- HP Policy on PCs
- • • •
BF3, just another poor effort at trying to topple COD, FAIL. The MP is slow and the graphocs glitchy. The single player is just so dissappointing, after all the hype, WOW, what a fizzer. The BF Battle Log site is impossible. argyllian in Wodonga
A sloppy single-player campaign met with matchless multiplayer makes for an unbalanced first-person shooter experience
- Multiplayer is excellent
- Singleplayer is not
I seriously considered reviewing the two components of this game - single-player and multiplayer separately, since the disparity between the level of quality seems so vast and because it almost seems like the interests of two totally different audiences need to be taken into consideration.
Price$ 99.95 (AUD)
Buy now (Selling at 65 stores)
My evidence is purely anecdotal, but going by what readers and gamer friends (who work outside the industry) tell me, almost no one plays the single-player campaigns of shooters like Battlefield or Call of Duty. Honestly, I couldn't find anyone outside of the people I know who review games for a living who actually bothers with the single-player campaigns. I know that, after playing through Battlefield 3's single-player campaign, I may never want to again either.
Generally, I like single-player campaigns in big military shooters. A little story makes the murder of hundreds of faceless henchmen go down a little easier. And their scripted nature gives the game makers a chance to create big dramatic set-pieces that show off their awesome graphics or sound or both at the same time with heart-racing battle sequences that make for such compelling television commercials. Oh hey, maybe that's why they bother making them!
But sometimes developers can get a bit carried away. Admittedly, the graphics in Battlefield 3 set a new standard, even on consoles. The lighting is amazing, and the level of details and textures you see on characters is very impressive. But I didn't really need the constant water spots that were supposed to be on my goggles (I guess, I'm pretty sure I wasn't always wearing them) — they actually block a lot of the action. The same goes for the kind of over-scripting of some sequences, complemented with some dreadful quick-time button press mini-games. How many times do we have to tell developers to stop it with those?
I used to really like the Battlefield: Bad Company single-player campaigns because they were charming and featured characters I got invested in thanks to some snappy writing. Oh, and the action was still pretty awesome, even if it remained centred around one well-travelled little squad. Battlefield 3 has got its serious face on though, and is making a really strong attempt to be a Modern Warfare game. Notice I didn't say "like" a Modern Warfare game.
But DICE seems like they weren't really up to the task. The plot has all the requisite stolen nukes, shifty Russians and dusty Middle Eastern alleyways you could ask for. But the script is unbelievably tone deaf when it comes to portrayals of members of the U.S. armed forces. I don't know how they do it in Sweden, but no way is a Marine, on active duty, going to get questioned by two civilians (I don't care if they're supposed to be Homeland Security or what) about sensitive, probably classified field operations without a senior officer or Judge Advocate General there. I know that American media permeates foreign television, but you guys mixed up your cop drama with your military procedurals.
There's another plot point later that's even more egregious in its unbelievably, which is truly the sign of writers who really don't know how to construct plot devices for a thriller. But I think I'm digressing from what most of you really care about. I guess if gamers don't care about plot and story, then neither should the people making the games. Ultimately, Battlefield 3's single-player campaign is simply dull, with a handful of potentially thrilling set pieces (I'll just say "Russian paratroopers" and leave it at that) tied together by boring-as-hell corridor runs. The single-player campaign feels rushed, and tacked on, and it's a drag on the rest of the experience. I guess next time I should do what everyone else does and ignore it?
- Battlefield 3
- Modern Warfare 3
- • • •
Umm, you serious? Everything else you said was right, but that part about two totally different audiences is wrong. There is no audience for the singleplayer mode. So that means you actually rated it 4.5. Fixed.
- Everything. Literally. E. V. E. R. Y. T. H. I. N. G.
- Destructible environments are not as good as I had hoped.
- • • •
Oh, I didn't get the What's Hot and What's Not thing. Ah well, I got it this time.
Latest News Articles
- Microsoft brings two open source tools to Azure
- Oracle builds on BlueKai acquisition with Data Cloud
- Apple gets patent on iTime smart watch
- Dating app Wyldfire tries to avoid creeps by letting women take the lead
- Tor Project working to fix weakness that can unmask users
Most Popular Articles
- 1 What's the difference between an Intel Core i3, i5 and i7?
- 2 Laser vs. inkjet printers: which is better?
- 3 Windows 7 Home Premium vs. Windows 7 Professional
- 4 How to play DVD movies on your Nintendo Wii
- 5 How do I connect my TV to the Internet?
GGG Evaluation Team
First impression on unpacking the Q702 test unit was the solid feel and clean, minimalist styling.
For work use, Microsoft Word and Excel programs pre-installed on the device are adequate for preparing short documents.
The Fujitsu LifeBook UH574 allowed for great mobility without being obnoxiously heavy or clunky. Its twelve hours of battery life did not disappoint.
The screen was particularly good. It is bright and visible from most angles, however heat is an issue, particularly around the Windows button on the front, and on the back where the battery housing is located.
My first impression after unboxing the Q702 is that it is a nice looking unit. Styling is somewhat minimalist but very effective. The tablet part, once detached, has a nice weight, and no buttons or switches are located in awkward or intrusive positions.