The genre of military shooters is a dry and barren wasteland of crappy overly similar titles that have countless sequels that are near identical to their predecessors and all seek to copy the two big names in the genre, Call of Duty and Battlefield.
Battlefield 3 is the return of the big name franchise, the first main entry in a long time and the first one to hit consoles. So to stand off against Call of Duty in a market they had not yet ventured into was a bold move.
Now I tend not to take sides on which game is better debates, but when it comes to Call of Duty vs Battlefield I have a clear and defining standpoint on the situation and that's because even though both represent all the bad things in the games industry, one series does more good than the other.
The plot to Battlefield 3 is pretty poor to say the least. Its one we have seen before countless times, one brown haired, gravel voiced American soldier knows how to save the world from nuclear war by killing a shit ton of Middle-Eastern terrorists and Russians. The premise is a Black Ops style interrogation with flashback missions telling the story of what went down, though the story makes more sense than Black Ops' did, it doesn't make it any more interesting and it didn't stop me wanting to pierce my brain with many sharp objects.
As far as gameplay goes, Battlefield is both entertaining and boring (not to mention broken) at the same time. You have access to a vast array of assault rifles...yeah that's about it. OK so there are some shotguns & SMG's and explosives but the only weapons worth using are assault rifles or snipers because Battlefield is all about large warzones and long sightlines so anything under assault rifle range is pretty much useless. Of course it has its close combat situations but an assault rifle is pretty much an all purpose weapon so like I said, no point in using anything else.
Battlefield also grants you access to various vehicles, most of which are easy to learn but hard to master, these help give some good variety to gameplay however Multiplayer is the only time these come into their own and then you're going to need to fight your own teammates to get to the one you want to get in enough practice with it.
Battlefield is good at making large scale situations look and play good, however the majority of the campaign takes place in medium to short range situations and as such really suffers. It really is something that once you sink enough time into the multiplayer, will be a very good game; but for new players or people who don't care for multiplayer, Battlefield has little to offer.
In terms of visual standards, Battlefield 3 is, on consoles, good. Its pretty no doubt about it however there are some major issues with the scale of the game and the ability of consoles. The PC version no doubt looks amazing and runs perfectly on top end rigs but the console version has texture pop in issues, a short draw distance on larger levels and some pretty dull colours.
For audio, Battlefield is pretty meh, guns sound pretty crappy and voice acting in the campaign was poor. The games soundtrack was ear pleasing and complimented events well plus explosions sounded pretty good, but it has as many good points as bad so it doesn't shine.
Battlefield is in my eyes, the loser of the CoD vs Battlefield battle. Though CoD may year after year churn out the same crap, Battlefield tried to re-enter the fray and was not what Battlefield once was. It was cut down for consoles and became another Call of Duty wannabe, at least Call of Duty isn't trying to be something its not is all I'm saying.
Battlefield 3 has a mediocre singleplayer and there are also better multiplayer experiences out there, so despite it not being an outright bad game, I struggle to recommend it as there are so many other better games out there.
Battlefield 3 – 6/10
+Does Large Battles Well
+Fast Paced Action
-Boring & Poorly Told Story
-Its Not What Battlefield Once Was
