Why are all PC games rated so poorly?

[Guest]

Okay, so I'm going into PC gaming soon. I have chosen all the computer and am good to go, just have to pull the trigger on the purchase. I was looking at some games on Amazon today, and I realized that many PC games have quite low reviews compared to console! Any ideas why? I was under the impression that PC gaming is better in almost every way compared to console, but the reviews say otherwise. Are PC games glitchy or are PC gamers just more critical? Are Amazon reviews just not reliable? (Most IGN/Gamespot do give PC games high scores.)

examples: (amazon reviews)

Battlefield 3
ps3: 4/5
pc: 2.5/5

Fall out 3
xbox: 4.5
pc: 3.4

Mass Effect 3
ps3: 3.5
pc: 2.5

Crysis 2
xbox: 4.2
pc: 3.4

**I am not trying to hate on PC AT ALL, and I am not a console fanboy. I just want some info on why some of these reviews are so low? (Battlefield 3 in particular.)


Ps. Did they ever fix PC battlefield 3 to make it playable?

Thanks for any help.

Also, the only reason I am using Amazon instead of steam is because I have some Amazon gift cards I need to deal with .

 

[Sunius]

That's because those games you mentioned may be one of the best games on consoles, however, when you enter PC gaming, you will realize that there are much much better games than that. It's not because they don't work well or anything. Don't get me wrong - they work great. There aren't any glitches. Just that when you get compared to higher standards, you automatically get lower scores 😉.

P. S. Was BF3 not playable at all at some point? I got it a month after its release I think (can't remember), and it works flawlessly for me.

 

[MTindle]

BF3 got bad reviews because a LOT of people hated installing the Origin client. Crysis 2 because it just wasn't a good port, I'm not so sure about Fallout 3 though, maybe because it was so different from the first 2 in the series.

 

[fulle]

BF3 released with mandatory Origin DRM. It had issues with Origin not launching properly, the game executable not launching properly, and so on. It also was a game that chose to use a pitiful web based UI for looking for games, and the whole experience was negative, honestly. The game itself was alright, but not perfect. Perhaps, if it didn't have these problems it would have pulled generally positive reviews. With the issues, though, the 2.5 out of 5, is to be expected. Especially since a lot of people reviewed solely to give BF3 a 0.

Mass Effect 3 released with day 1 DLC, forces you to make an EA account, and had one of the worst endings in gaming history. As such, the game pretty much pissed everyone off, and a LOT of people gave reviews for the sole purpose of giving ME3 a 0. The game itself was OK, but heavily "consolized", with minimal effort gone into the PC port, making it even less popular in reviews from PC users.

Crysis 2 was a heavily bought out POS that was designed intentionally to favor Nvidia GPUs. The game itself sucked compared to other PC shooters, and the reviews reflect the lack of quality.

Fallout 3's interface was not good for PC players, it had a feeling that it wasn't complete without DLC, and it's engine pretty much sucked for PC optimization (not optimized for quad cores etc).
- The saving grace for Fallout 3, however, were user created mods, that made the game suck significantly less.

So, all justified. Why console gamers have such low standards, is another story.

 

[casualcolors]

Gamers are fickle in every way except their spending. PC Gamers moreso than the rest even.

 

[Guest]

BF3 released with mandatory Origin DRM. It had issues with Origin not launching properly, the game executable not launching properly, and so on. It also was a game that chose to use a pitiful web based UI for looking for games, and the whole experience was negative, honestly. The game itself was alright, but not perfect. Perhaps, if it didn't have these problems it would have pulled generally positive reviews. With the issues, though, the 2.5 out of 5, is to be expected. Especially since a lot of people reviewed solely to give BF3 a 0.

Mass Effect 3 released with day 1 DLC, forces you to make an EA account, and had one of the worst endings in gaming history. As such, the game pretty much pissed everyone off, and a LOT of people gave reviews for the sole purpose of giving ME3 a 0. The game itself was OK, but heavily "consolized", with minimal effort gone into the PC port, making it even less popular in reviews from PC users.

Crysis 2 was a heavily bought out POS that was designed intentionally to favor Nvidia GPUs. The game itself sucked compared to other PC shooters, and the reviews reflect the lack of quality.

Fallout 3's interface was not good for PC players, it had a feeling that it wasn't complete without DLC, and it's engine pretty much sucked for PC optimization (not optimized for quad cores etc).
- The saving grace for Fallout 3, however, were user created mods, that made the game suck significantly less.

So, all justified. Why console gamers have such low standards, is another story.

Did they end up fixing the awful Origin? People seemed to REALLY hate it when the game came out, but now it seems like people like Battlefield again.

 

[Sunius]

It's not that bad. I like it more than steam, personally, because it doesn't give me annoying pop ups with advertisements (unlike steam!). The only downside of it that it will take 10 seconds longer to launch the game, because when you launch it, you've got to wait for origin to launch itself as well.

 

[Guest]

Oh, doesn't sound like a big deal. I'm new to PC gaming in general, so do you have any recommendations for good multiplayer FPS games?

 

[Sunius]

Two most popular multiplayer fps games of today is Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty: Modern warfare 3. You may also try Battlefield Bad Company 2, Counter Strike Source, Team Fortress 2 (this one is free!).

 

[Guest]

Far cry 3- Now that looks like its going to be some fun. Also, is Crysis 2's multiplayer any good? The whole cloak thing seems like it will add a nice twist to your average FPS.

 

[Sunius]

Never tried it, can't tell .

 

[casualcolors]

Did they end up fixing the awful Origin? People seemed to REALLY hate it when the game came out, but now it seems like people like Battlefield again.

There was nothing wrong with Origin to begin with, from a technical perspective. It uses less resources than Steam, and it "gets in the way" far less than Steam tends to. Unfortunately, it's also another blatantly perceivable layer of DRM in the same vein as Steam, and PC gamers hate this trend. That is why PC Gamers continue to have strong reactions to services such as GFWL, Origin or Steam, albeit some to a lesser degree as time wears on. It doesn't help that EA gets a lot of negative publicity for things unrelated to Origin, some of which is warranted and some of which probably isn't. All of that adds up to a certain public image though, and EA's image is flypaper for criticism as far as anyone can be concerned.

People also had a "problem" with Battlelog. They likened it to Facebook and mocked it. Personally, I thought it was kind of nice then, and I think it's kind of nice now. As people continue to play, the general consensus seems to have shifted toward Battlelog not being such a bad thing after all. A very small minority of players had login issues with it originally, and that hate dies slow and hard (just ask Ubisoft). Overall though, the Battlelog feature does provide a lot of interesting information about the playing habits and abilities of people around you, and it's a fun referencing tool if nothing else.

As far as Crysis 2 is concerned, the multiplayer in it is not very populated anymore but it actually was pretty fun and surprisingly well balanced considering the scope of abilities that were available to the player (invisibility and heat vision?). If you can find the game on sale, I would personally still give it a recommendation. The campaign is fun and the story is pretty good unless you're a Crysis purist, in which case you've read the comic books and will never be satisfied by anything apparently.

Overall recommendations that I would make for a good mixture of both fun and strong competition in PC FPS Gaming would be in order: Battlefield 3, Team Fortress 2 (which is free I might add), Battlefield: Bad Company 2 and its BF: Vietnam expansion pack, Counter Strike Source, and maybe Modern Warfare 3 although I'm personally not a fan of COD games there are many people who are.

It's worth noting that games like BFBC2 can occasionally be found for 4.99 during sales, and BF3 has already been on sale as low as 50% off from time to time. Just keep your eyes peeled on Amazon Digital Downloads, Gamersgate, Greenman Gaming, Origin and Steam.

 

[Guest]

Best answer selected by wingman1730.