How good is the Battlefield 3 Single-Player Campaign?
Best thing yet!
2.4% (2)
2.4% (2)
Pretty good
15.7% (13)
15.7% (13)
Decent
22.9% (19)
22.9% (19)
Bad
26.5% (22)
26.5% (22)
An insult to gaming!
30.1% (25)
30.1% (25)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: How good is the Battlefield 3 Single-Player Campaign?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

I just beat the Single-Player for BF3, and frankly I didn't like it in the least. What do you guys think? I'm not trying to rip on BF3 saying MW is all that much better because I honestly don't really like MW either, but seriously, is the campaign good, bad, indifferent, what?

I just beat the campaign, which is kind of sad only two days after release, and I was at school both days, and had other stuff going on. I did not have that much time yet still beat this game in roughly 5 hours at my best guess. (Anyone know how to look up that time? Cause I wanna know for sure.) And I gotta say, the campaign really sucks to me. Apart from being extremely short, the quick time events were annoying and bad (I was playing PC, QTEs don't work there at all), the game wouldn't let me do anything but hide in cover occasionally popping out and shooting. Hell, the game said I was leaving the level whenever I tried to run up and engage close quarters.

I'm asking myself right now, "What was a cool level, which is my favorite?", the only levels I can remember AT ALL is the 1st level on the train and the pointless jet level which I only remember because of how pointless it was. That entire level was just a sightseeing tour with occasional "X" button pushing plus some point and clicking on airplanes. One thing that bugged me was all the hand to hand fights going on, none of which were at all interesting. The only ones I can remember now would be the one where you throw the guy in front of the train, and the other where you throw him off a staircase, even though there must be a dozen or so of these fights. All of them involved beating the guy to the ground and stabbing/hitting/kicking him with something, which is frankly boring. What they needed to do was perhaps (for the fight next to a moving train) have your character gets his head slammed into the train as it's moving or have you on the ground with your head over the edge as the train's coming. Something to add tension other than winning the fight, then grabbing the loser and throwing him onto the tracks.

In terms of plot, the entire thing is basically MW2 meets 24 meets Black Ops:

Anyways, there's all my bitching for the time. I'll add something else if I remember it, but what did you guys think? Good, bad, worse, terrible, god awful, horrible, vomit-inducing? Ok, maybe I should have put in some more good options there. And I'm only talking about the Single-Player campaign here, I haven't tried the Co-Op yet and the multi-player is another discussion I don't want to bring up here.

TL;DR: I didn't like the BF3 SP Campaign, what do you think?

Of the shooter campaigns I've played, BF 3's probably doesn't make my top 10 list. In no way, however, is it necessarily bad; I've just gotten past the tank mission, and I'm enjoying myself, if not for just the visuals and the environments. Yes, it's a generic modern war shooter story, but, as others have mentioned, I didn't buy BF 3 for the story. I mean, the only reason I started playing the campaign was to tide myself over while my 36-hour bandwidth restriction (which I received while downloading the game) here at college winds its way back down.

The single player is crap. Good looking crap, but still crap.

Mostly because it's drowning in its own scripting.

They were trying really, really hard to be Call of Duty and didn't even get to that level of quality, let alone make something good.

I haven't bought it since I hear the campaign is mediocre at best...

Are there at least some good challenge map type things to play split screen or solo after the story?? Modern Warfare was only saved by that parking lot, fast food restaurant, waves of enemies, map my friends and I played together.

Haven't bought the game yet, but it seems the popular opinion is that the main campaign is shit, and the heart of the game is in the multiplayer.

Which brings up the question, if Dice is just going to release a sub-par single-player that no one is going to play if they have the option, then why include it? Just think of all the wasted resources that could have been pumped into making the multiplayer better, as in: more maps, more vehicles, classes, weapons, etc. Instead they were used to make a single player campaign that just isn't worth it.

It's pretty glitchy, but I'm sure that'll get fixed with upcoming patches. It also is short, ridiculously so. I'm already done with it and I got the game last night (3-4 hours). The tank and especially the jet missions are a hell of a good time, but I wish they were a bit longer. The AI has that classic aiming bullshit where EVERYONE on screen knows exactly where you are the second you pull the trigger. They are also ridiculously accurate leading to many frustrating deaths.

The multiplayer chugs a bit at times, but it's mostly pretty damn awesome. You can hear jets whizzing over your head, and gunshots from a distance. It really feels like you are a small part in a big battle. I like it for the map size and tension, but I have experienced quite a few server time-outs and lag. There is also a bit of texture pop in and screen tearing on all modes, but I'm sure it's much smoother on PC.

Sober Thal:
I haven't bought it since I hear the campaign is mediocre at best...

Are there at least some good challenge map type things to play split screen or solo after the story??

There's no challenge maps for the single-player, unless you just ramp up the difficulty and play normally I guess. Although, I haven't done the Co-Op and looking at the interface it seems like the Spec-Ops from MW2, basically, not a coherent campaign but independent levels which I GUESS would act like challenge maps. Again, haven't done it, but that's what it looks like to me.

darkstone:
Which brings up the question, if Dice is just going to release a sub-par single-player that no one is going to play if they have the option, then why include it?

I've wondered about this myself, most REALLY good single-player games are just single player: Half-Life, Deus Ex, BioShock, Mass Effect. While most REALLY good multi-player games are also exclusively multiplayer: Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead (sort of), Battlefield 2. Why split your resources into two bad parts of your game, rather than make one good part?

I know this is a Battlefield 3 thread so I guess I'm calling fire down on me but I didn't want to make a thread about it

Speaking of Battlefield 3's SP, how has the single-player bit of Medal of Honor (the latest one) held up? Would it be worth a buy for the SP alone?

As for Battlefield 3, I've only had limited experience with it, mainly in multiplayer and watching a bit of single. It looked beautiful on the PS3 but it's difficult for me to differentiate between friend and foe. MP used text-color which isn't enough for me really.

Judging the SP campaign on Battlefield is like judging the plot Pong.

This is NOT the selling point of the game, period. And I don't give a toss what Yatzhee made You think. No, seriously, stop quoting this post and yaping about the SP, becouse Battlefields were never, and never will be about single player, never. Bad Companys were the only Battlefields that had a single player campaign, and those were spinoff console games ported to the PC. It's a bonus, nothing more.

But still it's sad that DICE is getting punished for adding a SP mode into the game. People amaze me still.

vermin_:
Judging the SP campaign on Battlefield is like judging the plot Pong.

This is NOT the selling point of the game, period. And I don't give a toss what Yatzhee made You think.

But still it's sad that DICE is getting punished for adding a SP mode into the game. People amaze me still.

Has Yahtzee said something about this? If he has I missed it, oh well. Regardless, if DICE adds it into the game that means that they are taking resources away from the multiplayer and Co-Op. As darkstone already pointed out:

darkstone:
If Dice is just going to release a sub-par single-player that no one is going to play if they have the option, then why include it?

Not only does this take attention away from other parts of the game, it also is a selling point of the game that is fairly bad. Part of that $60 spent is for the single-player campaign, whether you play the thing or not. I didn't get the game for the single-player either, but none-the-less, it's there, and it should be good or not be there at all. i.e. Portal 2 was originally going to have a competitive multi-player mode, ya know why it doesn't? Because it would be a crap multi-player. Valve tried it, decided it would be impossible to make fun, and dropped it. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should.

It is a fantastic SP game to rent. Not buy. I will never want to play it again, but it was a really fun few hours.

The dogfighting/flying part is by far the most entertaining section of a FPS single player I've played in a long, long time.

But the whole SP together is kind of a disappointment, with random and ultimately pointless 'reveals' such as near the end with the whole 'he's on our side, but either way he is evil anyways so kill him' thing. No one part of the story is 'bad' per say, but none of it adds up, and I'm still not sure how it actually ended, it felt like a cliffhanger, no definitive answer.

The similarities to COD Black Ops are disappointing to, but to its credit BF3's campaign isn't completely the same, and it has some interesting elements, but it obviously got very little overall attention as far as resources go. Hopefully the CO-OP is just as entertaining as the MP, haven't tried it yet.

ParkerBaby:
The dogfighting/flying part is by far the most entertaining section of a FPS single player I've played in a long, long time.

Really? I'm surprised you found the jet level that entertaining. I realized I was just staring out a window for 5 minutes before stuff started happening and then I just found myself pushing "X" from time to time and clicking on planes when they flew in front of me. Maybe I would've liked it better if I had control of the plane, or maybe I just got bored after they popped flares and flew away for the twelfth time.

Blade1130:

vermin_:
Judging the SP campaign on Battlefield is like judging the plot Pong.

This is NOT the selling point of the game, period. And I don't give a toss what Yatzhee made You think.

But still it's sad that DICE is getting punished for adding a SP mode into the game. People amaze me still.

Has Yahtzee said something about this? If he has I missed it, oh well. -snip-

Basically Yahtzee said in one of his early review, halo 3 I think, that a game shouldn't have to lean on multiplayer to make it good. Basically if a game has both single and multiplayer, you should be able to cut out the multiplayer and still justify the sale of the singleplayer campaign for 60 dollars.

vermin_:

But still it's sad that DICE is getting punished for adding a SP mode into the game. People amaze me still.

Well, when that SP mode is subpar and the development time could've been better spent on the main focus, why shouldn't people question them?

Amnestic:

vermin_:

But still it's sad that DICE is getting punished for adding a SP mode into the game. People amaze me still.

Well, when that SP mode is subpar and the development time could've been better spent on the main focus, why shouldn't people question them?

Because the main focus was obviously the multiplayer?

Which, by the way, is perfectly fine, despite whatever nonsense Yathzee is spouting these days.

Who fucking cares how good the single player is? It is Battlefield. I bought it for the multiplayer, which is quality. Anyone who buys BF or MW for single player needs a nice slap in the head with a big, black dildo.

Frozen Donkey Wheel2:

Amnestic:

vermin_:

But still it's sad that DICE is getting punished for adding a SP mode into the game. People amaze me still.

Well, when that SP mode is subpar and the development time could've been better spent on the main focus, why shouldn't people question them?

Because the main focus was obviously the multiplayer?

Which, by the way, is perfectly fine, despite whatever nonsense Yathzee is spouting these days.

...no shit it's the multiplayer. I thought my post implied that, along with every other post in this thread.

And, by the way, it could be better. It could have more polish. It could have more maps. More guns. More vehicles. More anything. Instead they chose to spend a bunch of man hours on coding a subpar single player which is an albatross around the game's neck.

i am disappointed
if that is the norm of today's modern shooter campaign then my claims about modern shooters have been true all along

it's the first modern shooter i am playing longer than 30 minutes
i played about 2h and 95% of the time i was either just watching the scene or doing exactly what i was ordered to do
it's not even a corridor game... it's more like a thin line you're getting pulled by
i'll be giving it another shot today but if the game is not going to open up a bit more it's going to be deinstalled
(visuals are pretty good though)

but the 30 minutes i spent with crysis 2 were far more enjoyable than these 2h

Oh, this is going to kill me, but I voted for decent. All the trailers made it look like it'd be worth it, but so far I must admit I'm feeling let down. There have been some pretty fun moments, but it's just not turning out to be the zinger that I was hoping for. It just feels like another shooter to me, nothing special like it was saying it would be.
As for the multiplayer, I'm having flashbacks of Medal of Honor. Seeing as DICE made that game's multiplayer, that makes sense.

I havn't played this one but I think it's same to assume that the campaign in the same as the others, pretty bad.

But Battlefields strength was never in its campaign, it's the multiplayer that truly sets it apart from everyone else.

I love the fact EA thought about the players enough to add a tutorial (the campaign) to teach us how to use the stuff ;)

GreatTeacherCAW:
Who fucking cares how good the single player is?

Probably the people that plan on playing the single player campaign and not hoping they spent money on garbage. I know, I know...shocking... -_-

It has a few issues, I beat it on hard the very first time. The game not scripted very well. Often times if I was stuck I would just memorize the spawn points. I even caught enemies spawning at times. The music wasn't there most of the time, and when it was it the main theme. Which is great but kinda tiring after 10 times of listening to it. Its kinda sad that the technical aspects were lacking. Especially knowing the had just done Bad Company 1 and 2 2 years before. However I actually did like the story and 3 of the major set pieces. 1. the Jet Level. It was incredibly nerve wracking trying to lock on to those enemy fighters without any aim assist. Doing and weeing and using flares, I got really into it and did a little fist pump every time I got a kill. 2.I really liked now they referenced real world events. When the captain tells you "lets not make this a Osama bin Ladden scinario" when trying to capture the HVT, I did a double back. That still really currents in the mind of many Americans and resonated with me. 3. When your in the field running, completely defenseless from the Russian jet. I couldn't wait to get out of that field and try to take that damn plane down. Oh and the final question at the loading screen "What would you do for your country." No game has ever asked me a question like that and left me to ponder wither or not the protagonist was right. Kinda like a good Tom Clancy novel. I appreciated that way more then the MW campaigns. Not having so many explosions and taking time to think about the consequences of my actions.

Dr. Pepper Unlimited:

GreatTeacherCAW:
Who fucking cares how good the single player is?

Probably the people that plan on playing the single player campaign and not hoping they spent money on garbage. I know, I know...shocking... -_-

I think you miss the point. The point is that no one buys BF or MW for the single player.

GreatTeacherCAW:

Dr. Pepper Unlimited:

GreatTeacherCAW:
Who fucking cares how good the single player is?

Probably the people that plan on playing the single player campaign and not hoping they spent money on garbage. I know, I know...shocking... -_-

I think you miss the point. The point is that no one buys BF or MW for the single player.

Well, I do buy MW for the single player... if I want no thinking reflex clicking I play Counter-Strike. I think the story is fun, even if a little repetitive.

Blade1130:
I've wondered about this myself, most REALLY good single-player games are just single player: Half-Life, Deus Ex, BioShock, Mass Effect. While most REALLY good multi-player games are also exclusively multiplayer: Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead (sort of), Battlefield 2. Why split your resources into two bad parts of your game, rather than make one good part?

Uhm, SP was decent, it suffers from a lot of "Call of Duty"-syndrome stuff and doesn't much represent the actual game but it's playable, and once you get over the initial 3-4 relatively bad maps it also gets somewhat better.

But calling the Multiplayer a "bad part of the game" is just plain... ehh I don't know, it's just about the best a Multiplayer shooter had to offer in the last 5+ years that I can think of.

GreatTeacherCAW:

Dr. Pepper Unlimited:

GreatTeacherCAW:
Who fucking cares how good the single player is?

Probably the people that plan on playing the single player campaign and not hoping they spent money on garbage. I know, I know...shocking... -_-

I think you miss the point. The point is that no one buys BF or MW for the single player.

But if they bother to spend resources on that section of the game, which you do pay for, they should bother to make it worthwhile. Resources are precious, time and money can always improve a product, and wasting said time and money devoted to a game on sections that even you consider to be worthless is a net loss to the final product.

You can have it 2 ways. (Assuming in both cases that they bother to make the game worthwhile for multiplayer regardless)

1. Devote all resources normally allocated for single player to multiplayer design, and strip the single player down to a simple tutorial mode. The multiplayer diehards get a better product, single player advocates know that the single player is minor and can be safely ignored.

2. Devote enough resources to single player to make it worthwhile on its own. Multiplayer people get a good product with a nice optional mode to practice and maybe have a fun time doing so. Single player people get a product that stands on its own, and if they want more they may venture into multiplayer and beef up the playerbase.

Both these options have working precedents. Option 1 has CS, TF2, L4D1&2. Option 2 has COD4, Uncharted 2, and Goldeneye way back when.

If you stick yourself somewhere in the middle you end up wasting resources on meaningless drivel. Examples of which include Homefront's SP, Dead Space 2 and Bioshock 2's MP, or all-around generic crap like Haze or Turok.

vivster:
i am disappointed
if that is the norm of today's modern shooter campaign then my claims about modern shooters have been true all along

it's the first modern shooter i am playing longer than 30 minutes
i played about 2h and 95% of the time i was either just watching the scene or doing exactly what i was ordered to do
it's not even a corridor game... it's more like a thin line you're getting pulled by
i'll be giving it another shot today but if the game is not going to open up a bit more it's going to be deinstalled
(visuals are pretty good though)

but the 30 minutes i spent with crysis 2 were far more enjoyable than these 2h

Really? Press the 'multiplayer' tab in Battlelog. It's there for a reason.

vivster:
i'll be giving it another shot today but if the game is not going to open up a bit more it's going to be deinstalled

Multiplayer is that way ---->

Yes, it's a shame the single is horribly scripted, but it's still a Battlefield game. No idea why they insisted on putting that singleplayer in. It's not like you can beat CoD when it comes to Bay-esque explosion extravaganzas.

I got a question (just aked on another thread..but whatever) Im thinking of getting battle feild on PS3 to give multiplayer a real good try, I think my cimputer would struggle..

worth it?

GreatTeacherCAW:
Who fucking cares how good the single player is? It is Battlefield. I bought it for the multiplayer, which is quality. Anyone who buys BF or MW for single player needs a nice slap in the head with a big, black dildo.

I haven't played it yet (Damn British release dates!) but I have to agree with you. I must admit, I like me a good single player story mode but Battlefield is simply MADE for multiplayer. It always has done and woe betide them if they are attempting to change it.

Cowabungaa:

vivster:
i'll be giving it another shot today but if the game is not going to open up a bit more it's going to be deinstalled

Multiplayer is that way ---->

Yes, it's a shame the single is horribly scripted, but it's still a Battlefield game. No idea why they insisted on putting that singleplayer in. It's not like you can beat CoD when it comes to Bay-esque explosion extravaganzas.

well i thought it would beat COD in that area^^

but no multiplayer for me
unless there are bots for me to kill
they are always so much nicer than real anonymous people

GreatTeacherCAW:
Who fucking cares how good the single player is? It is Battlefield. I bought it for the multiplayer, which is quality. Anyone who buys BF or MW for single player needs a nice slap in the head with a big, black dildo.

It's a shame they wasted so much time and money that could have been spent on making the multiplayer even better, rather than on making an interactive movie then...

EDIT: I had a brain fart on that post...

vivster:

Cowabungaa:

vivster:
i'll be giving it another shot today but if the game is not going to open up a bit more it's going to be deinstalled

Multiplayer is that way ---->

Yes, it's a shame the single is horribly scripted, but it's still a Battlefield game. No idea why they insisted on putting that singleplayer in. It's not like you can beat CoD when it comes to Bay-esque explosion extravaganzas.

well i thought it would beat COD in that area^^

but no multiplayer for me
unless there are bots for me to kill
they are always so much nicer than real anonymous people

Woah, and you bought a Battlefield game?! Someone was misinformed. The whole series is built for multiplayer. You can always look for a fun clan to play with (UKMD, SteamPunks, maybe The Escapist will set up a server, etc), you don't have to play with randoms on the PC.

Nah, the biggest hint that the singleplayer was never going to be that good was the fact that they showed only really short snippets of it all.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked