I was really looking forward to playing Battlefield 3 last week. I couldn’t wait for my first real FPS game that was NOT a Call of Duty game. I knew that the campaign would be short as it’s mostly a multiplayer game, but you know, a short campaign doesn’t have to be bad. Gears of War 3 and Uncharted 2 have both proven that. Unfortunately, Battlefield 3‘s campaign was nowhere close to either.
The biggest problem with the campaign was the balance. It would go from being so easy it was almost boring to being so frustrating I was ready to rage quit in a nanosecond. Some of the sequences, such as the fighter pilot portion, seemed to be completely pointless. To make matters worse, the story was just as unbalanced. It would intrigue me one portion and then completely deflate me the next. Even in the end, just as a little twist was presented into the overall story, it was quickly let down by the ending sequences. Once I finished, I started to rethink the entire story and made notes of all of the plot holes I found. I spent a bit of this morning going over all of this with another friend, who confirmed my feelings.
He and several others have urged me to give the multiplayer an open chance, as that is where the game shines. I know that’s the main purpose of a game like BF3, but why does a single-player campaign have to be sacrificed and so botched? Why can’t both sides of the coin be fantastic? It irks me.
I’m holding off on writing my official reviews for here and Gaming Angels until after I spend some time with the multiplayer, but I have to say that if this game was only the single-player campaign, it would get a 2/5.
Again, so disappointing.
Leave a Reply