Login
 
RSS Feed Twitter Facebook YouTube

Battlefield 3: Just Another War Game

BF3 City

Credit to EA

There seems to be a heated war between the people that love Call of Duty and the people that love Battlefield. A majority of people love Call of Duty, so the hipsters gravitate away from the popular and move to BF3. Ask any fan of the Battlefield series and they will probably sound like one of those hipsters who think they are cool because they play the runner up in war games rather than the champion. Because I have now experienced both BF3 and MW3 so I have come to the conclusion on which is better. But you will have to wait until the end of the review.

Many people praise the multiplayer of BF3. I could care less, and did not bother playing it because if I wanted to, I would have to get up, and change the disc. For something that should be an extra it sure did take up a lot of space. Quite frankly, I do not know why the game had to be on two discs. The campaign does not contain that much content. The fact you had to download a large file for a “HD Update” was absurd. Even though the 360 does not have Blu-Ray disc memory size it should still fit a game like Battlefield 3 on one freaking disc. However, I digress and I went to the single player hoping that I would have a more enjoyable experience than MW3.

Despite my optimism I was not impressed with anything BF3 had to offer. You start off on a train, after a guy pins you to the ground you are taken some time back. Oh great, another game that does a stupid flash forward. This was a big sign that the story was going to be bad. Flash forward storytelling doesn’t work with these kind of games. The reason is because the games are in first person, you should be getting a feeling of desperation before your life flashes before your eyes. Rarely is this ever done correctly and the feeling is always “meh”. Now you are in a room with two cops clearly playing good cop bad cop. I commend these voice actors because they do such a good job of being generic detectives. Here is the checklist so far, Bad Voice Acting, Check, Generic Flash Forward Storytelling, Check, Overrated Graphics, Check. So far so good! It has the making for a generic FPS! The US and other parts of the world are risking nuclear fallout, like the typical fashion the US does not seem to have everything under control. They will quickly blame one of their own under the action of treason despite the the fact they now who did it, where he is, and how to get rid of him. Time is ticking and you are in charge of reliving the past of Blackburn, a generic soldier who lacks any personality. Oh that is another check. Bland Characters, Check!

An interesting fact is even though you are reliving the past as Blackburn he seems to have a very good knowledge of what everyone else is doing. The game switches perspectives like Call of Duty’s crappy storytelling. The difference is that this is one guy, who can’t be in more than two places, seems to know what the hell everyone else is doing. This was one of the more irritating ways to tell a story. I began losing interest very quickly and I eventually just gave up. The story was not good enough to make me want to play the game. I was bored. It is the same reason why I find Halo: Reach to be utterly pointless. Everyone knows what happens from the beginning, so why bother. Because of the Flash Forward scenario you know what is going to happen. I stopped playing the game and could not finish it because everything that makes a bad storyline was present and I was soon forcing myself to play the game.

BF3 HUD

Credit to EA

All this talk and I haven’t even spoken about the gameplay! Well, the gameplay sucks. It is nothing special. My main problem is that BF3 is aiming to be a realistic war shooter. There is a big problem with this, this is a goddamn video game. If I want a realistic shooter I will go join the mothafuckin’ marines. The worst part is, because the game is portraying itself to be realistic there are a lot of unrealistic gameplay mechanics that contradict what the game is going for. The aiming is incredibly stiff even when walking. I a sorry but if you are walking almost running while aiming down the iron sights of a gun you will not keep that shit stiff as a rock.

This would not be an FPS made in 2011 if it wasn’t for regenerating health. Yes, the unrealistic mechanic does make the return in the third installment. How is this supposed to be realistic DICE? You are on this binge of being a realistic shooter, but once you get shot you can just chill out behind a wall and you will be back as if you never got shot? The game ends up playing itself at this point. The weapons are bland. None of them seem to change from one kind of weapon to the other. You just have your automatics, snipers, and shotguns. You are also given a stupid amount of ammo for every gun. You never run out. How realistic! Now we have our final check, Boring and Bland Gameplay, Check.

Battlefield 3 is a terrible game, quite possibly one of the worst of the series. It does nothing to distinguish itself from other war shooters. I mentioned before I was going to say who is the better shooter, MW3 or BF3 and here is my answer. None of them and the award goes to Resistance 3 from Insomniac Games because it was the only FPS in 2011 that actually did something right by the gameplay and storytelling. I give Battlefield 3 a 2/10 and that is me being kind.

6 Comments

Leave A Reply
  1. toshineon says
    February 1, 2012, 12:27 PM

    I agree with you, the game had such bad single-player gameplay that I could do with playing 30 minutes at most before I completely gave up. I miss the old BF singleplayer, the same as multiplayer but offline vs. bots. Bring that back and screw the shitty campaign mode.

    Reply
  2. Zak says
    January 31, 2012, 6:12 PM

    Your writing is so misguidedly vindictive.
    I happen to be a fan of Battlefield’s multiplayer, and of the opinion that it is more freeing and interactive than any other shooters’.
    End of story.

    Reply
    • Zach M. says
      January 31, 2012, 6:52 PM

      As long as a game has a single player option I will always review a game based on the single player aspect. Until every gamer has access to multiplayer through an easily accessible manner, multiplayer will NEVER be a factor as to how a game will be review by me.

      End of story.

      Reply
      • Simon C. says
        February 1, 2012, 12:20 PM

        I find that when you review a game, you should review it on the packaging as a whole. Taking an entire section out is only a portion of the review.

        Reply
        • Zak says
          February 6, 2012, 10:07 AM

          Yeah, you guys are both right, I’ve only been playing battlefield since the days of battlefield 2, but because I love the multiplayer with such devotion, I tend to write off the entire single player campaign as a dark, sad part of the game that doesn’t even warrant mentioning. I feel like this game’s multiplayer distanced itself positively from COD, but it’s campaign unfortunately pulled it right back on par with it’s counterpart.

          Reply
  3. CuO2 says
    January 31, 2012, 1:44 PM

    you should stop writing, you suck

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com