The bane of fanboys across the ‘verse, The Picky Geek is a column that takes the glaring faults of popular games, puts them under a magnifying glass, and leaves them there until they’ve been fried by the sun. With snark, cynicism and maybe even a little hyperbole, Ryan Larrabee explores why he never gets invited to any games industry Christmas parties.
Battlefield 3 has been well received by both critics and players alike, scoring 8′s and 9′s on reviews and even winning some Game of the Year awards. It’s commonly brought up as a sort of angelic savior of a market run by the villainous Call of Duty franchise. The “hardcore” will sing its praises until the sun implodes, but does it deserve all this affection? Is it really a prince among men? I’d have to say no, and here’s why.
The Campaign
The story seems like a good place to start, yeah? Strangely enough, it takes a page from Call of Duty: Black Ops and is told from the perspective of a military man on trial trying to prove his innocence. However, this is where the similarities end, and, unless you’ve actually served, Battlefield 3′s story will be the longest, most boring five hours you’ll ever spend behind a gun.
The game’s plot is so convoluted that it seems like the writers didn’t even know what the hell was going on, as there’s a handful of levels that have nothing to do with the plot other than the fact that the level’s playable character and the man on trial once exchanged passing glasses at a Burger King. Additionally, the set pieces are so completely forgettable and unforgivably cliché that it’s immersion-breaking. (A bomb on a train, that’s new and exciting!) All in all, the game tries to pump out the drama while maintaining a serious tone and succeeds in creating an atmosphere similar to that of your garden-variety fan fiction story.
The Sameness
Is sameness even a word? Oh well, it’s irrelevant, as, correct or not, it’s the very root of Battlefield 3′s problems. In its rush to beat Call of Duty, Battlefield has become its spitting image. Sure, it’s shinier and you can have more people in the same match at once, but we’re looking at is just another sand-covered “infantry simulator” whose only purpose is to keep you entertained just long enough for the next game to be released. Which brings me to my next point…
It’s Got No Soul
I hate using the word soul as much as you hate hearing it, but it’s true. In order to illustrate my point, let me give you a comparison. Look at the metascore for Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Notice anything? That’s right, it’s got the same score as Battlefield 3. Now, let me ask you something: in 10 years, are we going to remember Deus Ex and Battlefield 3 in the same way? I mean on one hand, we have a game with meaning and relevance. A game that brings up real social and moral issues. On the other hand, we’ve got a game that boils down to shooting anything that moves. Especially if it’s carrying a nuke.
What it boils down to is that Battlefield 3 is fun to play, and just like every game on The Picky Geek, I’ve bought it, I’ve played it, and I’ve enjoyed it. However, are we really getting anything out of it? Does it deserve the reverence it gets? Or am I looking too much into it and can’t see that games are meant solely for entertainment? Actually, don’t answer that last one. That’s a different feature altogether.
GO-FCK-Yourself
Totally agree. The campaign was a chore to play. People are just as rude and childish as they are on COD. That’s why Crysis 2 was a better game than either of these standard shooters.
I agree with the comment below me, you can go FUCK YOURSELF TARD! You solely based your review on the games campaign and yes it isn’t that good but this is the first time they did a story they have no experince in the matter, you should review it for the multi-player which is better then cod ten times over!!
I’m glad you agree with the comment below you, because that’s this one. Since I already know you agree, I think I’ll make some fantastical claims.
1.) Everything in this article is correct.
2.) Everyone who lives in Texas is at least 1/4 squirrel.
3.) The entire world is a figment of Mickey Rooney’s imagination.
4.) The author of this article’s good looks are outdone only by his writing ability.
Anyway, thanks for agreeing with me. If I can connect with just one person, it makes everything I do worth it.
You’re retarded.
So you’ve decided its a terrible game based on the campaign? did you realise that there is an option on the menu titled ‘multiplayer’? Why dont i just say that i dont like a book becasue the font isn’t very nice? Because thats not fair, thats only a tiny portion of the product and in the case of Battlefield’s campaign, the portion that nobody gives a shit about. Was this the most useless article about BF3 i’ve ever read? probably.
Who in their sane mind buys a Battlefield game for the singleplayer, infact it’s only the Bad company series, 3 and modern combat that has singleplayer, and even then no one really cares for 3′s Singleplayer Because it was an un-needed thing in the first place, a core battlefield game with singleplayer, How absurd.
Sorry for the confusion, but only the first point refers to the campaign. Everything past it is referring to the entire game.
This has too be be the most single minded and pointless Battlefield review on earth. Battlefield isn’t even meant to be a single player game, if it wasn’t for the Bad Company spinoff and their introduction of a real campaign then Battlefield 3 never would have had one. If you bought this game for anything other than the multiplayer than you are retarded, and probably deserve too have your system taken away and given to someone with a slight idea of what they are doing
Troll review. Criticisms of single player are valid, but your points are poorly fleshed out. Very little “sameness” with COD other than the FPS badge & modern setting (although try-hard campaign is a clone attempt). Comparing with Deus Ex is like pitting Apocalypse Now against Star Wars… Just ridiculous!
This review is a little late isn’t it?
This is just a look at the game’s flaws. The actual review was back in October.
http://pikigeek.com/2011/10/28/battlefield-3-pc-review-back-in-action/
If you disagree with the writer because he praise B3′s multiplayer, then you’re an idiot. Not trying to insult, but it does mean that you prefer multiplayer experiences versus single player campaigns, which is very very sad and you’ve missed the point of this article.
I didn’t buy it for it’s campaign, I bought it for it’s multiplayer, which is some of the best multiplayer I’ve played in a while.
Your analysis for Battlefield is on par with a McDonald’s lover criticising filet mignon.