Wot I Think: Battlefield 3’s Campaign

I wonder how tanks survive in the wild?
I’ll get to that multiplayer stuff soon enough (although not until I have Europeans to play with), so for now let’s have a bit of a think about Battlefield 3’s single-player campaign. (No significant spoilers.)

The attempt to challenge Call Of Duty’s ridiculous hegemony is now completely transparent. What is happening here is pure linear-shooter action designed, seemingly without any other consideration, to do what Modern Wafare is doing. Only prettier. As such there’s almost nothing you haven’t seen before, and the most exciting moments are often those in which you’ve pressed “E” to initiate an animation, and then you watch it play out. “Cinematic” is the word that gets applied to this stuff, I suppose. It’s often thrilling, and often frustrating. And like it or not, this is what sells. You can sort of see why.

This is the formula: you play through a storyline of contemporary combat, involving a potential conflict between Russia and the US, from the perspective of a number of combatants. Cutscenes lace together the action bits. You generally get told what to do. The challenge lies simply in using cover at the right time, and shooting the bobbing heads of the endless shootermen who stand in your way. Battlefield’s campaign does all this, and also throws in a couple of vehicular experiences, and even a stealth bit, to provide some variety. When it works, it’s an easy thrill.

But, like my accuracy with an AK, it’s hit and miss. There are some brilliant firefights, and some hair-raising (also like to typo “hare-razing” here) moments. Yet for all that there are some serious frustrations, including the astounding rigidity of the scripting, the occasional flailing about in darkness, the purely checkpointed progress (no manual save) and the peculiar inclusion of some genuinely tedious point ‘n’ click shooting galleries, the worst of which was the one aboard a plane. It goes on and on. Let me off!

Most of the game, however, sees you fighting on foot. As a rifle-carrying soldierman you blast your way through corridors, gullies, offices, ruins, ditches, riverbeds, more ruins, bank-vaults, with a couple of other guys alongside you. These NPCs offer a continuous angry and incredulous commentary on what is going on, allowing you to avoid having to worry to much about what’s happening. Fail to listen and, no problem, waypoints are there to direct you, too.

Despite all this support, Battlefield 3’s campaign doesn’t work too hard to sustain the incredibly pretty illusion it establishes. It suffers from many of the worst aspects of scripted games. Early on, for example, it’s possible to find a place where you can shoot enemies as they run into the combat arena. And you can do it forever. Kill the one single guy you are meant to kill, however, and the assailants stop coming, and you move on to the next part of the game. Try to go where the baddies are coming from and “you are leaving the combat area”. There’s even a bit where if you shoot enemies you are not meant to shoot, you just lay down in the street and die. No getting shot, no attempt to justify the consequences of your mistake, just voluntary, obligatory death. Your soldier has such faith in his mission that he stops his own heart if it goes wrong. Something like that.

The more excruciating stuff comes with doors. Oh, doors, why are you always a problem for games? In this instance it’s the fact that doors can’t be breached until NPCs arrive. Sometimes it’s down you you to kick the door in, but most of the time the other NPCs who do it. Which will it be? Get to the door ahead of your chums and stand around waiting to find out! It’s not very good, and it happens over and over and over…

This, of course, is balanced out by the sheer audio-visual bandwidth of the game: it pours out destruction in noise and visuals. There are points at which the game gets the balance of these exactly right, too, such as the Russians’ attack on the enemy HQ in Paris, where a small team of hardcore commando types assault a building, with you in the midst of them. It’s brilliantly paced, and you charge forward through the sparks and disintegration of a corporate office block, and then out into the Paris streets, where the battle takes on the seriousness of that bit after the bank heist in Heat. Yeah, that bit. It’s the best shooting gallery in a game for years. Ferocious, beautiful. Just what this sort of game should be doing.

It’s also, sometimes, quite disturbing in its violence. The close-quarters killing of baddies (and their stabbing of you) is quite horrible. Gruesome, chilling. Brr.

The tank ride bit is pretty good, too. Out in the desert, blasting your way into the city. It’s lavish. There was even a bit where I was able to destroy great stacks of money with a shotgun. Ah, we can only dream.

The plot? Well, it doesn’t make a lot of sense, but basically amounts to the baddy stealing some nukes, and then getting foiled by an American guy and a Russian guy. Lone mavericks who don’t play by the rules. You know the sort of thing. I won’t drop any spoilers in here, because it has some lovely scenes and some splendid twists, but none of them will actually surprise you, because this is pure mil-porn pulp.

It crashed twice. I gasped at the spectacle of what was taking place a couple of times. My graphics card screamed with delivering the exquisite visuals. My eyes dazzled. It was all over pretty quickly. I prolonged it enormously by taking pictures of plants and corpses.

It’s okay. You’ll probably enjoy the noise and the fury. This campaign probably isn’t going to put much a dent in Modern Warfare 3’s enormous sales and general popularity, but – as a number of readers have pointed out – for those of us who actually give a damn about FPS games, that isn’t what matters. What matters is what happens with the multiplayer. I’m going to get stuck into that next.

Battlefield 3 is out now in North America and will be out on Thursday in Europe, and Friday in the UK.

For some reason.



  1. Khann says:

    Yeah, glorified rail-shooters are definitely not for me I’m afraid. Certainly does look and sound pretty, though.

    • Symitri says:

      Sound has been the one thing I admire the Battlefield series for, if nothing else. I was satisfied with the level of graphics ages ago but progressions in good use of sound impress me.

      Sadly, it looks as if this is like most other modern-themed shooters – skip unless interested in multiplayer. I’d rather like an enjoyable single-player experience that isn’t overly concerned with being cinematic and has some meaty length than it being little more than an introduction to mechanics you’ll see a bit in multiplayer.

    • V. Profane says:

      Same for me. I did momentarily feel tempted what with the unusual attention devoted to the PC version, but I don’t play anything online, and these rigidly stage-managed, linear games are the opposite of what I want.

    • Gap Gen says:

      I want someone to keep making games like SWAT4 or Rainbow Six: Raven Shield. Man I love Raven Shield. Nothing feels more badass than a Raven Shield mission gone right.

    • Khann says:

      Ah, SWAT 4. Some good memories there.

    • Vagrant says:

      Wait, are you talking bad about Panzer Dragoon? I love rail shooters!

    • StevenM1988 says:

      “Glorified rail-shooters”… is it odd that I enjoy and almost respect games like the House of the Dead series or Time Crisis despite (or maybe because of) their being unashamedly on-rails experiences, but then find the pace, themes and illusion of choice in games like Modern Warfare and Battlefield to be insufferable? Maybe I’m just tired of military first person shooters in general; that nebulous categorization seems to have stolen the place in my heart that FIFA used to own.

    • BathroomCitizen says:


      No, i don’t think that feeling of yours is strange. Those games that you mentioned really had quite an atmosphere and the gameplay was fun in its own simple way. They actually felt like games.

      CoD & its military clone companions feel more like the developers were trying to force a movie to become a game, so in that regard I think they actually hit you as artificial.

    • Blackberries says:

      To be fair, this is a Battlefield game. That is has a singleplayer component at all feels odd and slightly amusing to me. I’ll play it if only to get a feel for the weapons and how it controls, and to give my eyes and ears a treat.

    • DickSocrates says:

      That’s all Half-Life 2 is and yet I bet you love that.

    • Mman says:

      “That’s all Half-Life 2 is and yet I bet you love that.”

      Funny thing is when HL2 first came out I had major issues with how rail-roaded it felt, then COD4 and it’s many clones came along and it made me appreciate HL2’s style of linearity a lot more, as it feels open-world compared to what has come after.

  2. Jibb Smart says:

    I really enjoyed “the one aboard a plane”. I was well-aware it was a point-and click, but I found it really atmospheric and the slight extra tension of keeping an ear out for incoming missiles was enough for me. Maybe you needed to turn your volume higher (the sounds were a huge part of the atmosphere), or I’m too easily pleased by “atmosphere”.

    It’s perhaps worth noting that I never played a Call of Duty of any sorts.

    • RabidOyster says:

      I got straight up chills when the plane took off. Loved the atmosphere and all. But then the dogfight action was anti-climactic :( Other than that, loving the game!

    • ilurker says:

      I noticed during the plane segment that just chain-firing your (infinite) missiles was more effective than trying to time for the flares. One hilarious byproduct of that strategy is I actually managed to land one when I can only assume the plane wasn’t scripted to go down yet, and it took a page from Starfox by having the jet (quite literally) do a barrel roll (without changing heading or altitude) to miraculously escape being shot down despite the missle clearly hitting it.

  3. xavdeman says:

    Do not worry! The internet still doesn’t contain oceans. Those ponds masquerading as them are easily traversed with VPN services ;)
    Unfortunately I have ordered it offline and have to wait for postal men to deliver the shooty men on a disk to my home. This was cheaper than sending bits over a network, ironically I placed my order on a website.

    • Saldek says:

      The same happened to me with Skyrim. Ordering the game as a physical object to be delivered from the UK to Germany was cheaper than any offer of digital delivery.

      Perhaps, after the great success of the Oceans of the 4th Continent™ upgrade, the internet has been further enhanced with other Virtual Real-Life Experiences such as tollbooths?

  4. ResonanceCascade says:

    Sounds like Battlefield 3 is a no-buy for me. I just don’t dig on the multiplayer enough to drop $60 on it unless there’s a good campaign attached. Bummer.

    • adonf says:

      I don’t understand why they spent so much energy making a pretty game when it’s going to be played in MP 99% of the time. I’m not into multiplayer shooters but I believe that what matters most is gameplay and not graphics, especially when players set graphics levels to the minimum for better frame rate.

      So yeah, I understand that they need a campaign that looks great for advertising, but it’s not the game people are going to be playing at all.

  5. Mr_Initials says:

    Press x to win game is really what i got from it.

  6. Imbecile says:

    Damn. Was hoping that they’d take a different route to the COD single player over the top rubbish. I’m sure the multiplayer will be great, but I was really hoping that DICE would apply what make the multiplayer work (team play, objectives, freeform areas) to the singleplayer campaign

    • runtheplacered says:

      “’Im sure the multiplayer will be great, but I was really hoping that DICE would apply what make the multiplayer work”

      Why in gods name would you want to take away precious multiplayer dev time to do that?

  7. Cardinal says:

    Thanks, an appetiser to the main attraction…
    Also a reminder that I should now play the single player story for BF:BC2, especially as my buddies are going where my PC sadly cannot follow. I think I played the first 10 minutes before the multi-player mode hooked me.

    • Inglourious Badger says:

      Same. I quit BfBc2 singleplayer in the first mission. Just way too boring compared to MP. Will have to do a Jim and play the SP of BF3 first before I get distracted. As a free game bundled with the multiplayer game of the year (i hope) this sounds just fine

  8. Teddy Leach says:

    It’s a good job it’s primarily a multiplayer game then.

    • torchedEARTH says:

      Yes, like Battlefield Bad Company 2. But this time round the game’s short campaign is losing it review points. How strange.

    • HermitUK says:

      Especially strange when you know the places that mark down BF3 for having a linear campaign will be gushing about MW3’s similarly linear campaign in two weeks time.

  9. Casimir Effect says:

    This, like the CoD games, are ones I’d pick up only when cheap because of the short SP. I’d definitely want to buy them too because the campaigns are usually manshooty fun. But I can see this never getting to the £5 price, like CoD games never do, so will probably never play it.

    If only I could get into the STALKER games, they seem perfect were it not for the horror/survivalist elements (its the radiation survival mechanics I mostly disliked). I don’t like things jumping out at me.

    • Premium User Badge

      phuzz says:

      Same here, although fortunately I have friends who will always buy whatever the multiplayer faceshooting game of the moment is, so eventually I’ll get to have a go on the single player. It might be on a console, but it’s better than spending my own money.

  10. fiddlesticks says:

    Bad guys stealing nuclear weapons? We might be on to something here.

  11. FriendlyFire says:

    Watching TB’s video on the matter, I got a sudden urge to play Freespace 2 during the airplane sequence.

  12. Whiskey Jak says:

    my experience from playing the first 3 missions yesterday : 50% time walking/running/crawling, 25% time shooting, 25% QTEs. The air-to-air section of the jet mission could almost have been played with my eyes shut and pressing two buttons when an audio cue tells me to.

    Also, dying because I try to knife a rat before the game tells me to and then missing the QTE that would allow me to do it?

    I know BF games are first and foremost about the MP first, but I’m really surprised of how not engaging the gameplay is. I always play single player portions of games before getting into the MP and I kinda feel sad for the guys who worked on the SP.

  13. Phinor says:

    At the very end I failed a QTE and the enemy simply shot me in the head with his pistol. On second attempt I pressed space bar properly and.. and.. the enemy shot at me but his gun was out of bullets. That’s one for the history books if you ask me.

    But I rather enjoyed the singleplayer. It had problems but so does every CoD campaign. It was short, but so is every CoD campaign. Or in other words, I’d give it pretty much exactly the same score as every CoD campaign in the past 4-5 years, that is, eight out of ten and a label “do not buy for SP campaign alone”. As someone put it, the highs were a bit higher than on a typical CoD campaign, but also the lows were lower.

    • Khemm says:

      No wonder people don’t play single player if the CoD style is the best we can hope for.
      Give me back Doom/Duke3D/Blood/Quake level design with buttons, mazes and keycards – it’s insanely replayable even after so many years. CoD campaigns you finish once, get bored halfway through and instantly jump into multiplayer – that’s just wrong.

    • skinlo says:

      I’d take CoD anyday over super dull Doom stuff. Its only so replayable because theres so little going on, moving a wall suddenly makes it exciting.

    • Khemm says:

      Duke 3D, Blood evolved Doom’s formula – what, are you actually going to say that they had nothing but moving walls too?
      CoD doesn’t have gameplay, just because stuff is exploding all around you doesn’t mean anything actually HAPPENS, you might as well watch a movie and it’ll be more interactive. Explosions are CoD’s walls.

    • CaspianRoach says:

      Don’t spread misinformation. If you don’t press Space, he still runs out of bullets but he takes his time to reload the gun and then shoots you.

  14. McDan says:

    What a shame.

    Although good to hear about the heat-esque level.

  15. Dana says:

    I dont intend on getting BF3, but from what I saw in totalbiscuits wtf, the singleplayer is rubbish. The new Modern Warfare may have better sp, I bet Infinity Ward is struggling to remove all the invisible walls on time as we speak :D

  16. Berzee says:

    Meanwhile, in Burundi

    • Juan Carlo says:

      …The Burundi military (i.e. two guys armed with sticks) is up against a raiding herd of warthoggs bent on destroying their precious yam harvest. Now it’s up to you to take control of the Burundi military’s most promising elitie guard (“eilte,” read: he has a slightly sharper stick than the other guy) and fight your way through annoying Christian missionaries, Angelina Jolie photo ops, and rampant AIDs in order to protect your precious yams from the invaders. Sound easy? Well did I mention you have to accomplish this all on only 82 dollars a year?

      Will you succeed?

      Find out in the exciting new DLC for BF3: “Battlefield 3: Burundi Nights!”

    • Berzee says:

      Climactic scene from the DLC includes Richard Garriot firing at both sides of the battle with his moon laser.

    • Dozer says:

      Je suis le President du Burundi.

    • mana says:

      “Je suis le President du Burundi.”
      this x1000000000000 :)

      *Digs out the Izzard DVD to watch while waiting for Tescos to post my order (sooo cheap compared to elsewhere) – RAGE took them (or Royal Mail) more than a week to delivery it – actually in fairness Tescos did dispatch BF3 already, but boy, hope it doesn’t take a week again.

  17. Sauceror says:

    When I saw the article and clicked on it, I hoped that it would only consist of huge letters, spelling: “IT’S SHIT!”.

  18. Alfius says:

    So far so CoD, but lets face it, this isn’t what you’re paying the money for.

    • rayne117 says:

      Yeah you’re paying for an arcadey multiplayer and a horrible web browser server system that must be used to even start singleplayer.

  19. Khemm says:

    So the campaign is for the most part the same shooting gallery CoD is? Shame on you, DICE. I thought you would take a chance and show things can be done differently. I wasn’t expecting ArmA2, but a military shooter that plays different than CoD, something less restrictive, not a CoD rip-off with omnipresent QTEs which are a poor man’s substitute for proper gameplay design.

    One thing I don’t understand. Take MoH Allied Assault – also very linear, also very scripted, also trying to be a cinematic experience. Yet it’s all done so well I feel like I’m not a spectator, but I’m in control of events occuring on the screen. I think it has a lot to do with missions where you’re sent alone into enemy territory and are given quite a lot of freedom, the best levels are where you can even wear enemy uniforms and carry documents. Most importantly, many levels were designed in such a way that you could explore, flank or even find alternate routes.

    CoD makes a cardinal sin of creating a linear experience to the point even shooting feels wrong,scripted, like the game is making you pull the trigger whenever it wants you to, not when you as a player decide. Then there also corridor environments where you can’t move one inch to the left or right without a script killing you and something I hate about modern shooters – the GOGOGO ALWAYS YELLING DOTHISDOTHAT COMPANIONS YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW ALL THE TIME OR RELY ON FOR SCRIPTED DOOR TO OPEN – sorry for the caps, but that’s what they are – immersion breaking, “gamey” and noisy tutorials that just won’t disappear until the credits.

  20. theloz says:

    Sad to hear that the SP ‘campaign’ is a series of unconnected ‘experiences’. Seems like a step back from BFBC2 where you played the same badass the whole way through. I know War’s Hell, Son, but playing and replaying through a bunch of difficult checkpoints just to die in a scripted way was the absolute worst thing about those Modern Warfare games. (The second worst thing was infinitely respawning shootermen.)

    Obviously I’ll still play it.

  21. Ergates_Antius says:

    Maybe in future, they should rip out the SP content, drop the price of the base game, then sell the SP as DLC.

    That way those of us who aren’t interested in the exciting adventures of Shooter McKilly and his band of rag-tag heroes get a cheaper game and a much smaller download.

    • Snakejuice says:

      That’s not how DLC works. It’s more like rip out the SP content, keep the price of the base game, then sell the SP as DLC.

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      I can see that would upset a lot of people, but to be honest I’d be quite happy if they did that – it’d signficantly reduce the size of the download.

    • malkav11 says:

      DLC? No. Split the competitive multiplayer and the singleplayer/coop content into two entirely separate releases, both substantially less expensive than the current box price, then have a bundle that offers both for current pricing for people who really want both.

      I don’t give a shit about multiplayer, personally. I want my solo campaigns, maybe with a side of coop. And I like a bit of scripted sound and fury (not as much as the really good stuff like Stalker, for sure, but it still makes me happy), I just don’t want to pay $60 for four or five hours of it because they insist on bolting on this other nonsense.

      I mean, they already separate the executables on some of these games. How can it be this hard to twig to the natural next step?

  22. simonh says:

    Strange to see a game so divided, with the SP part a clear copy of CoD, but with the MP part a totally different and original experience (well, it was original in BF1942).

    It was a clear pre-order for me since the beta. Don’t really care much about the SP part though (this is the first BF game I’ve bought that even has a real SP campaign). I’ll play through it for the spectacle though.

    • simonh says:

      Woot! I just got Battlefield 3 in the mail, one day early!
      I wonder if the servers are up…
      Maybe I should ride into town and flaunt it in front of those queuing for the midnight release? >:D

  23. neolith says:

    Bummer – all that (minus pretty graphics and cool sound) sounds rather boring. :(
    I’ll wait for a MP Wot You Think…

  24. asshibbitty says:

    Those moments aren’t gruesome or chilling, they are specifically designed to not be. The devs don;t want you to question even for a moment whether this is an activity you should be enjoying. Game’s pretty though. Also lol at folks buying new systems for it, runs smooth on my PC tahat’s positively ancient by PC gaming’s standards.

  25. Christian says:

    Actually it’s the 27th in Europe. Just you poor people on the Island, driving on the wrong side and all, get it late ;)

    The release-dates on this really are strange though.

  26. bit_crusherrr says:

    The ending of the game rather confused me. As Solomon never loaded in so I was rolling around on the floor while people watched me. Some proper Fight Club shit going on.

  27. Radiant says:

    If fps games have devolved into pure shooting galleries; why are arcade light gun games uniformly shit*?

    * except point blank I could play that forever.

  28. Joshua says:

    Is there going to be an MP wot I think? There wasn’t one for the other shooters of this kind (Homefront, MW2) as far as I recall.

  29. GenBanks says:

    The thing I’ve been wondering is, how does the BF3 SP compare to Medal of Hono(u)r SP campaign?

    • Whiskey Jak says:


      Of course this is purely my opinion, but after the first 3 missions I’d say it’s comparable, not in terms of what works and what doesn’t, but in the overall appreciation of the thing, which is : mediocre.

      In MoH, I found that it was way too easy to just run and knife and headshot with a pistol. In BF3, you run, wait, do a couple of QTE’s, then shoot a couple of people and the pacing is rather bad. I know it sounds like most FPS (maybe except for the QTE thing) but you have to experience it to see how it is really mechanical and clearly separated. It’s the timing and pacing of the scripted events that are so glaring that it is painful, more so than in many other games.

      I would simply say that it is equally mildly bad. I’m not a COD fan but I must admit that COD delivers the SP experience way better (IMHO).

  30. Wisq says:

    You’ll probably enjoy the noise and the fury.

    No, no I won’t. Because I’m not going to let EA fob off their half-assed digital delivery service onto me, while whining about how Steam doesn’t let them break the things that make Steam a *good* DD service (like seamless updates), just because they think they can bully me into it with a Battlefield release.

  31. ossah says:

    Wow! Tts turning into a real “Battlefield………3” up in here!

  32. Maxheadroom says:

    Perhaps a sign of my age that I’m looking forward to the deranged fan-boy wars more than either of the man shooters.

    Gametrailers is already awash with angry comments from BOTH camps – Half shouting “9.2!! No way!! it should be 9.9!! FFS!! I hate you GT!!” and the other shouting “9.2!! No way!! it’s a 3.0 at best FFS!! I hate you GT!!”

    Imagine the comments when CoD is out and one inevitably gets a (ultimately meaningless) score higher than t’other :)

  33. BreadBitten says:

    Hrrm, a surprisingly warmer response than the acid-bile reactions most reviews are inciting regarding the campaign, maybe it’s not so bad after all…

  34. Killer6 says:

    Nice read, thanks. I’ve got to say that from the footage I have seen it does just look like a rail shooter, but obviously Battlefield games are all about MP.

  35. Advanced Assault Hippo says:


    “Battlefield 3: The Game” is the multiplayer bit.

    Is the SP even worth reviewing? Might as well put a N/A next to it as a score. It’s just there as something to watch one day if you have a spare few hours.

    • Khemm says:

      The SP component is there, and a game should be judged as a whole package – some people, like me, were just as interested in SP as in MP.
      I wonder why DICE bothered with SP if they obviously treated it like an afterthought from the beginning.
      “Meh, let’s not put any creativity or actual gameplay design into it, why bother, let’s rip CoD off instead, CoD SP is beyond crappy but it sells!”.

    • Advanced Assault Hippo says:

      Actually, I do agree with you that they should just have made it a multuplayer game.

    • Vagrant says:

      It’s an entertaining irony:
      Most games now have tacked-on multiplayer because it’s expected.
      This game has a tacked on singleplayer for basically the same reason.

      They even ticked the co-op checkbox!

  36. caddyB says:

    I’m not very good at shooting men because of my turn based strategy tendencies, my body simply doesn’t have the required leet skillz for that sort of thing.

    Consequently I can’t really afford to pay 60$ for a short single player cinematic experience since multiplayer probably means getting owned by more experienced and skilled people who are probably younger over and over again.

    I’m an old man now.

  37. TonyRockyHorror says:

    Sounds just like the single player campaign in Medal of Honor…which was GARBAGE.

  38. lijenstina says:

    A nice trailer for the multiplayer

  39. Fitzmogwai says:

    Who ever bought a Battlefield game for the single player?

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      No one. That’s the point. EA are trying to change that with this.

    • BathroomCitizen says:

      Someone should have told them to stick to the multiplayer.


    • Vagrant says:

      It’s sad they dropped the ball on this one. I would have found Bad Company 2 worth my time even if it was just the single-player story. I honestly can’t wait for another round with Haggard, Sweetwater & the rest. Stereotypes make fun game characters!

  40. bleeters says:

    Warning: independent thought alarm. Return to the combat area.

  41. Bodge says:

    link to steamcommunity.com

    This is the steam group that we have set up for the organisation and such of BF3ness seeing as the platoons only allow 100 people it makes sense to have a group with everyone in.

  42. PodX140 says:

    Completely off topic, but Testy test test was deleted :P

    I see RSS feed’s are working again? It’s been pretty broken for the last 2 days or so. Is it just me?

  43. tims says:

    Doors are literally edge cases. It’s where all the bugs are.

  44. Gravy says:

    Theres loads of full euro servers, thanks to the previously mentioned vpn if you bought digitally anyway.

    I think choppers and jets should have a reverse controls tick box, parachutes are rubbish compared to bc2.

    Had a few technical problems despite the latest nvidia drivers.

    On the other hand its BF3, unlocks a plenty and really enjoyable multiplayer. If you spent £30 quid on this to play singleplayer you need to get your head tested.

    • Post-Internet Syndrome says:

      In the beta at least, there was an invert option.

  45. PinkTide says:

    link to filesmelt.com

    If bad scripting makes this, all games should have bad scripting.

  46. sneetch says:

    I’m looking forward to this in only two more of your Earth-cycles, I suspect I’ll really enjoy it as I loved the new MoH in Single Player and this sounds like more of that (strangely enough I didn’t really like the Single Player in CoD BLOPS, despite the awesome acronym, it felt more obvious in the set up of its shooting galleries I think, but I digress).

    That said, like most sane people I think the MP is where it’s really at, that’s where the meat and veg is this is just a nice aside.

  47. TheDoctr says:

    I liked what Battlefield 3 game out with, at least it has a story unlike battlefield 2.
    I dont really understand why its an issue that it resembles call of duty, there both shooting games and i think they found the perfect way to tell a story with them so why mess with it.

  48. SirDimos says:

    “And like it or not, this is what sells”

    WHY? I really don’t get what the appeal is here. Maybe it’s just because I’m the kind of person who, upon spawning on an aircraft carrier, will immediately see if I can jump in the water. I don’t expect to GET anywhere by jumping in the water, and even if the game just says “You died, next time don’t jump in the fucking water” and reloads my last save, then I’m content. Bonus points if you let me swim for a little before getting eaten by a shark.

    But when games throw up invisible walls, or rail your character’s movement straight to where you are supposed to go…, then I feel like what’s the point of even playing this when I could just go watch Saving Private Ryan or some other equally impressive war movie.

    This is an especially odd decision for Battlefield – a shooter which made it’s mark in the FPS scene by allowing you FREEDOM. Want to pilot a battleship? K. Want to hop in a plane and kamikaze yourself into the nearest capture point? K. Want to fire the deck guns and sink the douchebag who took the last motorboat to shore without waiting for you? K.

    It’s just so strange to me that the Battlefield 3 multiplayer for the most part allows this amount of freedom – and thus it is obviously built into the engine – yet they decide that players would prefer a “press E to advance” single-player campaign rather than allowing you to choose how to approach your objective.

    Maybe it’s just faster and easier to code a campaign that is linear, and DICE is aware that most people won’t buy it for the single-player. It’s getting to the point, though, that they should either man up and make a decent single-player campaign, or just forget the whole thing and invest it into more multiplayer maps & gametypes that aren’t DLC…

  49. Euphoric says:

    There hasn’t been a game yet that had both an engaging SP campaign and a great multiplayer component. So I’m not sure why anyone is surprised by this at all. To anyone scoffing like “Well I’m not dropping $60 now that the SP sucks”. Come on really? You’ve been living under a rock if you think any FPS game is centered around SP, or ever has been. Replay value should be considered, if the game has an excellent SP campaign but a shitty MP and you complete the SP, do you really go back and replay it over and over again? So one run through of 10-12 hrs was worth your $60 but 200+ hours in a good MP game isn’t? Sounds totally logical.
    It’s a MP focused series. If you like the MP it’ll be worth it to you to buy. If you don’t like MP as much then don’t buy it, pretty simple.

    • Raidhaennor says:

      Half-Life series, the Stalker games, FEAR series, Bioshock 1&2, Metro 2033…and that’s just off the top of my head (edit : as exemples of SP centered FPS).

      And it’s perfectly logical to say that a good MP isn’t worth my money if I don’t want to play in multiplayer. And yes, I do replay the singleplayer if I enjoyed it.

      Nobody is denying that Battlefield is historically about the MP, but if the studio decided to include a singleplayer portion, it’s precisely to attract people like me (like us judging by the comments) who play primarily or even exclusively in singleplayer. It’s perfectly normal to review that part and to criticize it, regardless of the history of the series.

  50. Spider Jerusalem says:

    the best part about the sp campaign is that breaking the scripting is hilarious.

    otherwise, it’s truly awful.