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)
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?
Join the newsletter!
Most Popular Reviews
- 1 Dell U3223QE review: A winning debut for an IPS Black monitor
- 2 Netgear Nighthawk M5 mobile router review: Probably too expensive, but nice
- 3 Dell P2723QE review: A solid 4K USB-C hub monitor for home offices
- 4 MSI Katana GF76 review: Decent gaming performance for a reasonable price
- 5 Asus ROG Flow Z13 review: A full-fledged gaming PC disguised as a tablet
Latest News Articles
- Fortnite returns to the iPhone (sort of) courtesy Xbox Cloud Gaming
- This real-life “aimbot” uses a physical mouse to cheat at shooting games
- Bethesda’s classic Elder Scrolls games arrive on Steam—for free
- We tested 22 different RPGs on the Steam Deck
- Steam Deck’s first major update adds a lock screen, Windows 11 support
PCW Evaluation Team
Set up is effortless.
The strength of the Aruba Instant On AP11D is that the design and feature set support the modern, flexible, and mobile way of working.
Aruba backs the AP11D up with a two-year warranty and 24/7 phone support.
Ultimately this laptop has achieved everything I would hope for in a laptop for work, while fitting that into a form factor and weight that is remarkable.
This smart laptop was enjoyable to use and great to work on – creating content was super simple.
It really doesn’t get more “gaming laptop” than this.
- Best Click Frenzy mobile and Internet plan deals
- Microsoft’s iconic browser Internet Explorer is being killed off in June
- What laptop should I get? Top 12 things to consider
- Everything you need to know about Smart TVs
- What's the difference between an Intel Core i3, i5 and i7?
- Laser vs. inkjet printers: which is better?