Monday, 5 December 2011
Battlefield 3 Review
You should be able to identify that Battlefield 3 is mainly based in the Middle East.
The days spent on Battlefield 3 have only served to remind me how much I love adventure RPGs (role-playing games). The confinement, especially in Battlefield 3, is apparent and the linearity of its campaign is simply a letdown from its successfully marketed hype. And after giving up halfway through the campaign, I realized how awesome games like Assassin’s Creed and Skyrim is, and how, let’s put it this way, Battlefield 3 is just not good enough.
You see, the Battlefield series have been arch rivals with Modern Warfare since their debuts. The long, unending war, with Battlefield unrelenting to raise the white flag, has led to maybe a decade of constant battling and marketing – this time, Battlefield 3 relies on being as real as possible. I’ve got to admit that I found the idea pretty cool the first time I heard about it. Imagine this, simulator-like-war in a real battlefield and a real plot – amazing!
However, the idea short-lives and backfires. Video games are, after all, fictional. An over-realistic (and glitchy) game has proved to be difficult to enjoy. For instance, the distance of throwing grenades are limited but ultimately, it’s the constant smoke-blowing that blinds you, and completely create a bulletproof glass barrier for your targets (read: glitch). I wouldn’t complain if the AIs couldn’t aim at us as well, but their laser-targeting guns (read: glitch again) proves to be a serious annoyance.
To make matters worse, the storyline of the game is easily predictable and very-well clichéd (the worse thing a wannabe-successful game can do). Let’s see, missing nukes, evil terrorists…oh come on, think out of the box! For a start, why can’t we go to, let’s say, the South Pole! Okay, maybe not. But you get what I mean, the plot is lackluster, and its linearity doesn’t help either. In most missions, gunning down the AIs and sprinting to the next checkpoint doesn’t work at all, because even when we reached the checkpoint, we had to wait for all our teammates (read: glitch again, urgh!). Plus, the missions are like a run-through of the whole plot as we rushed and dashed and sprinted purposelessly to the next and the next.
On a happier note, I am happy to say that the multiplayer is not as glitchy as its campaign. In fact, its multiplayer will be the main reason (read: sole reason) if you want to get the game. Unlike any other previous First-Person-Shooters, this offers an immersive, innovative gameplay which centralizes on varied tactics, interesting maps and essential teamplay gaming. It is vital that you remember that this is not a Modern Warfare series and rambo-ing into enemies will only get you killed, instantly. However, if you engage tactical teamplay, communicate with your team mates, it will lead you to more kills than you would expect.
Can't wait to fly? Honestly, the feel of flying a jet is like any other FPS game. Wasted.
Before I conclude, you should also know that the war between the Modern Warfare and Battlefield series hasn’t ended, especially since both games didn’t fare as well as what their developers had expected, but that’s another story. Anyway, only if you are a hardcore, die-hard fan of the series, who don’t bother with campaigns, I recommend you to get it. Now, if you don’t mind, I’m going to slay some dragons in Skyrim, or, should I kill some innocent civilians in Assassin’s Creed?
Campaign: 6/10
Multiplayer: 9/10
Final Rating: 7.5/10
