BF3 Singplayer Campaign - Not That Bad

  • 90 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#-49 Posted by mitu123 (154289 posts) -

Reminds me, the Bad Company 1 capaign is the best Battlefield singleplayer IMO.

realguitarhero5
It's the only one that had more open environments!
#-48 Posted by tagyhag (15867 posts) -
It was boring but the Sniper at the rooftop part and the Russian jet on the open field part were pretty cool.
#-47 Posted by Mr_Ditters (1908 posts) -

The single player was about as bad as any other fps campaign out there. Nothing remarkable or different about it.

#-46 Posted by Notsovirgin (6 posts) -
There were flaws, a lot of it actualy in the story and technicaly,but i enjoyed, i luv the campaign of black ops it was'nt that good but it was'nt halo 2 either
#-45 Posted by klusps (10381 posts) -

Some of the missions has some spectacular scenery and short set pieces but it way too linear; even more linear then some COD levels I have to admit. Besides that I thought the best level was Operation Swordbreaker and it is dissapointing the game jumped all over the place. I hate this new trend in FPS now where it's like "we're going to be all over the world in different location". Personally I thought if they focused more on the characters and dialogue like in the level Operation Swordbreaker the campaign would've been at least more interesting.

#-44 Posted by PernicioEnigma (5391 posts) -

It sucks. Also, a bit off topic but does anyone else think the character you play as has a messed up face in those CGI cutscenes? Something isn't right with the way he looks...

I think the SP is a glorified tech demo, there really wasn't much in the way of gameplay at all, the mission where you're in a jet is almost entirely out of the players control.

#-43 Posted by PernicioEnigma (5391 posts) -

The single player was about as bad as any other fps campaign out there. Nothing remarkable or different about it.

Mr_Ditters
Pfft, sure. It was one of the worst I've played in a long while, Crysis 1/2 are better, Borderlands 1/2 are better, Metro is better, HL1/2 are better, Hard Reset is better, Stalker games are better. I could go on.
#-42 Posted by SPYDER0416 (16736 posts) -

I liked it more then Medal of Honor's campaign, but its honestly not great. Call of Duty gets a lot of crap, but that is a game that does a really good job with their campaigns, writing is ok (though the stories are way too convoluted after CoD4), while the Bad Company games had some very fun campaigns as well and even Homefront gets points for trying to be original.

BF3's campaign was short, it was the single most linear game campaign I've ever played, it was full of weird little issues, the story was dumb and nothing I played was something I felt like I hadn't experienced before. For a series known for gigantic battlefields and explosions, they tried too hard to copy Call of Duty and didn't do a good job, and when games like Crysis give us big open playgrounds to screw around with its disappointing they couldn't try that approach.

But if you enjoyed it that's cool, Game Informer gave the campaign some good marks but I rarely found anyone else that cared for it.

#-41 Posted by chrisrooR (9027 posts) -
I thought the AI was pretty bland in the campaign TBH.
#-40 Posted by TTwizardYer (78 posts) -

People dont realize that Battlefield series are not about single player. Its all about Multi, single player is only an addon. Acutally I liked the campaign. It was like interactive movie thats. Some mission were great some would be great but lot of scenes were in trailers and that ruin a little of suprise effect.

#-39 Posted by ultimate-k (2348 posts) -

Props one of the worst campaigns, Iv playerd.

#-38 Posted by skrat_01 (33767 posts) -
It's a bad shooter with pretty visuals and some of the most offensive scripting in any game to date. A poor Call of Duty imitation. Just let that sink in.
#-37 Posted by SPYDER0416 (16736 posts) -

It's a bad shooter with pretty visuals and some of the most offensive scripting in any game to date. A poor Call of Duty imitation. Just let that sink in.skrat_01

Yeah that's what I'd say. Its pretty, but that's about it when every other thing just plain sucks. Hopefully Battlefield 4 is either skips the single player, or gives us one worth playing, I don't understand why EA doesn't just have Crytek or Respawn help. Clearly they aren't against splitting teams up on the workload (like they did with Medal of Honor with DICE on multiplayer and Danger Close on single player), and it would easily improve their scores and sales (if only marginally) from the single player audience if they could get even a half-decent single player campaign out.

#-36 Posted by mhofever (3954 posts) -

It was nothing special but at least it's something extra added to Battlefield 3.

#-35 Posted by Lach0121 (9897 posts) -

There are some single player of games I haven't even gotten around to yet.

I am just now going through Black Ops 1 single player, campaign is fun, but the performance of the game is still lackluster. (which is why I didn't play it much before even the multiplayer)

I haven't gone through Medal of Honor 2010 single player yet, I will after I complete BO.

I also need to do it for BFBC2...

I don't even have BF3 yet, but will get it sometime in the future.

#-34 Posted by Baranga (14217 posts) -

The lead designer of this campaign was the lead designer of Mirror's Edge.

:(

#-33 Posted by Masculus (2877 posts) -

Really? The campaign sucked balls.

#-32 Posted by Gamesterpheonix (3550 posts) -
lol who necroed my thread? Its been dead a while...rofl. And meh. I was just making an observation.
#-31 Posted by Wasdie (50279 posts) -

Some missions were fun, but most of it was 100% forgettable. The real problem with the campaign is now it completely ignored it was a Battlefield game. Everything was way too linear, you only controlled a tank once, didn't get to fly a plane, and every battle was small.

BC1 remains the best single player in a Battlefield game. It felt like Battlefield while you played. It had a slight sandbox approach and let you use vehicles quite often despite being a mostly linear affiar. They should have greatly expanded upon that instead of making it a blatent CoD copy.

#-30 Posted by Lach0121 (9897 posts) -

Some missions were fun, but most of it was 100% forgettable. The real problem with the campaign is now it completely ignored it was a Battlefield game. Everything was way too linear, you only controlled a tank once, didn't get to fly a plane, and every battle was small.

BC1 remains the best single player in a Battlefield game. It felt like Battlefield while you played. It had a slight sandbox approach and let you use vehicles quite often despite being a mostly linear affiar. They should have greatly expanded upon that instead of making it a blatent CoD copy.

Wasdie

Wait was BC1 on pc?!? Did I miss this? I was unable to play it because by the time it came out, my 360 died on me (for the last time)

#-29 Posted by SPYDER0416 (16736 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Some missions were fun, but most of it was 100% forgettable. The real problem with the campaign is now it completely ignored it was a Battlefield game. Everything was way too linear, you only controlled a tank once, didn't get to fly a plane, and every battle was small.

BC1 remains the best single player in a Battlefield game. It felt like Battlefield while you played. It had a slight sandbox approach and let you use vehicles quite often despite being a mostly linear affiar. They should have greatly expanded upon that instead of making it a blatent CoD copy.

Lach0121

Wait was BC1 on pc?!? Did I miss this? I was unable to play it because by the time it came out, my 360 died on me (for the last time)

Console only, which is a shame since it went a bit unnnoticed (as far as Battlefield games go anyways). It was fun, and the campaign was an absolute joy, its like $5 now at Gamestop last I saw so if you have a console its totally worth it (if you can get past some of the rather dated design issues and controls).

I think the second game kind of went for a good mix, and it was on PC. It had some humor with some watercooler moments, but unfortunately I think DICE figured to completely ignore open battlefields. I mean come on DICE, not EVERY military shooter has to be a damn linear affair, CoD does it because CoD is GOOD at it, you guys are good at open battlefields (hence your title of choice).

Honestly, Crysis? Borderlands? Far Cry? Those are FPS games with a massive scope Battlefield could learn from in making a single player. Even Half-Life 2 and Call of Duty 4 were more open and varied then Battlefield 3's lackluster campaign.

#-28 Posted by Lach0121 (9897 posts) -

Thats what I was thinking^^.

We are getting a ps3 soon for its exclusives and other console exclusives. Was there anything wrong with the ps3 version of BFBC1? Cause I could always rent it on there with gamefly.

#-27 Posted by JangoWuzHere (16807 posts) -

The campaign in BF3 greatly offends me. I really enjoyed the campaign for Bad Company 2, so I had some expectations that this one would also be good. NOPE, it was buggy, boring, and has the worst scriping I have ever seen in a game. Yes, the game manages to have even worse scripting then Medal of Honor's (2010) campaign.

#-26 Posted by mitu123 (154289 posts) -

I try to replay missions but it seems I struggle to care to due to how not very fun the missions were. Wished there were better designed missions and such.

#-25 Posted by Elann2008 (33000 posts) -
No, it was bad.
#-24 Posted by SharkheadHD (231 posts) -

So, if you're like me you bought BF3 and jumped straight into the multiplayer. I love the game and have spent many, many hours playing the MP but never touched the SP until a few days ago after talking to a friend about it. Ive played through a good bit of it (I think) and it isnt that bad. The gunplay is satsifying - however quickly the enemies die - and the pace is nice. Sure theres nothing spectacular about the story but the story isnt bad either. Its something out of a movie. I also liked that it was coherent for the most part. I was able to follow the story and all the missions related to main problem as opposed to just being a random explosion of action. I havent liked a CoD campaign, for example, since probably MW1 or World at War or maybe MW2 but even MW2 wasnt that great.

Anyway, that said - why all the hate for the SP? I feel like they did a good job and the visuals were great. Whats your take?

Gamesterpheonix
Yeah the singleplayer is pretty nice in my opinion. It was pretty well designed. I personally didn't prefer the part at the very end (I won't spoil it for anyone here), but I guess it had to happen that way.
#-23 Posted by skrat_01 (33767 posts) -

Some missions were fun, but most of it was 100% forgettable. The real problem with the campaign is now it completely ignored it was a Battlefield game. Everything was way too linear, you only controlled a tank once, didn't get to fly a plane, and every battle was small.

BC1 remains the best single player in a Battlefield game. It felt like Battlefield while you played. It had a slight sandbox approach and let you use vehicles quite often despite being a mostly linear affiar. They should have greatly expanded upon that instead of making it a blatent CoD copy.

Wasdie
Couldn't agree more with BFBC, far from perfect but a whole lot more Battlefield, and it was great just having wide spaces to trundle vehicles across or engage on foot. I'd even go on a limb and say BF2: Modern Combat for the consoles had a better, more 'Battlefieldy' campaign then BF3. The whole flying between a.i. characters and taking control of them was great, and meant there was constant variety in how you played and went about shootan.
#-22 Posted by BobZany (1407 posts) -

The visuals of the single player were amazing. Everything else was tedious, and boring outside of a couple of stand out moments like the tank level. It was far too linear, too heavily scripted, and too boxed in for the most part. On top of that, none of the characters were memorable or really likable. As bad as MoH was, I found it to be more fun as a single player game. Bad Company 2 wasn't the greatest game, but I found the characters enjoyable, plenty of humourous moments, and the game remembered it was Battlefield from time to time with some more expansive levels, vehicle driving, etc.

COD has many of the same issues, but they're over the top enough that they're easier to sit through. Overall, I'll be happy when they start fading in popularity and the other good series out there stop trying to emulate them and do so badly.

#-21 Posted by SPYDER0416 (16736 posts) -

Thats what I was thinking^^.

We are getting a ps3 soon for its exclusives and other console exclusives. Was there anything wrong with the ps3 version of BFBC1? Cause I could always rent it on there with gamefly.

Lach0121

Nope, it works just fine on PS3 and has trophies too (and considering it came out in 2008 when games were only starting to accept that idea, that's a nice addition). Its super goofy and open, its not polished too much (you need to keep L3 held to sprint and destruction is only partial, though you can destroy the terrain nicely enough), but it is very fun and the best Battlefield single player yet.

I hope with Battlefield 4, instead of splitting the co-op and single player, they give us a nice open, Bad Company style campaign with 4 players. I honestly don't know why Bad Company never had it since you have 4 established characters in the series who are ALWAYS together and who never die in the story, which would make it perfect for 4 player co-op.

#-20 Posted by Zubinen (2856 posts) -

[QUOTE="Lach0121"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Some missions were fun, but most of it was 100% forgettable. The real problem with the campaign is now it completely ignored it was a Battlefield game. Everything was way too linear, you only controlled a tank once, didn't get to fly a plane, and every battle was small.

BC1 remains the best single player in a Battlefield game. It felt like Battlefield while you played. It had a slight sandbox approach and let you use vehicles quite often despite being a mostly linear affiar. They should have greatly expanded upon that instead of making it a blatent CoD copy.

SPYDER0416

Wait was BC1 on pc?!? Did I miss this? I was unable to play it because by the time it came out, my 360 died on me (for the last time)

Console only, which is a shame since it went a bit unnnoticed (as far as Battlefield games go anyways). It was fun, and the campaign was an absolute joy, its like $5 now at Gamestop last I saw so if you have a console its totally worth it (if you can get past some of the rather dated design issues and controls).

I think the second game kind of went for a good mix, and it was on PC. It had some humor with some watercooler moments, but unfortunately I think DICE figured to completely ignore open battlefields. I mean come on DICE, not EVERY military shooter has to be a damn linear affair, CoD does it because CoD is GOOD at it, you guys are good at open battlefields (hence your title of choice).

Honestly, Crysis? Borderlands? Far Cry? Those are FPS games with a massive scope Battlefield could learn from in making a single player. Even Half-Life 2 and Call of Duty 4 were more open and varied then Battlefield 3's lackluster campaign.

You only need to look at MOH(2010)'s multiplayer to see what happens when things get cramped for DICE. It's funny how BC1 is console exclusive and yet features sandbox style gameplay for SP and the AT4 for MP and yet BF3 where a lot of things are broken for controller like recoil control, jets, ranged combat in general, tv missiles, etc. doesn't feature any weapon like the AT4 unless you count TOW missiles and the SP is an interactive movie, and I'm not even someone who minds, I've enjoyed Heavy Rain on the PS3 which is the epitome of interactive movies(aka PS3 games). Actually the AT4 is in BF3 SP but not the MP :lol:
#-19 Posted by Ondoval (3103 posts) -

The campaign was a solid 2/10... at most. I can't remember a fps with a worse sp campaign, and even the Unreal Tournament one -the single player one was basically a tutorial to unlock succesive maps up to the final fight against Xan-. But, as with the campaign mode in Quake III Arena the bouts until Xsaero were fun.

Battlefield 3 campaign, instead, did reach a new low in the genre: the quick-time events and their use were nauseating, the plot and characters entirely lacked soul -at least the BC 2 campaign had some funny moments- and the on-rails mission in the Superhornet was a truly embarrassing experience. I did finished the campaign with the dificulty level topped and still wasn't too hard -less than 7 hours, and the only level which take me near to a hour, the infamous part "flying" the F-18 could be done in five minutes if the game would allow you to take the controls of the fighter.

The game would benefit a lot more with a vehicle tutorial instead of wasting time and other resources making such forgetable campaign. I had more memories about the campaign previews from the E3 than from my own gameplay -except for the air trip-. When they work DICE is capable to do outstanding multiplayer shooters, but in terms of single player their entire range goes from decent to meh or bad, and BF3's campaign falls in that one.

#-18 Posted by SouL-Tak3R (4024 posts) -

I thought it was pretty sure and just ok.

#-17 Posted by gunmaster55555 (707 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]You enjoyed a 5 hour quick time event? It was one of the worst SP campaigns I ever played. The game was cheap interactive movie.Jebus213

yeah yeah yeah we all know how you feel about BF3

Deal with it.

Oh look a moron! Thanks for letting us know over and over again!

Although I didn't find the single player that good for bf3 sadly but I bought it for multiplayer and that's where it's a blast :D

#-16 Posted by xLittlekillx (1813 posts) -

The single player campaign was terrible. I wish they'd stop trying to be modern warfare and give me back my offline botmatches like the battlefield games I grew up loving.

#-15 Posted by the_ChEeSe_mAn2 (8464 posts) -
The scripting in BF3 was among the worst I have seen in a supposed AAA FPS game. COD SP is by far better than anything BF put out in SP.
#-14 Posted by realguitarhero5 (3903 posts) -

Well the level in Paris was good. Operation Swordbreaker is nothing but a benchmark.

But I haven't even finished the game yet. No real desire to either.

#-13 Posted by mitu123 (154289 posts) -

Well the level in Paris was good. Operation Swordbreaker is nothing but a benchmark.

But I haven't even finished the game yet. No real desire to either.

realguitarhero5
You're not missing out on much either.
#-12 Posted by ndawgdrake (534 posts) -
Not that bad for sure, but also not that fun and by extension not that good.
#-11 Posted by SPYDER0416 (16736 posts) -

[QUOTE="realguitarhero5"]

Well the level in Paris was good. Operation Swordbreaker is nothing but a benchmark.

But I haven't even finished the game yet. No real desire to either.

mitu123

You're not missing out on much either.

The final level is basically quick time events, sitting and doing nothing, and shooting like 7 incredibly dumb AI dudes in your way.

Considering the final level was basically a rip off of Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2's endings, and put in New York, it is just a fantastically crappy ending compared to those two games, and I think the game as a whole isn't on the level of many other shooter titles. Its just not the Battlefield spirit, and clearly DICE cannot do set pieces or close quarters on the same level as Call of Duty or Rainbow Six, so they should stop trying.

#-10 Posted by R4gn4r0k (17016 posts) -

Literally one of the worst SP campaigns I have played in the last few years.

BF3 would actually be a better game without its singleplayer.