Thread: The 57th Parallel: Battlefield 3

Battlefield 3 is a game that honestly shouldn’t be taken lightly. I went to the midnight release with a heavy heart that this game would not live up to it and I have seen otherwise. This game honestly shocked me and I think I actually got a little…ok never mind. That’s private. Ok this game really isn’t all that. I lied to make you seem happy. Battlefield 3 is a realistic, squad based shooter that was made to try to outdo Call of Duty in both graphics and realistic storyline. For that part, I think they definitely did not fall short and they surpassed my expectations when it came to graphics and the destruction mechanic. Yes I did play it on max settings so your argument for that is invalid.

In the campaign, you are a marine named Sgt. Blackburn who is being interrogated for a crime that is currently unknown. I actually do enjoy in medias res storylines if they can do it correctly. You are sent to past experiences to explain the circumstance in the eyes of Blackburn and the occasional mission with a man named Dima who is a Russian soldier. Through the experiences, Blackburn tries to explain that the enemy is a man named Soloman who works with two others and the PLR in Iran and that they have nuclear weapons planning to strike in the heart of major cities. I did enjoy the fact that they had a moment where you were a pilot named Jennifer “Colby” Hawkins controlling the weapons of a jet high in the sky. Great looks and fine experience on that part. I do have to say that the story is flawless but that doesn’t mean the game is flawless.

So cracking my first shot at the co-op story, I learned that your friends that you play with have no idea on what they are doing. First time in and I had a teammate going in circles randomly and the other one was not at his keyboard. It went from co-op to Nano-only in about two seconds. I really was disappointed. Seriously! Can I not get one game in without someone being stupid? Yea please don’t play the co-op. Ever. At all.

The multiplayer is something that gave me a love-hate relationship with the game. It is too easy to die in the game. I thought that Brink was bad but this game’s multiplayer takes the cake. The maps definitely are big and can hold what they intended but I feel like the multiplayer could’ve been more. I don’t care about realism if I am having too much fun to not notice and I definitely noticed that the game cared too much about trying to be realistic that it killed my fun. Two shots, dead. Respawn. Two shots, dead. DICE you have never failed me before but you did fail me here on this multiplayer.

The game is been known for being the rival of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. From what I have seen and experienced on both sides, does this game live up to the expectations given to it? Yes. Is it better than Call of Duty? Yes. Definitely yes! Could it have been better? Yes! Please DICE remember that your fans stick by your side through thick and thin and this was a mess up you can’t just leave unattended. I might also been getting onto more than what I should be because I did seem to enrage myself a lot for times unneeded. Get this game and I know I am saying that. It tastes like vinegar but I think my headaches and bloating is ruining the experience I should truly be having of this game. Hey at least I played it so it counts for something Call of Duty fanboys!

Thanks much for the review. I would like to know what you think could have been better about the game. If you were the one to have designed it, what would you have done differently?

I do not care for games that are too easy to die in. I feel that games should be challenging but when you die as soon as you start, that really does leave a bad taste in your mouth.

And no, I do not believe that if you do the co-op you can not have someone play with out being stupid. Someone always has to make an a## out of themselves.

Originally Posted by angie828

Thanks much for the review. I would like to know what you think could have been better about the game. If you were the one to have designed it, what would you have done differently?

I do not care for games that are too easy to die in. I feel that games should be challenging but when you die as soon as you start, that really does leave a bad taste in your mouth.

And no, I do not believe that if you do the co-op you can not have someone play with out being stupid. Someone always has to make an a## out of themselves.

Well all that would've made this better would've been make it harder to die. A million and one problems would've been solved with that. I do think that, after mother nature stopped hitting me with a baseball bat and I went back and played again, I did enjoy the game I got a lot more.

Is the online death rate quicker than Bad Company 2 though? It is hard for me to tell since I haven't played BC2 in a while but I remember dieing a lot there. BF3 you certainly die quick though and I hate it when you get campers that know what they are doing.

I've yet to finish the campaign and I got the game on release day. It is just so.. boring. So repetitive. I'm tired of playing these FPS shooters where the only thing different is better graphics, TBH.