Battlefield 3's single player does not suck
- Thread starter Duffeknol
- Start date
Recommended Videos
And yet it gave me a huge adrenaline boost. I think sitting in a dark room with headphones helped a lot. I actually pressed myself in the back of my seat when the jet launched. Good gods that was awesome.Duffeknol said:
But yeah, gameplay wise it's quite meager. It's not the worst singleplayer out there, but good heavens it's linear and riddled with QTE's.
The singleplayer doesn't suck...it utterly blows donkey ball! I can't push myself to play it anymore it's that uninspired and boring. I guess it's one of those "whatever floats your boat" kind of things but I absolutely hate the singleplay AND co-op of this game. Both of them just scream generic and forced. Neither of them use any of the abilities of the new engine to any effect and they certainly don't use any of the good abilities of the Battlefield franchise.
I would have preferred a singleplayer and co-op flag capture game with AI over this horse shit.
I would have preferred a singleplayer and co-op flag capture game with AI over this horse shit.
Basically, it was every Modern Warfare campaign ever. Seriously, don't even trying to deny it.
Secondly, I thought it had already been universally established that quick time events suck balls. The first time one of them occured in BF3 I was stunned that they would do such a thing. And they make you fight a freaking rat! Seriously, Dice?
I don't know, it wasn't that bad. I kind of just wish the story was about ordinary soldiers participating in the war against the PLR. I get enough "Save the world from the Nukes/Russian" from CoD. I vastly prefferred the earlier missions, once you got out of Iran it went downhill a lot.
Secondly, I thought it had already been universally established that quick time events suck balls. The first time one of them occured in BF3 I was stunned that they would do such a thing. And they make you fight a freaking rat! Seriously, Dice?
I don't know, it wasn't that bad. I kind of just wish the story was about ordinary soldiers participating in the war against the PLR. I get enough "Save the world from the Nukes/Russian" from CoD. I vastly prefferred the earlier missions, once you got out of Iran it went downhill a lot.
I wouldn't call it the worst ever, but it felt like it was trying to be too similar to Call of Duty except with god awful quick time events.
The flying missions(ironically enough where you sit and point and click) were probably the best part of the game if only for how well they portrayed it.
The flying missions(ironically enough where you sit and point and click) were probably the best part of the game if only for how well they portrayed it.
I'm going to play more of it soon, but based on the first two levels it seems like there's way too many freaking QTEs. That and it looks like total shit (graphical glitches abound) on the Xbox if you don't want to download the 1.5 gig...whatever it is that makes the game look better. That's not really a huge complaint though, just impatience on my part. Save those it's pretty fun for me, even if it's terribly linear like you said.
It's clear that DICE has no idea how to make a good single player military fps. Look at the medal of honor reboot, it had it's problems but the single player was fantastic. It was great it had a sense of pacing, same reason why Cod 4 was so good. The problem with BF3 is that it has no pacing, feels like a Micheal Bay movie.
I think it would have been a great idea if DICE worked on the multiplayer and had Danger Close create the single player and cooperative mode.
I think it would have been a great idea if DICE worked on the multiplayer and had Danger Close create the single player and cooperative mode.
I enjoyed playing as the Russians because you always seem to play as Americans in modern day fps. I liked it how dice decided to have them speak in Russian instead of just speaking English with a Russian accent. Also the RAT KOMBAT was brilliant I thought.
Here's my super simple Litmus test for whether or not a SP game is good: If I can watch a Let's Play of the game in 1080p, and gain as much enjoyment from it as i would have from actually playing the game (as may be the case for a game that has super unoriginal and scripted gameplay, with looks and sound being it's only redeeming features) it is instantly demoted to a shitty game.Duffeknol said:
If it wanted to look and sound good....why wasn't it a movie? I mean, I liked the trailers for BF3, why should I bother playing the SP then?
From what I hear, this seems familiar to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare (1).
I personally purchased that only recently just for the single player, and it was well worth it. It was short, like what BF3 seems to be, but it had some of the most gripping and spell-binding moments in any video-game I've ever played. This would mostly include the nuclear explosion and the Chernobyl missions, but it wasn't like the rest of the game was entirely boring.
This is a good example of a Dry Game. This is just an idea I kind of thought about right now, and don't know if someone has thought of a theorem or ideal behind it.
It is basically a game with awesome selective points, but the rest of the game isn't as impressive. It is kind of like a comparison when people describe humour: whether it's dry or wet.
An example of a good Wet Game would be Fallout 3. There were no amazing points that made me say, "Wow! That's amazing!", but it had a very good general feel to it (in my opinion, anyway).
So, to conclude, I'd say Battlefield 3 is well worth the money (unlike some other FPS that came out a while ago with a supposedly bad single player 'ahem' Black Ops 'ahem') and the single player looks dry... in the good way.
I personally purchased that only recently just for the single player, and it was well worth it. It was short, like what BF3 seems to be, but it had some of the most gripping and spell-binding moments in any video-game I've ever played. This would mostly include the nuclear explosion and the Chernobyl missions, but it wasn't like the rest of the game was entirely boring.
This is a good example of a Dry Game. This is just an idea I kind of thought about right now, and don't know if someone has thought of a theorem or ideal behind it.
It is basically a game with awesome selective points, but the rest of the game isn't as impressive. It is kind of like a comparison when people describe humour: whether it's dry or wet.
An example of a good Wet Game would be Fallout 3. There were no amazing points that made me say, "Wow! That's amazing!", but it had a very good general feel to it (in my opinion, anyway).
So, to conclude, I'd say Battlefield 3 is well worth the money (unlike some other FPS that came out a while ago with a supposedly bad single player 'ahem' Black Ops 'ahem') and the single player looks dry... in the good way.
I agree, so far, I think the campaign has been getting to much shit, while I'm actually enjoying it, sure it's cliched as fuck and it's predictable and it's not as engaging as MW2, I am enjoying it, it's fun! For now of course.
There are a couple of undeniable flaws. Like the brawling system, press 2 buttons and you're good, it's just so unimmersive (to a point I bet someone who is australian and wears a fedora will make a fuss about) but still, I think it's enjoyable to a point. I will keep playing and finish, If I find replay value in it, I will play it again.
I hope I didn't loose my thread to much there. It happens.
There are a couple of undeniable flaws. Like the brawling system, press 2 buttons and you're good, it's just so unimmersive (to a point I bet someone who is australian and wears a fedora will make a fuss about) but still, I think it's enjoyable to a point. I will keep playing and finish, If I find replay value in it, I will play it again.
I hope I didn't loose my thread to much there. It happens.
Lack of player trust, QTE's, and boring AI indistinguishable between the PLR militia troops and the "elite" Russian paratroopers, this personally took away from my immersion completely..