad Company titles, but from a narrative perspective it just didn't draw me in the way other games have.
Reply
I wasn't a fan of either games' story to be honest. Yea, Bad Company does have lovable characters but aside from that there really wasn't much else for me to cling to
As for Mirror's Edge, the story was very meh in my opinion, I saw the twist coming a mile away and there wasn't much character development for me to actually care about Faith and the world she was in.
Not saying these were bad games, I look forward to what DICE could do with Mirror's Edge 2 and I did enjoy my time with both Bad Company titles, but from a narrative perspective it just didn't draw me in the way other games have.
Posted: Oct 22nd 2011 12:17AM Axcalibur said
@APCMice
LOL, that's weird. "The_Alex" is my Twitter handle... I wonder if it's somehow linked...
I usually use Axcalibur on any gaming sites/forums - since it's also my Xbox/PSN gamertag - so if people don't agree with my comments, they can just bring it :)
Reply
LOL, that's weird. "The_Alex" is my Twitter handle... I wonder if it's somehow linked...
I usually use Axcalibur on any gaming sites/forums - since it's also my Xbox/PSN gamertag - so if people don't agree with my comments, they can just bring it :)
Posted: Oct 22nd 2011 5:17AM Seasick Pirate said
@APCMice
I may be the only one in the world doing this, but I'm buying this game ONLY for the single player.
I don't have a home internet connect, and no time/interest in getting one, so all my gaming has to be single player.
That being said, I hope BF3's campaign is as stellar as I'm interpreting it as in all the previews I've seen.
Reply
I may be the only one in the world doing this, but I'm buying this game ONLY for the single player.
I don't have a home internet connect, and no time/interest in getting one, so all my gaming has to be single player.
That being said, I hope BF3's campaign is as stellar as I'm interpreting it as in all the previews I've seen.
Posted: Oct 21st 2011 6:26PM Stevetrop Man of Mystery said
While I do enjoy the battlefield series and had a ton of fun with Battlefield Bad Company 2. I'm not purchasing Battlefield 3 anytime soon. Between college class work and the enormous backlog of games I already have I feel rather blah about buying any new games for the next few months. I hope everyone who does get it has a great time though.
Frag away my friends.
Frag away my friends.
Posted: Oct 22nd 2011 3:25PM (Unverified) said
@Stevetrop Man of Mystery I have that mentality too, as I have been trying to stick with Halo: Reach as long as possible to maintain my MP shooter fix on consoles. However, as more and more time progresses, the community is progressively dying, unless you have an absolute hard on for playing the Living Dead playlist (which seems to always have 100,000+ players in it). Arena, on the other hand, has maybe 800 players at peak. I'm buying BF3 for its multiplayer component based on how lively the community will be (and the fact MW3 looks way too similar to MW2).
Reply
Posted: Oct 21st 2011 6:28PM Shadowbender said
A round of applause for Joystiq, please. Thanks for doing this, folks.
Posted: Oct 21st 2011 8:29PM embassy said
@Shadowbender
Sure, Joystiq is to be commended for being upfront about their intentions, but am I the only one who feels that they should review what's on the disc, and not wait for an "Ok, the game is now actually playable" patch?
I think reviewers have an obligation to review the product that the consumers will be purchasing, which at this point is whatever comes on the disc/in the box. At the very least, an editor's note should be added to highlight the differences pre/post patch.
Reply
Sure, Joystiq is to be commended for being upfront about their intentions, but am I the only one who feels that they should review what's on the disc, and not wait for an "Ok, the game is now actually playable" patch?
I think reviewers have an obligation to review the product that the consumers will be purchasing, which at this point is whatever comes on the disc/in the box. At the very least, an editor's note should be added to highlight the differences pre/post patch.
Posted: Oct 21st 2011 9:10PM Mcmax3000 said
@embassy - It depends to a degree on what the patch fixes.
If the patch fixes are all multiplayer related, I see no issues with that because the multiplayer can't be played unless you're online so you'd never be able to play it without the patch.
That said, if the patch also effects offline play, yes, they should absolutely base that on the pre-patch game.
Reply
If the patch fixes are all multiplayer related, I see no issues with that because the multiplayer can't be played unless you're online so you'd never be able to play it without the patch.
That said, if the patch also effects offline play, yes, they should absolutely base that on the pre-patch game.
Posted: Oct 21st 2011 6:32PM King Johngie the Fourth said
This sounds like a well thought out approach. Well done Joystiq.
Posted: Oct 21st 2011 6:33PM Hank Hill said
This is the kind of journalism you never see on IGN or kotaku. Awesome job, joystiq.
Posted: Oct 21st 2011 10:34PM Kimchi Kommando said
@Hank Hill
I know this is a bit off topic but what the hell does acronym IGN even stand for? It's been so long since I last remembered, its just become a word now.
Reply
I know this is a bit off topic but what the hell does acronym IGN even stand for? It's been so long since I last remembered, its just become a word now.
Posted: Oct 22nd 2011 12:14AM Axcalibur said
@Hank Hill
Gotta disagree, Mr. Hill.
IGN seem to generate a review for each game on each platform - a step further than Joystiq ever goes (except, of course, in Battlefield 3's case). Obviously, some of the smaller games might get a generic review on IGN. But often there will be a PS3 version, 360 version and PC version (and Wii if applicable). Plus, there reviews are usually more in-depth and have a far superior rating system over Joystiq. If I need some info on a game, I ALWAYS type "game name" IGN Review in my google search box first. Joystiq is more of my "news" site.
Kotaku on the other hand had one of the best systems in journalism, with the "Good" and "Bad" sections at the end of the review (instead of just a score). Why they got rid of such a brilliant approach, I'll never know.
The other problem with Joystiq reviews is there puns - every single paragraph needs some sort of pun - like gaming is just some big joke (either that, or they feel their readers have such short attention spans that they need to constantly hook them with attempts at humour). I don't mind a good pun every now and then - but for every story, in every paragraph - it gets old.
Reply
Gotta disagree, Mr. Hill.
IGN seem to generate a review for each game on each platform - a step further than Joystiq ever goes (except, of course, in Battlefield 3's case). Obviously, some of the smaller games might get a generic review on IGN. But often there will be a PS3 version, 360 version and PC version (and Wii if applicable). Plus, there reviews are usually more in-depth and have a far superior rating system over Joystiq. If I need some info on a game, I ALWAYS type "game name" IGN Review in my google search box first. Joystiq is more of my "news" site.
Kotaku on the other hand had one of the best systems in journalism, with the "Good" and "Bad" sections at the end of the review (instead of just a score). Why they got rid of such a brilliant approach, I'll never know.
The other problem with Joystiq reviews is there puns - every single paragraph needs some sort of pun - like gaming is just some big joke (either that, or they feel their readers have such short attention spans that they need to constantly hook them with attempts at humour). I don't mind a good pun every now and then - but for every story, in every paragraph - it gets old.
Posted: Oct 22nd 2011 2:19AM Kimchi Kommando said
@Axcalibur
I prefer the Joystiq approach to reviews better than most, especially to IGN or Kotaku. IGN reviews sound like stereo instructions, it just a detailed list of what happened instead an actual critique.
Reply
I prefer the Joystiq approach to reviews better than most, especially to IGN or Kotaku. IGN reviews sound like stereo instructions, it just a detailed list of what happened instead an actual critique.
Posted: Oct 22nd 2011 3:47AM Xero Theory said
@Hank Hill Why did they link this story to itself with the "the differences between the two" link?
Reply








