Battlefield 3 Single-Player: Why Bother?
Ah, single-player games. In the dark past before ‘the internet’ consumed our lives with pitiful distractions, single-player was the accepted norm. Now, almost every game has a multiplayer component, regardless of whether they need it or not. Battlefield 3 has the inverse: a single-player mode where it probably doesn’t need one.
We’ve only played a small-ish chunk of the campaign, but from what we’ve seen we’d rather DICE poured its energies into making the multiplayer – the reason anyone’s buying the bloody thing – even better.
Yeah, it all looked very pretty, but as we sauntered down another linear corridor shooting identikit bad guys and thinking to ourselves ‘if DICE can’t beat Call of Duty, they sure are trying to join them’ we wondered why the devs had bothered. The levels are massively scripted and shorn of ideas (there’s even the obligatory night vision airstrike section that COD 4′s ‘Death From Above’ mission perfected 4 years ago).
The linearity goes against what Battlefield is about: open areas, freedom of tactical choice, ‘Battlefield moments’: those crazy shenanigans that transpire when you think up an A-Team style plan and it actually works (putting loads of C4 on a truck, driving into enemy territory at top speed, diving out and detonating being a favourite). Bad Company, for all its faults, did this really well, and had the good sense to know how preposterous it all was, hence the comedy angle.
Here however it’s all po-faced terrorism and stern commanding officers barking a load of jargon no-one cares about. It might turn out alright, but from what we’ve played Battlefield 3 campaign is nothing but boring filler.