RGN: From the author of the first article to warn you all about the downfalls of Battlefield 3 on the modern gaming consoles comes a first impression Podcast featuring the RealGamerNewz crew. Once upon a time we were all to be wowed, amazed, and excited by the PC footage of BF3 and sworn testimonials of hundreds of game journalists and PR departments clamoring that BF3 on consoles was something to behold. Check out the results in this show which begins to delve into the final product presented at launch day.
40°
80°
40°
40°
Ad 
120°
10°
0°
30°
30°
20°
Section you have to do just like they want you to do it, and the QTE fight scenes. Parts I died over and over because I dint make just he right move, it was trial and error. I felt like I was playing Dragons Lair.
I would have just preferred to play the MP game against bots to be honest which I hear you cant do. Shame, thats how we used to play BF2, just a couple mates LANing against the bots.
PS
Its amazing what a pass BF gets on the SP game, (even I do it) because its really an MP game, but I can remember the incredible the bagging Killzone games got just over the story because it was all they could really pick. And no credit was given for having bots, which hardly any shooter does anymore.
Just pointing out the double standard.
as far as BF3 goes...I have to say I actually like the SP...as in i like the story, like the locations...and even like the objectives...Thunder Run is one of most memorable fps SP missions in years for me...driving an Abrams through the office building...with the sound and everything...and the way that mission ends...to me that made up for a lot of other things wrong with the SP in just a few minutes...
to me the only real problem with the SP overall, from a design stanpoint...is cheap AI...they spot you WAY to easily, are WAY to accurate when on the move...and NPC's will be screaming at you to move or follow them...where you can be instantly killed, and they won't die at all...they'll drag you right to your death more often than not...
But after I came to terms with the fact that there is only really one way to play the game...it works at least ok...you simply HAVE to sit in cover and pick off enemies one by one until you see a check point...for the most part the game isn't doing anything with limitless enemy spawns (there are a few, but most skirmish's pit you against a fixed number of enemies...a lot of them)...and that made me die a lot because I was constantly thinking I needed to push forward to trigger a check point...usually not the case...
its not great, but its not that bad either...Now i'm saying that having completely most of the campaign on normal...I don't know when I'll go back through it on hard...as I hear...they are not kidding around with that...i die enough on normal to only play a level or 2 and immediately get back into multiplayer...
weird campaign where for the most part, multiplayer is a lot easier to stay alive...
The maps are awful, the graphics are nothing like what they hyped up and it's still buggy as hell. They definitely rushed it to get out before COD, and it shows, badly.
When they do finally come down, as it takes a ton of damage, it really is something different...debris stays on screen, and you have to actually climb over it...or can use it for cover...and it seems to be pretty dynamic, I haven't seen the same building come down the same way yet...
what is strange though is that its not very consistant...you have to know which buildings can be leveled...and which can't...usually anything small can be removed, but not always...and being that it takes a long time to do it, a lot of matches end before stuff really starts coming down...
last night dropped the radio tower on two guys in a jeep...at the hill top on caspian border...when it works, there's not much like it...
You nailed it down hard
love caspian border though...perfect size for 24 players imo...you can safely move on foot from flag to flag without guaranteed getting picked off...and a lot of the maps imo work great in similar ways...
the only one i'm currently avoiding is Tehran Highway, as i've never played it without consistant unplayable lag...so i also don't really know its layout yet either...
What Dice did with the game to run on consoles with all that is going on in the game is amazing.
But hearing some of these console only gamers cry that it does not look like a PC running a 580GTX or 6990 inside its box makes me laugh at such foolishness. For them? This picture is for you:
Related image(s)
it looks great on consoles...runs acceptably also...has some known bugs that will get fixed i'm sure...but for now i'm definitely having as much fun with it as i anticipated...
I more pissed about some of the stupid things in the SP campaign like the melee QTE's and the "you must stand exactly here and do it this way" sections, but even I'm not going to complain too much as I knew it was an MP orientated game.
Also the destruction, i remember a few times DICE talking about destruction 2.0 or whatever, but there is hardly any destruction in some of the maps.
It was overhyped, Not a bad game, but there was no need for the over hype, in the end it's a let down personally.
Im 15hours into the multiplayer now and its just not as fun as Bad Company 2. My friends and I tend to play Squad Deathmatch most of the time so most of my comparisons are based on that. None of the BF3 maps compare to the best ones in Bad Co 2.
All the SDM maps are flat with very little destruction. Where are maps like Arica Harbour or Harvest Day? Maps full of buildings which can mostly all be levelled to the ground. The only buildings Ive seen that can be fully demolished are single story bungalows. Op Metro SDM is essentially a park, it doesnt have a single building.
Ive noticed that most of the action takes place in a very small area of each map. Most of the space is wasted. On BC2 maps you saw people using the whole map, with small battles breaking out all over the place. Now everything is funnelled into one area. Grand Bazaar is a perfect example of this. No matter how hard you try to initiate combat in other areas, it inevitably all takes place in that one alley.
And before anyone says 'dont play SDM, BF is all about Rush/Conquest'... 1. SDM is great and very intense. 2. Ive played Rush and Conquest and a lot of the things Ive said apply to that to. Also, the lag in those gametypes is very bad. Its bad in SDM, but the more vehicles the more it lags.
Im really trying to like the game, but Im already bored of all the maps. My friends feel the same. They dont actually like any of the maps and just long to be able to transplant the BF3 improvements into the BC2 maps. That would be an awesome game. Arica Harbour using BF3 mechanics would be so much fun.
In summary.. you cant say that any of the maps compare in terms of destruction to anything in Bad Co 2. Harvest Day, enough said.