Rate Your Top Video Games

[swfwebmaster]

Rate Your Top Games and annotate the Meta Critic rating

[swfwebmaster]

The first number is my rating for each video game. In the parentheses are the Meta Critic game ratings.

For First Person Shooters:

9.5 (MC 91) - Battlefield 2
9.0 (MC n/a) - Project Reality
8.0 (MC 77) - ArmA 2
7.2 (MC 89) - Battlefield 3
7.0 (MC 87) - Bad Company 2
6.0 (MC 92) - Call of Duty 4


For Real Time Strategy, here are my thoughts:

9.0 (MC 88 ) - Medieval 2 Total War
8.7 (MC 92) - The Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings
8.5 (MC 93) - Company of Heroes
7.5 (MC 89) - World in Conflict

MC = Meta Critic game ratings

Battlefield 3, for me, was by far the biggest video game let down of all time. It was NOT the proper Battlefield 2 sequel and NOT developed with the "PC as the lead platform."

[pershainovitsh]

You are absolutely correct with BF3. And they even said - of course only after release - that they switched the lead platform to consoles in the middle of developement.

But anyway, my top games:
Battlefield 2: 8.8 (MC 91)
Forgotten Hope: 9.5 (MC n/a)
Project Reality: 9.5 (MC n/a)
Ghost Recon: 9.5 (MC 80)
Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory: 9.5 (MC 92)
Max Payne: 9.0 (MC 89)
STALKER: Call of Pripyat: 8.4 (MC 80)
Deus Ex: 9.2 (MC 90) (it would have been very close to 10.0 if the aiming wasn't so jaggy and there was a proper map, and maybe some other things were done better as well)
Hitman: Contracts: 9.4 (MC 74)
Battlefield: Bad Company 2 8.0 (MC 88)

Battlefield 3 mini-review:
Singleplayer 6.9. The singleplayer is a forgettable and a frustrating experience, where you walk in a corridor and watch the setpieces go by. Also, it's buggy, and every enemy is aiming at you and you only once you step out of cover.
Co-op: haven't played.
Multiplayer: 7.5. It doesn't have what a Battlefield game is expected to have, and even if wasn't called Battlefield, it's still at best a decent game. 3d spotting, health regeneration, armor regeneration, bad net code, unlocks on vehicles (and on weapons)... And then it doesn't have at least 6-man squads, a proper commo rose (and no commo rose at all on the consoles), a squad leader role that is made well, mod tools...
So all in all, I would give BF3 something like 7.3. But if I would judge it as a sequel to BF2, I'd give it less than a 7.0. (MC 84)

Edited to add BC2. Note that I have played both BC2 and BF3 only on Xbox 360.

[swfwebmaster]

Al, good run down. Four games with a 9.5. Hmmmm?

[pershainovitsh]

They just are so good. But anyway, rating a game (or anything else) on a scale, be it from 0 to 10 or from 0 to 100, is very difficult. And if you compare games by their ratings, it shows the problems with the rating system. If a tennis game on Wii gets 9.6 and a FPS on a PC gets a 9.0, does it mean the tennis game is better than the first person shooter? Maybe the rating on the tennis game was based on other tennis games, and specifically other tennis games on Wii. The reviewer might think that the FPS is better than the tennis game, so should he then rate it above 9.6? Probably not.

Games and everything else should be rated on a scale of 1-3 or 1-5, which is done by some magazines. If a game gets a one-star-rating, it's really bad. If it gets two, it's in the middle of being good and bad. If it gets three, Then it's a good game. That was about using the three-star system. If you use a five-star system, it becomes a bit more precise. But the 100-point system is just too accurate.
With a five-star rating system, both games (FPS and tennis) would get five stars, as they are both excellent. And my four games that I gave 9.5 would get five stars just as well.

[wobblyone]

My thoughts on the BF series that I have played

9.5 BF2
9.5 2142
8.5 BC2
9.5 BF3
10 2143 LOL Maybe

BF2 was awesome and took over my life for 3 years.

2142 equalled BF2 IMO. What it lacked in realism was made up by fantastic gameplay and FUN.

BC2 was initially a dissapointment because I was comparing with the previous releases. When I accepted BC2 had no connection with BF2, I was slowly drawn into it and eventually loved it.

BF3 Here we go, lets throw the shte at the fan ;D LOL
I have given BF3 9.5 because IMO it equalls BF2. It has the gameplay of BF2 and the looks and technology of BC2.
I cannot see how BF3 gameplay differs to BF2. However many make up a squad 4, 6 or 10 you work together and try to achieve objectives. Same old, just in a gorgeous environment.
The lack of Commander is made up with someone using the MAV. If used properly this can highlight ALL enemy. Players merely have to look at the map to decide whether to attack or hold and defend.
The smaller map sizes are compensated by nearly all buildings being accessible and scaleable, in effect making the maps actually larger. Try I/O on Karkand, it is Massive !
OK, Metro and Damavand are linear but BF2 had sh*t maps too.

In the near future we will have more maps like Tampa and Harvest.

I LOVE it

There

[pershainovitsh]

We could have a huge argument on how BF3 is closer to BC2 than to BF2 and how it's nowhere near a proper sequel, or even a game, but that argument would never come to an end. Others think it is a proper sequel, others not. Maybe we could have another thread with a poll about that subject, so this thread wouldn't get derailed. It's still worth a discussion, whether there is a conclusion or not.

To me BC2 is a huge step down from BF2, but it's still a good game. BF3 is a small step from BC2 towards BF2, but not coming close to BF2. Now I don't think BF2 is perfect, and I admit I don't really like it very much, at least the vanilla version. But it has a wide array of teamplay tools, ranging from squad leader having the ability to put markers on the map to a proper commo rose. If they would have built BF3 from BF2 (having the same features and improving them) instead of having dumbed down versions of the features and extrmely stupid stuff added, such as 3d spotting.

[wobblyone]

That is my point Al, BF3 is not a sequel to BF2. Dice said it was, but we all knew from the start it would not be. It is a different game alltogether.
BC2 is not a sequel to anything.

I just think they are all good in their own way ;D

[madviper101]

Here's my choice:

Bad Company(xbox) 8.0
BF2 7.5
PR 5.0
COD Black ops 1.5
Bad company 2 8.5
Battlefiled 3 9.5

BF2 was great but is now very dated to me. I did have some great times with the game and this was when I joined swf. BF3 does still have some glitches but so did BF2 for quite some time. I honestly think this games is awesum. Just have a game on karkand IO on BF3 then go back to karkand in BF2.
To me the weapons in BF3 also have far more character and all feel very different(although I woulnd know what a real gun felt like!!)

[madviper101]

Sorry wobbly just reread your post and noted your 2142 ranking. For me that was about a 7.0 rating as the floating tanks were really a bit wank.
But am really hoping for a 2143 based on BF3. Bring it on. Think your right we could get a perfect 10!! ;D

[pershainovitsh]

A Battlefield game could be a perfect 10 if...
-it featured the teamplay features from BF2 (squad leaader abilities, useful commo rose, 6-man squads, working VoiP etc
-it had destruction from BF3
-it had maps from BF1942-Vietnam-2-2142
-it had the sounds from BC2
-it didn't have all these awful features BF3/BC2 brought to the series (3d spotting, low flight ceiling, auto-spotting mines, audio-spotting on minimap, health regeneration, vehicle health regeneration, unlocks, vehicle unlocks etc)
-after making a game from all these things they even improved it.
-they didn't release it before it was finished like BF3
-it was only made for the PC. I would be happy with the Bad Company spin-off series staying on consoles.
-it didn't have a single-player campaign.
-it had mod tools. Imagine Project Reality BF4 or Forgotten Hope 3.
-it was properly balanced.
-Dice aimed the game at BF fans, not CoD fans. So more big open maps, less tight infantry-focused maps.

[wobblyone]

Al, I could answer all those points in favour of BF3. Maybe when I have more time ;D

Briefly though. We have to stop comparing with BF2, it has gone. We should even remove the 'Battlefield' name from any titles since 2142, it has not existed.

What we have with '3' is a present day/near future FPS that no other 'current' game comes close to.

Other than playing older/dated shooters, the only alternative is to dive into the ArmA series which i can tell you is a HUGE commitment. It is also buggy, but may be improved with ArmA3.

I know not all (if any ) will agree with me, but I feel quite strongly about this.
It seems people have forgotten the LACK of teamplay in BF2:
Idiot Commanders not doing thier job (some flying jets)
Clueless squad leaders.
Whole squads of Medics, snipers etc.
Teams of Lone Wolves, Squads of 6 Lone Wolves
Base raping, teamkilling, queue jumping for vehicles, nade spamming, hacking and cheating etc. etc.

Siht it wasn't that bad was it

;D ;D ;D

[pershainovitsh]

Just because the random player doesn't know how to be a commander or a squad leader, doesn't mean it's a bad idea. The concept behind both the commmander role and the squad leader role is very good. With a good commander, the entire team could be doing exactly what is best for the team. And with good squad leaders, the squads could be tight packs doing what they are told.
Well, that's the principle. Maybe it doesn't always happen in reality, but it's still possible, for example in a clan game, where one player knows exactly what to do while being a commander, eight(?) players know how to be squad leaders and the rest obey the orders and excel in whatever kit they have chosen.

But for some reason these teamplay tools are removed or at least seriously altered in a bad way in BF3. In BF2, you could spawn on the squad leader or on a flag. In BF3, you can spawn on any squad member, flag or even vehicle. In BF2, even if you were playing with random people, you were almost forced to stay together with the squad leader spawning. And what about health/armor regeration? Who needs medics (except for reviving) or engineers to fix vehicles/soldiers? Who needs another player in the game? Well, ammunition doesn't regenerate yet, but we're not that far away from it.

Just because the goalkeepers in football suck in what they are supposed to do, doesn't mean goalkeepers should be removed from the game. It's the same thing with BF, just because some players don't know how to be commanders or squad leaders, doesn't mean their skills should be nerfed or their existence removed. Why can't the squad leaders put map markers? Can you still say "I need a medic" through the commo rose? Why basic features that should be standard in a BF game don't work?

[sfscriv]

2015 Update

The first number is my rating for each video game. In the parentheses are the Meta Critic game ratings.

For First Person Shooters:
9.5 (MC 91) - Battlefield 2
9.2 (MC n/a) - ArmA 2 DayZ mod with the different extensions (Epoch & Origins)
9.0 (MC n/a) - Project Reality
8.5 (MC 84) - PlanetSide 2

8.0 (MC 77) - ArmA 2
7.2 (MC 89) - Battlefield 3
7.0 (MC 87) - Bad Company 2
6.0 (MC 92) - Call of Duty 4


For Real Time Strategy, here are my thoughts:
9.0 (MC 88 ) - Medieval 2 Total War
8.7 (MC 92) - The Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings
8.5 (MC 93) - Company of Heroes
7.5 (MC 89) - World in Conflict


Console:
5.9 (MC 96) - Uncharted 2: Among Thieves
5.9 (MC 92) - Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception

MC = Meta Critic game ratings

Battlefield 3, for me, was by far the biggest video game let down of all time. It was NOT the proper Battlefield 2 sequel and NOT developed with the "PC as the lead platform."