By Omar Castellon
Staff Writer
It’s safe to say that of all the first person shooters made available this year, none have been more anticipated than “Modern Warfare 3” and “Battlefield 3.” While we still have to wait a few more days for the former to hit store shelves, the latter has been out for just over a week. In that time, I’ve had the opportunity to become well acquainted with the game.
The first thing I noticed as I loaded the single-player campaign was how gorgeous the game looked. Everything from the textures to the lighting demonstrates incredible detail. I can only imagine how much better it would look on a quality PC. The character models are especially attractive and for the most part steer clear of that dead-eyed look that seems to plague realistic games. Unfortunately, the graphics are overly bloomed (overexposed might be the best way to think of it).
The audio presentation is equally impressive. Firearms and vehicles all sound as they should and the voice acting is perhaps some of the best I’ve heard in any video game. However, I feel the talent is wasted on characters who are less three-dimensional than paper, an aspect of the game that’s further exacerbated by an uninspired plot.
“Battlefield 3’s” storyline involves nuclear weapons, Russians and strife in the Middle-East. Needless to say, it’s incredibly stereotypical, borrowing from almost every military cliché one can think of. This by-the-numbers plot is only accentuated by horrible pacing.
It’s as if the concept of rising action was lost on the script writers. The game just throws you into high-octane situations and never lets up. Consequently, any sense of significance or drama is lost. Perhaps the developers felt that by giving players non-stop action, it would create for a tense experience throughout. It’s anything but. When every scenario and mission feels the same, nothing carries any weight.
This isn’t to say that the single-player has no redeeming qualities. For example, the core gameplay itself is solid. The selection of guns is diverse and each feels unique. It’s also worth noting that each firearm has a satisfying feel. Though it’s a somewhat intangible point, the firearms behave as firearms should.
Similarly, the campaign mode features a decent amount of mission variety, including scenarios that have you take command of fighter jets and tanks. Nevertheless, great gameplay mechanics and vehicles are not enough to save the campaign from being mediocre (cooperative mode is equally paltry), but it’s worth playing through once, if only to get used to the controls.
Fortunately, most that purchase this game would likely do so for the online multiplayer alone and that is where “Battlefield” shines. The online multiplayer is comprised of five game modes: Rush, Conquest, Squad Rush, Squad Deathmatch and Team Deathmatch.
Rush, likely the game’s most popular mode, has one team defending a number of M-COM stations from the opposition, whose duty is to plant explosive charges on them. This is my favorite mode and I feel it’s the one that most lends itself to the strategic gameplay that “Battlefield” is known for.
Conquest can be thought of as a variation of capture the flag. It is the players’ job to capture a number of flags and control them. By controlling the majority of the flags, the opposing team will bleed respawn tickets (think of them as lives). The game ends when one team loses all of their tickets. Given that flags can be captured while in the relative safety of vehicles, I feel that Conquest makes the best use of them. This too is an incredibly fun mode and the madness that ensues from tanks and attack helicopters is irresistible.
Team Deathmatch should be self-explanatory, but I feel this is the game’s weakest mode for several reasons. The respawn system is atrocious. I’ve experienced several instances in which the enemy has revived directly in front of me, giving me an easy kill and vice-versa. While I have no way of confirming this, I think it occurs when either team spreads itself thin. Deathmatch also does away with the use of vehicles, a key feature that distinguishes “Battlefield” from the “Call of Duty” franchise. I can understand the reasoning behind this decision, as vehicles would be overpowered in a mode where the kill count is the only thing that matters.
“Battlefield 3” is a game that prides itself on massive levels, but I feel this is a double-edged sword. On one hand, having such a large space to maneuver means that matches rarely play out the same way twice, but this also means that the levels can feel empty. The console versions of “Battlefield 3” allow for a maximum of 24 players; the PC version can accommodate 64. Obviously, that makes a difference.
Another fault in the multiplayer experience isn’t one of gameplay, but one of practice. In order to play online, the game requires that you enter a code. Individuals who bought the game new have nothing to worry about as each copy includes an insert with a code printed on it. Gamers wanting to buy the game used will have to spend an additional $10 in order to enjoy the joys of online multiplayer. Such things are done to recoup supposed losses from the sale of used games, but it treats the consumers as dogs.
In spite of all that, however, the console version “Battlefield 3” offers an excellent online experience. If you haven’t a PC powerful to properly run the game, your money wouldn’t be wasted on either the PS3 or Xbox 360 version. Just don’t expect a good single-player experience.
