| 9 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
Just finished the campaign moments ago and honestly it wasn't as bad as all the critics made it out to be. Is the AI dumb? Sure. Are there bugs and glitches? Of course. Is the story a cliche? Definitely, but it's still a nice solid campaign for a multi-player focused game. I loved the authenticity and the presentation in the early levels, made it quite fun for me personally and I felt extremely immersed in the gameplay, special thanks to the amazing audio too. What ticked me off was the fact that it was all over in less than 5 hours. I'm by no means a hardcore shooter fan, and due to many cheap deaths my gametime is probably even higher. Plus I was probably just looking around, noticing the graphics and the scenery for a good 30 minutes. So I ask, 5 hours? really? even call of duty has a good 6-8 hours long campaign and DICE was pretty vocal about the fact that they will match, if not "slightly" have a even longer campaign. Personally rate the campaign a 8/10, and definitely enjoyed it more than Bad company 2. |
|
|
10/27/11 7:54:05 PM#2
Yeah its pretty fast . COD definately has better campaigns . But the multiplayer is very nice in BF3 and the maps are huge.
|
|
|
10/27/11 8:01:31 PM#3
That's exactly what I thought of RAGE. Not the best story, but stunning visuals, great gameplay and extreme fun. I was just disappointed that it was over all too quickly. |
|
|
10/27/11 8:25:15 PM#4
The campaign has a pretty nice movie feel to it, a bit like how COD4 was. But I agree, it's over too soon. Still, I have long gone to BF games for multiplayer. The fact that DICE implemented a SP campaign is just bonus to me. It's training wheels for Multiplayer University. But the campaign can and should be done better in the future. Maybe some expansions down the road like they did with BF2 and 2142 (well, 2142 only had 1). Alot of possibilities are to be had with this engine since they can do both infantry and vehicle combat, as well as amphibious operations. "I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918) |
|
|
10/27/11 9:34:00 PM#5
It's just an uninspired, same old same old linear play through. Very underwhelming effort by EA.
|
|
|
10/27/11 9:42:45 PM#6
I dont even bother to play the campaing to be honest... i tried it a bit but getting into the Multiplayer is better imo.
Battlefield was never about the campaign. It feels a souless story with nothing interesting to it despite the shooting.
But the multiplayer, Oh Man... its a BLAST !!! Server kinda laggy right know, i hope they fix it, but when you get a good server its pretty amazing.
Even running the game with a HD5770 it looks amazing, one of the best graphics ever and run very smooth.The gameplay is the best i ever played with BC2 right after.
DICE was spot on. |
|
|
10/27/11 9:45:45 PM#7
The flagship Battlefield franchise isn't and never was about a story. Just be glad you got decent single player along with your genre defining multiplayer game. That's more than I can say for those of us who bought Brink. |
|
|
10/27/11 9:45:51 PM#8
Originally posted by MyGarona I agree with the uninspired / linear playthrough. Why can't these 'campaigns' branch out a little, with different outcomes dependant on your choices throughout the game? It's probably down to 'Time to Market' and profit, over development time and polish. |
|
Originally posted by SuperXero89 I honestly don't even know why Brink had a campaign. |
|
