I dont think anyone said it sucked, i think they said "Cool, but hows the multiplayer" in a not-giving-a-shit tone.
Battlefield 3's single player does not suck
- Thread starter Duffeknol
- Start date
I didn't think it was bad, I just felt things could have been done better. The characters didn't have much personality, and some characters didn't get any lines (Hawkin, Tank Guy). I still don't get why your character never talks outside certain cinemas. You have a character, why not make them talk? There could have been more vehicle sections where you got to pilot something other than a tank. Though I thought Bad Company 2's single player was better (There seems to be a lot of hate for that also) I still really enjoyed Battlefield 3's. Also that game is so pretty!
The massive amounts of scripted events that you couldn't interrupt, as in if you put 100 bullets into the enemy involved in the event they wouldn't die ruined any immersion I might have had also I agree the looks and sound on PC are amazing but that doesn't make a game.Everyone has a go at CoD for not innovating and the same people say oh look battlefield is revolutionary but the campaign involved a madman(Makarov) setting off a nuke(Cod 4) fighting the Russians(All the Modern Warfares) fighting in the middle east(All the Modern Warfares) fighting in Paris(MW3) and sort of New York(MW3) so way do those same people not have a go at battlefield but instead religiously defend it.
Not to mention the god awful 15 second long quick time events where you press one button during the entire sequence.
To clarify I love the multi player and I don't think the campaign is bad but I also don't think its necessary they should have just ditched single player and spent more time on the multi player maybe iron out bugs and possibly improve the graphics for 360.
Not to mention the god awful 15 second long quick time events where you press one button during the entire sequence.
To clarify I love the multi player and I don't think the campaign is bad but I also don't think its necessary they should have just ditched single player and spent more time on the multi player maybe iron out bugs and possibly improve the graphics for 360.
I've dabbled in the campaign making it to the fourth level and so far to me it's on par with what COD has been doing these last few years a little less over the top and slightly more gritty, but lets be honest most people bought BF3 and will buy MW3 for the multiplayer.
Thank god someone else realized this. Not only that, but CoD4 established them as even more shattered nation than in real life, one unable to handle their own domestic problems and had different factions squabbling for power. Ultra-nationalists and all that.dagill said:
Somehow that got solved and they got all their ducks in a row enough to invade the entire western world. Like, I can get into a fun, explode-y plot as much as the next guy, but if you can't even be assed to follow your own universe continuity, I can't be bothered to care about your story.
The SP could been better if it felt more like MP where you had to take over objectives as well and let you have an option of using vehicles instead of being forced all the time. Of course there are times where need vehicles but that's just part of the experience. And they should have used MP classes, weapons, and unlocks in SP, for my dynamic gameplay. Using an RPG, mines or mines to take a tank out can be more satisfying than always being forced to use another tank... But otherwise, I do love the scripted dramatic events although they feel too predictable at times.
This game has the worst possible kind of linearity, the kind where you think you can do more but can't, for example, if you are with your squad shooting at some shapes over yonder, a smart tactical person would think that flanking is a good idea, however you are quickly informed that if you go past this line you will lose, I know its a battlefield game and therefore the single player was an afterthought, but whoever designed this clearly liked Homefront a hell of a lot more than everyone else, it has the same problems
I agree with you. Origin is shit, but the singleplayer is amazing. The only part that pissed me off was the jet scene. I was all hopeful for getting to fly, then I get to be a copilot... Such a frustrating and boring part on hard. Not every game has to be a deep, open RPG, I have no problem playing a linear shooter, IF the story makes some sense. Unlike CoD.
Also I don't understand why your commander shoots you if you don't get down on the ground at the end. It makes no sense, and is possibly the only plot-hole that stuck out for me
I was especially fond of the parts of the campaign where my squad would phase through solid objects like doors, the music would cut out if starting from a checkpoint, and other tid bits like the overuse of QTE's. Oh, and for the final mission when you're slamming someone's face during a QTE, his face is completely motionless. No hints of pain, not even blinking.
This does not, a good campaign make. It's crap. Obvious after thought in a game that was always meant to be focused on multiplayer. Right now the only purpose the campaign fulfilled is so they would have gameplay material for the numerous trailers before it's release. So... how about just scrapping it entirely and expanding on the only part of the game EA did right?
This does not, a good campaign make. It's crap. Obvious after thought in a game that was always meant to be focused on multiplayer. Right now the only purpose the campaign fulfilled is so they would have gameplay material for the numerous trailers before it's release. So... how about just scrapping it entirely and expanding on the only part of the game EA did right?
Looks and sound matter to a movie, not a video game.
So it turns out the battlefield 3 single player campaign does suck.
So it turns out the battlefield 3 single player campaign does suck.
It's weird how I absolutely loathed Homefront for its scripted nonsense, yet I can forgive BF3. I've actually given this some thought. In a lot of ways, BF3 and Homefront are uncannily similar. I gave both games an honest chance (I was actually very much looking forward to Homefront to begin with), yet something about that game just rubbed me the wrong way. I think BF3 just does everything else right. Looks, sounds, feel, missions... just a few drawbacks that can be a real dealbreaker for people.Furioso said:
While I felt the Bad Company Singleplayers were more enjoyable. I still felt emotion while playing it. That is the purpose of a game is it not? To make one feel? While I feel the ending was very rushed, and it was very solidly build and had a very solid foundation in the beginning (I felt the intro was comparative to the TV Show 24, which was immediately awesome)I felt it puff out and I could feel a looming deadline shortened and hastened the ending.
It did things that are a pet peeve to me, One marine comrade getting shot is a big deal, yet when you link up with your marines ten or twenty of them die charging into battle and nobody gives a crap
While I liked it, I wished it had an Epilogue. If the MP is telling as an Epilogue, then crap, but still.
Also, the Multiplayer is getting boring to me, 9 maps with 3 made for large combat, 3 made for small, linear combat and 3 just a mishmash of the others, along with there only being the USMC and the Russians (No USMC vs PLR? No Speztnaz vs Contractors?)I can see a world of potential, but at the same time, I feel the limitations of a deadline. I would love to see a Spetz vs Contractors Rush on the Villa level, but it's not there. I would love to see the USMC and PLR go at it in the earthquake ravaged city with Ospreys flying overhead, but it's not there.
Battlefield 2, vietnam, and 2142 at least had a story behind the levels, in BF3 it's just "Here is a place to fight in, go kill people" In a sense the singleplayer of those games -was- the multiplayer, you were playing the missions. In this, I feel like someone just setup a board, threw some pawns on the table, and said 'go'
Oh well.
It did things that are a pet peeve to me, One marine comrade getting shot is a big deal, yet when you link up with your marines ten or twenty of them die charging into battle and nobody gives a crap
While I liked it, I wished it had an Epilogue. If the MP is telling as an Epilogue, then crap, but still.
Also, the Multiplayer is getting boring to me, 9 maps with 3 made for large combat, 3 made for small, linear combat and 3 just a mishmash of the others, along with there only being the USMC and the Russians (No USMC vs PLR? No Speztnaz vs Contractors?)I can see a world of potential, but at the same time, I feel the limitations of a deadline. I would love to see a Spetz vs Contractors Rush on the Villa level, but it's not there. I would love to see the USMC and PLR go at it in the earthquake ravaged city with Ospreys flying overhead, but it's not there.
Battlefield 2, vietnam, and 2142 at least had a story behind the levels, in BF3 it's just "Here is a place to fight in, go kill people" In a sense the singleplayer of those games -was- the multiplayer, you were playing the missions. In this, I feel like someone just setup a board, threw some pawns on the table, and said 'go'
Oh well.
Yea, so did I, the point I was trying to make was that it does not work at all for this game, where all I do is press a button every few seconds to win, press button to get in turret, hold trigger, move on, press button to not get shot by jet, press button to fire at landed jets, press button to not be killed by ratDuffeknol said:
Also, why in the hell could I not fly that jet in a game that boasts vehicles?!