PDA

View Full Version : Things we learned playing BF3 Campaign:



DigitalSignalX
27-10-2011, 02:00 AM
Iran has a population of over 72 million. Not a single person is present in any of the "large city" scenarios except dead civilian (male) #1 (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/images/11/oct/asleep2.jpg).

When asked to clear a building, all you have to do is walk down one hallway and out the lobby, past dozens of closed doors, and beneath 3-4 floors. You could feasably have hidden an entire battalion of enemy in that building and remained undetected.

Having an ultra-bright light on your weapon doesn't give your position away in the dark, but does allow you to blind your enemies (even more?) when you're aiming at them.

A helicopter pilot facing a slowly crumbling building isn't capable of easily maneuvering away from it.

Jets. This a facepalm of epic proportions. Everything this game does to craft the illusion of military reality gets completely tossed out the window here. The last air to air guns kill was an SU-27 vs. Mig 29 in 1999 (female pilot ftw too). Before that, almost exclusively Israeli vs. Arab forces (18 lost aircraft to over 950(!) but that's including missile kills of course). The sidewinder missile has an operational range of 1km to around 35 km, not 300 meters away and not via some keep-the-crosshair-steady helmet target system. And you only get 2-4 depending on loadout. Not an unlimited supply. Not to mention radar guided missiles with ranges over 72km. Not to mention who actually fires weapons. Not to mention the actual job of a backseat WSO, EWO, RIO etc.

And where's your wingman in all this? No where except to show up and get shot down by some surprise plane 300 meters off his ass. Speaking of surprise, where's the AWACs or Hawkeye providing intel on enemy aircraft? There should never be "surprise he's on my ass" bullshit. A novel could be written about what is completely wrong about the air sequences in this game.

I can't kill someone until the script tells me I can, or until he gets to do his scripted melee QuickTime sequence. I can empty magazine after magazine into them with no effect.

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/9362/bf32011102604445092.th.jpg (http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/9362/bf32011102604445092.jpg)

Friendly tanks and vehicles have no heat signature in infrared.

Sitting completely exposed on top of the tank is the best way to defend it against swarms of ground troops, not inside it remotely controlling the MG.

While chasing someone, shooting them repeatedly does not injure them in the slightest until they reach their scripted destination.

The UN does not rate countries by seismic activities. However the USGS does, and Iran is no where near the most frequent (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/world_density.php).

French car alarms evidently turn the headlights on and then leave them on forever after the alarm is off.

Assault rifle rounds can chew through concrete barriers with ease, but the soft sheetmetal skin of a parked van/car is impregnable.

If a full size trailer full of fuel blows up 15 meters away, you'll be fine (http://youtu.be/Ypb6noVaXf8).

I'm sure there is more, but I haven't finished it yet.

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/8518/bf32011102519571263.th.jpg (http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/8518/bf32011102519571263.jpg) http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/7716/bf32011102603354231.th.jpg (http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/7716/bf32011102603354231.jpg)

added:

An entire battalion of russian paratroopers will invade with only one aircraft for ground support. And all of them will be held off by 1-2 platoons of marines.

You have shoot your CO in order to... I don't know why. ITS FUCKING SCRIPTED.

Terrorists have to hijack a train to get to times square instead of just taking a taxi. When the bad guy realized the good guy was gaining on him, why didn't he just push the button? Does it matter where in NYC you detonate a nuke? Really?

sigh.

adamdevo
27-10-2011, 03:35 AM
Yes it's true the game is scripted...surprise surprise :)

cybrbrnt
27-10-2011, 07:30 AM
The tank mission where you rescue your marines. At the end I felt like I was shooting at holograms, know what I mean?

Item!
27-10-2011, 07:40 AM
Yeah but you know, who cares about the BF3 single-player campaign (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/forums/showthread.php?1849-Battlefield-3-Multiplayer-thread)?

Is there anyone on the planet who bought it solely for the SP mode? It was always going to be total bobbins.

I was in the garage yesterday. I wanted to buy a bottle of water. It just so happened that the bottle of water I purchased came with a free pack of garage-own-brand wafer biscuits taped to it, a kind of poor facsimile of a Tunnocks Caramel.

I was thirsty and enjoyed the drink I paid for. I took a single bite of the biscuit and threw the offending remainder in the bin. I didn't feel bitter.

Heliocentric
27-10-2011, 09:38 AM
I just wish the money wasted on this "MW beating" tutorial had been spent paying someone to realise that monetisation of the servers means that the game is unable to be played with as much choice.

Query: If I want to play with one friend away from other players, maybe helicopter practice, then does the game have any support for that or do we just have to join some dead server and hope no-one joins?

DigitalSignalX
27-10-2011, 09:52 AM
who cares..?

I do.

Obviously the MP is why most will buy BF3. But the fact remains, for all it's supposed realism it did include a SP game, and it does turn around and insult your intelligence as a participant in their narrative.

Item!
27-10-2011, 10:02 AM
I do.

Obviously the MP is why most will buy BF3. But the fact remains, for all it's supposed realism it did include a SP game, and it does turn around and insult your intelligence as a participant in their narrative.

Looks like my decision not to look at it was a wise one then!

Shame, but not unexpected.

Item!
27-10-2011, 10:03 AM
Query: If I want to play with one friend away from other players, maybe helicopter practice, then does the game have any support for that or do we just have to join some dead server and hope no-one joins?

I understand private matches are supposed to be available for PC...but I haven't tried it myself yet and a quick internet trawl seems vague as to whether it works currently or is to be patched in at a later date.

Rii
27-10-2011, 11:02 AM
Twin seats in fast movers these days tend to be the province of those platforms with a dedicated or at least primary strike role. Air superiority is a solo game.

Kadayi
27-10-2011, 11:44 AM
I do.

Obviously the MP is why most will buy BF3. But the fact remains, for all it's supposed realism it did include a SP game, and it does turn around and insult your intelligence as a participant in their narrative.

Care for some cheese with your whine?

You want realism in a shooter? Play Arma 2 with ACE & ACRE mods.

deano2099
27-10-2011, 12:14 PM
Yeah but you know, who cares about the BF3 single-player campaign (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/forums/showthread.php?1849-Battlefield-3-Multiplayer-thread)?

On PC not so much but I'm sure a hell of a lot of console players will.

Kadayi
27-10-2011, 12:28 PM
On PC not so much but I'm sure a hell of a lot of console players will.

I'm fairly sure the vast majority of people getting it on console are getting it for the MP as well.

deano2099
27-10-2011, 01:15 PM
I'm fairly sure the vast majority of people getting it on console are getting it for the MP as well.

Well it's been created to compete with Modern Warfare on its terms.

MW2 had 60-70% of players online (http://www.thetechgame.com/News/article/sid=1020.html) - I wouldn't call that a vast majority personally.

DigitalSignalX
27-10-2011, 04:52 PM
You want realism in a shooter? Play Arma 2 with ACE & ACRE mods.

I tried Arma 2, and could not get past the controls and interface.

I
also
could
not
stand
the voice
acting
and or
commands.

Besides, we know BF3 isn't a simulator, but it's not an arcade either. It's somewhere in the middle, and imo, when the graphics push it toward sim, but the writing, scripted sequences and over-all intelligence of the game pushes well into the arcade, it causes this criticism. As other have suggested, why include the SP at all? It doesn't even contribute toward the MP even in terms of a tutorial, and all that time and assets could have increased the quality and optimization of the MP.


Query: If I want to play with one friend away from other players, maybe helicopter practice, then does the game have any support for that or do we just have to join some dead server and hope no-one joins?

You're supposed to be able to create matches, but it's currently disabled. I've been looking for dead servers to do the very same thing.

Kadayi
27-10-2011, 05:15 PM
So boiled down your complaint is that they gave you something extra?

Nalano
27-10-2011, 06:04 PM
It's not a war simulator.

It's a Tom Clancy gun-wank.

How hard is this to understand?

(Oh, and the best place to detonate a nuke in NYC is the Lower East Side, not Times Square. That way you get most of Brooklyn, too.)

Smashbox
27-10-2011, 08:58 PM
When asked to clear a building, all you have to do is walk down one hallway and out the lobby, past dozens of closed doors, and beneath 3-4 floors. You could feasably have hidden an entire battalion of enemy in that building and remained undetected.

In fairness, it probably wouldn't be 'fun' to meticulously clear a building.

Coins
27-10-2011, 09:12 PM
Swat4 disagrees with you there, Smashbox. But that's besides the point.

Nalano
28-10-2011, 03:35 AM
Playing through the campaign now.

Oh god such horrible gun-wank. I'm still not at all understanding why NSA or the NSA-alike is interrogating a marine sergeant as if he's part of some boneheaded international plot. In fact, if this is how the NSA works, I can see why Sept 11th happened.

Also, being a New Yorker, I don't know of any commuter rail line that goes from JFK to Times Square. The A train does, if you're willing to march to the far end of long-term parking, but that ain't the A train. You could take the Airtrain to the LIRR to Penn, but that'd involve a transfer, and I can just imagine a squad of armed thugs waiting in Jamaica station, poring over the off-peak schedules. (Not to mention an unscheduled train would go about 200 feet before the emergency brakes tripped.)

Also don't quite understand why we still have the same silliness what with campaigns:

"Hey, buddy, you shoot all the bad guys, I open all the doors. Got it?"
"What, like all the bad guys?"
"Every single one. And don't expect us to cover you, either. That's why you got the helmet with the bulls-eye on it."
"Shit, man. How do I get the door-opening job?"
"You don't get to choose your job! You shoot everybody, I open the doors, Montes makes all the snarky comments, and Jenkins dies in six seconds just to show how badass everything is. Got it? Now take point."
"Aww, fuck."

DigitalSignalX
28-10-2011, 03:54 AM
So boiled down your complaint is that they gave you something extra?

No, boiled down is I find the single player campaign is incredibly pathetic, insulting to both the armed forces and the player. I also find it at odds to the litany of video trailers, PR hype, claims surrounding the "next generation shooter." Furthermore, just because it's ancillary to the multiplayer doesn't excuse it's flaws.

Rii
28-10-2011, 04:20 AM
"Hey, buddy, you shoot all the bad guys, I open all the doors. Got it?"
"What, like all the bad guys?"
"Every single one. And don't expect us to cover you, either. That's why you got the helmet with the bulls-eye on it."
"Shit, man. How do I get the door-opening job?"
"You don't get to choose your job! You shoot everybody, I open the doors, Montes makes all the snarky comments, and Jenkins dies in six seconds just to show how badass everything is. Got it? Now take point."
"Aww, fuck."

I laughed out loud.

Nalano
28-10-2011, 05:06 AM
Just got to the point that I suppose is the twist. And it is sooo goddamn stupid. Spoilers (if a 10 hour campaign can HAVE spoilers):

A Russian agent has his hands behind his head, and your commanding officer comes in yelling to get down on the ground. The Russian wants you to shoot your commanding officer. Which is stupid.

What's MORE stupid is that if you don't shoot your commanding officer, he shoots you.

THERE IS NO REASON FOR EITHER. THIS GAME FORCES YOU TO BE STUPID.

Nalano
28-10-2011, 05:32 AM
Wow, I didn't think it could get worse. More spoilers.

You jump on top of a Manhattan-bound LIRR train heading down through Long Island City - despite problems I mentioned earlier, and god knows how you know which train - but only after having spent ALL FUCKING DAY with a couple of NSA-alikes who are more interested in the fact that you shot your CO than the nuke that's in the city. ALL. FUCKING. DAY.

Your compatriot hijacks a squad car and beats evening traffic to get to midtown before you, and just happens to know which manhole you're gonna peek out of. You both peel up Seventh Avenue so that a thousand people get to watch you fist-fight a guy - who, consequently, didn't even have to be there considering he successfully did Paris by proxy - who just shot a soldier dead and then threw away his empty gun.

The fact that nobody in the huge Times Square crowd steps in is, by far, the least stupid thing of all I just mentioned, and even that's pretty fucking stupid, considering there were two shoot-outs and an attempted car bomb in the last two years in Times Square and people were all up on that shit.

c-Row
28-10-2011, 07:26 AM
I guess they think that those who don't get BF3 for the multiplayer are brainless morons anyway and they can get away with it. Final TB comment sums it up pretty well: "Press [E] to be a hero."

Kadayi
28-10-2011, 07:27 AM
No, boiled down is I find the single player campaign is incredibly pathetic, insulting to both the armed forces and the player.

So basically you're unable to distinguish between reality and fantasy? I mean we've already established that the game is not a military sim. I don't think anyone was expecting that either. The game is marketed as a FPS, so to run to 'whaah!! it's terrible Whaah!!' on the basis of 'This story isn't realistic' seems slightly incredulous tbh.


I guess they think that those who don't get BF3 for the multiplayer are brainless morons anyway and they can get away with it. Final TB comment sums it up pretty well: "Press [E] to be a hero."

So like Half-life then?

c-Row
28-10-2011, 08:13 AM
So like Half-life then?

Yes, but more hands-taking and in-your-face-blatantly obvious.

Nalano
28-10-2011, 08:29 AM
I guess they think that those who don't get BF3 for the multiplayer are brainless morons anyway and they can get away with it. Final TB comment sums it up pretty well: "Press [E] to be a hero."

I honestly feel more stupid for having played the SP. I'm stuck at which part was most stupid: Why we'd consider an Iranian revolution to be a bad thing, why a country that is in the throes of a revolution - and thus has no central leadership - would start a war with another country at the same time, why we'd invade Tehran, why modern post-Soviet Russia would sell suitcase nukes in the first place, why we'd willingly enter a shooting war with the Russians just 'cause, why the NSA doesn't seem to think that a nuke in NYC is a creditable threat when PARIS WAS NUKED THE DAY BEFORE, why Blackburn is never debriefed after his frankly ridiculous missions, why Blackburn shot his CO, why nobody ever considered alerting local authorities to a terrorist threat... the list goes on.

MP feels tight, tho. I mean, it's the same Battlefield I've played four - no, five - iterations of, but they didn't fuck it up quite as bad as they did BC2.

Kadayi
28-10-2011, 09:10 AM
I honestly feel more stupid for having played the SP.

*chortles*

Rii
28-10-2011, 09:38 AM
It's ok Kadayi, EA officially doesn't need your help (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-10-27-battlefield-3-ships-10-million-copies) on this one.

metalangel
28-10-2011, 10:01 AM
"BF3 needs singleplayer!" "FRANCHISE!" "BF3 needs singleplayer!" "FRANCHISE!" "BF3 needs singleplayer!" "Dental pl... FRANCHISE!" (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-10-27-ea-justifies-battlefield-3-single-player)

Kadayi
28-10-2011, 10:40 AM
It's ok Kadayi, EA officially doesn't need your help (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-10-27-battlefield-3-ships-10-million-copies) on this one.

Personally I'm not here to defend EA (or any other publisher), but one thing I do fucking tire of is the incessant sewing circle 'knowing' bitching (genuine criticism actually goes somewhere) about games over things that are frankly to be expected with the genre and within the limits of current technology. The game starts with an 'on rails' sequence, if that's not spelling it out to how thing are going to play out I don't know what is tbh.

I think half of you guys seem to have forgotten why you play games in the first place. Fucking passionless hipsters.

ntw
28-10-2011, 10:42 AM
I'd have to say that most of the issues raised in this thread DO count as genuine criticism.

Rii
28-10-2011, 10:51 AM
I think half of you guys seem to have forgotten why you play games in the first place. Fucking passionless hipsters.

Well if it was possible to buy the multiplayer without also purchasing the singleplayer, I expect there'd be a lot more 'live and let live' around here regarding the latter.

deano2099
28-10-2011, 10:57 AM
I'd have to say that most of the issues raised in this thread DO count as genuine criticism.

Most of them are along the lines of "the game isn't what I want it to be" than "the game fails at what it sets out to do" though.

Shooty game has a plot full of holes? No really? Despite the fact that it takes its cues from Hollywood action films which tend to have equally unrealistic stories.

It's not a realistic military sim and I don't think it ever pretended it was. They made it perfectly clear that they're in direct competition with Modern Warfare this time around.

cybrbrnt
28-10-2011, 11:00 AM
I also liked the part where that Iranian guy is like "Hey, we're just defending our country. Now watch us cut this guy's throat!"
and then you get your throat cut because you couldn't shoot ghost people.

Mooseman
28-10-2011, 11:12 AM
My reaction to these kinds of games is that most of the story is better in a Bond film. For example in Tehran you could be trying to obtain al bashir and get sidetracked by the earthquake. If they remove the weird plane bit, the tank part and the squads. it quickly turns into a Bond film. plus they need to add some scenes where the villain guy does an evil laugh and strokes a cat.

snortmort
28-10-2011, 11:30 AM
You can apply all this pedantry to <any hollywood movie> also. Which is precisely the level of the singleplayer experience.

I've completed it, I enjoyed it for what it was. Not brilliantly executed, and hilariously over the top. Pure full fat leave brain at the door escapism. I wanted nor more, no less.

Kadayi
28-10-2011, 11:40 AM
Most of them are along the lines of "the game isn't what I want it to be" than "the game fails at what it sets out to do" though.

Shooty game has a plot full of holes? No really? Despite the fact that it takes its cues from Hollywood action films which tend to have equally unrealistic stories.

It's not a realistic military sim and I don't think it ever pretended it was. They made it perfectly clear that they're in direct competition with Modern Warfare this time around.

^ This essentially.

ntw
28-10-2011, 11:56 AM
Personally, I disagree.

Just because they are competing with MW, there's no need to dumb down to that level.

cybrbrnt
28-10-2011, 12:06 PM
Personally, I disagree.

Just because they are competing with MW, there's no need to dumb down to that level.

Agreed. Would have been cool if they sort of stood out a little more instead of going "Hey look! We can do that too!"

Christian
28-10-2011, 12:19 PM
[...]
It's not a realistic military sim and I don't think it ever pretended it was. They made it perfectly clear that they're in direct competition with Modern Warfare this time around.

I don't hope anyone expected a realistic simulation here. It's just that they've done a really bad job and it seems they couldn't decide what exactly it is they want to sell here.
On one side, you've got potentially huge open areas to run around in, and on the other side you've got that very narrow virtual corridor you're allowed to be in.
And in direct comparison, I can't remember a CoD-singleplayer game where I was running around aimlessly, not knowing what to do or where to go. If you're going to make an on-rails-shooter, make sure it really feels that way. In CoD it's always clear: move up to that point, bad guys go away, next section starts.
From what I've played so far, it's just confusing. Somewhere near the beginning there's a bridge. You're supposed to grab a gun. And then? Shoot everyone? No chance, insta-killed. Wait? For what?
Then later, some canals in a big city. Some mg-nests somewhere. And now? Where's my guidance corridor if you don't let me sneak around and stab them if I wish?

deano2099
28-10-2011, 01:39 PM
I don't hope anyone expected a realistic simulation here. It's just that they've done a really bad job and it seems they couldn't decide what exactly it is they want to sell here.

And your points are reasonable. But most of the rest of the thread...


When asked to clear a building, all you have to do is walk down one hallway and out the lobby, past dozens of closed doors, and beneath 3-4 floors.
Because clearing a building would be so much, especially if it was empty. Okay SWAT 4 was good, but this is an FPS.


The sidewinder missile has an operational range of 1km to around 35 km, not 300 meters away and not via some keep-the-crosshair-steady helmet target system. And you only get 2-4 depending on loadout. Not an unlimited supply.
Oh yeah, the game would be so much more fun if you had to shoot things you couldn't see by automatically locking on and hitting a button. And only getting to fire 4 times would be so much more enjoyable.


Also, being a New Yorker, I don't know of any commuter rail line that goes from JFK to Times Square. The A train does, if you're willing to march to the far end of long-term parking, but that ain't the A train. You could take the Airtrain to the LIRR to Penn, but that'd involve a transfer, and I can just imagine a squad of armed thugs waiting in Jamaica station, poring over the off-peak schedules. (Not to mention an unscheduled train would go about 200 feet before the emergency brakes tripped.) So in other words, doing it realistically it'd suck, so they made up a rail line that went where they wanted and didn't have those restrictions.

why we'd invade Tehran
So we can set a level in Tehran, because it'd be cool.

And it has single-player because if it didn't it'd sell far less copies (again, about 30%) and frankly I think the single-player is subsidising the multiplayer here. If they left the campaign out, it'd sell less as: some people only play single-player, and having both modes feels like better value. I'm almost certain single-player more than paid for itself. So it's not a matter of leaving it out and saving money to spend on extra MP maps, it's leaving it out and having less money and likely less MP maps.

But then, if it had a brilliant expansive campaign, people would be complaining that they clearly wasted too much time and money on that and blame every shortfall of the MP on it.

gundrea
28-10-2011, 03:30 PM
But then, if it had a brilliant expansive campaign, people would be complaining that they clearly wasted too much time and money on that and blame every shortfall of the MP on it.

See they had to make it bad otherwise the multiplayer wouldn't be so good.

Christian
28-10-2011, 03:55 PM
See they had to make it bad otherwise the multiplayer wouldn't be so good.

...then try to imagine how great the multiplayer would have been if they had left the whole sp-part away entirely..or added some bots for training..

metalangel
28-10-2011, 04:18 PM
People don't want botmatches or private games! They want the game to track how many times they've crouched in the last 24 hours and post this stat directly to Arsebook and Twatter!

Giaddon
28-10-2011, 04:29 PM
...then try to imagine how great the multiplayer would have been if they had left the whole sp-part away entirely..or added some bots for training..

Or at the very least allowed us to load up an empty map so we could explore it and check out the vehicles HOW WILL I EVER LEARN TO FLY AGGHHHHH

Smashbox
28-10-2011, 04:30 PM
Or at the very least allowed us to load up an empty map so we could explore it and check out the vehicles HOW WILL I EVER LEARN TO FLY AGGHHHHH

That sounds expensive!

deano2099
28-10-2011, 06:25 PM
...then try to imagine how great the multiplayer would have been if they had left the whole sp-part away entirely..or added some bots for training..
That was my point. The MP would have been exactly the same or worse as there'd be less money in the pot.

It's like saying, 'imagine how much better Rage would have been if it was a PC-only game because id could have focused all their efforts on PC'. Except the sales projections would be about 10% of what they actually were and so the budget would only have been 10% of what it was and it'd been nowhere near as good.

Nalano
28-10-2011, 07:02 PM
But then, if it had a brilliant expansive campaign, people would be complaining that they clearly wasted too much time and money on that and blame every shortfall of the MP on it.

It's not a zero sum game. Quality SP and quality MP are not mutually exclusive.

Especially considering the ridiculous piles of money they threw at this game.

deano2099
28-10-2011, 07:43 PM
It's not a zero sum game. Quality SP and quality MP are not mutually exclusive.

Especially considering the ridiculous piles of money they threw at this game.

No of course not - my point was a psychological/gamer attitude one. You have a poor SP game and you get 'why did they bother', you have a brilliant SP game and every flaw in the MP, no matter what it is, gets blamed on 'wasting time on SP'. Often by the same people.

Nalano
28-10-2011, 07:53 PM
No of course not - my point was a psychological/gamer attitude one. You have a poor SP game and you get 'why did they bother', you have a brilliant SP game and every flaw in the MP, no matter what it is, gets blamed on 'wasting time on SP'. Often by the same people.

You know what gets me?

If the developers and publishers don't insult our intelligence and assume we're all daft idiots, we do it to ourselves.

And that still doesn't explain why a writer couldn't have been hired. Hell, fourteen hundred advertisers were.

Smashbox
28-10-2011, 07:54 PM
Keep yer elitist writin' outta my WAR, egghead!

Nalano
28-10-2011, 07:57 PM
Keep yer elitist writin' outta my WAR, egghead!

Y'know, soldiers are prime examples of people who don't use the term "elite" as an epithet.

Smashbox
28-10-2011, 08:03 PM
Oh that was my impression of a Michael Bay fan, not The Troops.

Nalano
28-10-2011, 08:05 PM
Oh that was my impression of a Michael Bay fan, not The Troops.

Ah, carry o-*explosion*

duff
28-10-2011, 08:13 PM
Who the hell even wants to play the singleplayer? Get online or go and play Civ IV you pussies!

deano2099
28-10-2011, 08:15 PM
You know what gets me?

If the developers and publishers don't insult our intelligence and assume we're all daft idiots, we do it to ourselves.

And that still doesn't explain why a writer couldn't have been hired. Hell, fourteen hundred advertisers were.

I'm sure they did. Just not early enough and didn't integrate him in to the process. I mean sure, you may know that there's no train that goes from point A to point B, but if you're the writer, and the developers are like "right, we have an amazing level that's set on a train" or whatnot you do what you can.

Nalano
28-10-2011, 08:51 PM
I'm sure they did. Just not early enough and didn't integrate him in to the process. I mean sure, you may know that there's no train that goes from point A to point B, but if you're the writer, and the developers are like "right, we have an amazing level that's set on a train" or whatnot you do what you can.

You can integrate a whole bunch'a shit with good writing. I'm pretty sure you can integrate the Heat level, the Top Gun level, the earthquake level, the train level, the "somehow we're fighting the Russians" level, the stealth level, and lots of other things with better writing than Tom Clancy wank.

Actually, no, this isn't Tom Clancy wank. Even Tom Clancy wank has some standards. Red October. That was Tom Clancy wank. This is pseudo-Tom Clancy wank.

But you're right. They have to do it early, and they have to do it in earnest. So why don't they? Why do we prefer to sit here and rationalize their lack of effort by saying we're not worthy of having effort invested upon us?

Smashbox
28-10-2011, 08:59 PM
We all know the answers to those questions. Writing doesn't sell games like these, and the amount of effort and planning and thinking required to integrate scenario and gameplay in an intelligent, cohesive way (on this scale) is often too great a burden to bear for publishers. I'm not defending them. I agree that you can't create a good narrative game without concerning yourself with these questions long before you begin the actual work of making the game.

Of course we're worth it and can appreciate it. But we still buy the game when its writing sucks.

I think the game would be stronger if it had a much tighter focus. A game's narrative is by necessity procedural, and there's nothing wrong with extending that to the campaign. A ten hour campaign could be the story of the ten most important hours of a war. The story could be much simpler, and the design would be more coherent.

DigitalSignalX
29-10-2011, 01:28 AM
Personally, I disagree.

Just because they are competing with MW, there's no need to dumb down to that level.


Agreed. Would have been cool if they sort of stood out a little more instead of going "Hey look! We can do that too!"

^ This essentially.

squirrel
29-10-2011, 05:24 AM
Seriously, next time they should outsource the directorship to Hollywood. I am sure those guys would bring out more decent, truly cinematic campaign.

I dont know why I would think of this. The competition with COD sounds like an excuse to me. I think DICE is unable to develop a solid bot support for this game, so they just replace it with a highly scripted campaign.

westyfield
02-11-2011, 02:19 AM
I saw one comment online that I think sums it up - "a lot of the time I found myself thinking 'Call of Duty would have done this better'".

They tried to compete with MW3 by making another MW3, rather than an alternative for the people who don't like CoD. They screwed it up. Sad, but that's mainstream gaming today.

Multiplayer is solid though, get the TeamSync application and you're sorted.

Rii
02-11-2011, 02:34 AM
They tried to compete with MW3 by making another MW3, rather than an alternative for the people who don't like CoD. They screwed it up. Sad, but that's mainstream gaming today.

That sort of thing (stealing somebody else's thunder by doing the same thing they're doing) so rarely works anyway. Well, I guess the original Call of Duty managed it. :P

Nalano
02-11-2011, 03:02 AM
I saw one comment online that I think sums it up - "a lot of the time I found myself thinking 'Call of Duty would have done this better'".

I think the sentiment there is all wrong. More accurate would be, "a lot of the time I found myself thinking 'this is as bad as Call of Duty.'"

Chorltonwheelie
02-11-2011, 03:29 PM
The hit detection is bobbins.
There are occasional "I can't open this door 'cos I've not hit a mark earlier yet I can't go back" bugs that require level restart.
The forced melee's seem to be subject to entirely random button hitting.

However, the game as a whole is an absolute blast for those of us with a penchant for cheap thrills, pills and bellyaches.