Review: Battlefield 3

Battlefield 3 will without a doubt currently be oscar mike to the top of the charts, but is it worthy of the promotion or deserving of a discharge?Battlefield 3 comes in three main flavours, single player, co-operative multiplayer and competitive multiplayer. Which of these was the main focus isnt hard to tell, especially considering that for the Xbox 360 version the single player campaign is relegated to disc 2 by it self. As if to tempt you even further away from trying the solo portion you have to insert disc 1 to download a “HD texture package” to your hard drive if you don’t want it to look like a game from 10 years ago (and to be frank the console versions are graphically disappointing, they were never going to come close to the phenomenal PC version but even against other console games they look average at times) . To be honest, they have every reason to keep you away from the campaign.

It feels somewhat apt that Battlefield 3 should be released around Halloween because the campaign feels like it was a hastily and shoddily put together Call of Duty costume. The levels are brutally linear at times, but still give you the illusion of being open battle grounds, with death regularly coming from outside of your play area. Battlefield does nothing to allow for this kind of gameplay though, relying instead on its tried and true game design which sees death come shockingly fast to those who rush straight up the middle (a tactic you are here forced to do by level design). This counter intuitive design carries over into the gunplay, keeping all the bullet physics Battlefield is known for – imperfect accuracy, susceptible to gravity etc – but placing you in situations where perfect accuracy is required. Having to counter-snipe with a sub machine gun with a red dot sight with these parameters is more frustrating than tense, and because of the aforementioned level design its impossible to close the distance or find an alternate path. Story wise the campaign tries its hardest to weave a tale of intrigue, and could have been compelling if it were written better. There are many scenes that could have had an emotional impact on the player but were presented without the flare or script required for such things. The plot even lacks any tension at times, for its told in a non-linear flashback model, with the main player character re-telling the events that led up to his inquisition. The time frame can be quite hard to grasp as you start jumping backwards and forwards for certain events, all of which hold no real surprises as the way they’re set up in the pre-mission dialogue pretty much spoils any otherwise shocking developments.

Thats not to say its all bad however, there are certain sections when things just start to click, when the CoD mask slips off and we see the face of the real battlefield. These moments are unfortunately rare and short, but they do a better job of keeping the player going than the storyline does. There are even a couple of set pieces that stand out as some great moments, but are quickly over and are merely just rollercoaster rides – a HALO jump set to the battlefield theme and a car chase during the final mission in particular stand out- but they are not enough to save the campaign. Another glaring problem with the campaign is that at times it can even feel unfinished. There are numerous bugs and glitches I’ve found in a single playthrough that shouldn’t be in a finished release, let alone such a big name brand. Its not uncommon to become stuck in a level because the trigger for it to continue hasnt worked, and the hit detection leaves a lot to be desired. If either you or your enemy is behind cover chances are that unless you both leave it entirely your round is going to impact on thin air. Not such a problem for the enemy AI though as they are often able to shoot through solid matter. The friendly AI at times can also be downright horrendous. They have no problem shoving you out of cover and into a torrent of lead, or blocking pathways and not allowing you past. Should something get in the way of their scripted paths they’ll either move it aside or walk straight over it, which when its a flmaing husk of what used to be a BMP can be quite a sight. So the campaign overall is like a museum tour. Its slow, you get stopped every now and then at sections you have no interest in and the people your with do nothing but get in your way, but occasionally you will start to pay attention for a few short segments. Really though your waiting for it all to come to an end to be able to have some freedom.

Freedom that won’t be found in the co-op mode. Taking sections of the single player campaign but changing the scenarios and putting you with another human makes it feel a lot like Modern Warfare’s Spec Ops mode. It does work though and can provide a lot of fun, assuming your partner is competent. There’s no storyline to get bogged down with, no reliance on AI and a human partner you can talk to and work together with. It can be unforgiving though, there are no checkpoints so should the mission fail its all the way back to the start. Mercifully if one of you go down the other has a chance to pick them up. The only downside is that your enjoyment of the co-op mode is reliant on your partner, an unfortunate trait that carries over to the competitive multipler. The competitive multiplayer is pretty much the sole reason 90% of people buy Battlefield. I admit that its probably one of my favourite multiplayer games, up there with Killzone. Im a fan of team based objective gameplay, and thats whats to be found in Battlefield 3. However as I said above your enjoyment is almost entirely reliant on the people on your team. If you end up with a team that does in fact play as a team then the squad based vehicular combat that follows is going to be a glorious affair, but the negative is also true. I have more often than not found myself on a team full of lone wolves who had no care about any objectives. Ive seen a squad of 4 sit on top of an armed objective and not even attempt to disarm it. Moments like these hurl the experience quickly into frustration.This is only a problem sometimes thankfully, and can be alliveiated by gathering some friends together. The multiplayer maps in Battlefield is almost perfectly designed to the point that no one team will ever have an unfair advantage. Yes an advantage is possible but it has to be fought for, and fought to be kept. With a competent team nothing should ever become frustrating, and should always be a fun, quick and tense experience. That being said the progression system is where an unfair advantage can come in to play. Take jets for example, a base model jet will be able to fly and have a machine gun, gain some points in one however and youll be able to have flares and missiles. The problem being that anyone that already has these unlocked will be able to take down a new pilot before they can even think about gaining any points to unlock the feature that would allow them to defend themselves.

Back on foot the weapon progression is less of an advantage. You can unlock different guns but none really have any major improvements over another, it all comes down to personal taste and how you want a weapon to be used. Attachments on the other hand can be a pain. While you have your basic sights to choose from depending on situation and taste, you can also equip grips, grenade launchers, laser sight, bi-pods and flash lights. Laser sights and flash lights are my concern – of someone wielding one of these (even on your own team) and happens to be facing in your general direction you will be blinded. Many would argue that they’re balanced because they give away an enemy’s position but when your effectively permanently flashbanged it can still be a pain. Aside from the jets for reasons detailed above all the vehicles are balanced. Tanks are an imposing sight to see rolling up to your defence point, but can be easily disabled and destroyed (or conversely repaired if its your team) by an engineer or two working together. Jeeps are an effective way to get into combat quickly and can provide good suppression support with its mounted weaponry, but are susceptible to small arms fire. Helicopters can be a deadly force if they’re stocked with a competent squad, but are never too hard to shoot down by another competent squad. All in all the balance (and subsequent enjoyment) keeps coming down to the competency of the human participants. Everything is designed to be a balanced and fun experience, but the one thing DICE can not account for is human error. It would have been nice if you had to go through some sort of basic vehicle training before being allowed to pilot a helicopter straight into the ground but that’s just nitpicking. The game itself is an almost perfect multiplayer experience, although is not the great step up from Bad Company 2 some people were expecting. It has its improvements and takes a couple of steps back, but is overall a great experience and worthy of the Battlefield brand name. In keeping with the earlier Halloween analogy the single player is a hastily put together mock up of something else, just something to say there was at least an effort made, but can no longer stand on its own. Thankfully the multiplayer is there to hold it up with its far more sensible dressing up of prior successes, sticking to what it knows and only changing things here and there to update it, but if you want to go home with the multiplayer your going to have to take single player along as well (at least until you can pass it off to a friend, which with the 360 version is a possibility). Want to play alone, buy something else. Want to play with friends, you cant do much better than Battlefield 3 this year. Battlefield 3 is available now on Xbox 360, PS3 and PC (Origin)