What this thread confirms to me is that game reviews these days are more about trying to confirm your own opinion and less about someone telling you how good of a game it is.
Awesome. Yep, I was getting this impression too, they're treated as gospel when they agree with someone's opinion and demonised and trashed when their rating and impressions disagree with someone's opinion. Sure, not everyone treats them like that, but enough MMO gamers seriously have that kinda limited (and imo immature) thinking.
I say that with suspicion because the game gives a 3 hour campaign with no replay value, the graphics are the same as COD4:MW and it uses the exact same multiplayer style. There is nothing new in this game.
This is a game that on launch was unplayable on PC for 4-5 months and had frequent crash issues. On the Xbox 360 release it had horrible frames issues and was just a really really bad game.
They give it a 9/10.
You choose a game reviewer because of their accuracy of games in the past. if you have had bad experiences with a game and a reviewer agrees you follow them and see what they say and how they say it on games.
For me Angry Joe Show is probably the most honest reviewer out there. He is working on a review of SWTOR. He will no doubt give the most accurate review of the game you will hear.
If I am wrong then EAs Financial Report is wrong. They can not go saying they have 1.7 million subs from results taken ending Dec 31st, when they actually mean it for a month later.
He also does not state 1.7 million are CURRENTLY subscribing, but majority of the 1.7 million which could be any figure over 0.85 million.
Oh, so the report is the only correct source of information?
Then please explain this part:
Star Wars(R): The Old Republic(TM) has generated 1.7 million active subscribers and sold through more than 2 million units in a little over one month.
On Dec 31st it had been 10 days.
Already have loads of times
There is no punctuation in that so is being misread that both 1.7 and 2 million happened in a little over a month, when it is only the 2 million
It is
Star Wars(R): The Old Republic(TM) has generated 1.7 million active subscribers and sold through more than 2 million units in a little over one month
not
Star Wars(R): The Old Republic(TM) has (generated 1.7 million active subscribers and sold through more than 2 million units) in a little over one month.
So the 2 million figure is counting sales after Dec 31st?
No, the game was selling all throughout Dec and Nov - preorders
Why didn't it say "in a little over 5 months"? Seems like there are errors in the report.
It would not be 5 months, as is only based on a quarter - 3 months. I would imagine the majority of preorders were made as soon as it was up for preorder in July/Aug, and then picked up again closer to release around the end of Nov.
Just stop while you are behind man, you are just making yourself look worse.You keep trying to claim that this report that some guy wrote up in some transcript of the meeting is the only thing that matters. It was clearly posted that the discussion they actually had on the call proved you wrong. So just come on and give it up already. We know you hate the game, but some people enjoy it...you need to give it up already. You have been proven wrong time and time again.
I do not hate the game, it was great while it lasted, they just need to add more to get me and many others to resubscribe and keep subscribing.
I have not been proven wrong, not even once.
The stats for SWTOR were placed at the start of the report where it was all before Dec 31st, and if the stats was meant for Feb 1st it would have been put in under the heading "Business Outlook as of February 1, 2012"
Looks like a very fair review. Although "grind" and swtor should never be in the same sentence. Playing ultra casually for 2 months and maxing out isnt exactly a "grinder".
Typical planet set up:
Main Quest -- Depending on class, about 50% grind per area, four areas...
Main Planetary Quest -- Crosses all four areas, all require repetive grind-killing of static mobs culminating in boss fight.
Tow or three Hub Side-Quests per area -- Almost always trite 'repair this/btw kill all these things' or just plain 'go kill all these things' side quests. Pure grind... Very rare humor, very rare dialog worth hearing.
Bonus Quest Series -- Virtually all of them were 'kill X# of these or X# of that..."
So, basically, most of the game is grind... When you're out there killing static mobs, whether someone told you to do it, or you're just doing it for the heck of it, you're grinding. Grinding is a term used to describe the process of engaging in repetitive and/or boring tasks not directly involved with the story of the game. The most common type of grinding is repeatedly killing AI opponets necessary to level, unlock content or compete quests.
Grinding is also a part of most crafting systems -- the repeated harvesting of nodes necessary to gather materials/resources.
So I don't know what SWTOR you're playing, but the one I played was at least 80% grind. And it wasn't even appologetic about it.
They could have had alternate ways of doing things. Even a 'failed MMO' like Star Trek Online had non-grind quests. Where you figured them out/solved them without fighting or engaging in any grind...
Puzzles. Diplomacy. Sneaking. Alternate paths. None of it was there. It was just 'kill, kill, kill, pre-boss-fight-rant, kill. Later, rinse, repeat....
If I am wrong then EAs Financial Report is wrong. They can not go saying they have 1.7 million subs from results taken ending Dec 31st, when they actually mean it for a month later.
He also does not state 1.7 million are CURRENTLY subscribing, but majority of the 1.7 million which could be any figure over 0.85 million.
Oh, so the report is the only correct source of information?
Then please explain this part:
Star Wars(R): The Old Republic(TM) has generated 1.7 million active subscribers and sold through more than 2 million units in a little over one month.
On Dec 31st it had been 10 days.
Already have loads of times
There is no punctuation in that so is being misread that both 1.7 and 2 million happened in a little over a month, when it is only the 2 million
It is
Star Wars(R): The Old Republic(TM) has generated 1.7 million active subscribers and sold through more than 2 million units in a little over one month
not
Star Wars(R): The Old Republic(TM) has (generated 1.7 million active subscribers and sold through more than 2 million units) in a little over one month.
So the 2 million figure is counting sales after Dec 31st?
No, the game was selling all throughout Dec and Nov - preorders
Why didn't it say "in a little over 5 months"? Seems like there are errors in the report.
It would not be 5 months, as is only based on a quarter - 3 months. I would imagine the majority of preorders were made as soon as it was up for preorder in July/Aug, and then picked up again closer to release around the end of Nov.
Just stop while you are behind man, you are just making yourself look worse.You keep trying to claim that this report that some guy wrote up in some transcript of the meeting is the only thing that matters. It was clearly posted that the discussion they actually had on the call proved you wrong. So just come on and give it up already. We know you hate the game, but some people enjoy it...you need to give it up already. You have been proven wrong time and time again.
I do not hate the game, it was great while it lasted, they just need to add more to get me and many others to resubscribe and keep subscribing.
I have not been proven wrong, not even once.
The stats for SWTOR were placed at the start of the report where it was all before Dec 31st, and if the stats was meant for Feb 1st it would have been put in under the heading "Business Outlook as of February 1, 2012"
If I am wrong then EAs Financial Report is wrong. They can not go saying they have 1.7 million subs from results taken ending Dec 31st, when they actually mean it for a month later.
He also does not state 1.7 million are CURRENTLY subscribing, but majority of the 1.7 million which could be any figure over 0.85 million.
Oh, so the report is the only correct source of information?
Then please explain this part:
Star Wars(R): The Old Republic(TM) has generated 1.7 million active subscribers and sold through more than 2 million units in a little over one month.
On Dec 31st it had been 10 days.
Already have loads of times
There is no punctuation in that so is being misread that both 1.7 and 2 million happened in a little over a month, when it is only the 2 million
It is
Star Wars(R): The Old Republic(TM) has generated 1.7 million active subscribers and sold through more than 2 million units in a little over one month
not
Star Wars(R): The Old Republic(TM) has (generated 1.7 million active subscribers and sold through more than 2 million units) in a little over one month.
So the 2 million figure is counting sales after Dec 31st?
No, the game was selling all throughout Dec and Nov - preorders
Why didn't it say "in a little over 5 months"? Seems like there are errors in the report.
It would not be 5 months, as is only based on a quarter - 3 months. I would imagine the majority of preorders were made as soon as it was up for preorder in July/Aug, and then picked up again closer to release around the end of Nov.
Just stop while you are behind man, you are just making yourself look worse.You keep trying to claim that this report that some guy wrote up in some transcript of the meeting is the only thing that matters. It was clearly posted that the discussion they actually had on the call proved you wrong. So just come on and give it up already. We know you hate the game, but some people enjoy it...you need to give it up already. You have been proven wrong time and time again.
I do not hate the game, it was great while it lasted, they just need to add more to get me and many others to resubscribe and keep subscribing.
I have not been proven wrong, not even once.
The stats for SWTOR were placed at the start of the report where it was all before Dec 31st, and if the stats was meant for Feb 1st it would have been put in under the heading "Business Outlook as of February 1, 2012"
Dude, don't worry about it. The guy that is bashing you got fooled by EA. They sold 1.75 million copies at 12/31/2011. OF which 1.7 million activated.
They're counting that as 'subscriptions' which is very misleading as every sale came with a 'subscription.' The true picture of this game won't be until the June 30th 2012 financials. The reason I say that is they'll sell a bunch in China during March and they'll count those 'subscriptions' as continuing as well.
It's an old accounting trick with cut-offs massaged subsequent events.... You really need to be an accountat or financial analyst to see past it... Unfortunately, most people can't and they, now fooled by BioWare, tend to bash others who actually 'get it.'
Dude, don't worry about it. The guy that is bashing you got fooled by EA. They sold 1.75 million copies at 12/31/2011. OF which 1.7 million activated.
They're counting that as 'subscriptions' which is very misleading as every sale came with a 'subscription.' The true picture of this game won't be until the June 30th 2012 financials. The reason I say that is they'll sell a bunch in China during March and they'll count those 'subscriptions' as continuing as well.
It's an old accounting trick with cut-offs massaged subsequent events.... You really need to be an accountat or financial analyst to see past it... Unfortunately, most people can't and they, now fooled by BioWare, tend to bash others who actually 'get it.'
Cool, maybe you can go back and answer my previous questions since I'm just a simpleton who doesn't understand big fancy corporashuns.
I mean, ignoring the fact the same document he's quoting saying 2 millions sales and you're saying 1.75 million sales and the fact that they explicity state that current as of Feb 1st they have 1.7 millions subs of which most are now paying subs.
How does that jibe with saying the sales were in "a little over a month" and that as of Dec 31st no one had a paying sub?
So just so we're clear here. The 27 reviews on metacritic that gave the game a 90 or higher score, and possibly even the other 30 reviews that gave it a score between an 80 and 89, are all from dishonest and unscrupulous gaming journalists who were paid by EA, while only the scores under 80 are from "honest" people who were too rightous to accept any sort of bribe that was surely offered to them and felt they needed to "tell it like it is"?
That's easy to explain, it's called "Herd Behavior." And the review's BioWare routinely gets reflect this... Look at DA2, that game was a stinking pile of dung... It didn't get a single 'bad' review. It got a lot of 'average to great' reviews.
PCGamer called it "the RPG of the Decade."
But it was still a stinking pile of dung and virtually all of its sales came from pre-orders or in the first week before the word-of-mouth by disappointed fans trashed it.
Now, why did that happen? Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate II were two of the greatest CRPGs ever written. And reviewers not only let that influence their reviews, but they're too afraid to move too far from the 'perception' of BioWare's greatness. A classic case of this wias Millikin's oil-drop experiment. As told by Richard Feynman, one of the greatest of all nuclear physcists:
We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of an electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bit bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.
Why didn't they discover the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of - this history - because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong - and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number close to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that...
People are herd animials. Bucking the herd has social costs. People tend to cluster around herd opinions.
It's the way people are. It takes a lot of balls to buck the herd. Even when it's obvious that BioWare's reviews really do beneifit from herd-behavior/fanboyism, the herd really doesn't like to accept it and instead relies on confirmation bias and attacking the hertics that point out the Emperor has no clothes... Even as, deep inside, many of them just aren't so thrilled with the game and blame themselves for the poor experience...
These reviews mean nothing to me as an MMO player, because these reveiws are not reviewed as an MMO. They are reveiwed just like a single player game is reviewed.
IMO MMO's should have different standards for a review.
I kinda agree with you, but turned on its head if thats possible. In comparison to good single player games I'd argue most MMO's pale in almost every aspect, graphically, gameplay-wise, aesthetics, story, you name it. For some reason MMO's are not judged on a general gaming criteria, and some way, somehow, allowances are made, purely as far as I can tell, because their MMOs in the first place.
The amount of positive reviews for this game is alarming. I wonder what PCZONE (or Digitizer from teletext) would of said about it. Right now there seems to be a gulf in critical reasoning in the gaming media. Unfortunetly,and bizarrely, that includes this very website. I find it impossible to believe that all these reviewers are 'bought' or have some kind of hidden agenda, rather that culturally a majority of people just seem to 'make do' with sub standard content.
Ironically I think a lot of this culture stems from the very popularity of the genre in question, people LOVE playing with friends, or other players, or having other players around. And their willing to pay through the nose for it. The amount of money to be made from this industry is unreal, especially for that one immense MMO that we all crave and know can exist. And yet few seem to be stepping up to the plate. Like a game of aesthetic chicken.
Also to all those stating proft and/or subscription figures as some kind of barometer for whether something is a good game, just stop.
just recenlty activision was accused of threatening a gameblog in france because it wasn't "behaving" the way they wanted. So they threatened to deny them access at future events.
Looks like a very fair review. Although "grind" and swtor should never be in the same sentence. Playing ultra casually for 2 months and maxing out isnt exactly a "grinder".
yeah i don't know why people keep mentioning the grind either. i am constantly outleveling content with doing flashpoints, warzones and space combat those give tons of exp ... no reason to do just quests (even if you can't find a flashpoint group)
SWTOR and grind do not go together at all.
When I have to do repetative crap over and over it is a grind regardless if it is easy or hard. So you are wrong on what grind means. Silly amature gamers.
This ^
Currently playing SWTOR and it's MUCH better than it was at launch.
So just so we're clear here. The 27 reviews on metacritic that gave the game a 90 or higher score, and possibly even the other 30 reviews that gave it a score between an 80 and 89, are all from dishonest and unscrupulous gaming journalists who were paid by EA, while only the scores under 80 are from "honest" people who were too rightous to accept any sort of bribe that was surely offered to them and felt they needed to "tell it like it is"?
Yes
Currently playing SWTOR and it's MUCH better than it was at launch.
just recenlty activision was accused of threatening a gameblog in france because it wasn't "behaving" the way they wanted. So they threatened to deny them access at future events.
This is why sites with ad revenue and early acess are not worth a damn anymore. Like one reviewer said to his forum, 80 is the new bad.
I get what you're implying. Since Activision owns Blizzard this story is evidence that they probably threatened this reviewer to give SWTOR a low score so as to not lose more subs from their biggest money maker, WoW. Interesting observation.
So long, Games Magazine. It was great while it lasted
How will these guys feed their families if they give out reviews like this?
True that, EA is not going to invite them to review any new titles anymore. We may find it funny, but that's the way it works.
SWTOR deserves 7 as it copies wel mechanics from other successful games. However it fails to cure deseases which plague MMORPG genre. I decided to try it with some friends, despite my better judgement. New theme ( SW) and new to the genre story mode feature ( which is average at best ) kept me interested only for 30 levels. In case you wonder there is nothing interesting to do after level 50. You can try starting a new character, preferably on the other side of the conflict, so you experience different quests.
I Unsubbed a week before the first month ran out.
So basically right here you are admitting that most reviewers are liars saying whatever the developer demands they say to get the right to even test the game.
Personally I would rather my reviewers be honest and fair about a game even if it means paying for a copy of the game out of their own pocket.
Like real journalism, a reviewer that accepts anything from the source of the story or review has already become biased and tainted and lost all credibility. I don't care if all it is, is a bloody T-shirt, once you accept special privlage you are incapable of true integrity.
I probably was hard to read there. I am not supporting this kind of attitude at all. It is just a sad fact about gaming journalism is about. The last major leak about how it works was when someone leaked out emails from EA PR depertment in Norway ( ? ) to make sure to invite only reviewers who "like" BF franchise. Isolated case ? Not really.
We talk here about game critics, people who often have years of experience in games, people who like me played Civilsation number 1 or DOOM when they came out. If they don't ask for more, most of average Joes have no idea that they get fed the same concept over and over again, just in new packaging and often with some of its old features cut out and released as a paid DLC.
A lot of people regard us as a vocal minority, trolls and trouble makers just for pure fun of complaining. The fact is that vocal minority is often made from people able to see slightly more then the marketing is selling to you. That vocal minority often creates new treands and actually pushes the game developers in new directions. Average Joe is way too lazy and uneducated to expect more and better quality.
Comments
Awesome. Yep, I was getting this impression too, they're treated as gospel when they agree with someone's opinion and demonised and trashed when their rating and impressions disagree with someone's opinion. Sure, not everyone treats them like that, but enough MMO gamers seriously have that kinda limited (and imo immature) thinking.This same website gave Modern Warfare 3 an 8/10
http://www.gamestm.co.uk/reviews/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3-review/
I say that with suspicion because the game gives a 3 hour campaign with no replay value, the graphics are the same as COD4:MW and it uses the exact same multiplayer style. There is nothing new in this game.
Or how about Id Software's Rage
http://www.gamestm.co.uk/reviews/rage-review/
This is a game that on launch was unplayable on PC for 4-5 months and had frequent crash issues. On the Xbox 360 release it had horrible frames issues and was just a really really bad game.
They give it a 9/10.
You choose a game reviewer because of their accuracy of games in the past. if you have had bad experiences with a game and a reviewer agrees you follow them and see what they say and how they say it on games.
For me Angry Joe Show is probably the most honest reviewer out there. He is working on a review of SWTOR. He will no doubt give the most accurate review of the game you will hear.
Website: http://www.thegameguru.me / YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/users/thetroublmaker
I do not hate the game, it was great while it lasted, they just need to add more to get me and many others to resubscribe and keep subscribing.
I have not been proven wrong, not even once.
The stats for SWTOR were placed at the start of the report where it was all before Dec 31st, and if the stats was meant for Feb 1st it would have been put in under the heading "Business Outlook as of February 1, 2012"
Star Trek Online - Best Free MMORPG of 2012
Typical planet set up:
Main Quest -- Depending on class, about 50% grind per area, four areas...
Main Planetary Quest -- Crosses all four areas, all require repetive grind-killing of static mobs culminating in boss fight.
Tow or three Hub Side-Quests per area -- Almost always trite 'repair this/btw kill all these things' or just plain 'go kill all these things' side quests. Pure grind... Very rare humor, very rare dialog worth hearing.
Bonus Quest Series -- Virtually all of them were 'kill X# of these or X# of that..."
So, basically, most of the game is grind... When you're out there killing static mobs, whether someone told you to do it, or you're just doing it for the heck of it, you're grinding. Grinding is a term used to describe the process of engaging in repetitive and/or boring tasks not directly involved with the story of the game. The most common type of grinding is repeatedly killing AI opponets necessary to level, unlock content or compete quests.
Grinding is also a part of most crafting systems -- the repeated harvesting of nodes necessary to gather materials/resources.
So I don't know what SWTOR you're playing, but the one I played was at least 80% grind. And it wasn't even appologetic about it.
They could have had alternate ways of doing things. Even a 'failed MMO' like Star Trek Online had non-grind quests. Where you figured them out/solved them without fighting or engaging in any grind...
Puzzles. Diplomacy. Sneaking. Alternate paths. None of it was there. It was just 'kill, kill, kill, pre-boss-fight-rant, kill. Later, rinse, repeat....
LOL
Dude, don't worry about it. The guy that is bashing you got fooled by EA. They sold 1.75 million copies at 12/31/2011. OF which 1.7 million activated.
They're counting that as 'subscriptions' which is very misleading as every sale came with a 'subscription.' The true picture of this game won't be until the June 30th 2012 financials. The reason I say that is they'll sell a bunch in China during March and they'll count those 'subscriptions' as continuing as well.
It's an old accounting trick with cut-offs massaged subsequent events.... You really need to be an accountat or financial analyst to see past it... Unfortunately, most people can't and they, now fooled by BioWare, tend to bash others who actually 'get it.'
Cool, maybe you can go back and answer my previous questions since I'm just a simpleton who doesn't understand big fancy corporashuns.
I mean, ignoring the fact the same document he's quoting saying 2 millions sales and you're saying 1.75 million sales and the fact that they explicity state that current as of Feb 1st they have 1.7 millions subs of which most are now paying subs.
How does that jibe with saying the sales were in "a little over a month" and that as of Dec 31st no one had a paying sub?
That's easy to explain, it's called "Herd Behavior." And the review's BioWare routinely gets reflect this... Look at DA2, that game was a stinking pile of dung... It didn't get a single 'bad' review. It got a lot of 'average to great' reviews.
PCGamer called it "the RPG of the Decade."
But it was still a stinking pile of dung and virtually all of its sales came from pre-orders or in the first week before the word-of-mouth by disappointed fans trashed it.
Now, why did that happen? Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate II were two of the greatest CRPGs ever written. And reviewers not only let that influence their reviews, but they're too afraid to move too far from the 'perception' of BioWare's greatness. A classic case of this wias Millikin's oil-drop experiment. As told by Richard Feynman, one of the greatest of all nuclear physcists:
We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of an electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bit bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.
Why didn't they discover the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of - this history - because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong - and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number close to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that...
People are herd animials. Bucking the herd has social costs. People tend to cluster around herd opinions.
It's the way people are. It takes a lot of balls to buck the herd. Even when it's obvious that BioWare's reviews really do beneifit from herd-behavior/fanboyism, the herd really doesn't like to accept it and instead relies on confirmation bias and attacking the hertics that point out the Emperor has no clothes... Even as, deep inside, many of them just aren't so thrilled with the game and blame themselves for the poor experience...
I kinda agree with you, but turned on its head if thats possible. In comparison to good single player games I'd argue most MMO's pale in almost every aspect, graphically, gameplay-wise, aesthetics, story, you name it. For some reason MMO's are not judged on a general gaming criteria, and some way, somehow, allowances are made, purely as far as I can tell, because their MMOs in the first place.
The amount of positive reviews for this game is alarming. I wonder what PCZONE (or Digitizer from teletext) would of said about it. Right now there seems to be a gulf in critical reasoning in the gaming media. Unfortunetly,and bizarrely, that includes this very website. I find it impossible to believe that all these reviewers are 'bought' or have some kind of hidden agenda, rather that culturally a majority of people just seem to 'make do' with sub standard content.
Ironically I think a lot of this culture stems from the very popularity of the genre in question, people LOVE playing with friends, or other players, or having other players around. And their willing to pay through the nose for it. The amount of money to be made from this industry is unreal, especially for that one immense MMO that we all crave and know can exist. And yet few seem to be stepping up to the plate. Like a game of aesthetic chicken.
Also to all those stating proft and/or subscription figures as some kind of barometer for whether something is a good game, just stop.
Because it isn't.
just recenlty activision was accused of threatening a gameblog in france because it wasn't "behaving" the way they wanted. So they threatened to deny them access at future events.
http://www.incgamers.com/News/30538/french-site-claims-black-ops-2-reveal-led-to-blacklisting
This is why sites with ad revenue and early acess are not worth a damn anymore. Like one reviewer said to his forum, 80 is the new bad.
This ^
Currently playing SWTOR and it's MUCH better than it was at launch.
Yes
Currently playing SWTOR and it's MUCH better than it was at launch.
I get what you're implying. Since Activision owns Blizzard this story is evidence that they probably threatened this reviewer to give SWTOR a low score so as to not lose more subs from their biggest money maker, WoW. Interesting observation.
I probably was hard to read there. I am not supporting this kind of attitude at all. It is just a sad fact about gaming journalism is about. The last major leak about how it works was when someone leaked out emails from EA PR depertment in Norway ( ? ) to make sure to invite only reviewers who "like" BF franchise. Isolated case ? Not really.
We talk here about game critics, people who often have years of experience in games, people who like me played Civilsation number 1 or DOOM when they came out. If they don't ask for more, most of average Joes have no idea that they get fed the same concept over and over again, just in new packaging and often with some of its old features cut out and released as a paid DLC.
A lot of people regard us as a vocal minority, trolls and trouble makers just for pure fun of complaining. The fact is that vocal minority is often made from people able to see slightly more then the marketing is selling to you. That vocal minority often creates new treands and actually pushes the game developers in new directions. Average Joe is way too lazy and uneducated to expect more and better quality.