Any other FPS fans not at all impressed with Battlefield 3?

[Brawndo]

I watched the full-length "Fault Line" single-player gameplay trailer and I was rather disappointed. The environments, lighting, and character animations look beautiful, but the gameplay is the same rehashed stuff almost every other FPS has put out in the past five years. Follow the leader through linear levels, cuts to scripted slow motion, regenerating health, hit indicators when you shoot an enemy, etc. Not to mention the "bro marines fighting terrorists in a generic Mideast" setting. Yawn.


I will reserve final judgment once I see multiplayer gameplay, because at this point that's probably the only reason to get BF3.

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

I'm very impressed with it, I don't care about the singleplayer in the slightest, I will be pretty much all multiplayer from the second it comes in the post.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

I like "bro marines fighting terrorists in a generic Mideast".

And it looks like a really good variation of that.

 

[gibboss28]

In b4 "If your looking at BF for single player, you really are doing it wrong."


...but it does ring true though.

 

[Vault boy Eddie]

I'm loving this game from what i've seen. Hopefully the single player will be a great addition, but Battlefield=best TEAM multiplayer fps experience. Single player in FPSs is usually to get you familiarized with the controls, in an entertaining manner.

 

[Dogstile]

BF is all about the multiplayer, i'm surprised you're judging the single player at all. But compared to the single players of the other battlefields, it looks brilliant.

I'm waiting for multiplayer, you should too. Jet fighters man. JET FIGHTERS

 

[Wolfram23]

Am I impressed with it? Yes.

Do I expect a campaign any better than CoD: MW2 or Blops? No. Well, ok, maybe. But mostly that's because you will get to drive tanks and fly jets. Hell yeah!

But I'll enjoy the SP for whatever big set pieces it has (like the falling building) and then move on to where this game will really kick ass - multiplayer.

 

[MagicMouse]

So far I'm impressed.

The only real info we have been given are how good the graphics are, and a 10 minute cut of ONE single-player mission.

So basing my opinion on the only reliable information at hand, the game will be AMAZING.

Also the game-play looked good from what I saw. The guns looked and handled realistically, the enemies moved in and out of cover, the animation was good and the environment reacted to the game-play...ect. What else do you want from an FPS really?

EDIT: The sound was also amazing, as is typical of Battlefield.

 

[Serving UpSmiles]

Im interested in the single player for one reason, its set in Iran, which is worrying me a bit.

 

[rockingnic]

The game doesn't impress me if you compare it to other franchises BUT it doesn't disappoint me either which isn't a bad thing.

 

[Brawndo]

What else do you want from an FPS really?

From singleplayer?

- Fresh setting
- New gameplay mechanics (see Red Orchestra 2 for examples: blind fire, first-person sticky cover, weapon/environment interaction)
- More slow-placed tactical gameplay, less "shit blowing up everywhere all the time"
- Large levels with multiple paths to objectives
- Minimal use of scripted events, so every play-through of a level is not the same
- Friendly AI that can be given orders (after all, aren't you SERGEANT Black, not Private Black?)

That's probably way too much to ask from your standard triple-A military shooter game.

But yeah, I'm also excited for BF3 multiplayer based on what I've read in previews, but it's clear to me that the singleplayer was just stamped on as an afterthought.

 

[Casimir_Effect]

That's what FPS has become now after every wallet-voted.

You get stuck in a corridor (or a large area which is full of barriers, locked doors or tiny, insurmountable walls) and are ushered from set-piece to set-piece at the will of the game, either by having obstacles which can only be opened once the game wants you too (ie. your CO will open a door once enough plot exposition has played out) or by being penalized for going slowly and methodically (no level exploying for you - you might notice all the bits the developers got lazy on).
I hate how FPS has gone like this: CoD MW/BO, MoH, Homefront, and BF:BC2 are all about restricting the player as much as possible. It makes them more rail shooter than FPS. Sort of like those tours of Chernobyl where you have to stay on a very strict path or else.

And you know what? When BF3 comes out people are going to eat that shit up and say it tasted of candy and rainbows.

 

[kane.malakos]

What else do you want from an FPS really?

From singleplayer?

- Fresh setting
- New gameplay mechanics (see Red Orchestra 2 for examples: blind fire, first-person sticky cover, weapon/environment interaction)
- More slow-placed tactical gameplay, less "shit blowing up everywhere all the time"
- Large levels with multiple paths to objectives
- Minimal use of scripted events, so every play-through of a level is not the same
- Friendly AI that can be given orders (after all, aren't you SERGEANT Black, not Private Black?)

That's probably way too much to ask from your standard triple-A military shooter game.

But yeah, I'm also excited for BF3 multiplayer based on what I've read in previews, but it's clear to me that the singleplayer was just stamped on as an afterthought.

One thing that they are doing very well is destructible environments. It doesn't sound like a lot, but having played Bad Company 2 I can say it makes a huge difference. I don't expect the single-player to be anything special, but the multi-player is where the Battlefield series has always shone. That's where you'll see the huge levels, with 64-player battles, giving orders, etc.

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

Just once, I wish the US would invade the Maldives or Tahiti so we could set a game there.

 

[Euhan01]

The graphics look awesome otherwise its looks the same. It also gives a good indication of how overpowerd snipers are, as it takes four people and a destroyed building to take one down.

 

[Brawndo]

The graphics look awesome otherwise its looks the same. It also gives a good indication of how overpowerd snipers are, as it takes four people and a destroyed building to take one down.

I guarantee you that scene will play out nearly exactly the same way every time you play it. I wouldn't be surprised if the sniper's shots hit the exact same places too.

Here's how I would like to see that part done:

1. Your CO tells you there is a sniper in this grid of town killing US troops
2. You are given command of a squad
3. You must travel to that area of town and figure out what building the fire is coming from
4. Once you've located the sniper, you have the options to a) breach the hotel from the ground floor and fight your way to the upper floors, b) get to an elevated position and counter-snipe, c) call for a helicopter and rappel onto the roof

To be honest, we given more freedom how to pursue objectives in shooters from 2004 than we are in ones from 2011.

 

[DEAD34345]

In b4 "If your looking at BF for single player, you really are doing it wrong."


...but it does ring true though.

I don't think you really are In b4 that, since you were the one who first said it, in that post.

Also yeah, pretty much. I'm not interested in that genre really, but it was always going to be that. Small improvements on the same game in the same genre in the same setting. A pretty standard-fare sequel.

I'd pay good money for the battlefield team to finally move on and make an epic "Future combat", or "Battlefield 450,546".