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

[Rusty Bucket]

What exactly were you expecting from a military, pseudo-realistic first person shooter?

 

[TriggerHappyAngel]

The only Shooter that has my attention this year is Brink.

 

[Vampire cat]

I'm not concerned with what the single player appears to offer. The animations and scenery look great, as long as the game plays decently I'm definitely looking forward to this.

 

[baddude1337]

Looks awesome. Console players are getting a bit shanked with the player cap (24 when pc gets 64..those are gonna be some empty maps). Hopefully they can increase it, games like Frontlines show we can get 64 on Xbox and Mag showed us 256 on PS.

 

[repeating integers]

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.

It really sounds like you might like the original Bad Company.

- The setting might not be fresh, but the tone comes across as a subtle, affectionate parody of it many times. It's a goofy, funny game, it doesn't take itself seriously like many modern warfare-style FPS games.
- Destructible terrain. I'm aware some games have done it before, but Bad Company still does it well and it sets it apart from most FPS games. It's also got some damn nice gimmicks (like a piece of equipment that allows you to guide in your own missile from the air).
- The gameplay is much slower and more tactical than, say CoD (from what I've seen/played of the latter) and the levels are very open and offer many ways to attack the enemy. There's one in particular, where you're alone without your squad (making it noticeably darker than the other levels) which was basically a mini sandbox.
- OK, so it falls short on your last one. But then, you aren't a sergeant, you are in fact a new guy.

BF3 is specifically stated to be closer to CoD when it comes to the campaign - presumably, DICE got tired of making their less linear FPS games and got the urge to do something else with their campaign. After all, they know most people are getting the game for the MP, they can afford to do pretty much anything they want with their SP as if it fails, it's unlikely to harm the sales.

 

[Wolfram23]

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.

Unsurprisingly, you can do that. It's called online teamwork.

But seriously, I get what you're saying and it would be nice to play games like that sometimes, but to expect that from battlefield is just naive. You should be looking at tactical shooters. Yes, they do indeed exist.

 

[lasherman]

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.

That's exactly what we need in the next first-person shooter. Right now, the industry's stuck in a trend (I'd call it a rut if it weren't so successful) where the people with lots of money just copy what the people with even more money are doing.

None of these games are even trying to innovate. Guess which game I'm talking about: You play as a voiceless American soldier in a gritty, realistic first-person-shooter set in the middle east fighting terrorists with the help of a squad of other soldiers who can't accomplish anything unless you do it for them. Also, regenerating health.

Its reached a point where FPSs have become the new "sports game"; "Look, Super Soccer Pro 2012 just came out, and it has better lighting than 2011, and they even added a new team! I can't wait to spend sixty dollars on that!"

Sure, everyone adds their own little twist to the gameplay, like Battlefield's destructible environments, but aside from these little tweaks/gimmicks, Battlefield = Modern Warfare = Medal of Honour = all those other knockoffs with relatively tiny budgets.

 

[Katana314]

The Battlefield devs said that a completely linear shooter and a completely open shooter are just two ways to make the game. They work differently with their own pros and cons. I honestly think linear shooters work okay at times; in some ways, Half-Life 2 is just as linear.

On the contrary side, they did state that they still plan for multiplayer levels to be very open-ended.

 

[Laser Priest]

It looks really good, and I mean that literally. I don't expect it to be good, but damn is it pretty, especially for what's looking like another gritty, "realistic" modern war game.

Battlefield has always had decent multiplayer, but this game's campaign is looking increasingly linear and CoD-like, which certainly doesn't appeal to me, and I doubt I'll be buying a game on Multiplayer alone.

 

[Marik2]

It looks really good, and I mean that literally. I don't expect it to be good, but damn is it pretty, especially for what's looking like another gritty, "realistic" modern war game.

Battlefield has always had decent multiplayer, but this game's campaign is looking increasingly linear and CoD-like, which certainly doesn't appeal to me, and I doubt I'll be buying a game on Multiplayer alone.

Yup it sure does look pretty, Im gonna pick it up just cuz I never truly got in the battlefield series.

 

[MikeOfThunder]

I don't understand the problem. Your saying the game is going to be boring because it follows the same pace as any other good first person shooter? It looks amazing, what more do you want from a FPS?! (I dont mean this as in 'your wrong!!' I mean, well... what more could you add? Curious as to your answer)

Also, will it have the same engine as Bad Company 2, when you could level buildings and towns etc? also anyone know if there is going to be cars, tanks or anything like the old Battlefields (*hopes it's more like Battlefield 1942 with mods* - flying planes and helicopters and piloting aircraft carriers and the likes was amazing!).

 

[sgt. soap mctavish]

multiplayer with jets and big ass maps to fly them in? HELL YEAH!

 

[Nouw]

It looks -to be frank- amazing. The Battlefield series aren't exactly known for the Singeplayer however it can be fun and with the chance of Co-Op it is going to be fun. The action looks pretty flowing and I could imagine myself being immersed. Yes I don't mind the 'generic' battlefield.[sub]Pun unintended.[/sub]

Besides, the Multiplayer is where it's at!

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.

Ever seen Full Metal Jacket?

I don't understand the problem. Your saying the game is going to be boring because it follows the same pace as any other good first person shooter? It looks amazing, what more do you want from a FPS?! (I dont mean this as in 'your wrong!!' I mean, well... what more could you add? Curious as to your answer)

Also, will it have the same engine as Bad Company 2, when you could level buildings and towns etc? also anyone know if there is going to be cars, tanks or anything like the old Battlefields (*hopes it's more like Battlefield 1942 with mods* - flying planes and helicopters and piloting aircraft carriers and the likes was amazing!).

It said somewhere Frostbite 2? or something similar so yes there is going to be destructible buildings and such. I'm betting that either it's going to be improved or the stunning graphics are going to make it far more interesting. Also it's Battlefield, it wouldn't be Battlefield if it didn't have vehicles in it silly

 

[Coldster]

I actually really like that "find the end of the wire" part. Built up suspense like so few games do these days. Can't say much about the rest of it though.

 

[miketehmage]

Since battlefield 3 is a sequel to battlefield 2 (which didn't even have singleplayer) and not bad company 2. I think the game should be judged mostly on multiplayer. And if it's anything like bf2 it'll be amazing with the frostbite 2 engine. I am disappointed at the removal of the commander though, hopefully they'll find something to replace it and it'll be a cracking game.

 

[Continuity]

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.

Wait.... So you're saying there is a single player!?

battlefield is pretty much a 100% multiplayer game, if they're tacking on a SP game too then just be damned grateful that you're getting that extra material free.

 

[sooperman]

I'm liking what I see so far, really. The OP is worrying too much about whether or not it will be original rather than whether or not it will be good. I love me some innovation, but it looks like BF3 will stand on its own merits.

I'm a bit disappointed about the addition of prone, though. Not having it never detracted from Bad Company, and being able to go into prone will just make snipers harder to kill. And I'm not convinced it's more realistic, either, because anyone can go into prone anywhere in an instant. It's not so much an addition as it is simply a more annoying rendition of what we already have.