Platform: PC Progress: Can't beat it, it's an MMO! Battlefield Heroes is a free to play MMO third person shooter developed by EA DICE, the same developer behind Mirror's Edge and the Battlefield series. It's a cartoony Team Fortress 2 style makeover with a degree of unrealisticly funny gameplay, but does it hold up in the long run? I've been playing a lot of Battlefield Heroes, lately, after realizing that the game is no longer in beta stage, and is available to the public. I started 3 characters of each class, and I stuck with the Gunner and Commando. The three classes are Soldier, Commando and Gunner. The Soldier is an all-around character, who holds rifles, grenades and the standard stuff. The gunner is somewhat of a Heavy from TF2. He has more health than the Soldier, and carries a Heavy Machine Gun, a Shotgun, and various abilities. The Commando, is a sneaky character, with stealth camo (to an extent), a knife (which is not instant kill, but close when hitting from behind) and a Sniper Rifle or Pistol. It's a cross between a TF2 Sniper and a TF2 Spy. Minus the camo that makes you look like the opposing team's characters. The game sports a different look from the epic realisticness of the Battlefield series. It goes from realistic, to comedic unrealisticness, with a cartoony look for everything. It definitely goes hand-in-hand with other aspects of the game. Comedic voice acting (the good kind), whacky abilities and a funny over-the-top style of gameplay. Make the graphics complement the game as a whole. The game is extremely rewarding. When you're shooting at someone, and you die, you're still rewarded with some EXP if you hit him a bit. Think Resistance 2 co-op mode, when you shoot an enemy, you gain some EXP. Depending on how well you played during a match, you get Valor Points, which are free to spend on timed Weapon Purchases (meaning you can keep it for a week, month, etc.) or a supply of Healing Bandages (not timed). Level ups result in Hero Points, which allow you to upgrade you character's abilities, or learn new ones. These abilities are unique for classes, and are effective as they are comical. Take the Gunner's whacky ability, Explosive Keg. The gunner drop kicks a Keg of beer, and it's basically an explosive barrel you whip out when you want. You can then shoot it when enemies are near, or shoot it in mid-air, or whatever, and watch stuff catch on fire. However, several days into the game, I feel that there are some problems that cannot be ignored. The game is severely unbalanced, with the Commando's camo move, allowing you to be completely invisible unless you're a few feet from an enemy. The Commando's sniper attacks are overpowered, and there is no team balancing. When you make your character and choose a side, it's your character's side for good. No changing teams for balance, folks. The store for the BFH game pisses me off, and that's a major gripe. You can buy Game Currency (called BattleFunds) with real money, so you can buy things like EXP Boost abilities, or Valor Point Boosts, which yield 150% of Valor Points or EXP. You also have to pay with real money to gear up your soldiers, to make them look unique. Who wants to do that? Oh wait- I've noticed a lot of people with that kind of stuff, never mind. I hate to see people gaining higher EXP points than I am when I'm much better than them. It's an unfair balance, as unbalanced as it is already. The game also features some vehicles, like Jeeps, Tanks, and Airplanes. I guess the cartoony art style goes hand in hand with this, as players can play passenger on a plane by sitting on the wings, and the game's steering is unbelievably sensitive and unrealistic. I guess that was the purpose of it, because I've seen EA DICE do vehicles excellently before. Gameplay: 8/10 When you get a proper connection and a game filled with other players, it’s fun. Whether you’re a low level player using standard guns, to being a high level player with a bunch of abilities flying all over the place, the game is going to be full of chaotic action. Some imbalance (overpowered weapons, etc.) and hackers (very rare, though). Sound: 10/10 The sounds of the weapons, abilities, and character voice acting are all brilliant. The theme song will seep into your brain and become the catchiest tune you’ll enjoy listening to during load times. Graphics: 9/10 The graphics are great, if set to a high resolution (it depends on the computer), with a variety of effects to make the visual experience better. The art style is eerily similar to that of Team Fortress 2, and has a comedic vibe and feel to the characters, going hand and hand with the graphics style. It is just shy of being perfect, because it doesn’t best Crysis, and it depends on the computer. Fun Factor: 8/10 The fun factors depend on who you play with in BFH, and in the beginning, everyone sort of sucks and learns how to play, and it gets better (or worse, if there are hackers or cheap players) as you play on with experience. It can be very addicting, but you should only play it in short bursts (of an hour or two), before you get pissed off by some issues. Lasting Appeal: 7/10 The community recently hit 1 million players, and the player count is still rapidly growing, meaning that it shouldn’t be hard to find a match with a decent amount of people in it. However, there are times when almost nobody is playing, and there are common cases of lag spikes, connection issues, or being randomly disconnected. These connection issues are likely to be fixed in the near future. Overall: /50 Overall, it's a very fun game, but it can be unbalanced at times. If you find a good class to play, and you're good at it, you'll be okay, you'll have a blast playing the game! I can guarantee that it will get better in the future, and it will last as a fun free game.
Agreed with waylonn. Can't accept this in it's current state. More text, and follow the score system.
I couldn't seem to add as much text and couldn't use the rating system this time. I think it's because it's an MMO, and all the scores could vary from who you play with and all sorts of complications, so instead I did a full score. The foundation of the game is based on players, and it's not like World of Warcraft where you can still do quests. It's all about players shooting other players. That's why I couldn't use the IGN-esque rating system.
Guys, may I remind you that it is the job of the moderators to enforce the rules, not you. The rating system isn't quite *that* rigid, sometimes a style of game just doesn't fit within it, in that case it's okay to not use it... Honestly, stop being so anal. That said, I don't see why this game can't fit under it, it has sound right? Do they change between games? It has game-play right, does it change? (no, it doesn't, the fun might, though)
I certainly hope that score requirement "isn't rigid", because that's what has made me very reluctant to post reviews here. I don't like the score format that has been endorsed (or should I say "enforced") by the sticky topic as the total sum of the mentioned aspects does not necessarily represent the overall quality of the game. For instance, if a game has terrible graphics and rigid controls, but the gameplay is overwhelmingly top-notch, that game could be worthy of earning at least 90% of the rating score. In short, there is no absolute way of quantifying the overall quality of the game based on aspect scores alone. I would like to recommend to change the score requirement for game review submissions. Let people use their own rating system to whatever they feel like as long as it is reasonable. If the review is well written, and includes screenshots of the game, and summed up with a certain rating at the end, the review should be accepted. xmasterchefx, decent review, but there is one thing you can do to make your review more professional. You need to limit using the word "I" when you are talking about the gameplay experience as the whole purpose of the game review is to give insight of the game in general, not just from your own experience. Otherwise, it's nothing more than a blog-like entry of your own gameplay experience.
I think the review's fine dude! It's a cool game and best of all it's free! - Thumbs up to the sneaky Commando going around slitting throats ;D
It seems that on everyone has been forcing me to change my review to fit the mandatory score system. I originally wrote these on Microsoft Word with no rating system in mind, just text describing the quality of the game. From there, the consumer could take into account the pros and cons without using number scores to see if they should buy a game. There are also many exceptions to the score system here, because some games focus on different aspects of a game. Since Story is not mentioned as a category, it would suck if a game had the greatest script in the world, but had sub-par gameplay, and was graded on that.
Exactly. That's why the current "rating score" requirement is crap for the quality of games cannot be quantified by those aspects mentioned in the review submission rules. For instance, let's take a classic game such as Asteroids. Simple graphics, and a ship in which the controls are not straightforward at all. But somehow, it's still fun and challenging. Would it be fair if that game got below 60% just because it "does terrible" in the graphics and controls aspect? So once again, that rating score requirement needs to change. Quality of games cannot be quantified by graphics, sound, controls, etc. aspects alone as they don't apply to all games.
We have a particular system in place for a reason. It's not so easy to just let everyone do as they please. There has to be some sort of guide as to what and how games should be graded. There is a reason why all professional submissions like Gamespot, IGN etc use a strict scoring system. It's not just to look pretty and neat and organised, but also for balance. Think about this: Reviewer A reviews a game and grades it a 3.75/5; Reviewer B grades the same game as a B; Reviewer C grades the same game as 78/100. Now, a reader will struggle to correlate the scores of the games and there is no balance with such a difference in rating systems. It's difficult to relate these reviews to each other score wise. Furthermore, the system serves as a means to compare separate games with one another. If game A gets a 40/50, then a game that gets a 35/50 can easily be compared based on the score. It's just a convenient way to do things and it is much better to have it then to discard it. This is our decisions as moderators and it is logical to keep it. I would much rather have a defined scoring method than to see people go crazy with their scoring systems. It is a simple and easy enough and functional. As for particular games, we are definitely not anal when it comes to being precise. Some games, such as this, will obviously not benefit from a score on the story aspects of the game, as there are non. In cases such as this we are more than happy that you come up with your own sections, so long as there are 5 of them and your score is out of 50 at the end. As Seph politely indicated, the game does have sound, it does have gameplay, it does have graphics. So you can easily grade those factors. Furthermore, you could discuss the fun factor. Is it awesome playing online or does it get boring after an hour or so? How busy are the servers? Am I guaranteed to get a game at like 2AM? There are a number of things you can discuss. We are not trying to limit you with your reviews, but believe that the system is flexible enough for reviewers to express themselves through a 5 category system and a total of 50.
If we can add 5 of our own categories, I'm down with that. However, there is still the gripe of a bunch of readers who think they can enforce the example of the review system (Presentation, Gameplay, etc). I was saying that the review scoring was bad, not because of the numbering, but because some games have qualities not regarded in the categories posted as an example. EDIT: Fixed the review, as in, added in 5 score categories that fit me...although the Fun Factor and Lasting Appeal are kind of similar, I think.
Grimsim, Gamespot doesn't go by the "strict scoring system". Here's a review they did on Dissidia: Final Fantasy where they just gave one simple score-rating based on what they felt overall. You can also verify other reviews done on Gamespot, for I can bet that you won't find a review that's different compared to the one example I provided. For the record, I would like to use Gamespot's format if I may when I write and submit reviews. Also, even though IGN uses the 5-category system, do note that their overall score has nothing to do with either the average or total scores combined for each category. In fact, no professional game review does that (read IGN's fine-print on the overall score.) As I have mentioned before, the overall quality of the game cannot be exactly quantified.
Although some of the recent Gamespot's review are pretty brief and straightforward, they are still pretty laid on when it comes to reviewing games. Gamespot was the one that influenced me on reviewing. IGN is another that has more slaggish accented reviews that are more strong and descriptive, as well as their rating sense, compared to Gamespot's simply some overrated reviews. As being strict on score their are many reviews anti their respective rules, but still its better to have it balanced and a good review sense, that's what makes our reviews more different, personally it's better to reader more textful reviews to just conceptualize the game'. The review is pretty much on the right side. if you just add more quantity on the information rather that on the scores. Note for Grimsim and other review moderators (just reccomedation), it's better to clean outdated and un-updated threads to make the review submission section not so clogged up.
I am pleased with your changes. Good review. It has even ignited an interest in me to try this game out myself. Just a note, in future please try and adjust your writing to the left? It just feels a little easier on the eyes. Good stuff, and thanks for adding the categories.
Oh okay, I thought it would have visual appeal with centered writing. Turns out I was wrong. Oops! I'll fix that for future reviews. Thanks for the move!
