When it comes to first person shooters (FPS), there are two types of games. There is the Call of Duty franchise, and there is everything else.
However, in the past, EA has made some very fine challengers to the king with their Medal of Honor and Battlefield series. Truth to be told, I enjoyed Medal of Honor a lot more than Black Ops.
Battlefield 3 was supposed to be EA's crown jewel. It was supposed to be the coup d'etat against the iron grip of Call of Duty. After months of hype, I'm left feeling one way: disappointed.
Don't get me wrong; Battlefield is a fine game. It delivers everything an FPS should. However, it fails to live up to the giant hype that EA built.
Battlefield follows a typical story about terrorism and a soldier who has the potential to stop it. It follows a flashback model. He is being interrogated, and after he explains a situation, the player goes back and lives out the situation described.
Although it is compelling, the storyline in previous games were much better. Battlefield 3 failed to make the player invest into the story.
Of course, I’m probably in the minority in caring about the storyline in FPS games. For most people, it’s all about the multiplayer.
The one thing that truly sets Battlefield apart from Call of Duty is its use of vehicles. In Call of Duty, at least the ones in the past, you can’t use vehicles during the multiplayer unless you get on a kill streak.
In Battlefield, you have access to ATV’s, a tank and a helicopter, which is awesome. However, once you get killed, the helicopter crashes and the ATVs and tank will stay in the middle of the fight.
The vehicles definitely add another dimension and fun to the fray. The other big feature is that the environment reacts. For example, if you’re standing behind a wall and someone shoots an RPG at that wall, you are probably going to get killed because that wall is going to blow up.
Battlefield 3 even allows you to take down entire buildings using C4. It’s quite a sight to behold.
The graphics are stellar and the controls are the usual for these games.
The most frustrating thing in this game are what Battlefield used to do so well. In the past, EA games were fantastic about the other soldiers in your group actually aiding you. They killed enemies, laid down cover and generally didn’t force you to spearhead every attack.
However, this game doesn’t hold that same feature. I had to adopt the same “just get to each checkpoint and hope you don’t die before then” strategy that is used in Call of Duty. It was disappointing to say the least.
Also, the multiplayer lacks the variety that Call of Duty has built itself on.
All in all, Battlefield 3 is an average game that failed to live up to its vast potential. If you’re a huge fan of the franchise, it may be worth it to you.
If you’re looking for a new FPS though, you maybe better off getting Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3.