Games
Genre
Format
You can read this review in full in our print edition.
In our Christmas 2011 issue, which is on sale November 22, our review will include a Post Script article on the role of storytelling in military shooters like Battlefield 3.
You subscribe to Edge in print, on iOS via Newsstand and on Android, PC and Mac via Zinio.
--
Be careful what you wish for. Though rightly renowned as the go-to franchise for grandiose online carnage, Battlefield’s masters have long had lusty eyes for Call Of Duty’s rigidly scripted, gung-ho military fantasy – or at least the money it makes.
With Battlefield 3, which remains a deliriously brilliant multiplayer experience, DICE has conspicuously touted a singleplayer campaign that is every bit the cinematic spectacle fans of the quasi-interactive man-clicking genre might want, replete with a histrionic, globe-trotting plot about stolen nukes and implausible geopolitical consequences. EA has got what it wanted, certainly, but is that what Battlefield 3 deserves?
Flashbacks rattle you between roles as a disgraced US marine, a tank driver, an aircraft gunner and a Spetsnaz operative, all embroiled in a threadbare bit of hokum that sees you murder your way through sections of Tehran, Paris and New York. There can be no argument over the scene-setting potency of DICE’s efforts in technology and visual design. Battlefield 3 frequently leaves players slack-jawed with amazement at its compositions, from the ruined Iranian shopping mall, moonlight and rain cascading through its punctured roof on to tiers of collapsed walkways, to the pristine angles of a modernist mansion complex, perched upon a dusky cliff overlooking the Caspian Sea.
Elsewhere, reflections flare and ripple as wind sheers across the deck of an aircraft carrier, light refracting to brightly pepper your visor. Even when unhelmeted, light fragments and bleeds as though you had fitted a smeary Perspex sheet to your face – an odd contrivance that nonetheless creates dazzling, fluid images, the superimposition of colour and texture drawing together the disparate geometries beneath. No war has ever been this beautiful. It even looks the business on the creaky old consoles; on a half-decent PC, it transcends.
But wonderment is not the only reason the player might be left slack-jawed. As kinetic as it all feels, the strict stage-management of Battlefield 3’s solo campaign offers so very little room for the player to express independence that its firefights sometimes struggle to keep your attention, despite the superb orchestration of screen-rattling rumbles, whistling bullets and ear-popping explosions. Interaction is largely a trivial adjunct to the game’s showreel of pretty flashing lights and sounds, and anything outside its lexicon of bullets is dealt with via a context-sensitive action. Even the decision to equip a weapon you are apparently already carrying is sometimes taken out of your hands. Want to climb a ladder? Go through a door? Walk forward? Not until you are given orders, soldier. So rigid is the scripting that allies can fatally pin you into cover while attempting to follow their programming.
Comments
14Wait is the reviewer actually complaining this game is too difficult? I was playing it on hard in co op last night and we were getting through it pretty well, sure its a challenge but thats what it should be.
Im thankful that for once a company hasnt copped out and made a game that even on hard is pretty easy to get through just for the fear people might complain because they cant get that achievement for doing it on hard because "its too hard". The difficulties on this are as they should be which makes completing it on hard an actual achievement rather than a freebie trophy/achievement score.
Theyve actually made a game which is pretty challenging. But Normal co op really isnt "brutally" difficult unless youre used to the run and gun arcade style of Halo and CoD. BF requires a whole different mindset. Also had loads of instruction to fly the helicopter pop up with button commands and you can easily change the controls for seperate systems of foot, land and air with a good range of options.
The story does jump around quite a lot and does struggle to fully hold the plot together but the dialogue is really authentic and the characters are well developed for the little time you spend with each one and it holds it together. I cant imagine comparable titles with russians, terrorists nukes blah blah are going to match in terms of voice acting and authenticity of the dialogue.
BF3 is a massive step forward from BFBC2 and its good that the series is evolving. I agree with most of the review, just a couple of little gripes with it.
I found the co-op really tough on normal, and not all that fun - often died coz of surprise enemy spawns where I was taking cover. Maybe you are just really good! :) Not that the review explicitly complains about the difficulty - seems more an observation than a criticism. But having an "easy mode" which isn't actually easy is a bit odd. That's what it's there for, isn't it?
Also, try playing that chopper mission with random people. There might be button prompts for the controls, but it doesn't seem to make much difference to the flying skills of the unwashed masses. Dunno why DICE have never thrown in a boot camp map like ARMA has, so you could get used to it all rather than learning while under fire.
@ Nadeem
Maybe I am, I dont know. I always considered myself to be alright at FPS' but never outstanding.
Its good that enemies come from random places sometimes though because otherwise it wouldnt be very realistic. In real war you wouldnt get some marines shouting "stop cheating youre not allowed to come from different directions and flank around!" You should always expect to be surrounded or flanked so you have your eye on it. I just do that and make use of the suppression fire system which works really well. Ive not come across many shooters which have a very effective suppressive fire system that the AI respond to really well but this seems to.
I think some people come into this game and expect to run and gun all the way through so they try it and die a lot. You can do that in BF but not all the time. It really does require more thinking and attention than most shooters even on the lower difficulties so it takes you more time get used to it. Whats the point in a game you can blast through in an hour with no problem. It may be challenging but if youre completing the missions in the end then its the right setting for you.
There is nothing run n' gun about Halo on Legendary.
Is there much difference between console and pc versions?
Yeh the multiplayer is a very different game to the pc but its still as good fun.
Sadly, yes. The console version is graphically underwhelming and that's even IF you do the huge installation to your console's hard-drive. You'd also be stuck controlling this great FPS with a crappy gamepad, which is embarrassing (in general) and clunky at best. Keyboard and mouse are the best way to play ANY FPS - hopefully console developers and their gaming masses learn to accept that someday. FInally, you're limited to FAR less number of players on the battlefield at any given time (I believe 24 players is the maximum) AND you're stuck with whatever VOIP solution is linked to the 360 and PS3, whereas PC gamers can use any program they prefer for VOIP in-game chat (e.g., teamspeak, ventrilo, etc...).
And this is coming from someone who also owns a PS3 and is quite pleased with it...just not for FPS games.
Great review, very informative. Confirms my feeling that the campaign is just as bad as CoD and isn't my style of FPS.
This is a [10] for me. The single player isn't great, but then that was to be expected. The multiplayer is astonishing and is what the series has always been about. I can understand Edge's focus on the campaign, because EA have done nothing but ram it in our faces for 7 months, but I would have thought they might see it as the trick is to entice CoD players. Still, a thorough review.
I like reading reviews about the game even though i know the game is going to be awesome. EX: battlefield 3
im in the middle of the single player and i was prepared to be fustrated with the game but im not. I find find it very fun so far and i dont really care for the limitness of the campaign, the graphics and sound of the game make up for that big time. i feel like im actually there fighting with those AI soilders and stuff.
This review was the most imformational and i thank you very much for it.
All the good stuff about BF3 has already been covered by Edge... Thus, I shall limit my comments to the bad. I refer here to the single player experience only: Once again I foolishly believed all the pre-release hype about the single player game by the developers. I was expecting - silly me - a free-roaming game such as Crysis/Crysis 2, plus the longevity of the aforementioned games.
Reaching New York, I was looking forward to another frag-fest, only to be left slack jawed and open mouthed when the credits started to roll...Black Ops anyone? Plus the infuriating aspect of losing control when the cut scenes broke into the combat, forcing one into frantic, and frustrating (console) button punching .
The linearity was something I believed was left behind in the 20th Century...not so unfortunately. Plus the irritating and unrealistic "return to the area of combat or die" warnings, which has been the bane of gamers for years... Dice - we hate it... To my mind, the single player game seems no more than an add on to the multiplayer. It seems sadly - that solid, long single player games are a thing of the past. Finally: Installing the game is tortuous, and leaves one exhausted and angry, as you can only play the game if signed up to Origin. which I consider to be a sort of fascist monopoly... Sign up or sign out chum. If this is the future of gaming then I for one will be looking to take up another hobby. To sum up: BF2 is too short in the single player, and Dice has failed to address all the issues that gamers have been complaining about in previous iterations.
Ironically, one of your final gripes (about the installation times) is sort of amusing to me. You wouldn't have that issue had you played on the PC. That's the price you pay for playing on a closed platform and one that is now, badly inferior to even mid-level PCs out there.
Also, in your sum-up, you called it BF2. ;)
Thorough review that hits on many of the points I've seemed to hear from others as well - particularly about the SP portion of the game. I found the review a bit too pedantic for my tastes but better it be pedantic and clearly articulated than poorly written, I suppose.
Love the fact that the PC version is so obviously superior, it's nice to be catered to once in a while. Overall this is yet another smash-outta-the-ballpark game in this venerable and excellent series.
You're really desperate to justify your purchase of a high end PC aren't you?