Battlefield 3 - Part 1

[Wolvieboy17]

Are you kidding? COD on Veteran is one of the cheapest, fake difficulty, cheating games I've ever played. You can be hiding in a bunker with only one entrance and the game will freaking spawn grenades right underneath you.

Also, you said 'when it comes to story' and then described something that has nothing to do with story. And compared BF 3 to COD in general, rather than MW3 and BF 3.

 

[Balthus Dire]

COD Veteran is only crazy cheap when it's done by Treyarch. The Infinity Ward games I never found to be cheap on Veteran, just very challenging. However, when I played WAW on Veteran I actually found it hilarious how absurdly cheap the enemy grenades were. I would literally die like every 30 seconds in one level from random grenade tosses; it was absurd.

I'd say BF3's campaign should've focused on being a more realistic shooter or something to differentiate it from the COD campaigns. Instead, it plays like an unpolished COD campaign, borrowing set pieces and plot points from the COD franchise who, IMO, does it better.

There were still some great, original moments, though. I thought the bit where you had to trace back the wire for the IED was awesome. The assault on the villa/mansion was pretty neat, too, simply because the environment was interesting. However, there weren't enough of those cool things to keep the game interesting. Instead, we're forced to sit through lengthy dialogue sequences while sitting through an on-rails car ride NUMEROUS times that we can't even skip. Bleh.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Nah, I found MW 2 Veteran just as cheap.

And 'on the rails' is exactly why I didn't like the MW3 campaign. The whole thing just feels like you're being pulled along on a piece of string for the entire game. You don't feel like you're actually allowed to DO anything other than follow your squad, staying behind them at all times, and shooting over their heads. You go in front of them, you die. You stay behind, you die. You want to explore over here, oh bang, invisible wall and now a forced 'immersive cutscene'

 

[ProjectPat2280]

haha no its not better than MW3. Not even close. Mw3's campaign has you on the edge of your seat the whole time you're playing. Blood pumping action set pieces which are all awesome. BF3's campaign is trying so hard to be MW3 but fails miserably.

No, thats incorrect. I was right in my previous post which means this discussion is basically over. Neither game's single player is all that good, but bf's is slightly less bad. Its all about the MP with these games anyway and again, BF's is better. BF is just better. Slightly better sp, WAY better MP.

 

[StrainedEyes]

No, thats incorrect. I was right in my previous post which means this discussion is basically over. Neither game's single player is all that good, but bf's is slightly less bad. Its all about the MP with these games anyway and again, BF's is better. BF is just better. Slightly better sp, WAY better MP.

Opinions.

 

[SuperSoldier985]

I opened the game up on Saturday morning (day after Black Friday) but I haven't played a single minute of it yet...

 

[Master Chief]

lol as tired as the CoD formula has become, saying it's worse than the Battlefield campaign... lmao. Battlefield 3 is boring because it wasn't designed around the strengths of the game. The only reason CoD is boring is because we get a dose of it every year.

It's not the on-rails BS that makes it bad, although it doesn't help that every step of the way I felt like a fifth wheel. A big thing about these war games that I like is the magnificent feeling I get of surviving against the odds. I haven't touched CoD since MW2, but I know the series delivers that in spades. There isn't a single moment in this game that offers that. I'm just happy I never have to play through it again, and I'll stick with Bad Company if I want a proper Battlefield campaign experience.

 

[Clu]

Are you kidding? COD on Veteran is one of the cheapest, fake difficulty, cheating games I've ever played. You can be hiding in a bunker with only one entrance and the game will freaking spawn grenades right underneath you.

Also, you said 'when it comes to story' and then described something that has nothing to do with story. And compared BF 3 to COD in general, rather than MW3 and BF 3.

because bf3 story is ass. its you in a room saying nukes!!!!! then its a big ass flashback never showing you the main villain. then you defeat the main villain, not by a gun but with a brick you find on the street.

no one can defend bf3 terrible story. I compared game mechanics instead of story because bf3 is so terrible.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

I don't see how the story of BF 3 was so terrible. I mean, it wasn't dripping with drama and shouting at you "please, CARE ABOUT ALL THESE MEANINGLESS SOLDIERS! THEY HAVE ENDEARING NICKNAMES LIKE 'TRUCK" it was more realistic. The section in the BF campaign when the soldier is taken hostage was quite well done, and one of the stronger parts of the game. The interrogation stuff may have felt boring to you, perhaps because it was realistic rather than done Black Ops style, overly dramatic with shadowy figures looming through a window and electro shock therapy.

And what's annoying is once again this has come down to Battlefield 3 vs ALL COD games... The comparison was between the MW3 single player and the BF 3 sp, and most people here are in agreement that both were fairly ordinary. It's the people who are trying to argue that one if vastly greater/ worse than the other who are misguided due to franchise loyalty. I'm trying to be objective. Both are very similar in the gameplay linearity, with the key difference being while one strives for melodrama and epic scope, the other strives for minimalism and realism. I think between the two, I found BF 3 had the stronger pacing. Whether you thought it was a weak story or not, the narrative pacing was stronger. MW 3 was 6 hours of epic **** just thrown at you.

 

[Balthus Dire]

Sorry dude, but I gotta completely disagree. The narrative pacing in BF3 was all over the place. Most of the time I barely had any idea WTF was going on with the story...it was all just blah blah nukes blah blah Russians. But not only that, the way the story was told was just bad. The story pieces are all over the place, some even out of order...it's a bit of a mess. They tried to do the Black Ops thing, but the problem is that even in Black Ops it was a flawed way to tell the story.

In telling the story through broken flashbacks the way they decided to, things like Vladamir's death (which, IMO, was a great moment) fall flat because we don't really know or care who he is. In following a linear narrative, we'd be able to get to know him better, etc. and actually care when he dies. But they didn't really bother to develop that stuff; they just kinda threw it in there and hoped we'd care along the way.

I haven't even played MW3, but speaking as a gamer in general, I'd much rather play an epic, over-the-top campaign like MW than a simply boring campaign like BF3. And that has nothing to do with brand loyalty or if I prefer "realistic" to "epic."

 

[Wolvieboy17]

But what you're talking about doesn't actually relate to the 'pacing' which is what I was talking about. You're talking about the narrative itself as well as the plot device.

In terms of pacing, it's lots of slow, gradual atmospheric lead up's to punctuated moments of action. Like the faultline section or the Jet take off.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

because bf3 story is ass. its you in a room saying nukes!!!!! then its a big ass flashback never showing you the main villain. then you defeat the main villain

no one can defend bf3 terrible story. I compared game mechanics instead of story because bf3 is so terrible.

And that other modern warfare game is different how? And before you undoubtably answer incorrectly, the correct answer is "It's not any different".

The only difference between the two is that BF3 looks better, sounds better and controls better and has a better MP making it the better game overall. The story is a wash.

 

[B]

Eh, I don't think IRNV was that OP. It's a 1x scope that completely blocks your vision outside of the scope area. Maybe they could've toned down the brightness of the players or something through the scope but from the vids I've seen it's completely useless now, which is just stupid. And I've never even once seen someone behind a wall with it. :P

So I've been checking out the PS3 patch notes and it sounds like a nightmare. Tons of nerfs, choppers sound waaaaaaaaay too powerful now, and they nerfed the IRNV because people cried about it, even though it was completely fine IMO.

Completely disagree with both of you. The IRNV is definatly one of the worst things that I've ever seen in a Battlefield game. It might not have been a problem on the PS3 or Xbox, however on the PC the IRNV usage was ridiculous.

I had actually stopped playing the game for a week or two & went to MW3 because of it. 9 deaths out of 10 would have been to someone using an IRNV scope.

It being x1 doesn't matter in the slightest, people just slap it on an LMG & can hit you from 300 yards +.. you then have zero clue from what position the shots came from you think you've some cover/camo behind a bush or while your prone & your lit up like a Christmas tree with someone camping on the top of a hill with one. The thing played like a wallhack.

The patch for the PC hits on the 6th & from what I've seen of the changes it's made it more realistic to what it would be in the real world as well as nerfed the range to stop people hiding 300+ yards away with one.

In the real world you can't use night vision equipment during the day ie well lit environment. Those things are designed to work in dark conditions & if you've too much light you'd just see a bright green.. well nothing, just green. Also in the patch the IRNV take a few seconds to settle down & give clarity to what is being seen through the scope, this is also something I've read is accurate to how these things work as the scope is adjusting to the lighting conditions.

 

[Balthus Dire]

But what you're talking about doesn't actually relate to the 'pacing' which is what I was talking about. You're talking about the narrative itself as well as the plot device.

In terms of pacing, it's lots of slow, gradual atmospheric lead up's to punctuated moments of action. Like the faultline section or the Jet take off.

Well, it does, actually. The narrative structure directly impacts the pacing of the story. In telling the story in broken pieces, the pacing becomes a boring mess. Instead of having a buildup as the story progresses, we have a one-level build up (maybe, if the level isn't boring already) and then we cut to a lame ass interrogation scene for 3-4 minutes. Then, another slow build of a car/jet/tank ride for 5 minutes and then an action scene. Then, when that level finishes, we always go back to a slow, drawn out interrogation scene.

What you said there about the slow, gradual buildups was one of the reasons I found the campaign to be so boring. Don't get me wrong, I love those fantastic details like the jet opening and all that, but holy crap do we have to sit through a 5 minute long intro for every level? And, even after that, the combat scenarios aren't particularly engaging enough to be a "payoff" to those slow build ups most of the time. Meh.

I haven't played MW3, but speaking from previous MW games, they tend to keep the story going in a crescendo towards the climax. Sure, there are lots of explosions along the way and slower levels that take a breather (like sniping levels, etc.) but for the most part, the narrative allows for a gradual buildup to an epic conclusion.

BF3 just feels disjointed as a result of the narrative, and to make matters worse, the final level and the game's climax is a wreck. I'm not even referring to the lame quick-time finale (MW2 had a quick-time finale, if everyone remembers) but just how the game literally just ends right there. No wind down, no nothing. OH HEY IT'S OVER!

All my opinions, of course. I'm not saying MW's campaign is sheer brilliance either; both franchises have similar problems with their stories and stuff. I just think MW was the less boring of the two and overall was a more engaging experience.


PS> sorry for the essay.

 

[Clu]

And that other modern warfare game is different how? And before you undoubtably answer incorrectly, the correct answer is "It's not any different".

The only difference between the two is that BF3 looks better, sounds better and controls better and has a better MP making it the better game overall. The story is a wash.

both are **** when it comes to story, but mw3 is probably a better of the two.

no correct answer as its opinions not facts. my opinion is mw3 is a better single player game while bf3 is a better multiplayer game.

 

[The Morningstar]

For me the B3 campaign was just going through the motions. Multiplayer was obviously DICE's priority. Something which i don't have a problem with.

I haven't played MW3 yet so i can't make comparisons.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Balthus, as I said before, I'm not talking about other COD games I'm explicitly just comparing BF 3 to MW3 and BF 3 definitely has the better pacing. MW3 is more or less the one pace, all the way through. The only breaks are extremely heavy handed epic 'shocks' meant to be dramatic but end up simply being melodrama and attempted controversy.

 

[StrainedEyes]

And that other modern warfare game is different how? And before you undoubtably answer incorrectly, the correct answer is "It's not any different".

The only difference between the two is that BF3 looks better, sounds better and controls better and has a better MP making it the better game overall. The story is a wash.

Since apparently opinions can be right or wrong, I would go so far as to say that these answers are incorrect. MW3 controls better and has an overall more exciting and well thought out multiplayer, not to mention how buggy BF's MP still is visually.

Gasp, an opinion that is different from yours but is still completely valid.

Anyway, I've gotten back into BF3 multiplayer a bit, in preparation for some ****ing Wake Island. It's a lot of fun, but there are still plenty of things that bother me.

 

[Balthus Dire]

Balthus, as I said before, I'm not talking about other COD games I'm explicitly just comparing BF 3 to MW3 and BF 3 definitely has the better pacing. MW3 is more or less the one pace, all the way through. The only breaks are extremely heavy handed epic 'shocks' meant to be dramatic but end up simply being melodrama and attempted controversy.

Ah, ok. As I said I haven't played MW3. Sounds like it sucks though.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Yeah, not really worth it if you want a deep FPS single player. If you're looking for a fun, arcadey type shooter for MP, it's alright. Can't really fault it in that department, but due to franchise fatigue I still really don't get the fuss. I mean, there's nothing bad in the MP but I really don't see any reason why I would need to switch from Black Ops to MW3. Couple new game modes etc but I'm still enjoying Black Ops every now and then. If you buy every new COD game, it all ends up being a huge waste of money, because you never go back to the old games. They become obsolete and you're just spending 100 bucks every year on the same game.

I'm still hoping Treyarch has something interesting planned for the next one.

 

[Fenrir]

I have played both the MW3 and BF3 campaigns and I like BF3's better, not that its saying much. Neither is a shining example of storytelling, but BF3's narrative flows a lot better because it keeps itself on the ground more rather than throwing ridiculous set pieces at you. Also, BF3's storyline doesn't involve saving or introducing a character only to kill them off in the next level like MW3 did.

 

[Balthus Dire]

I'm still hoping Treyarch has something interesting planned for the next one.

After Black Ops I said I'd never buy another Treyarch COD title ever again. The MP was kinda fun for a while, but I thought the campaign was absolutely brutal. MW3 will likely be the last COD game I play for a long time.

 

[PWN3R]

So I finally played the campaign for this game, and yes, the mechanics are ****ing gross: difficulty is more like cheapness, lack of vehicles, no sense of fun like the multiplayer (except for the jet mission, even on rails, that stuff is great).

I have to be honest though, I really enjoyed the story. Blackburn and Dima were great, and their decisions were so brutal. No where near as bad as some of you lead me to believe.

Eh.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Yeah, I actually didn't mind that part of the story so much. I liked Blackburn.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

Any PS3 users try the Back to Karkand expansion pack yet?

Heres some gameplay footage from the PS3 version, also an article on some of the problems EA is having with the expansion pack on the PS3:

http://kotaku.com/5865504/battlefield-3s-back-to-karkand-live-now-but-not-without-problems