Battlefield 3 Review

I still have fond memories of the first time I played Battlefield 1942. It was such a wonderful surprise to find that all the vehicles laying around the maps were not just decoration, but were actually usable. Though still an FPS at heart, you could run your soldier up to jeeps, tanks, and even planes. Even though this word is heavily overused where undeserved, Battlefield 1942 was revolutionary. Now that the last several years as seen a dramatic rise in popularity of military fps (as in the most popular), a lot of people have had their eyes on Battelfield 3 to see what it could bring to the table.

This review of Battlefield 3 is based on the console version of the game which is divided between the single player campaign and multiplayer. While the vast majority of hours spent playing games like this is on multiplayer, and the fact that a lot of people don’t even bother playing through the campaign, many people have viewed the single player campaigns in games like this to be sort of neccessary but definitely not the focus.

The campaign in Battlefield 3 is interesting enough to keep you involved but it is far from innovative. It relies on a tried and true elements that have worked in the past. The most notable example that came to my mind was last year’s Call of Duty: Black Ops. You are some type of soldier who has been captured and most of the game as recounting the story of what has happened until you end up at the present time where you somehow escape/breakout and do some final thing before the game ends. It’s not that it’s inherently bad, it just seemed to fall short of expectations in a AAA release. I am not aware of when what was planned in the game’s timeline, but given how long the development cycle was it is probably just a matter of an unfortunate coincidence.

What I disliked about the execution of the storyline was that the very beginning of the game tells you how it will end. Sure you get to play out all the steps that lead to that ending but this is just such a poor story design mechanism. You play through the whole game knowing what the end result will be. The rest of the campaign was done pretty well. Most levels focus heavily on the ‘everyday soldier’. Combine that with the higher plausibility of the main story than most other games in the genre and you take away a certain sense of believability that this could actually happen. While this is true of the overall battle scenario, it seemed less true of specific events that unfold. One example is that early in the game you catch wind of why your character has been detained. It is kind of a curious situation because there’s not denying it and it leaves you kind of wondering what, if anything, actually happened. When you eventually play up to that point in memory, it just doesn’t make much sense. I have a really hard time imagining any Marine making that same decision at that instant. It just seems so bizzare and the fact that it’s such a hugely critical point just kind of leaves you shaking your head.

It’s important to distinguish the idea of plausibility and originality. Plausible scenarios are unlikely to be that original. People know what’s going on in the world and so threats that are more plausible are going to be those that have been talked about before. Where originality becomes important is in how the specific story with the specific characters is told. This is the area that was lacking a bit. You just feel like they made this great battle simulator but the story they follow is partly bland, partly done before, and it hinges on a major decision point that just seems bizzare.

Now for what most people would consider the more important aspect of the game: multiplayer. While fun, I was left a bit wanting. Back in the day I put many hours into online FPS games on the computer. Now, however, I definitely consider myself more of a casual FPS player. The biggest sessions I play are when people are over and we play together. So my immediate shock was loading up multiplayer when someone was over and trying to figure out how to get split-screen to work . . . and then realizing that there was no split-screen option available . . . at all. I was just completely shocked. How on earth do you make a FPS on a console with no split-screen. This honestly blew me away and left me sorely dissapointed.

Once I got over that and moved on to see how the multiplayer was I found that a lot of the excitement faded pretty fast. The maps without vehicles have been scaled down so much from the PC version that they feel like any other fps game. Take 20-25 people and put them in this little square area with a handful of buildings and let them go at it. The maps with vehicles were definitely more fun and larger in scope but often seemed a little empty. At times I could wander around for whole minutes without seeing any enemies. The vehicles are very fun to use. There’s nothing quite like driving through the streets in a tank and blasting your opponents. Unfortunately you run into similar problems where you have to really spend time looking for people. It seemed to me that if this is your type of game, you’d be better off with the PC version where you would get the benefit of lots more people playing on bigger maps. I imagine it would feel much more like a ‘battlefield’ and much less like so many other games.

Visually, most of the game was stunning. All of the urban areas were impeccable and probably rank amongst the best of anything I’ve seen. All the detail in the soldiers, buildings, and roads is just amazing. The quality of destruction that takes place in these urban settings really gives the impression that you are playing in a dynamic world. This does come with a cost though as there are definitely framerate issues that crop up while playing the game. This really is inexcusable. Console games should not have any framerate issues at all. The fact that stuttering repeatedly occurs baffles my mind. Did that not come up in testing the game?

It’s crazy to look back at old screenshots of Battlefield 1942 and see how far graphical quality has come in games. The maps/levels that take place outside of urban areas, in fields or forests, leave a bit more to be desired. This is partly understandable as it is always easier to mimic man’s creation than to mimic nature. It’s one thing to make a building which is mostly rectangular appear realistic. It is another give that same feeling when you’re running through a field with all the grass, shrubbery, stones, and everything else.

Gameplay: 2.5

Fun but pretty standard. I imagine it would be better on PC. Multiplayer left me wanting.

Story: 2.5

Good enough to keep you going. Hardly original or innovative.

Visuals: 4.5

Visually stunning game.

Audio: 3.0

All the noises of battle are done well. Soundtrack could use some work.

Overall: 3

Battlefield 3 – Review

03 December 2011

Developer: EA DICE

Publisher: Electronic Arts

Release: October 25, 2011