 |
Genre: First-Person Shooter
Systems: Xbox 360, PS3, PC
Developer: DICE
Publisher: Electronic Arts
Multiplayer: Yes (24 online, 1 offline)
Rating: Mature
Release Date: October 25, 2011
Editor's note: This review is based off the Xbox 360 version.
All throughout the year of 2011, message boards and critics were bustling over the rivalry that was brewing between Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3. Both games were set to be released in the fall, so which one would come out on top as the stronger, more capable soldier in the battle for mass supremacy? Unfortunately, that question isn't so easy to answer. Battlefield 3 is a first-class multiplayer game, but the campaign and cooperative modes are lacking in comparison to the competition.
Let's start with the campaign. You begin with two well-dressed, fairly-aged men in a room interrogating your character, Sergeant Henry "Black" Blackburn, in regards to information on his military past. These formidable men are trying to connect the dots as to what led Blackburn into his current predicament. Your character seems irritated, pushed in a corner: desperately trying to convince these two mysterious figures in front of him to believe his story. You, thus, play the game through a series of flashbacks, slowing unfolding the overall framing narrative.
The story is pretty run-of-the-mill as far as a militaristic games are concerned. The game even utilizes the interrogation scenes much to the same degree as Call of Duty: Black Ops did the year before. The plot was surprisingly interesting at first, mostly because you simply want to know what exactly Blackburn did to get himself into the dire situation he is in. However, the game quickly delves into topics that have been covered many times before. Do Russian terrorists, Middle Eastern terrorists, and nuclear warheads all sound familiar to you? Because they all play an integral part to the events that take part in Battlefield 3. It just all seems fairly unoriginal at this point.
The game is also very linear in the single player campaign, as well as very, very scripted. The game wants you to follow its directions exactly, and you better not stray off the beaten path unless you want a swift death screen to flash before your TV. Linearity is not an issue when utilized properly and effectively, but Battlefield 3 is just made frustrating when experimentation is stifled because the game would rather show you something awesome than have you actually participate in said awesomeness. A good example of this is the jet sequence. It looks absolutely amazing, and while I still enjoyed this part of the game, you don't actual control the jet itself, which is just weird since you obviously can in the multiplayer. It just feels like a completely different game from the competitive experience.
Overall, the campaign feels very lifeless and stitched together. If you attempt to peak underneath a wrinkle that the game doesn't want you to see, you are punished for it. Trial and error is prevalent throughout the single player, and many times I died without even having a clue as to how I died or where I was being shot from. Like I said before, many portions of the campaign just seem like missed opportunities. It isn't terrible by any means, but it is highly derivative. The developers could have created something really cool and interesting with the story, characters, and set-pieces, but they merely settle for trying to catch up to the competition, which is disappointing.
Now here is where things get interesting. While the single player may feel very artificial and scripted, the multiplayer, on quite the contrary, is a very open-ended and versatile experience. Each of the nine maps are pretty distinct from one another and lend themselves well for a wide variety of different gameplay scenarios. Since I have only been able to play the console version of the game, I will say that some of the larger maps do feel a bit empty at times, but for the most part, I had little trouble finding other adversaries to murder thanks to the decreased number of objectives from the PC version to compensate for the 24 player count (as opposed to the 64 player count on the PC).
The basic feel of the weapons and everything feels great. Each gun will take some getting used to to those more familiar with other popular shooters on the market because there is a fair amount of recoil on each one. And let me say, there are a VAST array of guns to unload lead with in this game; enough for any player to find a suitable niche for themselves. There are also several different ways to customize each gun, such as strapping on a flashlight to blind your enemies (which weirdly still works well in the day time) or utilizing silencers or several different scopes. The list goes on and on. Luckily, the game does a good job easing you into the experience, slowly allowing you to unlock weapon upgrades for the guns you are most proficient at and use the most.
With time and patience though, you will get better at the game, and once you break through that initial barrier and everything starts to click, you begin to feel like one very powerful and deadly soldier. Couple that with the satisfying feeling of working as a complete team to destroy or save an objective, and you have a multiplayer experience that is greatly satisfying to the dedicated. That team comradery that permeates throughout most matches is quite brilliant given the vast scope of the experience. It's very exhilarating when you get a great group of people working together to dominate all the objectives in a game. You really do feel like one small part of a much greater whole. You also receive a large amount of points when you focus on the central objective, giving players that aren't the most lethal at killing their opponents a chance to contribute to the team and feel rewarded at the same time. There's just nothing much else out there like the Battlefield experience, especially on consoles.
The overall learning curve in the competitive multiplayer is quite steep, however. Having never played a Battlefield game before this one, I had absolutely no idea what to do once I finally jumped into a match. The lack of a tutorial is definitely a missed opportunity, as I'm guessing many other players who are not used to this style of gameplay will feel the same way. Like with most of the aspects to this game, the map and HUD will take some time to fully understand and comprehend, as will the use of the vehicles. The helicopters and jets will likely take the most adjustment, as the controls for both are very different from others games in this genre. Again, a tutorial would have gone a long way with helping players get acquainted with these various intricacies of the game and would have greatly decreased the amount of confusion new players might face. In fact, the only area of the game outside of the competitive multiplayer where you can actually have a little practice with the aerial combat lies within the cooperative mode.
The coop mode is broken up into six different missions that you and one other friend online can take part in, These fairly-lengthy stages range from a stealth-based rescue mission to a level that focuses on defending a specific area from a set number of enemies. More interesting ones, such as the only mission that lets one player fly a helicopter, with the other acting as the gunner, are much more team-focused and require more coordination.
The coop mode is pretty fun when it all works smoothly, but I encountered a number of game-ending glitches that are just plain unacceptable. The stealth mission glitched out at the exact same part twice during two different play sessions, impending our progress and requiring my coop partner and I to quit out. The wave-based defensive mission also broke on us, as we were unable to destroy a certain tank in order for the objective to continue because it was out of range for us to hit and the ominous "return to the battlefield" warning prevented us from getting close to it. Also, there are no checkpoints of any kind, which can be a little frustrating on the longer missions that can take up to 30 minutes to complete. More polish would have gone a long way in making this mode a whole lot more fun and enjoyable.
Prior to release, DICE had released several videos showcasing their new Frostbite 2 engine. It was all very impressive technology, arguably more impressive than any other engine out there. However, people were wondering just how well the console versions would hold up to their PC counterpart? For the most part, the game looks very good. It will never hold a candle to the PC version maxed out, but the lighting is impressive, and all the smooth animations of your fellow soldiers are intact. The textures are also pretty sharp for the most part, unless you refuse the game's prompt to install the game to your hard drive, which marks a significant decrease in the visual fidelity, with objects and walls becoming noticeably blurry. And there are some weird glitches too, such as textures taking several seconds to load and wonky graphical hiccups occurring here and there, especially with the physics. But overall, DICE did a commendable job with the console port.
One of the most impressive aspects of the game, the sounds of the guns and everything around you is spot on. Everything sounds very powerful in your hands, and coupled with the recoil, helps make the weapons feel very lethal. Hearing bullets whizzing by you head and soldiers yelling and screaming all around makes the whole experience all the more intense. The echoes of gunfire and explosions in the distance greatly contributes to the feeling of you being in an actual war zone. The music also gets your heart pumping, especially the bass-thumping remix of the original Battlefield theme. Some of the voice-acting is a little questionable, and the delivery of some lines can fall a little flat, but everything else absolutely nails the atmosphere that DICE was clearly aiming for.
So taking everything into consideration, Battlefield 3 has me somewhat torn. The single-player campaign is seriously lacking, as it is not all that memorable and is very similar to just about every other military shooter out there. And the story that Battlefield tells lacks punch and has been done much, much better before. And while the cooperative mode has some good ideas and can be pretty enjoyable at times, the implementation is lacking and there are only six missions to partake in. Which leads us to the competitive multiplayer, which provides a great experience for those who are willing to spend the time to invest in it.
For those not connected to Xbox Live, the game is simply not worth the $60 investment. But if you are looking for a expansive multiplayer experience that rewards teamwork and focusing on the objective, this game is definitely for you. The virtual battlefield that DICE has crafted through their online experience is arguably better than most games out there, but their single-player campaign is still too green to rise above the rest.
Rating: Mature
Release Date: October 25, 2011
Editor's note: This review is based off the Xbox 360 version.
All throughout the year of 2011, message boards and critics were bustling over the rivalry that was brewing between Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3. Both games were set to be released in the fall, so which one would come out on top as the stronger, more capable soldier in the battle for mass supremacy? Unfortunately, that question isn't so easy to answer. Battlefield 3 is a first-class multiplayer game, but the campaign and cooperative modes are lacking in comparison to the competition.
Let's start with the campaign. You begin with two well-dressed, fairly-aged men in a room interrogating your character, Sergeant Henry "Black" Blackburn, in regards to information on his military past. These formidable men are trying to connect the dots as to what led Blackburn into his current predicament. Your character seems irritated, pushed in a corner: desperately trying to convince these two mysterious figures in front of him to believe his story. You, thus, play the game through a series of flashbacks, slowing unfolding the overall framing narrative.
The story is pretty run-of-the-mill as far as a militaristic games are concerned. The game even utilizes the interrogation scenes much to the same degree as Call of Duty: Black Ops did the year before. The plot was surprisingly interesting at first, mostly because you simply want to know what exactly Blackburn did to get himself into the dire situation he is in. However, the game quickly delves into topics that have been covered many times before. Do Russian terrorists, Middle Eastern terrorists, and nuclear warheads all sound familiar to you? Because they all play an integral part to the events that take part in Battlefield 3. It just all seems fairly unoriginal at this point.
The game is also very linear in the single player campaign, as well as very, very scripted. The game wants you to follow its directions exactly, and you better not stray off the beaten path unless you want a swift death screen to flash before your TV. Linearity is not an issue when utilized properly and effectively, but Battlefield 3 is just made frustrating when experimentation is stifled because the game would rather show you something awesome than have you actually participate in said awesomeness. A good example of this is the jet sequence. It looks absolutely amazing, and while I still enjoyed this part of the game, you don't actual control the jet itself, which is just weird since you obviously can in the multiplayer. It just feels like a completely different game from the competitive experience.
Overall, the campaign feels very lifeless and stitched together. If you attempt to peak underneath a wrinkle that the game doesn't want you to see, you are punished for it. Trial and error is prevalent throughout the single player, and many times I died without even having a clue as to how I died or where I was being shot from. Like I said before, many portions of the campaign just seem like missed opportunities. It isn't terrible by any means, but it is highly derivative. The developers could have created something really cool and interesting with the story, characters, and set-pieces, but they merely settle for trying to catch up to the competition, which is disappointing.
Now here is where things get interesting. While the single player may feel very artificial and scripted, the multiplayer, on quite the contrary, is a very open-ended and versatile experience. Each of the nine maps are pretty distinct from one another and lend themselves well for a wide variety of different gameplay scenarios. Since I have only been able to play the console version of the game, I will say that some of the larger maps do feel a bit empty at times, but for the most part, I had little trouble finding other adversaries to murder thanks to the decreased number of objectives from the PC version to compensate for the 24 player count (as opposed to the 64 player count on the PC).
The basic feel of the weapons and everything feels great. Each gun will take some getting used to to those more familiar with other popular shooters on the market because there is a fair amount of recoil on each one. And let me say, there are a VAST array of guns to unload lead with in this game; enough for any player to find a suitable niche for themselves. There are also several different ways to customize each gun, such as strapping on a flashlight to blind your enemies (which weirdly still works well in the day time) or utilizing silencers or several different scopes. The list goes on and on. Luckily, the game does a good job easing you into the experience, slowly allowing you to unlock weapon upgrades for the guns you are most proficient at and use the most.
With time and patience though, you will get better at the game, and once you break through that initial barrier and everything starts to click, you begin to feel like one very powerful and deadly soldier. Couple that with the satisfying feeling of working as a complete team to destroy or save an objective, and you have a multiplayer experience that is greatly satisfying to the dedicated. That team comradery that permeates throughout most matches is quite brilliant given the vast scope of the experience. It's very exhilarating when you get a great group of people working together to dominate all the objectives in a game. You really do feel like one small part of a much greater whole. You also receive a large amount of points when you focus on the central objective, giving players that aren't the most lethal at killing their opponents a chance to contribute to the team and feel rewarded at the same time. There's just nothing much else out there like the Battlefield experience, especially on consoles.
The overall learning curve in the competitive multiplayer is quite steep, however. Having never played a Battlefield game before this one, I had absolutely no idea what to do once I finally jumped into a match. The lack of a tutorial is definitely a missed opportunity, as I'm guessing many other players who are not used to this style of gameplay will feel the same way. Like with most of the aspects to this game, the map and HUD will take some time to fully understand and comprehend, as will the use of the vehicles. The helicopters and jets will likely take the most adjustment, as the controls for both are very different from others games in this genre. Again, a tutorial would have gone a long way with helping players get acquainted with these various intricacies of the game and would have greatly decreased the amount of confusion new players might face. In fact, the only area of the game outside of the competitive multiplayer where you can actually have a little practice with the aerial combat lies within the cooperative mode.
The coop mode is broken up into six different missions that you and one other friend online can take part in, These fairly-lengthy stages range from a stealth-based rescue mission to a level that focuses on defending a specific area from a set number of enemies. More interesting ones, such as the only mission that lets one player fly a helicopter, with the other acting as the gunner, are much more team-focused and require more coordination.
The coop mode is pretty fun when it all works smoothly, but I encountered a number of game-ending glitches that are just plain unacceptable. The stealth mission glitched out at the exact same part twice during two different play sessions, impending our progress and requiring my coop partner and I to quit out. The wave-based defensive mission also broke on us, as we were unable to destroy a certain tank in order for the objective to continue because it was out of range for us to hit and the ominous "return to the battlefield" warning prevented us from getting close to it. Also, there are no checkpoints of any kind, which can be a little frustrating on the longer missions that can take up to 30 minutes to complete. More polish would have gone a long way in making this mode a whole lot more fun and enjoyable.
Prior to release, DICE had released several videos showcasing their new Frostbite 2 engine. It was all very impressive technology, arguably more impressive than any other engine out there. However, people were wondering just how well the console versions would hold up to their PC counterpart? For the most part, the game looks very good. It will never hold a candle to the PC version maxed out, but the lighting is impressive, and all the smooth animations of your fellow soldiers are intact. The textures are also pretty sharp for the most part, unless you refuse the game's prompt to install the game to your hard drive, which marks a significant decrease in the visual fidelity, with objects and walls becoming noticeably blurry. And there are some weird glitches too, such as textures taking several seconds to load and wonky graphical hiccups occurring here and there, especially with the physics. But overall, DICE did a commendable job with the console port.
One of the most impressive aspects of the game, the sounds of the guns and everything around you is spot on. Everything sounds very powerful in your hands, and coupled with the recoil, helps make the weapons feel very lethal. Hearing bullets whizzing by you head and soldiers yelling and screaming all around makes the whole experience all the more intense. The echoes of gunfire and explosions in the distance greatly contributes to the feeling of you being in an actual war zone. The music also gets your heart pumping, especially the bass-thumping remix of the original Battlefield theme. Some of the voice-acting is a little questionable, and the delivery of some lines can fall a little flat, but everything else absolutely nails the atmosphere that DICE was clearly aiming for.
So taking everything into consideration, Battlefield 3 has me somewhat torn. The single-player campaign is seriously lacking, as it is not all that memorable and is very similar to just about every other military shooter out there. And the story that Battlefield tells lacks punch and has been done much, much better before. And while the cooperative mode has some good ideas and can be pretty enjoyable at times, the implementation is lacking and there are only six missions to partake in. Which leads us to the competitive multiplayer, which provides a great experience for those who are willing to spend the time to invest in it.
For those not connected to Xbox Live, the game is simply not worth the $60 investment. But if you are looking for a expansive multiplayer experience that rewards teamwork and focusing on the objective, this game is definitely for you. The virtual battlefield that DICE has crafted through their online experience is arguably better than most games out there, but their single-player campaign is still too green to rise above the rest.
Overall: Fair
No comments:
Post a Comment