I must go to this steak house where they serve bottles of win.

Great indeed.>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^Deano:
Personally I disagree. Single-player is very important to me with only a very few exceptions.

Given that the BF series was founded on multiplayer, and has always been about multiplayer, I think it might qualify as one of those exceptions.
Now, don't get me wrong, if you release an SP campaign and market it as heavily as EA has, it's fair game for criticism. But it's kinda like going to a steak house, having a fantastic steak, a great bottle of win and then complaining about the garlic bread. The bread shoulda been better, but it's not why you went out in the first place.
Anyway, Yahtzee has a well-known dislike for online multiplayer, given that he is a "jaded, friendless misanthrope" (his words).

There are many, many multiplayer only games, and I'm not even talking about MMOs. Console games have lagged behind PC in terms of online connectivity, but with the success of PSN and Xbox Live, multiplayer has become much more prominent in the console-space, and will be even more relevant with the next generation. When you are playing the sequel to one of the historically greatest PC multiplayer only franchises, yes complaining about the singleplayer is like complaining about the salad at the steak restaurant.

And when 95% of your "reviews" focuses on why a game sucks, you are a "hater". It's hard to take someone's "opinions" seriously when their idea of game of the year is Saints Row 2.


>> ^Deano:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^Deano:
Personally I disagree. Single-player is very important to me with only a very few exceptions.

Given that the BF series was founded on multiplayer, and has always been about multiplayer, I think it might qualify as one of those exceptions.
Now, don't get me wrong, if you release an SP campaign and market it as heavily as EA has, it's fair game for criticism. But it's kinda like going to a steak house, having a fantastic steak, a great bottle of win and then complaining about the garlic bread. The bread shoulda been better, but it's not why you went out in the first place.
Anyway, Yahtzee has a well-known dislike for online multiplayer, given that he is a "jaded, friendless misanthrope" (his words).

If it's fair game then I don't think the steak house analogy really applies. If on the other hand it was heavily hyped as MP with far less emphasis on SP then I can see where one might have cause for concern.
The thing is no publisher is ever going to market a game that just has multiplayer, even if for many dedicated fans that is what the game is really about. They still have to sell a game to everyone which includes people like me who will play the SP, maybe flirt with the MP for a short while then stop playing.

>> ^Gallowflak:

The reason the SP was hyped up and marketed so much was that it was EA's forced, ridiculous and damaging attempt to have Battlefield 3 compete with Modern Warfare 3. Anyone who knows anything about the series is aware that this is a multiplayer franchise, offering vast battlefields, large playercounts and strategic openness not seen anywhere else in shooters. Except maybe Tribes.
I can't fault anyone for paying undue attention to Battlefield 3's singleplayer, considering how the game's marketing has been handled. But it shouldn't be the reason for investigating BF3. Your reason should be being able to bail out of a jet and top speed, parachute down onto the turret of a tank, plaster it with C4 and blow yourself to oblivion.


That sounds a bit odd since Call of Duty is also heavy on MP emphasis is it not? The problem is that realistically, Battlefield does simply not have the same pull over consumers that CoD does.

That kind of plays into my thinking that what most people want, and indeed buy in their millions, is an explosive, viscerally exciting rollercoaster ride.

Thus I'm not at all surprised that BF3's SP seems to be as shallow as anything Infinity Ward has offered.

The reason the SP was hyped up and marketed so much was that it was EA's forced, ridiculous and damaging attempt to have Battlefield 3 compete with Modern Warfare 3. Anyone who knows anything about the series is aware that this is a multiplayer franchise, offering vast battlefields, large playercounts and strategic openness not seen anywhere else in shooters. Except maybe Tribes.

I can't fault anyone for paying undue attention to Battlefield 3's singleplayer, considering how the game's marketing has been handled. But it shouldn't be the reason for investigating BF3. Your reason should be being able to bail out of a jet and top speed, parachute down onto the turret of a tank, plaster it with C4 and blow yourself to oblivion.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^Deano:
Personally I disagree. Single-player is very important to me with only a very few exceptions.

Given that the BF series was founded on multiplayer, and has always been about multiplayer, I think it might qualify as one of those exceptions.
Now, don't get me wrong, if you release an SP campaign and market it as heavily as EA has, it's fair game for criticism. But it's kinda like going to a steak house, having a fantastic steak, a great bottle of win and then complaining about the garlic bread. The bread shoulda been better, but it's not why you went out in the first place.
Anyway, Yahtzee has a well-known dislike for online multiplayer, given that he is a "jaded, friendless misanthrope" (his words).


If it's fair game then I don't think the steak house analogy really applies. If on the other hand it was heavily hyped as MP with far less emphasis on SP then I can see where one might have cause for concern.
The thing is no publisher is ever going to market a game that just has multiplayer, even if for many dedicated fans that is what the game is really about. They still have to sell a game to everyone which includes people like me who will play the SP, maybe flirt with the MP for a short while then stop playing.

>> ^Deano:

Personally I disagree. Single-player is very important to me with only a very few exceptions.


Given that the BF series was founded on multiplayer, and has always been about multiplayer, I think it might qualify as one of those exceptions.

Now, don't get me wrong, if you release an SP campaign and market it as heavily as EA has, it's fair game for criticism. But it's kinda like going to a steak house, having a fantastic steak, a great bottle of win and then complaining about the garlic bread. The bread shoulda been better, but it's not why you went out in the first place.

Anyway, Yahtzee has a well-known dislike for online multiplayer, given that he is a "jaded, friendless misanthrope" (his words).

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Boise_Lib.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by dystopianfuturetoday.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Sarzy.

Accuracy isn't memory's primary concern. Memory is highly functional, just not in the way you think it is. I never said memory was always inaccurate, but it often is.

Your reaction is one I encounter all the time. People are perfectly willing to accept that other people's memories can be inaccurate, just not theirs. It doesn't bother me, because unless you study memory and understand how it works, it's difficult to accept.

But I'll say this again, because it is worth repeating until people really stop and think about what it means: Confidence is not related to accuracy.

You have also misinterpreted the research I linked to. Yes, they found that emotional features were remembered poorly, but so were non-emotional features. The emotional features were just remembered more poorly. If you would like to read the entire article and not just the abstract, there are even more surprising data they present.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

Like I said, I don't doubt that memory is inaccurate, but if it were always inaccurate to the degree you're describing it wouldn't be very functional at all would it?
I remember the names of all of my teachers from first through eighth grade
Mrs. Henyadas
Mrs. Summers
Mrs. Walters
Mr. Polinski
Mr. Leonard
Mrs. Bagget (which I will NEVER forget b/c my sixth grade brain always wanted to call her Mrs. Faggot)
Mr. Syzniak (sp?)
Mrs. Lessner
I highly doubt that I imagined teacher's names from entire years of my life, I will dig out my old report cards and photograph them if you like (but you'll probably just say I forged those and forgot about it while I was sleep walking through an entire week).
On the other hand, the link that you provided even says "the strong emotional reactions elicited by flashbulb events are remembered poorly, worse than nonemotional features such as where and from whom one learned of the attack"
So when you say "you will be completely wrong about where you were, who you were with, and what you were doing when the attacks happened" to me it doesn't seem to jive with the research YOU have provided. I'm sorry my memory isn't as faulty as you are doing a poor job presenting it to be.
Wait what were we talking about?
>> ^berticus:
Yes, it is precisely the time to bring them up. And yes, your memory really is that faulty. Everyone's is. I'm very sorry memory doesn't work the way you want it to.

Like I said, I don't doubt that memory is inaccurate, but if it were always inaccurate to the degree you're describing it wouldn't be very functional at all would it?

I remember the names of all of my teachers from first through eighth grade

Mrs. Henyadas
Mrs. Summers
Mrs. Walters
Mr. Polinski
Mr. Leonard
Mrs. Bagget (which I will NEVER forget b/c my sixth grade brain always wanted to call her Mrs. Faggot)
Mr. Syzniak (sp?)
Mrs. Lessner

I highly doubt that I imagined teacher's names from entire years of my life, I will dig out my old report cards and photograph them if you like (but you'll probably just say I forged those and forgot about it while I was sleep walking through an entire week).

On the other hand, the link that you provided even says "the strong emotional reactions elicited by flashbulb events are remembered poorly, worse than nonemotional features such as where and from whom one learned of the attack"

So when you say "you will be completely wrong about where you were, who you were with, and what you were doing when the attacks happened" to me it doesn't seem to jive with the research YOU have provided. I'm sorry my memory isn't as faulty as you are doing a poor job presenting it to be.

Wait what were we talking about?
>> ^berticus:

Yes, it is precisely the time to bring them up. And yes, your memory really is that faulty. Everyone's is. I'm very sorry memory doesn't work the way you want it to.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Boise_Lib.

˙sɹɐǝʎ ɟo spuɐsnoɥʇ ɟo spǝɹpunɥ ʎq suǝʞɔıɥɔ ǝʇɐpǝɹd sbbǝ :ɐ