Top
450°
7.0

GamePro- Battlefield 3 Review

GamePro: A sloppy single-player campaign met with matchless multiplayer makes for an unbalanced first-person shooter experience.

The story is too old to be commented.
Ser1675d ago (Edited 1675d ago )

"I used to really like the Battlefield: Bad Company single-player campaigns because they were charming and featured characters I got invested in thanks to some snappy writing."

I stopped reading there. This is not what Battlefield is about. I hated the Bad Company campaigns.

SKUD1675d ago

I have to agree here. I don't know anyone who plays military shooters for the story. Only played about 30min of it. Been living in MP ever since.

masa20091675d ago

But BFBC1 didn't just have funnier writing than BF3, the level design was also much less restrictive.

Jobesy1675d ago

Then EA/DICE shouldn't have advertised or even have taken the time to build a campaign in the first place right?

thebudgetgamer1675d ago

I do, I enjoy a good single player over a good multi-player. If you're going to add a single player do it right, or not at all.

MAJ0R1675d ago (Edited 1675d ago )

we pay 60 bucks, we get a campaign, the campaign gets reviewed.

deal with it

gamingdroid1675d ago (Edited 1675d ago )

I play MW series very much for the campaign and spec-ops. Who doesn't get excited for Captain Price?

That said, BF3 campaign is just a tad better than BC2 which is saying it's a small step above turd.

Furthermore, I really don't get what it is with the developer and shining a freaking bright light in my face all the time. Not only is it going to give me a headache soon, but an epileptic seizure is soon on the way.

Also from article:

"glitches galore, including some weird lighting bugs and phantom enemies that pop in and out of the field of play."

I whole heartedly agree with this. I walked through entrances last night that I couldn't get out of! Seriously?

That said, when the light isn't shining in my face is overbright, the graphics does look amazing for a multi-plats. Among the best!

evrfighter1675d ago (Edited 1675d ago )

Whats funny is. Had they went the l4d route and cut out sp entirely and just threw in bot matches. The meta would be sitting a lot higher.

I'm not surprised though. I was one of the ones complaining about them making a campaign for bf3 to begin with.

I would have taken 5-10 more maps over that sp campaign any day of the week. so much time wasted when they could have polished mp alot more

rezzah1675d ago

I'm one of the ones who you don't know.

Infact I play all games for their story, not their MP.

-Alpha1675d ago

"But BFBC1 didn't just have funnier writing than BF3, the level design was also much less restrictive."

Bingo.

SilentNegotiator1674d ago

They could have used those resources to bulk up the multiplayer, but they chose to use those resources to make a boring campaign.

They're going to pile on a bunch of paid DLC "year round". So it's not like you're paying $60 for a MP that will be long supported with free content and love. And it doesn't exactly supersede every other game around in the amount of included MP content.

A campaign not worth playing and a standard multiplayer with planned DLC in the works. 3.5/5 sounds reasonable. And its hype probably saved it from a lower score.

Heartnet1674d ago

Lol they still have to review it lol ur not paying just for the multiplayer xD

and if the campaign sucks then hell it shud be marked down!

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 1674d ago
Rubberlegs1675d ago

That's what the Bad Company campaigns are about though. They put more effort and care into BC campaigns, none of that went into BF3 campaign.

I still don't think BF3 campaign is near that bad though. No you won't care about the story but its filled with bunch of cool moments.
They updated the destruction in this by bringing it inside now. You can tear down office cubicles and shoot the hell out of everything else. The reviews make it sound so much worse but its not that bad.

HardCover1675d ago

I enjoy the campaigns.

I'm still smart enough to realize this game isn't "Bad Company 3" though.

Stewie2k81675d ago

so did i. everyone should by now that battlefield is known for its multiplayer.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1674d ago
capcock1675d ago (Edited 1675d ago )

"sloppy single player campaing"

BF has never been a game people buy for the single player, it's just a nice bonus.

I think the campaing is great though.

HeavenlySnipes1675d ago (Edited 1675d ago )

be the other way around. Games originated with NO MP. MP is something that took storm THIS GEN. That doesn't change the fact that what's supposed to give a game its identity is the SP portion. MP is always supposed to be looked at as a bonus. You ever notice that the highest rated games this gen are all SP based? Mass Effect, Uncharted, GTAIV, GOW, Gears, Super Mario etc..

Reviewers would be more lenient if the game had NO SP because that would only leave the MP to be criticized (like MAG). As it is now, BF doesn't have its own universe or background. Its just a faceless military shooter. Without a proper storyline, that's all it can ever be seen as. (That's not to say its not awesome)

EDIT: That's my point. The game would be better received if it went all MP (like MAG) rather than attempting to create a SP that failed to be any way original or compelling. Like I said, BF is just a faceless shooter because DICE has yet to establish its own 'battlefield universe'. Their attempt at it with BF3 was subpar, and reviews (the ones that don't dismiss the SP as if it never happened) reflect that. If DICE doesn't care about SP then they shouldn't waste their time.

LightofDarkness1675d ago

Ok, but Battlefield 1942 was MP only. It started as a multiplayer game. It's a relatively new game. Not all games need to have singleplayer, just like not all games need multiplayer. Chill the beans.

DigitalAnalog1675d ago (Edited 1675d ago )

Really, then I wonder who was controlling that "other" bar when playing pong?

frostypants1675d ago (Edited 1675d ago )

WRONG. This is not a sequel to Bad Company 2. It is a sequel to Battlefield 2. Battlefield 2 and it's predecessor, Battlefield 1942, were MULTIPLAYER ONLY. The series is primarily about online play, and always has been. Not opinion...fact. Learn your game history, son!

Apparently you wanted a sequel to Bad Company 2. That is not this game.

rezzah1675d ago

my bad, they both similar.

venom061675d ago

these people are just butthurt because they were one of the gaming sites that didn't get early copies of the game to review like others did.. so this is way of retribution.. who cares... playing this game for SP is like buying a Corvette for the trunk space..... i bet ANY money they're going to be slobbering all over MW3 SP campaign...

Hockeydud191675d ago

Yea, good thinking, I'll go and pout because I didn't get a game for free so I'll write a bad review and maybe next time they'll send me a review copy /s

Spenok1675d ago

I was honestly thinking the same thing. That article about early reviews they wrote had me skeptical from the get go. The SP may not be the best story out there, but its engaging enough, with some pretty awesome set pieces (especially the jet lvl) that are pretty Damn fun.

But just like CoD people buy this game for its MP. And imho this has some of the best mp i have played ina LONG time. The guns feel balanced, the level design is excellent, the maps are huge, the vehicles all have a use and purpose, and the tactical class system (if used right by the players) is amazing and far superior to any other game I have played.

So far for me this is the most fun I've had with mp since MAG. (And I know I'm going to get a ton of shit for saying that, but MAG, if given the proper chance, was awesome. Working together with a clan and/or a well organized team was just something no other game does quite right, except for now, BF3)

Heartnet1674d ago

Yeh Lol im sure thats the only reason.. people as closed minded as you shouldnt even read reviews and shud just go off the hype that surrounds a game...

and i aint played BF campaign but it sounds shit from the forums here and by the review.. however i did find enjoyment stemming from the mw2 campaign and mw1 campaign..

and seeing as mw3 has england in it (wooop) i can only hope that it gets high reviews because of that :)...

However since ur so closed minded no matter how good the mw3 campaign is ull always see it as bad and the BF campaign no matter how weak and thin it is will always be top dog.. cause you ma friend are a blind fanboy who hangs of dice's every word

Sizzon1675d ago

Little disappointed in this GamePro review, I usually like GamePro's reviews, but who buys Battlefield for the SP?

Heartnet1674d ago

someone who likes first person shooters but does not have access to online play?

Show all comments...
The story is too old to be commented.