There's one thing which made me approve of Battlefield 3's campaign.

Comrades, a mission where you play as a Russian called Dimitri in France, sort of stood out like a flower among turds. Why ? Check out the spoiler tag. (Video Below)

WARNING, If you have not clocked Battlefield 3 or have progressed up to this part of the campaign, I suggest you hover your mouse away and press the ' Back ' shorcut.

[spoiler] Vladimir's Death in the mission sort of hit me hard. Even though we didn't know a lot about this guy, DICE executed the event well. Music just topped it off, and I felt quite crippled. Last time this happened was in the end of COD4. [/spoiler]

So what do you guys think ? Did this moment lighten up the Battlefield 3 campaign, or do you still consider Battlefield Multiplayer - only games ?

Link : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8h5xC1pV7U

There's no excuse for BF3's campaign, but that was executed nicely. That video reminded me how soft the fight QTEs were. Punches and kicks barely look or sound like they'd hurt. The fight scenes seemed like they belonged in indie films.

The missions with Dimitri were most fun, but even the best BF3 campaign moment is still meh as crap compared to even the average current CoD campaign missions. Linear as hell with way too overdone cinematics.

Still short, scripted, casual garbage. The game still holds your hand throughout.Jebus213

The missions with Dimitri were most fun, but even the best BF3 campaign moment is still meh as crap compared to even the average current CoD campaign missions. Linear as hell with way too overdone cinematics.

SPYDER0416

I bought the game day 1, have clocked in over 50 hours, and still haven't touched the campaign or co-op. This says something about Battlefield games I think.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]Still short, scripted, casual garbage. The game still holds your hand throughout.Ravensmash

Speaking of ADHD, the one thing that made me like the BF3 campaign better than MW3's was the pacing. BF3 had more lows to contrast the highs. MW is always busy shuttling the player from one turned-up-to-11 set piece to another, that they lose any impact they might have had.

Still pretty shrug-worthy, but a bit more bearable than MW's.

[QUOTE="Ravensmash"][QUOTE="Jebus213"]Still short, scripted, casual garbage. The game still holds your hand throughout.Jebus213

get down from that pedestal.

Who cares how complex or simple a game is aslong as its enjoyable this just makes you seem like another whiney hipster PC gamer hating on the mainstream.

All of the levels where you play as the Russians were all good, as well as the jet segment (which was more or less just a graphical demonstration) but overall the QTE were horrendous and there wasn't a whole lot of variety to the pacing of the campaign.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

The missions with Dimitri were most fun, but even the best BF3 campaign moment is still meh as crap compared to even the average current CoD campaign missions. Linear as hell with way too overdone cinematics.

BrunoBRS

Trust me, MW3's campaign isn't nearly as great as, say, CoD4's or even Black Ops (which I thought did a good job with the characters and setting), but it pretty much blows BF3's craptacular CoD rip off campaign way the hell out of the water.

AI, pacing, even characters and story (which are basically vehicles for the action) are better then BF3's cheesy and overdone "oh no, terrorists with nukes" plot and horribly generic characters and gameplay sequences.

Ugh, I hate remembering BF3'a campaign because then I start to hate it more then I did while playing it. Its a good thing the multiplayer is so damn amazing, though co-op is pretty meh as well.

If I were EA though, I'd probably do something for BF4 like what they did with Medal of Honor in terms of the dual team focus. MOH kind of sucked overall, but considering the new team for SP and DICE's preoccupation with other projects, I can see why. With BF4, if they had DICE focus all on the multiplayer, and had Crytek craft a fantastic, Crysis styled campaign (with a nice 10 hour or more length, good set pieces and a decent amount of freedom), I think EA's claims of "SP just as good as MP" would be fair, and considering how low the bar is for modern military FPS games these days (short, linear, with lame plots are the norm), then an open ended, 10 hour long, and well paced campaign would be a nice way to combat CoD on two fronts (MP and SP).

But, these are just hopeless dreams. Considering BF3's success, I don't see EA putting any more effort in future sequels, just pooping out more MP goodness while keeping a shlocky campaign and co-op just to say those parts of the game are included.

The Campaign sucked, but the MP is simply fantastic. So who cares about the campaign?DragonfireXZ95

People who like decent single player? Maybe?

I mean, I don't think the amazing MP excuses the terrible single player, since it means DICE still wasted time they could have used on the MP on the crappy SP, so even if I didn't even touch the campaign I'd still be mad DICE didn't use their budget and team to scrap the single player and focus more on the multiplayer, or at least put a Bad Company level of effort into the single player.

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"][QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

The missions with Dimitri were most fun, but even the best BF3 campaign moment is still meh as crap compared to even the average current CoD campaign missions. Linear as hell with way too overdone cinematics.

SPYDER0416

Trust me, MW3's campaign isn't nearly as great as, say, CoD4's or even Black Ops (which I thought did a good job with the characters and setting), but it pretty much blows BF3's craptacular CoD rip off campaign way the hell out of the water.

AI, pacing, even characters and story (which are basically vehicles for the action) are better then BF3's cheesy and overdone "oh no, terrorists with nukes" plot and horribly generic characters and gameplay sequences.

Ugh, I hate remembering BF3'a campaign because then I start to hate it more then I did while playing it. Its a good thing the multiplayer is so damn amazing, though co-op is pretty meh as well.

If I were EA though, I'd probably do something for BF4 like what they did with Medal of Honor in terms of the dual team focus. MOH kind of sucked overall, but considering the new team for SP and DICE's preoccupation with other projects, I can see why. With BF4, if they had DICE focus all on the multiplayer, and had Crytek craft a fantastic, Crysis styled campaign (with a nice 10 hour or more length, good set pieces and a decent amount of freedom), I think EA's claims of "SP just as good as MP" would be fair, and considering how low the bar is for modern military FPS games these days (short, linear, with lame plots are the norm), then an open ended, 10 hour long, and well paced campaign would be a nice way to combat CoD on two fronts (MP and SP).

But, these are just hopeless dreams. Considering BF3's success, I don't see EA putting any more effort in future sequels, just pooping out more MP goodness while keeping a shlocky campaign and co-op just to say those parts of the game are included.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="Ravensmash"] God forbid people can enjoy games which don't require a 200 page manual :/razgriz_101

get down from that pedestal.

Who cares how complex or simple a game is aslong as its enjoyable this just makes you seem like another whiney hipster PC gamer hating on the mainstream.

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"] God help ADHD people like you. I never really liked you anyway. People like you need to be slapped around several times. Jebus213

get down from that pedestal.

Who cares how complex or simple a game is aslong as its enjoyable this just makes you seem like another whiney hipster PC gamer hating on the mainstream.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

get down from that pedestal.

Who cares how complex or simple a game is aslong as its enjoyable this just makes you seem like another whiney hipster PC gamer hating on the mainstream.

BrunoBRS

Anyways... BF3 has as single player? Didn't know :o. I won't play it. Only MP exists for BF (and a f*cking amazing one).

EDIT: Wait... he hates ALL military shooters? Then what's the big deal?

EDIT: Wait... he hates ALL military shooters? Then what's the big deal?TREAL_Since

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]EDIT: Wait... he hates ALL military shooters? Then what's the big deal?Jebus213

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"][QUOTE="Jebus213"] It's because of people like you we have trash interactive movies and that's all MW3 and BF3 SP's are. By the time I got to the Jet mission in BF3 I was pissed to find out it was nothing but a giant quick time event. I think I'm old enough not to have mommy or daddy hold my hand while crossing the street. They should make a warning label that says that they're about put a thumb up your ass for 6 hours. There's barely any damn originality or authenticity in games anymore. Really? Russians and nuclear weapons? I guess Dick Chaney never thought of an invasion of Iran though *sarcasm*. They all must be linear rambo run and gun now. Even Battlefield..... The modern military shooter.TREAL_Since

Anyways... BF3 has as single player? Didn't know :o. I won't play it. Only MP exists for BF (and a f*cking amazing one).

EDIT: Wait... he hates ALL military shooters? Then what's the big deal?

Oh, are you're one of those purist guys who can never be pleased with new iterations of their favorite game? BF3's campaign is ugh, but what do you think of the MP? It's beast-like no?TREAL_Since

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"] from what i played of MW3, it's just as bad, only it's also ugly.BrunoBRS

Trust me, MW3's campaign isn't nearly as great as, say, CoD4's or even Black Ops (which I thought did a good job with the characters and setting), but it pretty much blows BF3's craptacular CoD rip off campaign way the hell out of the water.

AI, pacing, even characters and story (which are basically vehicles for the action) are better then BF3's cheesy and overdone "oh no, terrorists with nukes" plot and horribly generic characters and gameplay sequences.

Ugh, I hate remembering BF3'a campaign because then I start to hate it more then I did while playing it. Its a good thing the multiplayer is so damn amazing, though co-op is pretty meh as well.

If I were EA though, I'd probably do something for BF4 like what they did with Medal of Honor in terms of the dual team focus. MOH kind of sucked overall, but considering the new team for SP and DICE's preoccupation with other projects, I can see why. With BF4, if they had DICE focus all on the multiplayer, and had Crytek craft a fantastic, Crysis styled campaign (with a nice 10 hour or more length, good set pieces and a decent amount of freedom), I think EA's claims of "SP just as good as MP" would be fair, and considering how low the bar is for modern military FPS games these days (short, linear, with lame plots are the norm), then an open ended, 10 hour long, and well paced campaign would be a nice way to combat CoD on two fronts (MP and SP).

But, these are just hopeless dreams. Considering BF3's success, I don't see EA putting any more effort in future sequels, just pooping out more MP goodness while keeping a shlocky campaign and co-op just to say those parts of the game are included.

Wait are you talking about BF3's campaign, or MW3's here? Because they sound exactly the same by this description, though I guess BF3 loses points for not doing it first either way.

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"][QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Trust me, MW3's campaign isn't nearly as great as, say, CoD4's or even Black Ops (which I thought did a good job with the characters and setting), but it pretty much blows BF3's craptacular CoD rip off campaign way the hell out of the water.

AI, pacing, even characters and story (which are basically vehicles for the action) are better then BF3's cheesy and overdone "oh no, terrorists with nukes" plot and horribly generic characters and gameplay sequences.

Ugh, I hate remembering BF3'a campaign because then I start to hate it more then I did while playing it. Its a good thing the multiplayer is so damn amazing, though co-op is pretty meh as well.

If I were EA though, I'd probably do something for BF4 like what they did with Medal of Honor in terms of the dual team focus. MOH kind of sucked overall, but considering the new team for SP and DICE's preoccupation with other projects, I can see why. With BF4, if they had DICE focus all on the multiplayer, and had Crytek craft a fantastic, Crysis styled campaign (with a nice 10 hour or more length, good set pieces and a decent amount of freedom), I think EA's claims of "SP just as good as MP" would be fair, and considering how low the bar is for modern military FPS games these days (short, linear, with lame plots are the norm), then an open ended, 10 hour long, and well paced campaign would be a nice way to combat CoD on two fronts (MP and SP).

But, these are just hopeless dreams. Considering BF3's success, I don't see EA putting any more effort in future sequels, just pooping out more MP goodness while keeping a shlocky campaign and co-op just to say those parts of the game are included.

SPYDER0416

Wait are you talking about BF3's campaign, or MW3's here? Because they sound exactly the same by this description, though I guess BF3 loses points for not doing it first either way.

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]Oh, are you're one of those purist guys who can never be pleased with new iterations of their favorite game? BF3's campaign is ugh, but what do you think of the MP? It's beast-like no?Jebus213

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]Oh, are you're one of those purist guys who can never be pleased with new iterations of their favorite game? BF3's campaign is ugh, but what do you think of the MP? It's beast-like no?Jebus213

Quite well done. At least it didn't have cheesy orchestral music playing in the background.001011000101101

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"] dude. we get it. you don't like BF3. don't play it.Jebus213

Kind of funny how you were praising and hyping BF3 front and back.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="BrunoBRS"] dude. we get it. you don't like BF3. don't play it.el3m2tigre

Kind of funny how you were praising and hyping BF3 front and back.

I'm so sad I fell for the lies too. I remember people making giant claims "BF3 is going to be more then 10 hours long!" and "BF3 is going to offer Crysis levels of freedom! With Killzone 3 levels of AI intelligence! and Halo levels of variety!"

I realize that blindly believing unsourced hype is stupid, but you'd think when Bad Company 1 offered a decently lengthy and open campaign, that the team would do more and not less. Its just a sad MW rip off campaign, and even Homefront's campaign gets some points for trying somewhat to be different (even if it was just as much rip offy in set pieces and linearity and not nearly as pretty).