GamePro: A sloppy single-player campaign met with matchless multiplayer makes for an unbalanced first-person shooter experience.
"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.
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.
But BFBC1 didn't just have funnier writing than BF3, the level design was also much less restrictive.
Then EA/DICE shouldn't have advertised or even have taken the time to build a campaign in the first place right?
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.
we pay 60 bucks, we get a campaign, the campaign gets reviewed. deal with it
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!
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
I'm one of the ones who you don't know. Infact I play all games for their story, not their MP.
"But BFBC1 didn't just have funnier writing than BF3, the level design was also much less restrictive." Bingo.
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.
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!
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.
I enjoy the campaigns. I'm still smart enough to realize this game isn't "Bad Company 3" though.
so did i. everyone should by now that battlefield is known for its multiplayer.
"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.
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.
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.
Really, then I wonder who was controlling that "other" bar when playing pong?
The MP is the bonus.
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.
my bad, they both similar.
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...
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
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)
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
Little disappointed in this GamePro review, I usually like GamePro's reviews, but who buys Battlefield for the SP?
someone who likes first person shooters but does not have access to online play?
at least the multiplayer got a 4.5. The guy who reviewed it said he combined the 2.5 score for single player and the 4.5 score for multiplayer and got an overall 3.5 so basically if u ignore the single player then BF3 is a solid 4.5 I'm really loving the MP too. I can tell I'll prolly put hundreds of hours in just like BC2 and BF2.
I knew it was going to flop. The game is simply boring and slow.
What!? I'm loving the pace. It's different from the usual arcade style COD MP. (which i also love btw) I can't remember if BF2 had auto aim? I ask because i think i noticed in the options of BF3. That is before the servers went down. haha! Yes. Last night it sucked to be me. I cancelled my booty call to play this game and well...
Then you haven't played BF3 Team Deathmatch...it's so chaotic and fast, it's (almost) too much. Even that Youtube dude, ElPresador wouldn't be able to keep up, and he has apparent ADD.
LOL 3.5 and the game is a flop HAHAHAHAHA News flash a flop would be a 1 out of 5 across the board from all site.
Not in this case considering the hype it got.
That was a terrible read, Please don't make me go back mummy :P
Gamekult are gonna love this game.
Their 7/10 stamp is primed and ready ;)
Try and remember that their are gamers without Internet or paying live. What about them? Sorry you can't expect a game that is full retail and not blatantly advertised as mp only to get a pass solely because the devs delivered on what they know. I expect for my $60 to get a complete package. Full stop
The funny thing is that if BF3 had no SP it would have scored better. Atleast reviewers would know its a multiplayer focused game...
HAHAH GAME PRO I BET THEY WILL PUT NOT LEAST THAN 9.5 TO MW3
The campaign is not that bad, in fact I had no intention of buying BF3 but since I like MP so bad and I always enjoyed the multiplayer experience I went and bought it and I like it more than BF2. I guess it depends on the person playing it. I might add that I'm a COD fan but my feeling are not biased in any way.
I'm warming up to this game, but it still needs alot of ironing out, and is exactly why I think it got shipped too early. Maybe should have been a 2012 title? I think so.
The campaign isn't the horrible mode they say it is. It's just simple, point and shoot. It has some cool moments to show off the engine but that's all you should expect. Be glad they made a single player. Btw it's the best SP they've done.
I find it totally bias that BF3....a series known ONLY for it's MP since BF1942 and BF2 lacked a SP campaign all of sudden is basically being reviewed on it's SP and not the MP. (BF1942 and BF2 had a Sp mode that was basically a MP with Bots instead of humans) Meanwhile I'm 110% positive CODMW3 a series built on it's long rich SP which as of the last 3 titles has become short just like BF3 SP will be given high scores and every reviewer will love it along with free Activision gifts just like they did with MW2 and it's 5 hour run through. Reviewers all complained about the rush rush hurry up SP but turned around and gave MW2 high scores anyway. BF as always and now COD are all about the MP with the SP as an added BONUS. BF and COD are NOT Half Life or Halo where we expect a great SP story and campaign and a great MP mode. also BF3 is not a sequel to Bad Company 2 as they are two different games but YES with similarities. anyway screw these silly reviews cause I'm having a BLAST with BF3 MP and most likely i will not play the SP just like with BC2 cause I'm all about teh MP. I guess when Planetside 2 comes out they are gonna rip it to shreds for not having a Sp campaign......stupid bias reviewers.
It's amazing how 6 co-op missions are more entertaining than a 5 hours singleplayer.
Dice should have just made multiplayer and charge 40 bucks. It would get 9's and 10's from everywhere. I didn't play single player at all on BC1, didn't play single player more than 15 mins on BC2 and didn't play single player on BF2 (wait, it didn't have it). Battlefield is not single player game. Now, stfu haters.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.