I quite liked Battlefield 3's campaign and MW2's but TotalBiscuit is right these games are extremely restrictive. They make good interactive movies though.
I got BF3 when it was free 2 weeks ago and wow. This campaign is so incredibly bad. If you think this is good then you must have never played a good single player game. Compare this to something like Metro: last light ... I would have had a lot more fun playing LL again instead of playing this piece of shit.
The videogames are suffering now-a-days of a big crisis, not only the fps genre, but also the horror genre now a days focuses just in jumpscares, it doesn't get you scared at all. For example, compare a jumpscare game like Resident Evil 6 and compare it to Silent Hill 2. There is nothing to say about, okay okay...you are the most badass guy in the world and doesn't have jumpscares, BUT, SIlent hill for example, may not get you jumpscares, but will thrill you with a great story, and also will make you remember it after playing , for it's psychological horror. However, I can point one good FPS, that proves that the industry is not dead, but passing through hard times, Brothers in Arms, perfect gameplay mechanics which balance difficulty and strategy in maps that will test you, also it's story is simply amazingly sad.
Yeah Bad Company 1's campaign did a very good job of trying to replicate the multiplayer environments into the single player campaign. You could tackle missions in all different vehicles if you so desire, and there was many routes and weapons you could choose from. It annoys me how they want from that, to this...
Bad Company 1 and 2 were GREAT both campaign wise, multiplayer, and character development, we need a BAD COMPANY 3, but of fucking course EA shot down the good sub-series that had me interested. While Battlefield 3 imo was just meh, it wasn't anything great and its what made me lose interest
I decided to come back to this video for one reason. If you dislike this kind of game (as I do) go watch his brutal Doom video, I just downloaded it and its one of the most fantastic FPS experiences I have ever had.
Wim Boeren i think the inudstry will never come back to that mind set. the biggest potentiël must be in indie developed game companies nowadays in my opinion.
I figured out Modern Military Shooter singleplayer campaigns. They go for realism in that you have to precisely follow your orders or be executed if you don't. Now you might say, that's not fun. And You would be right, but you see, MMS are like war movies. They are not supposed to be fun. They are supposed to show you that war is a terrible thing, and a horrible experience for everyone involved. There you go. Now you can appreciate the CoDs and BFs, and MoH:WFs for their brilliant commentary on war.
So basically you are saying that developers are trying to make video games as boring as possible to simulate how horrifying real war is? I have a feeling that you have misunderstood the reason video games exists. Not even sure if you're serious.
this campaign is much better than bf4 which is terrible, i quite liked the jet fighter mission, it was a change of pace which is good just like the tank mission, its quite important to mix it up a bit. TB was just terrible at the level but ultimately, the mission and the campaign as a whole is a bit of a tech demo.
All freaking modern fps campaings are stupidly bad, there are no better ones. And going hunting is the worst iteration of an on-rail shooter and a missed opportunity to teach a player how to fly a jet.
the multiplayer is good because of how huge and expansive it is, you can fight as 4 different infantry classes with a lot of different guns, you can drive land vehicles, or you can pilot jets and helicopters yourself the campaign is really bad in my opinion for being so linear and scripted
I can't tell you how much I agree. He was awful at playing the segment which might have helped to lessen the experience. I was very happy with that level, I really was. It was a treat to get that much time inside the cockpit and just see the scenery, and then it was just that much better when the MiG's came flying in. I know a lot of people hated the on rails style but I didn't mind at all. Developers shouldn't remove sections like these if people like me are still going to enjoy them thoroughly.
Its not terrible but its very close to cod 4 sp or Mw1 sp... OH and the obsession about iran and iraq or syria or other specific countries... How about the next cod or bf scenario is about an invasion on the us? wouldnt that offend someone?
To be fair CoD started out having awesome campaigns. CoD 1 and 2 had really well done campaigns as well as multiplayer. That all changed when it moved to console... And Battlefield used to exclusively concentrate on its MP aspect... But then it moved... To console... huh a universal dumbing down of franchise that started out as PC specific and moved to other platforms. Coincidence? I think not.
i'm fairly certain that those fighters can hold, max, four missiles and one bomb, as well as one load of flares and i thought battlefield was realistic
this video (and game) made we realize just how tired i have grown from First Person Shooters. In the 80's there was an oversaturation of pong clones, the 90's mario clones, and now in the 2000's we have modern warfare fps'. my goodness i cant wait for the next video game crash
Well yeah maybe not you but people like me. I love campaigns/story modes in games i didn't even really care about the multiplayer at the time because i didn't have WiFi after i got WiFi and i finally played multiplayer thats when i got into it.
Having two makes you choose which weapon to pick up from the ground and which one to leave. Having many you have to choose which weapon to use from your arsenal. Both require choosing actually. By having ten, you always have that right weapon for the job at your side. By having two, you need to choose which weapon will come in handy later, and what aspect do you want to sacrifice: ammo, range, kill time, etc.
I could also continue: The gameplay is always the central point and the storyline doesn't limit it, the game actually has a fair difficulty because the AI isn't cheap, all of the alternatives and the AI give it replay value, the game never has any "turret" sections where you are forced to use something for 2 seconds then forces you out and you never see that particular mechanic for the rest of the game, it has a lot more variety, etc. I could go on, but I think you get the point.
What you described is how frequently do enemies drop their weapons. You can still pick up the enemy's weapons even without the two weapon limit. It's the opposite, by having to choose two of them you need to know their advantages and disadvantages. By having all of them, you are ready for everything and that can become quite cheap.
Battlefield hasn't been great since Battlefield 2 and 2142 in the mid 2000s. Since then, it's become more like Call of Duty with each entry -- campaign and all. I wouldn't expect most console gamers to understand.
2024 RIP my friend. As of Today Battlefield 3: Mixed (9,257 reviews) I thought i would post how these old games are rated today, 6 years after his passing. Did they do better? Did they die?
Dude, I totally feel you. It's happening in all genres. What used to be the core of gameplay is getting dumbed-down to pay-to-win and always-online DRM strategies. And, as you indicate, companies increasingly see graphics as a main goal instead of a MEANS to an END (which simply is FUN).
I'm not saying the majority prefers it, but people do play the single player so developers put them in. And they are trying to improve it. DICE has said they want to make it much more character oriented, and Infinity Ward is even trying to make Call of Duty good.
Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising honestly had on of the best firefight moments that I can remember. Me and my friends sprinted down a hill towards an enemy position all while taking tons and tons of enemy fire. Hearing bullets wizz by our heads and one of us actually getting taken out. We didn't have to do this, we just thought it'd be fun. It got my heart racing a hell of a lot more than ANY modern military shooter.
That's actually part of the level design, the whole sniper thing. The funny thing is that most of the time it does NOT spawn a sniper enemy right away, you can choose to keep the weapon and it will certainly come in handy later, but at the cost of loosing the other weapon of yours. Halo always has alternatives though, you can always outflank a sniper or take him out in different ways. The sniper rifle is the most convenient way, but it has disadvantages. You were probably thinking of CoD.
This is where the similarities stop, the only Halo game to use QTEs was Halo 4, and it only had 3-4 of them in the whole game. The main difference is that Halo is open, in terms of level design it ALWAYS allows you side routes, different ways to complete a level, the levels themselves are actually big, you are never really bothered by any scripted event unless it's a cutscene, the game has pacing, actually good AI, you are never forced to do anything. Halo and MMS are two different subgenres.
Almost all FPSs -today- are like this. This wasn't a problem until a few years ago, when games started taking the interactive movies route and decided that the only way of telling a story was to limit players as much as possible, and constantly feed them cutscenes and scripted events...something they call immersion.
This level is an example of everything that is wrong with the single player modes in modern FPS games. The multiplayer in Battlefield 3 (and also BF 4) offers some of the most open and intense FPS gameplay of all time. You have the freedom to play in any way you like - drive tanks, fly planes and helicopters, parachute on to a building and be a sniper, support your team with ammo and revives, use explosives to destroy the maps and make your own cover etc etc etc. The single player on the other hand is a lame and lazy extended quick time event. It's fucking mind boggling why they decided to make the single player like this.
Thinking about it, your argument makes a lot of sense. The thing is, we have more cookie-cutter MMS than proper FPS these days. FPS being developed as PC exclusive sounds very good, but it may lead to PC having an underdeveloped FPS selection. If that begins as a trend, I don't think many developers will strive to make a good FPS, cause MMS are just basically all the same so it's easier to make, not to mention that these "games" sell so well. Damn, it's good to see someone replying properly here
Two weapons do NOT remove ammo conservation, you have less weapons therefore less ammo. When one of your weapons is depleted, you can't turn to anther one of the 10 you currently have. The tactical choice is about choosing the weapon in the first place, having them all in there removes the choosing aspect. Like I said, as long as the weapons are distinct, then there's no problem. It's not Halo's fault that other developers can't steal this idea and implement it properly. Blame them.
I think going through the campaign is like being an actor of Star Wars prequels. Despite all the explosions and wide areas, you don't feel it because you're constrained to a small arena and you have to do exactly what the game wants you to do and cannot proceed at your own pace.
I can't say that I agree, I think Halo is one of the few remaining console shooters that are actually competitive and not aimed at casual gamers at all. And like I said, the 2 weapon limit and health regen aren't generally the things that bog down these MMS, especially in the SP.
Damn near everything released during the ps2 era was single player. Dark souls is single player focused, uncharted is single player focused, dishonored is single player, mass effect, they are TONS of games with great single and multiplayer.
Oh no I don't disagree, just a lot of people seem to bash linear gameplay lately. BF3's single player is certainly ....on rails, that's not the way to go but there are those that do manage to do a great job with it by giving freedom in different ways as you said.
Let's be honest here, the major reason why these games are even popular is because of their MP. That's the mode that receives the most focus. Are you really going to tell me that a half-arsed SP, that lasts 3-4 hours, barely has any challenges, limits the player in everything that he is forced to do, and has almost zero replay value is something they make because the majority prefers it this way? I really doubt that. Even so, why not try to improve it?
Perfect example of the type of person that these game are catered towards. SP used to be actually good in FPS games before CoD appeared on the stage, it was hardly cinematic and the plot didn't limit the gameplay and didn't break the pacing. Corridor-shooter refers to linear environments, not indoors. Nobody is saying that the game could do better without a story...but the story shouldn't limit the gameplay, and the gameplay should receive more focus that it.
Yes, linearity combined with some open-ended mission structure can work very well. However, if they say "You have to kill these guys with the machine gun and you can't go more than 10ft in either direction," that's just stupid. Games are about putting the player in control of the action, so those mission constraints bring it closer to the "interactive movie" that people are complaining about. Games should not be interactive movies.
I couldn't get into the single player, it's follow team here, breach door there, shoot people here, follow team there, shoot more people there, breach door there. It got really really uninteresting really quick. Multiplayer was another story, really fun but man the singleplayer may as well be on rails like House of the Dead.
Like I always say, it's much easier to make a good MP experience than a good SP experience. Just put two people together in a map, give them weapons and they'll entertain themselves, that's the basis of most MP out there. Balancing is most of the times subjective, so what really makes a MP good? The number of weapons/maps/toys? The fact that it's competitive or casual? Can you answer me this? And what SP-only games go for full price?
>The single player campaign is an interactive movie. Like a movie, it has a script. I personally prefer gameplay driven story over story driven gameplay.
Honestly, I think the answer isn't to throw out SP and focus completely on MP. I for one loved the SP in every BF up to 3, because they were similar to MP. Heck, the campaign for BF 1942 (yeah, the very first one) had a nice campaign, and all the missions were free and open, with points to capture, tickets, etc. Like the MP. Every BF since was like that (and playing bots was fun), but they decided not to do that this time, and look where it got us. A crap SP in a game that used to have great SP.
the WTF is... series is a first impression series (as he has said too many times). He'll play for some time to get to know some things beforehand and then starts recording part way through the game. How can he predict that the mission he decides he wants to record is going to be a bad one? Plus, he has multiplayer content videos as well (including this game). He doesnt cop out and say "Well no one cares about the single player so lets just glance over it" TB's opinion always worth listening to
Multiplayer itself isn't ruining the industry, but developers should put more time and effort into the campaign before they even THINK about multiplayer. Take Far Cry 3 for example. It looks great, has tons of ways to approach objectives, tons of sidequests, a good story, and great gunplay. That alone makes it worth a buy, but Ubisoft also added a great co-op campaign and competitive multiplayer. That is how a game with multiplayer should be done.
oh i thought we were talking about a real war and not a one sided failure of a counter insurgency operation. In that case, it means walking around for 6 hours a day in the blistering heat and then stepping on a landmine and losing a leg because your 'allies' were 'asleep' while the road they were 'watching' was being mined. then getting shot by one of said 'allies' who then runs off to join the guys he was 'helping' you fight. but i suppose airstrikes and arty all day every day is cool too.
Flanking is more effective than sitting in one spot dude, attacking from multiple angles is always more effective than a head on assault, pincer formation equals win!
I don't think anybody would be mad. Most people that play BF do so for the MP. And people that actually want to play a decent SP don't play BF. You need to realize that it's only in there to justify the game's price tag, without it, the game would cost significantly less. So for that price why shouldn't they focus on all modes? Again, why not keep everybody happy? Either focus on it, or just let others do it.
this is why GTA IV is better than both BF3 and BF4 campaign(I know people will disagree with me but the storyline is the best in the series, though not great and got some flaws)
Waypoints have been in Halo since the first game, in 2001, when the MMS genre wasn't even thought of yet. Same for the control tutorials. Same for the two gun limit, which is something that actually adds a lot of skill since you have to choose which gun you want to use, and it works when every gun is unique and has advantages and disadvantages. Whoring all weapons and being basically ready for everything is not something that works in many games.
It's pretty close in fact, missing a few indie games but I can't see why that should be any different. This means that I've been in the genre long enough to say that scripted campaigns is long from present in every FPS single player campaign. This is just an example of a company wanting to cash in on multiplayer, and simply didn't give 2 fucks about the single player part.
I'm pretty sure the single player is more like a tutorial to give you a chance when you go online, it is after all based mostly on the network battles, so I would say they introduce you to all the different things to do in the game so you'll know what you do when you go online...
The soldier would obey orders to mount the nearby machine gun and apply suppressing fire so the rest of the team doesn't get fucked up by incoming fire. TB wasn't so much trying to flank the enemy as he was trying to go Rambo while his squad gets killed.
Actually, it would consist almost entirely of suppressing insurgents while calling in arty and airstrikes. Most Coalition combat fatalities are from IEDs, which never kill the player in FPSes, unless he runs off the clearly-marked path the bad guys have helpfully left.
The problem with having freedom in an FPS is that people with screw around and go everywhere. Then, the only way to tell a story or advance plot is by having a "God Voice" that tells you what to do and what is going on like Crysis did with radio transmissions.
For your part in the parking lot fight where you have to take out the rpg's (operation swordbreaker) you can switch to a sniper and actually hit there without spraying
Yet when you horde all the weapons, you're almost certainly going to have that one weapons that has ammo scattered everywhere and you never run out, while keeping that important power weapon in the back for special occasions. The difference with Halo is that you need to drop your general use weapons for that limited ammo power weapon.
You'd think so wouldn't you. I have no idea why most games seem to focus almost exclusively on either single player or multiplayer and there are very few games that have both. The best example I can think of is probably Halo, it has a half decent campaign and a fairly good multiplayer so it's definitely possible.
The flying mission isn't an on-rails shooter. In an on-rails shooter, you get to shoot what you want, by aiming at it, with the gun you happen to have or choose. In this flying section, you point the mouse vaguely in the enemy direction untill you get a lock and some NPC bombs it. I could understand this from COD (not that I'd like it), but BF comes with flight physics and support for big maps to fly over. They needed to put in extra work to make the section this shitty.
You can't generalize something as subjective as entertainment. TB didn't enjoy the single player experience because he wanted freedom. I enjoyed the single player experience despite the lack of freedom. Different strokes for different folks.
That's exactly how it work with Halo as well, you see a rocket launcher, you can choose to waste it on some Elites, or keep it for later to use on some Hunters. This comes at the disadvantage of loosing a weapon slot to it. While with a horde of weapon the disadvantage is...what? None. If Halo was strict and you could only kill certain enemies with certain weapons then I would agree. But it's not CoD.
BF 3 is my most favourite Fps atm... But seriously the Singleplayer was as bad as most other "MMS". Before people say I got no idea: This is my subjective opinion and I played through the whole campaign on hardest difficulty.
You're probably right. I think either letting another developer do the single player or just focus on the multiplayer would have had better results. The series has never had a particularly good single player maybe they should just make it a multiplayer only series. On the bright side they did significantly improve on the atrocious AI that the series has had, maybe next time they will do better with mission design as well.
Great points made in this video. And I am absolutely on board with the complaints about the jet segment. They have a great jet system in multiplayer, why can't they have one in the single-player? Far Cry 3 was a great game in terms of freedom because it allows you to approach most missions in many different ways, and I absolutely love that. Dishonored does that too. We need much more of that gameplay style in every game. EVERY GAME.
Really? Goldeneye and Perfect Dark? Those games still don't really require brain power at all... You want a thinking shooter, play S.T.A.L.K.E.R. SoC, play Arma, play Counter Strike, play rainbow six (the earlier ones) play ghost recond (the earlier ones). Perfect Dark and Goldeneye? No, just... No.
Battlefield 3 is more of a lone wolf game where as bad company 2 was more of a squad based game (game designer's words, not mine), but i guess it's still more of a multiplayer game than anything else.
Crysis Warhead is the solution to the gameplay criticisms if Crysis. The combat is much more frequent, and packed with much more action. You don't find yourself wandering around an empty island in Crysis Warhead than what you would do in Crysis.
We need people who like games to make games. Not employees who get ordered to make something to earn money.
we said this 6 years ago???................damn
I quite liked Battlefield 3's campaign and MW2's but TotalBiscuit is right these games are extremely restrictive. They make good interactive movies though.
how can you like bf3 campaign
I'm nowhere a COD fan nor BF,but at least MW2's campaign delivers well,it was way less scripted.
1:35 Americas foreign policy in a nutshell.
Lmao that made me chuckle
"Press left mouse button to be hero."
Wise words.
I hated the ground hunting in the mission going hunting. BF3 is so linear and strict just bought for the multiplayer
I can't believe that DICE actually managed to make a jet dogfighting mission boring, that takes some serious skill.
I hate how so many FPS's operate on this principle:
Brown! Get him!
Iranians are light skinned
"Mow down everything that looks like it's brown" -TotalBiscuit
I got BF3 when it was free 2 weeks ago and wow. This campaign is so incredibly bad. If you think this is good then you must have never played a good single player game. Compare this to something like Metro: last light ... I would have had a lot more fun playing LL again instead of playing this piece of shit.
Dang I'm getting so sick of games like these!
The videogames are suffering now-a-days of a big crisis, not only the fps genre, but also the horror genre now a days focuses just in jumpscares, it doesn't get you scared at all. For example, compare a jumpscare game like Resident Evil 6 and compare it to Silent Hill 2. There is nothing to say about, okay okay...you are the most badass guy in the world and doesn't have jumpscares, BUT, SIlent hill for example, may not get you jumpscares, but will thrill you with a great story, and also will make you remember it after playing , for it's psychological horror. However, I can point one good FPS, that proves that the industry is not dead, but passing through hard times, Brothers in Arms, perfect gameplay mechanics which balance difficulty and strategy in maps that will test you, also it's story is simply amazingly sad.
Yeah Bad Company 1's campaign did a very good job of trying to replicate the multiplayer environments into the single player campaign. You could tackle missions in all different vehicles if you so desire, and there was many routes and weapons you could choose from.
It annoys me how they want from that, to this...
Why is making a well-rounded game so difficult for Treyarch and Dice?
Uhh,have you heard about COD 2 Big Red One?
Because, you are asking for game developers to pander to every detail which diminishes the final product overall.
"mow down everything that looks like its brown"
Not sure if being racist or just criticising the graphical style.
LeKa 槌
It's more a critism of the simplistic nature of the story I believe.
Bad Company 1 and 2 were GREAT both campaign wise, multiplayer, and character development, we need a BAD COMPANY 3, but of fucking course EA shot down the good sub-series that had me interested. While Battlefield 3 imo was just meh, it wasn't anything great and its what made me lose interest
I decided to come back to this video for one reason. If you dislike this kind of game (as I do) go watch his brutal Doom video, I just downloaded it and its one of the most fantastic FPS experiences I have ever had.
Wow… I heard it was bad, but this is really bad.
Wim Boeren i think the inudstry will never come back to that mind set. the biggest potentiël must be in indie developed game companies nowadays in my opinion.
I thought the campaign in BF4 was great and had a LOT more freedom .
It's true that BF3's campaign was quite disappointing, but the multiplayer was undobtedly amazing.
I hated this mission.
I figured out Modern Military Shooter singleplayer campaigns.
They go for realism in that you have to precisely follow your orders or be executed if you don't. Now you might say, that's not fun. And You would be right, but you see, MMS are like war movies. They are not supposed to be fun. They are supposed to show you that war is a terrible thing, and a horrible experience for everyone involved.
There you go. Now you can appreciate the CoDs and BFs, and MoH:WFs for their brilliant commentary on war.
So basically you are saying that developers are trying to make video games as boring as possible to simulate how horrifying real war is? I have a feeling that you have misunderstood the reason video games exists. Not even sure if you're serious.
if you want a game to show you the horrors of war "sigh'' play spec ops the line
joshua culley
I did. Great game.
@@little_isalina I bet some vets will laughing out loud after looking your comment.
The campaing was okay,but who the hell plays the campaing,eh? ....Okay I do.
Nah, we prefer to play the multiplayer over any over game mode.
RIP. Its 2022 and your still missed,
Rest in peace, TotalBiscuit..
this campaign is much better than bf4 which is terrible, i quite liked the jet fighter mission, it was a change of pace which is good just like the tank mission, its quite important to mix it up a bit. TB was just terrible at the level but ultimately, the mission and the campaign as a whole is a bit of a tech demo.
All freaking modern fps campaings are stupidly bad, there are no better ones. And going hunting is the worst iteration of an on-rail shooter and a missed opportunity to teach a player how to fly a jet.
i disagree, its ok to be on-rails when you're trying to show an experience, its story telling after all
the multiplayer is good because of how huge and expansive it is, you can fight as 4 different infantry classes with a lot of different guns, you can drive land vehicles, or you can pilot jets and helicopters yourself the campaign is really bad in my opinion for being so linear and scripted
I disagree. At least the BF4 campaign has some open areas and a decent challenge.
I can't tell you how much I agree. He was awful at playing the segment which might have helped to lessen the experience. I was very happy with that level, I really was. It was a treat to get that much time inside the cockpit and just see the scenery, and then it was just that much better when the MiG's came flying in. I know a lot of people hated the on rails style but I didn't mind at all. Developers shouldn't remove sections like these if people like me are still going to enjoy them thoroughly.
Rest In Peace TotalBiscuit
I'm ok with heavily scripted campaign's if by restricting and funnelling you, they create an amazing experience.
I know the dude passed away but... ugly but... He played that Naval aviator part like a real, 100% authentic moron...
Dude,what?
Its not terrible but its very close to cod 4 sp or Mw1 sp...
OH and the obsession about iran and iraq or syria or other specific countries...
How about the next cod or bf scenario is about an invasion on the us? wouldnt that offend someone?
To be fair CoD started out having awesome campaigns. CoD 1 and 2 had really well done campaigns as well as multiplayer. That all changed when it moved to console...
And Battlefield used to exclusively concentrate on its MP aspect... But then it moved... To console... huh a universal dumbing down of franchise that started out as PC specific and moved to other platforms. Coincidence? I think not.
Finally,someone who understands the history of the previous games.
The voice acting was pretty decent. Though I must agree the story was pretty boring. But the gameplay was amazing.
i'm fairly certain that those fighters can hold, max, four missiles and one bomb, as well as one load of flares
and i thought battlefield was realistic
this video (and game) made we realize just how tired i have grown from First Person Shooters. In the 80's there was an oversaturation of pong clones, the 90's mario clones, and now in the 2000's we have modern warfare fps'. my goodness i cant wait for the next video game crash
Well yeah maybe not you but people like me. I love campaigns/story modes in games i didn't even really care about the multiplayer at the time because i didn't have WiFi after i got WiFi and i finally played multiplayer thats when i got into it.
Having two makes you choose which weapon to pick up from the ground and which one to leave. Having many you have to choose which weapon to use from your arsenal. Both require choosing actually.
By having ten, you always have that right weapon for the job at your side. By having two, you need to choose which weapon will come in handy later, and what aspect do you want to sacrifice: ammo, range, kill time, etc.
"can you dispute a single thing I've said based on my personal preference?" lol gold
I could also continue: The gameplay is always the central point and the storyline doesn't limit it, the game actually has a fair difficulty because the AI isn't cheap, all of the alternatives and the AI give it replay value, the game never has any "turret" sections where you are forced to use something for 2 seconds then forces you out and you never see that particular mechanic for the rest of the game, it has a lot more variety, etc.
I could go on, but I think you get the point.
What you described is how frequently do enemies drop their weapons. You can still pick up the enemy's weapons even without the two weapon limit.
It's the opposite, by having to choose two of them you need to know their advantages and disadvantages. By having all of them, you are ready for everything and that can become quite cheap.
would be cool concept if they let 2 people in a jet in multiplayer right?
i fucking love your commentary it's exactly what im thinking when i play
I remember that I started yelling "LET ME DO SOMETHING" at this game at some point...
Battlefield hasn't been great since Battlefield 2 and 2142 in the mid 2000s. Since then, it's become more like Call of Duty with each entry -- campaign and all. I wouldn't expect most console gamers to understand.
2024 RIP my friend.
As of Today Battlefield 3: Mixed (9,257 reviews)
I thought i would post how these old games are rated today, 6 years after his passing. Did they do better? Did they die?
Dude, I totally feel you. It's happening in all genres. What used to be the core of gameplay is getting dumbed-down to pay-to-win and always-online DRM strategies. And, as you indicate, companies increasingly see graphics as a main goal instead of a MEANS to an END (which simply is FUN).
I agree fps thees days are just trying to look amazing and epik
I'm not saying the majority prefers it, but people do play the single player so developers put them in. And they are trying to improve it. DICE has said they want to make it much more character oriented, and Infinity Ward is even trying to make Call of Duty good.
Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising honestly had on of the best firefight moments that I can remember. Me and my friends sprinted down a hill towards an enemy position all while taking tons and tons of enemy fire. Hearing bullets wizz by our heads and one of us actually getting taken out. We didn't have to do this, we just thought it'd be fun. It got my heart racing a hell of a lot more than ANY modern military shooter.
That's actually part of the level design, the whole sniper thing. The funny thing is that most of the time it does NOT spawn a sniper enemy right away, you can choose to keep the weapon and it will certainly come in handy later, but at the cost of loosing the other weapon of yours. Halo always has alternatives though, you can always outflank a sniper or take him out in different ways. The sniper rifle is the most convenient way, but it has disadvantages. You were probably thinking of CoD.
This is where the similarities stop, the only Halo game to use QTEs was Halo 4, and it only had 3-4 of them in the whole game.
The main difference is that Halo is open, in terms of level design it ALWAYS allows you side routes, different ways to complete a level, the levels themselves are actually big, you are never really bothered by any scripted event unless it's a cutscene, the game has pacing, actually good AI, you are never forced to do anything.
Halo and MMS are two different subgenres.
Almost all FPSs -today- are like this. This wasn't a problem until a few years ago, when games started taking the interactive movies route and decided that the only way of telling a story was to limit players as much as possible, and constantly feed them cutscenes and scripted events...something they call immersion.
This level is an example of everything that is wrong with the single player modes in modern FPS games.
The multiplayer in Battlefield 3 (and also BF 4) offers some of the most open and intense FPS gameplay of all time. You have the freedom to play in any way you like - drive tanks, fly planes and helicopters, parachute on to a building and be a sniper, support your team with ammo and revives, use explosives to destroy the maps and make your own cover etc etc etc.
The single player on the other hand is a lame and lazy extended quick time event. It's fucking mind boggling why they decided to make the single player like this.
Yeah! BC1 SP was damn great! Open maps and funny dialogue.
Thinking about it, your argument makes a lot of sense. The thing is, we have more cookie-cutter MMS than proper FPS these days. FPS being developed as PC exclusive sounds very good, but it may lead to PC having an underdeveloped FPS selection. If that begins as a trend, I don't think many developers will strive to make a good FPS, cause MMS are just basically all the same so it's easier to make, not to mention that these "games" sell so well. Damn, it's good to see someone replying properly here
I personally had trouble with controlling the tanks
Two weapons do NOT remove ammo conservation, you have less weapons therefore less ammo. When one of your weapons is depleted, you can't turn to anther one of the 10 you currently have. The tactical choice is about choosing the weapon in the first place, having them all in there removes the choosing aspect.
Like I said, as long as the weapons are distinct, then there's no problem. It's not Halo's fault that other developers can't steal this idea and implement it properly. Blame them.
I like how you fly above the clouds in that game, yet everything is still borderline grayscale somehow.
I think going through the campaign is like being an actor of Star Wars prequels. Despite all the explosions and wide areas, you don't feel it because you're constrained to a small arena and you have to do exactly what the game wants you to do and cannot proceed at your own pace.
I can't say that I agree, I think Halo is one of the few remaining console shooters that are actually competitive and not aimed at casual gamers at all.
And like I said, the 2 weapon limit and health regen aren't generally the things that bog down these MMS, especially in the SP.
Damn near everything released during the ps2 era was single player. Dark souls is single player focused, uncharted is single player focused, dishonored is single player, mass effect, they are TONS of games with great single and multiplayer.
I love it when TB makes fun of MMS campaigns.
Oh no I don't disagree, just a lot of people seem to bash linear gameplay lately. BF3's single player is certainly ....on rails, that's not the way to go but there are those that do manage to do a great job with it by giving freedom in different ways as you said.
Let's be honest here, the major reason why these games are even popular is because of their MP. That's the mode that receives the most focus. Are you really going to tell me that a half-arsed SP, that lasts 3-4 hours, barely has any challenges, limits the player in everything that he is forced to do, and has almost zero replay value is something they make because the majority prefers it this way? I really doubt that. Even so, why not try to improve it?
Perfect example of the type of person that these game are catered towards.
SP used to be actually good in FPS games before CoD appeared on the stage, it was hardly cinematic and the plot didn't limit the gameplay and didn't break the pacing. Corridor-shooter refers to linear environments, not indoors. Nobody is saying that the game could do better without a story...but the story shouldn't limit the gameplay, and the gameplay should receive more focus that it.
Yes, linearity combined with some open-ended mission structure can work very well. However, if they say "You have to kill these guys with the machine gun and you can't go more than 10ft in either direction," that's just stupid. Games are about putting the player in control of the action, so those mission constraints bring it closer to the "interactive movie" that people are complaining about. Games should not be interactive movies.
I couldn't get into the single player, it's follow team here, breach door there, shoot people here, follow team there, shoot more people there, breach door there. It got really really uninteresting really quick. Multiplayer was another story, really fun but man the singleplayer may as well be on rails like House of the Dead.
Like I always say, it's much easier to make a good MP experience than a good SP experience. Just put two people together in a map, give them weapons and they'll entertain themselves, that's the basis of most MP out there. Balancing is most of the times subjective, so what really makes a MP good? The number of weapons/maps/toys? The fact that it's competitive or casual? Can you answer me this?
And what SP-only games go for full price?
>The single player campaign is an interactive movie. Like a movie, it has a script.
I personally prefer gameplay driven story over story driven gameplay.
So true: "Press Left Mouse Button to be Hero".
I also saw that Rainbow Six "theoretical gameplay" and it had "press X to kiss wife."
Honestly, I think the answer isn't to throw out SP and focus completely on MP. I for one loved the SP in every BF up to 3, because they were similar to MP. Heck, the campaign for BF 1942 (yeah, the very first one) had a nice campaign, and all the missions were free and open, with points to capture, tickets, etc. Like the MP. Every BF since was like that (and playing bots was fun), but they decided not to do that this time, and look where it got us. A crap SP in a game that used to have great SP.
the WTF is... series is a first impression series (as he has said too many times). He'll play for some time to get to know some things beforehand and then starts recording part way through the game. How can he predict that the mission he decides he wants to record is going to be a bad one? Plus, he has multiplayer content videos as well (including this game). He doesnt cop out and say "Well no one cares about the single player so lets just glance over it"
TB's opinion always worth listening to
Multiplayer itself isn't ruining the industry, but developers should put more time and effort into the campaign before they even THINK about multiplayer. Take Far Cry 3 for example. It looks great, has tons of ways to approach objectives, tons of sidequests, a good story, and great gunplay. That alone makes it worth a buy, but Ubisoft also added a great co-op campaign and competitive multiplayer. That is how a game with multiplayer should be done.
oh i thought we were talking about a real war and not a one sided failure of a counter insurgency operation.
In that case, it means walking around for 6 hours a day in the blistering heat and then stepping on a landmine and losing a leg because your 'allies' were 'asleep' while the road they were 'watching' was being mined. then getting shot by one of said 'allies' who then runs off to join the guys he was 'helping' you fight.
but i suppose airstrikes and arty all day every day is cool too.
Flanking is more effective than sitting in one spot dude, attacking from multiple angles is always more effective than a head on assault, pincer formation equals win!
"Wtf is BF3's singleplayer campaign."
Good question.
I don't think anybody would be mad. Most people that play BF do so for the MP. And people that actually want to play a decent SP don't play BF. You need to realize that it's only in there to justify the game's price tag, without it, the game would cost significantly less. So for that price why shouldn't they focus on all modes?
Again, why not keep everybody happy? Either focus on it, or just let others do it.
this is why GTA IV is better than both BF3 and BF4 campaign(I know people will disagree with me but the storyline is the best in the series, though not great and got some flaws)
Ah yes,GTA is a military game.
The thing i like about battlefield is the open world. You don't field trapped in and can just shoot anything in your way down with a large gun.
Waypoints have been in Halo since the first game, in 2001, when the MMS genre wasn't even thought of yet. Same for the control tutorials. Same for the two gun limit, which is something that actually adds a lot of skill since you have to choose which gun you want to use, and it works when every gun is unique and has advantages and disadvantages. Whoring all weapons and being basically ready for everything is not something that works in many games.
It's pretty close in fact, missing a few indie games but I can't see why that should be any different.
This means that I've been in the genre long enough to say that scripted campaigns is long from present in every FPS single player campaign. This is just an example of a company wanting to cash in on multiplayer, and simply didn't give 2 fucks about the single player part.
I'm pretty sure the single player is more like a tutorial to give you a chance when you go online, it is after all based mostly on the network battles, so I would say they introduce you to all the different things to do in the game so you'll know what you do when you go online...
It was meant to be more cinematic, while the multiplayer is where it's all at.
And that's what makes it bad.
The soldier would obey orders to mount the nearby machine gun and apply suppressing fire so the rest of the team doesn't get fucked up by incoming fire.
TB wasn't so much trying to flank the enemy as he was trying to go Rambo while his squad gets killed.
Actually, it would consist almost entirely of suppressing insurgents while calling in arty and airstrikes. Most Coalition combat fatalities are from IEDs, which never kill the player in FPSes, unless he runs off the clearly-marked path the bad guys have helpfully left.
Ah, Nerdcubed's first let's play. I can feel the nostalgia setting in.
Wait, how long has WTF been running?
The problem with having freedom in an FPS is that people with screw around and go everywhere. Then, the only way to tell a story or advance plot is by having a "God Voice" that tells you what to do and what is going on like Crysis did with radio transmissions.
For your part in the parking lot fight where you have to take out the rpg's (operation swordbreaker) you can switch to a sniper and actually hit there without spraying
Yet when you horde all the weapons, you're almost certainly going to have that one weapons that has ammo scattered everywhere and you never run out, while keeping that important power weapon in the back for special occasions. The difference with Halo is that you need to drop your general use weapons for that limited ammo power weapon.
You'd think so wouldn't you. I have no idea why most games seem to focus almost exclusively on either single player or multiplayer and there are very few games that have both.
The best example I can think of is probably Halo, it has a half decent campaign and a fairly good multiplayer so it's definitely possible.
The flying mission isn't an on-rails shooter. In an on-rails shooter, you get to shoot what you want, by aiming at it, with the gun you happen to have or choose. In this flying section, you point the mouse vaguely in the enemy direction untill you get a lock and some NPC bombs it.
I could understand this from COD (not that I'd like it), but BF comes with flight physics and support for big maps to fly over. They needed to put in extra work to make the section this shitty.
You can't generalize something as subjective as entertainment. TB didn't enjoy the single player experience because he wanted freedom. I enjoyed the single player experience despite the lack of freedom.
Different strokes for different folks.
I REALLY hope DICE sees this. They need to be taught a lesson.
That's exactly how it work with Halo as well, you see a rocket launcher, you can choose to waste it on some Elites, or keep it for later to use on some Hunters. This comes at the disadvantage of loosing a weapon slot to it. While with a horde of weapon the disadvantage is...what? None.
If Halo was strict and you could only kill certain enemies with certain weapons then I would agree. But it's not CoD.
BF 3 is my most favourite Fps atm...
But seriously the Singleplayer was as bad as most other "MMS".
Before people say I got no idea:
This is my subjective opinion and I played through the whole campaign on hardest difficulty.
You're probably right. I think either letting another developer do the single player or just focus on the multiplayer would have had better results. The series has never had a particularly good single player maybe they should just make it a multiplayer only series. On the bright side they did significantly improve on the atrocious AI that the series has had, maybe next time they will do better with mission design as well.
Great points made in this video. And I am absolutely on board with the complaints about the jet segment. They have a great jet system in multiplayer, why can't they have one in the single-player? Far Cry 3 was a great game in terms of freedom because it allows you to approach most missions in many different ways, and I absolutely love that. Dishonored does that too. We need much more of that gameplay style in every game. EVERY GAME.
Really? Goldeneye and Perfect Dark?
Those games still don't really require brain power at all...
You want a thinking shooter, play S.T.A.L.K.E.R. SoC, play Arma, play Counter Strike, play rainbow six (the earlier ones) play ghost recond (the earlier ones).
Perfect Dark and Goldeneye? No, just... No.
Battlefield 3 is more of a lone wolf game where as bad company 2 was more of a squad based game (game designer's words, not mine), but i guess it's still more of a multiplayer game than anything else.
my computer doesn't want me to watch this video, it keeps skipping to the next one halfway through.
Crysis Warhead is the solution to the gameplay criticisms if Crysis. The combat is much more frequent, and packed with much more action. You don't find yourself wandering around an empty island in Crysis Warhead than what you would do in Crysis.