Am I the only one who thinks that Battlefield 3 looks awful and uninspired? I mean, how many military shooters does the world really need? Sure, it looks pretty, but look at Modern Warefare 2: it looked pretty but the game was total balls. Battlefield has always been the superior military shooter between CoD and BF and the miscellany of Tom Clancy-endorsed copy-pasted games and I've been with the series from launch up until they decided Battlefield 3 was a good idea and had their booth at PAX East when I went way back in March.
![](http://bf3blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/battlefield-3-screenshot-101-620x348.jpg)
Sure, this is a pretty game, but there's no way this isn't going to be a linear shooter with lots of brown and sand and moments where you can't do a damned thing and you have to sit there not playing the gamewhile your character experiences your $60 (it's $60 because this is EA, let's be realistic) and you sit there mouth agape at the incredible time your digital representation is experiencing. Maybe I'm just a cynic but Call of Dutyfield 3: Modern Shades of Brown just looks so...generic.
I've presented this arguement to several people and they defended BF3 with such zeal that I was taken aback for a moment. These are some of their arguements (paraphrased):
- It has the best gaming engine to date
- It has the best multiplayer of any shooter out there
- Something about EA followed by asking me if I preferred Call of Duty to Battlefield as if I were some sort of horrible mutant creature, evoking such incredible xenophobic fears in them that I spent a long time figuring out that the word I was looking for was xenophobic
- It is the most realistic shooter to date
- Something else about Call of Duty
You get the idea.
![](http://bf3blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/battlefield-3-screenshot-2011-9-620x348.jpg)
I'll say it now so we can get this out of the way: I ****ing love Valve. Every single one of their products reflects the fact that they have been working on their game for several years.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part of the problem with this game is the nature of shooters today. Take the modern shooter these days. Typically, shooters are built around their multiplayer aspects; developers are more interested in making somethingmarketable as opposed to something that reflects the quality and amount of time they put into it.
Let's use Modern Warefare as the standard for a modern shooter so more people will get what I'm trying to say.
![](http://www.videogamesblogger.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/modern-warfare-2-resurgence-map-pack-strike-screenshot.jpg)
Call of Duty is a series that started strong and tapered out after the second game--not Modern Warefare 2, Call of Duty 2. Campaigns for recent entries were, at their longest, approximately 6 hours for the first-time player so the series has been relying heavily on their somewhat average multiplayer.
Let's delve a little deeper into the multiplayer aspect of CoD, as I think I'm one of the only people left in the world who actually plays games for their single player; a man much older than his age; a lone survivor wandering the world of brown, quick-scoping, and derivative military shooters--a zealot for the single-player gamer.
Multiplayer modes in Call of Duty range from shooting guys to get points until one team wins, shooting guys to clear points until one team wins, and shooting guys until...wait, that's it. Not a whole lot can be said about multiplayer across other shooters, either, so technically I can't knock CoD on lacking of game modes. The competitive scene for Call of Duty, though it has recently had to convert to the Modern Warefare/ Black Ops scene, has always preferred Call of Duty 2--something you may not have known.
Anyway, I hope this gives you an idea of how I cla$$ify modern "standards" of gaming. Let's look at an atypical example of a multiplayer shooter before we finish with BF3. Let's take, for example, Brink, another modern shooter.
![](http://www.splashdamage.com/screens_brink/022_tb.jpg)
Brink, at its core, was a simple shooter. Most aspects of the game involved exploiting the incredibly broken slide-tackle and then using stupidly powerful abilities to obliterate your enemies because most of the online players were too incompetent to realize how to revive themselves or how to shoot while on the ground.
Where Brink shined was in its unique art $tyle, architecture (a friend of mine who is an architect described it as "an architectural orgasm"), and the parkour mechanic. The parkour mechanic meant little to most players as they usually wanted to use the big guns so they were bigger guys with slower movement. Nothing wrong with that.
The players who realized, however, that combat in Brink was more than 2-dimensional (point and shoot) quickly realized that with movement came momentum and with momentum came surprise. If you caught your opponent off guard they quickly fell. Players who mastered wall jumping soon learned that the game had unrecognized potential, hastily shrugged off by media unhappy with the quality of the visuals, the poor performance, and the inconsistent AI difficulty.
![](http://www.stageselect.com/images/elements/Brink1.jpg)
Brink did something that other shooters failed to do, despite Brink being more-or-less an incomplete game. Brink brought the originality of a new mechanic, combining the run-and-gun of games of ye olde times where I hail from with sweet games like Serious Sam, Painkiller, and Quake with the mobility of a game like Assassin's Creed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, let's break Battlefield 3 down. I'll use bullet points because you're sick of reading this and I'm getting carried away; I'm going to address the aforementioned bulleted arguements for why BF3 will be "good"
"Battlefield 3 has the best gaming engie to date"
- Battlefield 3's engine, Frostbite 2, may have the best visuals to date but that's all in perspective. I, personally, love how the Source and Monolith engines look.
- As for performance, the Source engine has its (many) flaws and the X-ray engine of the STALKER series (another unique shooter franchise) is infamous for being cripplingly buggy. The engine for Amnesia: The Dark Descent breathed new life into the OpenGL drivers and ensured I had to change my underpants and ran at a stable 60 FPS the entirety of my terrifying adventure.
![](http://storeimages.impulsedriven.com/product_gfx/amnesiatdd_ss2.jpg)
- As for the AI of the bots, that title will always belong to the X-Ray and the FEAR(1) engines, as well as the Republic Commando engine (another unique shooter nobody played). AI was responsive to stimuli and dynamically adapted to seek-and-destroy or to hold position, or to flee when they were taking too many hits. Enemies and friendlies alike communicated realistically and dynamically in dynamic worlds. BF3 has a steep hill to climb if it hopes to keep up with the best of gaming engine AI.
"Battlefield 3 has the best multiplayer of any shooter out there"
Why? Because it has jets? It's not even released yet and the first reactions to the open beta have been all over the place, ranging from "I just cancelled my pre-order" to "I bought 30 copies to share with my friends".
"Something, something, EA, something, something Call of Duty"
You know me at this point, I shouldn't have to explain this. I have a vendetta against EA and Activision; on the one hand they produce the masterpiece space-shooter-slash-RPG-BIOWARREEEEEEE Mass Effect series that will actually conclude the story with the third installment of the game, a marginally surprising annoucement, considering the fact that EA just can't let things die--and on the other hand, they have released 10 (or something) Call of Duty games that do little more than re-hash the same things in a different setting, infinitely-respawning enemies, and charging you for levels you used to have and you have to buy again in order to play the game.
"It is the most realistic shooter to date"
A. That is an opinion
B. The most "realistic" shooter in what way? In graphics? Sure. In physics? Doubtful, that would go to the 1-shot-and-you're-dead Metro 2033 and America's Army games. In AI? Definitely not, still goes to Republic Commando, X-Ray engine games (STALKER series), and the original FEAR.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, If you made it this far, thanks for reading. If you skipped through and just joined the rest of us here, I don't blame you--I did just spend the last 90 minutes typing complete jibberish about how I hate the modern generation of shooters and how CoD needs to end 6 games ago. If you feel like arguing this further, I'm up for it as long as it remains civil. I'm pretty stubborn so I don't know how far you'll get but it's fun trading quasi-threatening remarks about how the only reasons I even get to play the unique games these days are because developers are trying to make "WoW-killers" or "CoD-killers". We both know EA isn't done.
![MW3 guy looks like a colonial space marine](http://www.ps3blog.net/wp-content/uploads/bf3_mw3_compare.jpg)
Anyway, on that note, I feel I have summed up my reasons for thinking BF3 will be bland, boring, and a rehashing of what we've done a dozen times before, albeit my addled brain has a hard time staying on topic. Thanks again, hope all is well, viva la EA revolution!
MW3 guy looks like a Colonial Space Marine. Heh.
Log in to comment