REVIEW: Battlefield 3 (Single Player)

Meh. Don’t even bother unless you are seriously (and I mean seriously) desperate to play another single player, military-themed shooter. They are other games out there with snappier-paced campaigns in my opinion, like say Gears of War 3 or that other game that’s coming out next week.

I’m not saying it’s a super terrible single player campaign, but in terms of┬ácompeting with Modern Warfare 3 (which I heard will be spectacular) or even just the recent Call of Duty titles in general; it’s hardly memorable and feels mediocre at best.

DICE and EA have been hyping their game as the direct competition to Modern Warfare 3 this year, and I can probably see that with the multiplayer. But, obviously, I’m not talking about the multiplayer experience here (hint: I didn’t even touch it). If the developers were really aiming for the “Call of Duty killer” route; then they should’ve focused also on the campaign. It truly lacks that cinematic/blockbuster feel that most shooters seem to emulate these days.

Also, the weapons and toys you get to mess around with felt lacking on some levels. To give you an idea — I rarely had to switch to different weapons throughout the rest of the 6-hour-ish campaign. At least the vehicle sequences were OK, but they weren’t enough. Oh yes, that’s right: BF3 is also a pretty short ride. Though of course that was expected already since it is, after all, a shooter. What were you expecting anyway?!

Sure, the game looks brill (played it using the PS3) and some of the audio’s pretty superb. But I’m not paying $60 or even $40 for such a good-looking game that comes with a flat and dull single player campaign. Long story short? Unless you’re a fan of the Battlefield multiplayer since BF1942, then I suggest giving this a rental just so you could say to yourself “whoa.. I played a shooter running on the Frostbite 2 engine!”.

Thank you redbox!

RATING: 6/10

Comments

comments