Discussion in 'Playstation Forums' started by MikeyFHughes, Dec 28, 2011.
Simple, it's not good. I think this comes down to me being spoiled by the Call of duty.
You call that a review? That's just the sarcastic comment of a COD fan who can't spell properly.
It's a short, bland affair shot through with an uninteresting story – which seems bizarre when you consider it's about missing nukes and marines searching for terrorists in the Middle East. There are a couple of note-worthy levels – a gun battle on the streets of Tehran, which escalates to Michael Bay-worthy proportions, and a dogfight in an F-18 are two high points. But for the most part, players will find themselves hurtling down corridors, moving from one uninspired gun-battle to the next.
Perhaps the worst aspect of the campaign, though, is how rigid, scripted and restrictive it feels when compared to the game's multiplayer. There are precious few instances where the open, multi-purpose style of play from the online mode is applicable – or even allowed – in the campaign.
There are also a couple of instances where the game's realistic elements eat into the player's enjoyment of the proceedings. After a while, they may become fed up with being unable to see opponents who are a few metres away due to the amount of dust their firefight has thrown up. This, by the way, doesn't impair the vision of the AI, which at times strikes at the player with laser-guided accuracy, and at others, seems to be unaware of them when they're emptying a clip into their compatriots from close range.
Finally there's the co-op mode, a series of mini-missions whose story runs alongside the single-player campaign. It's a fun, if slightly brief diversion from the other two options. It's less constrictive than the single-player campaign, in that some improvisation is allowed from the two players in how they tackles some missions, but it also contains some of its weaknesses – such as the wonky AI.
So Battlefield 3 feels like three distinctly different experiences offered in one confusing game, which, to be honest, has proven hard to judge on its merits as a package.
Do we praise the game for its incredible multiplayer or mark it down for its woeful campaign? There are those who would posit the opinion that the campaign shouldn't affect the score because most people who buy this game won't play it anyway and instead will spend all their time in the multiplayer.
Then again, the counter argument to this is, why bother with including a campaign at all and instead use the extra disc space to provide more modes, maps, options, weapons and other content for the superb multiplayer?
The answer is, of course, that Battlefield 3 was supposed to bring down CoD, and without a campaign – which seems to be DICE's approximation of a CoD experience – this wouldn't have been possible. This is unfortunate, because the instances in which DICE seem to have tried to beat their rivals at their own game have resulted in Battlefield 3's weakest content.
"woeful" is a bit harsh. I really enjoyed the single player campaign, there's plenty to do, and lots of variety in the missions. I couldn't fault the gameplay, graphics, audio, etc. Perhaps the campaign could have been longer but unfortunately I think it's on a par with most FPS games these days.
I do feel the co-op missions are a bit of a let down though, only six missions, no option to play them solo or split screen and some rely very heavily on teamwork which can be frustrating.
Incorrect. DICE said they were only looking for market share. BF3 was never intended to be a "COD beater".
What is this "campaign" of which you speak? This a game for on-line play - load up a tank with C4 and drop it into the enemy base, and await the "theft", then kaboom. Or run someone over using a helicopter... Or "repair" an enemy vehicle until it explodes, killing the occupants (and you but hey ho!).. There are just sooo many ways to kill, and die, in Battlefield.
Separate names with a comma.