Quite often I surprise myself when I go back to previous reviews. I’d forgotten just how much I had enjoyed Battlefield 1 when it came out, seemingly loving the new Operations mode which kept me coming back for a while (although no longer than what I did for the review it seems). I hadn’t really been following the development for Battlefield V but on the surface it’d seem that, if you liked its predecessor, you’d like the enhancements that were coming along with this latest instalment. However this time around it felt like more of the same as there was nothing particularly innovative or novel about this latest Battlefield that grabbed me. That coupled with some rather egregious launch day issues made for a very middle of the road experience, neither completely terrible nor something I’d recommend you’d seek out and play.
Much like its predecessor Battlefield V retains the same story vignette style for its campaigns, although there was far fewer of them this time around. They all follow pivotal stories of World War II but they are all, of course, entirely fictional which seems to annoy the history buffs to no end. They’re incredibly simple in their construction, taking place in the multiplayer maps and almost entirely consisting of running from one base to another, completing some rudimentary objective before moving onto the next. It seems that DICE is taking a kind of softly-softly approach to killing off the single player experience, rather than take the direct (and more controversial) route of just killing it off completely.
The Frostbite 3 engine is looking as good as it ever has although it is starting to show its age in some places. Mostly this comes up when you’re in tight environments or up close to things where the numerous visual tricks that the engine uses start to come into stark relief. The Battlefield games have always been at their best in giant environments where you can enjoy the wide vistas before a sniper takes you out from the other side of the map. Performance is still workable although it seems that DirectX 12 support is still a little patchy, glitching out hard on me and causing a few crashes even after installing the latest drivers. I’ll touch more on that later though as there’s definitely some larger issues at play here with the usual DICE jankiness turned up a couple notches in this release.
At its core Battlefield V feels the same as it has for quite a while now, retaining its penchant for large battles on in huge spaces with all the trimmings you’d expect from a large war simulator. The classes are the same, sticking to the same 4 tropes that were defined so long ago. There’s supposedly some improved versions of other game modes but, in all honesty, I never really got around to playing them. No I spent the majority of my time in the game playing with friends in the one game mode that they never get wrong: conquest. In that regard the Battlefield experience I had felt pretty much the same as it always did, for better and for worse.
Combat remains much the same, favouring a slower paced strategic type of engagement rather than say Call of Duty’s flurry of bullets and respawns. That still brings with it all the less desirable aspects of course, like snipers being able to one shot you from places you can’t see them and one shot kill headshots from guns that really have no right to be that effective (like the Medic’s MP5 which netted me far more kills with that then even I felt was fair). The large scale battles in conquest do retain their larger than life feeling though, something which precious few games have been able to achieve. Surprisingly though even with many players taking advantage of the insane 11 day head start (my mate being one of them, dumping some 52 hours into the game before its official release) I didn’t feel as disadvantaged as I previously did. Indeed unlike previous games where a maxed out tank player could ruin the game for an entire team this time around things felt an awful lot more balanced. Either that or I’ve improved dramatically over the last few years but I doubt the countless hours I’ve spent in COD have really helped me that much in Battlefield…
The single player missions are a relatively short affair with most of them being over in an hour so. If you’re so inclined there’s a bunch of hidden collectibles strewn about the place which, if you complete the associated challenges for the mission, will give you an unique melee weapon for use in multiplayer. Honestly given how basic they are I really wasn’t inclined to search blindly around the giant maps looking for them, especially when the combat wasn’t exactly fun or enjoyable. You see most of the missions are meant to be tackled stealthy, but they don’t equip you with many tools for doing so outside of throwing shells to distract people or highlighting them with your binoculars. The AI is so extrucingatly dumb that DICE counteracted that by making them all top tier marksman, able to hit you with a pistol with sniper like accuracy. Of course you can counter this by alerting them and then running behind a door, which they’ll all then happily run towards allowing you to mow them all down.
Honestly I’m starting to get on board with the idea of not having a single player campaign at all if they’re going to be this basic. I can understand the idea of wanting to provide glimpses into various parts of the setting but I’m not particularly interest in that as a subject and, from what I’ve seen, the things depicted in there aren’t exactly what the history buffs enjoy either. Honestly I’d prefer a shorter campaign, maybe say 3~4 hours or so, that was a polished end to end experience. Heck that used to be what most of these games delivered (although I admit many derided them for the short length) so maybe their return to their roots simply hasn’t gone far enough.
I’d probably be a little more generous if Battlefield V wasn’t so unpolished on release, both for the single and multiplayer experience. Every new release of Battlefield seems to bring with the same old bugs, chief of which is a physics engine which gets routinely confused on how to simulate the most rudimentary of things. I had one instance in the single player campaign where someone spawned inside a vehicle, immediately died then started to vibrate violently as they bounced between the outside and inside of the vehicle. I had the bomb on a couple maps spawn in the ground (in an area that wasn’t destructible either, see below screenshot), preventing the team from picking it up and forcing the game into a neverending stalemate. This is somewhat par for the course with Battlefield games but, honestly DICE, it’s time for you to either develop Frostbite 4 to address these problems or find a new engine entirely.
All of this culminates into an experience that isn’t so much different from those of Battlefield games past which, depending on what you’re looking for in this game, can be a good or a bad thing. For me personally the Battlefield games have always had a pretty limited lifetime for me; the lack of repetitive hits to my dopamine centers that other competitive shooters provide meaning I’ll go and seek out my fix elsewhere after I’ve had my fill of Battlefield. For others though, those who play Battlefield as their goto hobby, it’s going to mean that they’ve got more of the same experience that they want.
For me though? Battlefield V feels like it was off the mark a bit, getting just enough things wrong to make it feel a bit more middle of the road than it otherwise has. Many of the things that make the series great are still there: the massive environments with huge battles, a deep progression system that will keep players engaged for ages and new game modes which, whilst I didn’t particularly engage with them, shows that DICE at least wants to try some new things. But for every one of those positives there’s a handful of negatives as well, enough so that after 12 hours in the game I think I’ve had my fill. Sure, part of that is because Black Ops 4 has managed to get its hooks into me again, but even then I’ve played this Battlefield for longer than its predecessor and I liked that one far more. I know there’s precious few people who read these reviews to figure out what game to play but if you’ve been sitting on the fence for this one, waiting patiently for my opinion on it, I’d probably say give it a miss for now.
Maybe pick it up just before Christmas so you can own all the noobs when they get their copy 😉
Battlefield V is available on PC, PlayStation 4 and Xbox One right now for $59. Game was played on the PC with a total of 12 hours play time and 26% of the achievements unlocked.
The last decade was saturated with FPS games that revisited the two World Wars, so much so that I was soured on the Battlefield and Call of Duty series for quite some time. This decade saw a turn towards modern day warfare, with the Call of Duty series then pushing even further forward into the world of fictional, future based combat. It was something of a surprise then to see DICE return to their old haunts, pulling themselves back from modern day to explore World War I. If I’m honest I was sceptical, the World Wars have been visited so many times that a fresh take on them seemed all but impossible. Surprisingly though DICE has managed to bring a fresh perspective to this well trodden field whilst retaining much of what made some of their previous Battlefield titles great.
Battlefield 1 visits many of the large scale battles of the first World War, picking out 6 different stories that you can play through. These include such events as the Battle of Cambrai during the Hundred Days Offensive, a fantastical air battle between zeppelins and the first fighter craft and even a show from the ANZACs as part of the Gallipoli campaign. There’s no story tying all of these different stories together, instead they each serve as little vignettes that give us a glimpse into the horrors of war from different perspectives. If there’s one thing that Battlefield 1 does well is impress upon us the true costs of war rather than glorifying the combat and sacrifice that the millions of troops made in this war.
The Frostbite 3 engine returns once again to the Battlefield series and brings with it the exceptionally high level of graphics that we’ve come to expect from this series of games. As all of these in-game screenshots will attest to Battlefield 1 is an absolutely stunning game, making good use of any amount of graphical firepower it has at its disposal. The environments are gigantic, brimming with detail and surprisingly destructible (if you have the right weaponry, of course). This will mean that you’ll probably need to spend a little bit of time tweaking settings here or there as the defaults seem to be geared more towards beautiful, 30fps gaming rather than slightly less stunning but buttery smooth game play. Of course such prettiness is really only appreciated in the single player campaign, rarely do you have a moment to think when you’re in the middle of a multiplayer match.
Battlefield 1 sticks to its roots in terms of game play with the equipment layout being instantly familiar to fans of the series. You’ll have 2 guns at your disposal (with numerous ones littering the map so you’re never wanting for something new to try out), a couple gadgets that line up with the traditional Battlefield classes and your trusty melee weapon. The war stories follow the typical FPS mission style with Battlefield’s trade mark open environments, allowing you multiple avenues to approach your intended goal. The multiplayer modes will be familiar, however there’s one new mode called Operations which are probably the best aspect of Battlefield 1. Other than that Battlefield 1 is pretty much what we’ve come to expect from DICE with the exception that everything is set almost 100 years in the past.
Combat feels much the same as it always has in the Battlefield series. You’re a small cog in a very large machine, both in the single player campaigns as well as the multi. Slow, considered approaches to the battlefield are rewarded whilst rushed, less thought out strategies are likely to get you killed. It’s the line in the sand that Battlefield and Call of Duty have drawn between each other, one favouring small scale, chaotic engagements whilst the other favouring large, more strategic battles. Whilst I tend to prefer the former I can see the appeal in the latter, especially when you’ve got a group of 5 or more mates to play with and can actually get some objectives done. However it can be an exercise in frustration sometimes, especially when you walk out of your spawn location only to be nailed by a sniper who you had no chance of seeing.
The Operations game mode, the stand out feature of Battlefield 1, takes its inspiration from Star Wars Battlefront’s Supremacy mode. Each map is divided into sections with points that need to be captured. Once each point is captured the enemy then retreats to the next section to start the battle all over again. The attacking team has limited lives however and should they run out the defenders win that round. When the attackers lose a round however they get reinforced by a giant weapon of war, potentially a zepplin or destroyer warship, which helps them turn the tides in their favour. This back and forth can happen a grand total of 3 times before the game is over. What makes this game mode so great is that it can feel like both sides are making progress at one point or another, preventing one side from completely dominating. Of course that’s not always the case but at the very least it feels little more fair than say Conquest when a really good squad can make the other team’s life a living hell.
The class system is the same as it always was with the only real change being the weaponry, all of which are from the World War I era. You have your medics which can heal and res, the support who will ensure you’ve got an endless supply of bullets, the scouts which will make sure that you can’t get anywhere without a couple shots coming your way and the assault class which is capable of dishing out endless amounts of hurt. Battlefield 1 also brings with it the hero class idea from Battlefronts, allowing a single player to become far more powerful than everyone else for a short period of time. You also have classes for the various vehicles including the calvary which can be both fun and a complete waste of time depending on good your enemy’s aim is. Indeed many of the ideas which were so-so in Battlefront have been refined significantly for their inclusion in Battlefield 1 and, hopefully, that means Battlefront 2 has a chance at being a lot better than its predecessor was.
Battlefield 1, like all games in this series, brings with it a certain level of jank that pervades both the single and multi experiences. I can’t tell you how many times the physics engine has completely bugged out on me with ungodly winds tearing flags and people’s capes in all manner of weird directions or tanks moving in ways that just weren’t possible. It’s certainly a lot better than it was in the beta, if the videos on YouTube are anything to go by, but the trademark weirdness that all Battlefield games built on the Frostbite engine have is ever present in the latest instalment. It’ll likely get better over time, as it always does, but you’d think that DICE would’ve figured out all the kinks by this point in the engine’s life.
The war stories were, for me, not particularly engaging. Whilst I’ll praise DICE for their depiction of the true horrors of war the experience was, for me, not the most enjoyable thing. That might be the point (and indeed I’ll applaud them if that’s the case) however it meant that after playing 3 out of the 6 campaigns available I simply didn’t feel the urge to play the rest of them. It’s a shame really as I’ve always enjoyed the various campaigns in the Battlefield series but this time around I just didn’t feel compelled to go back and play through them. This could also be a testament to how good the Operations mode was in comparison as I definitely drawn back to that, time and time again.
Battlefield 1 is an excellent return to form after the disaster that was Battlefield Hardline. The graphics return to their trademark industry leading standard, bringing us glorious battlefield filled with detail that few other games are able to deliver. The game play is familiar yet fresh, integrating the best ideas of the Battlefield and Battlefront series into a cohesive experience. The single player campaigns, whilst undoubtedly well crafted, failed to grab my attention like the previous ones have. Battlefield 1 also suffers from the few teething issues that seem to plague all of DICE’s releases of late; things that will no doubt be fixed but definitely sour the launch day experience. For fans of the Battlefield series the latest instalment is very much worth your time to play.
Battlefield 1 is available on PC, PlayStation 4 and Xbox One right now for $89.95, $99.95 and $99.95 respectively. Game was played on the PC with 11 hours of total play time and 26% of the achievements unlocked.
The Battlefield series has, for the most part, stuck to its roots of giant war-based combat which has served it well over the past 13 years that it has existed. This put it in direct competition with Call of Duty although they favoured a longer development and release cycle with their games usually having a 2+ year cycle with various expansions and DLCs peppered in between. For many it served as the more refined version of Call of Duty, favouring tactics and skill rather than fast action and twitch reflexes. Battlefield Hardline marks DICE’s first departure from the Battlefield formula and whilst parts of what made the series great can be seen in here the game unfortunately leaves a lot to be desired.
Miami has gone to hell, the streets flooded with drugs and gang warfare escalating to all new heights. You are Nicholas Mendoza, newly minted detective in the Miami PD who’s looking to clean up Miami through good, honest police work. However it doesn’t take long for things to start going awry with your first bust turning into a bloodbath and questions to start arising around your methods. Indeed the more you try stop the plague that’s spreading through Miami the more you seem to be drawn into it, with your fellow cops being the ones dragging you in.
Unlike it’s predecessors that used the Frostbite 3 engine Battlefield Hardline doesn’t feel like a massive step up graphically, indeed it actually feels like it’s gone backwards in some respects. Whilst we still have the wide open environments that are a signature of the Battlefield franchise they just don’t feel as visually impressive as they used to, even with the enormous amount of grunt that my new rig can provide. Looking over my screenshots from previous reviews confirms this, showing that the engine is capable of quite a bit more than what Hardline seems to make use of. It makes even less sense when you find out that this isn’t Visceral’s first experience with the Frostbite engine either so I can only assume that the reduction in fidelity was done for optimization reasons.
Hardline plays much like Battlefield 4 did before it, retaining many of the core mechanics whilst adding in a few new tricks that tie into the police theme. You’ll still be running and gunning quite often, although in slightly smaller environments than you’d be used to, and the stealth mechanic that appeared in Battlefield 4 makes a return in Hardline. However now instead of getting points to level up your character by killing people you instead only level up by taking people down non-lethally or arresting them, something you can accomplish by telling them to “freeze” and then tackling them to the ground. There’s also bonus objectives like warrant suspects (who give quadruple score for arrests), cases for you to investigate by finding evidence and completing additional objectives. The multiplayer introduces a bunch of new modes which are mostly variants of the standard game styles we all know and love although it seems everyone is really still only interested in the big, 32 on 32 conquest maps.
The FPS combat in hardline feels a little unpolished as all the guns in their own categories feel pretty much the same as one another. Indeed once you get a few levels under your belt and unlock a couple guns there’s really no need to switch to anything else and the game rarely pits you against enemies with new and interesting guns, meaning you’ll have to level up or complete case missions in order to add in some variety. Couple this with the absolutely dumb as rocks AI and you’ve got a FPS experience that’s highly forgettable, even in the scenes which feel like they’re supposed to be action packed but just end up feeling bland.
This is only exacerbated by the repetition that’s introduced by the arrest mechanic which you’re required to use if you want to level up your character. Sure it’s pretty fun to work out the best way to approach a section so you can arrest everyone in it, but after you’ve done that a dozen times it starts to lose its luster. Thankfully you don’t have to do that for long as I was able to reach max rank somewhere around episode 7 or so but even the freedom granted by being able to run and gun everything past then didn’t add any life back into Hardline’s combat. This is what made it incredibly easy to put the game down at the end of each “episode” as playing more than one in a night was a recipe for frustration and boredom.
The story is somewhat serviceable in comparison to the rest of the game, with most of the characters being given enough screentime and background to be believable even if the situations you find them in are wholly unbelievable. I couldn’t find myself empathizing with any of the characters though, even the main protagonist, as they didn’t really feel relatable until right near the end. Even then it felt like too little too late, even if I had enough information to understand the decisions they were making. The ending might not scream sequel but it’s definitely hinting at it, raising its eyebrows suggestively and giving you a sly wink as you walk out the door.
I’ve only spent a brief few hours with the multiplayer (for issues I’ll dig into below) but the horror that is Battelog has made yet another return for Hardline and the issues surrounding it still remain. For the most part it seems like the community has little interest in the new game modes as servers that cater towards them are barren wastelands, devoid of players wanting to play them. Instead the vast majority have huddled around the safe place of Battlefield’s large scale warfare maps, something that feels quite at odds with the game’s more intimate setting and direction. Suffice to say it pretty much plays how you’d expect it to with the key difference coming from you being able to generate cash to buy new weapons and perks, rather than having to unlock them by levelling a class. It takes the edge of the levelling curve but doesn’t do much else.
The icing on this rather unappealing cake comes in the form of bugs, glitches and good old fashioned crashes that seem to be a mainstay of all Battlefield releases. I had the single player crash on me multiple times, often when I wasn’t doing anything particular of note at all. Battlelog simply refused to recognise that I had Origin installed until I reinstalled it, something I seem to have to do with every Battlefield release. Then when I did try to play some multi games the game would often just up and exit without any notification of what happened, sometimes in the middle of the game and others when I was spending the mandatory 5 minute wait while the game reloaded itself again. I honestly cannot understand why, after 2 previous releases that suffered the exact same issues, that DICE and Visceral couldn’t work out these issues before release and it’s not something I’d expect from a veteran AAA developer.
Battlefield Hardline is an unfortunate fall from grace for the series, trashing the things that made them great and failing to add in anything that could justify taking such a huge risk. The gameplay is bland and uninteresting, failing to capture the player’s attention even for the short duration of the episodes in the single player game. The changes to the multiplayer are completely out of line with what the community wants, as shown by the fact that the only playable servers are those that emulate the previous title’s play style. Topping it all off is the instability and lack of polish on the core game itself, with crashes and bugs plaguing the already beleaguered experience. I honestly can’t recommend this game even for the die hard fans of the series as it just falls so short of the standard that its predecessors set.
Battlefield Hardline is available on PC, Xbox360, XboxOne, PlayStation3 and PlayStation4 right now for $59.95, $89.95, $109.95, $89.95 and $109.95 respectively. Game was played on the PC with approximately 9 hours of total play time.
The Battlefield series of games has always felt like the more strategic brother of Call of Duty, opting for a slightly slower game pace that favours more careful, considerate play. As someone who only recently found himself enjoying this genre again it took me a while to get accustomed to this as I had gotten used to the high action spam fest, quickly unloading my entire inventory in the vague direction of where the enemy stood. At the same time Battlefield 3 demonstrated what powerful PCs were capable of with Frostbite 2 engine giving us graphics on a level that few other games had yet to achieve. Battlefield 4 feels like the organic progression of the world that its predecessor set up, offering a very similar experience that’s seen many improvements.
Battlefield 4 takes place 6 years after the events of Battlefield 3 and the escalating tensions between Russia and the USA are at an all time high, threatening to turn into an all out war. At the same time Admiral Chang, a high ranking Chinese military commander, is plotting to overthrow the Chinese government in a coup d’etat. You play as Recker, a member of the special forces squad designated Tombstone, who’s attempting to return vital intel that confirms Chang’s plans. Worse still you’ve found out that should Chang succeed he’ll have the full backing of the Russian government, ensuring that large scale will come to America’s shores. Your task is stop Chang’s rise to power and avert a global scale war.
Just like its predecessor Battlefield impresses with its high standard of graphics thanks to the improvements brought by the Frostbite 3 engine.The environments certainly look and feel more alive, especially considering that nearly everything is destructible now. Indeed everything has a very cinematic feel about it as the level of graphics in game surpasses that of many others pre-rendered cut scenes. Surprisingly even though I haven’t upgraded my computer since the last Battlefield I was still able to play at extremely high settings, albeit with anti-aliasing turned off. The only time I got noticeable slow down was in some of the larger conquest maps where a good chunk of the players were all converging on one point. This is likely due to my ATI graphics card which supports the Mantle API which DICE have included support for in this new engine.
Battlefield 4’s campaign is, for the most part, your typical run and gun FPS although unlike most other corridor shooters there are usually several paths for you to take to achieve your objective. It is somewhat more constrained than what I previously remember which I think is partly due to the set pieces DICE chose with many more closed in spaces. Still I can recall multiple moments where I’d see multiple ways of achieving my objective, some guns blazing and others with a much more subtle approach. At the same time there are some paths that look like viable options which simply aren’t but Battlefield 4’s check pointing system is good enough that you don’t feel overly punished for experimenting once in a while.
One of the key differences between Battlefield 3 and 4 is that you now have the option to customize your load out during missions via the use of weapon crates. You don’t have access to all the weapons to begin with however, instead you’ll unlock them by achieving a certain number of points, much like you would during a multi-player game. One thing they didn’t mention, although I will admit I might have missed it, is that you also unlock weapons by picking them up off fallen enemies. This was particularly frustrating for me as since I was favouring a sniper rifle there weren’t any upgrades unlocked through the points system (at least none I can remember) and I only lucked out on an upgrade when I accidentally picked one up. That was when I found out of the 2 different ways of unlocking weapons, something I would’ve liked to have known about a lot earlier.
There’s also a rudimentary stealth system incorporated for some reason and it takes after the Splinter Cell way, showing you a little bar that’s pointing in the direction of the person who can see you. Once it flashes that means they’ve detected you and will alert everyone in that section to your location. Whilst you can get a whole bunch done by taking out enemies stealthily it’s quite obvious that the game doesn’t expect you to do this as you can be right in front of someone and still not break stealth. Additionally there’s no way to reset back to a state where the enemies no longer know where you are, even if you manage to escape without them being able to see you. Honestly it would have probably been better to leave that system out altogether and do the stealth bits via cut scene as it doesn’t really add much to the game overall.
The story of Battlefield 4 is a really mixed experience as there are moments which could have been quite amazing however I just didn’t have the emotional investment in the characters required to make said moments possible. This might also be a function of this genre’s inability to get away from the clichéd plot of America (FUCK YEAH) vs the world as whilst it makes for some intense action and drama it does not make for a deep and engrossing plot. Still I can’t say I was bored during any of it and the length was extended slightly above its predecessors which was honestly just a tad too short. One part where it really fell down however was the ending as I can never give a game props for using the Endotron 3000 to give you multiple different endings.
However the multiplayer retains that larger than life feeling that I only seem to get from Battlefield games. The new large conquest maps are an absolute joy to play and the chaos that ensues from having a 32 on 32 battle is really hard to beat. It can be a little daunting coming into a game like this so many months after it’s been out as everyone has levelled up way past you but once you find the class that fits you best it becomes quite easy to stack on a few levels and unlock some better kit to help you out. There’s enough unlocks and awards in Battlefield 4 to keep even the most adamant achievement hunter busy for months and even after spending a good 4 hours playing through the various maps I still feel like there’s a lot more to discover.
What lets down the entire experience though, and something I was rather annoyed was still present considering how late I came to Battlefield 4, was the number of crashes, bugs and glitches that plague the experience. I had the single player game crash on me numerous times, often several times during a single mission, without any rhyme or reason as to why it was happening. This continued into the multiplayer where doing certain things, actions which I assumed were part of the core game (like jumping off a tall building and parachuting the ground below) would again result in a crash. This persisted for the last 2 weeks as I stumbled my way through multiplayer and whilst it’s been fixed now (at least I didn’t have any crashes in the last couple days) DICE really needs to get their act together when bugs at that level are still persistent almost 3 months after release.
Battlefield 4 is a solid game, improving substantially on its predecessor in many respects whilst being different enough to stand on its own. The campaign is a solid 6 hours of fun, offering you a varying number of challenges that can be accomplished in many different ways. The multiplayer is, as always, larger than life and filled with so many choices that people will be theorycrafting for years as to what the best builds are for various situations. The experience was unfortunately let down by its horrendously buggy nature, something which has only just been recently fixed, but I’m glad to say that people buying the game now are coming in at a stage where it isn’t as bad as it used to be. Battlefield 4 then is well worth the price of admission, especially for long time fans of the series.
Battlefield 4 is available on PC, Xbox360 , PlayStation3, XboxOne and PlayStation 4 for $79.99, $78, $78 , $98 and $98 respectively. Game was played on the PC with 6 hours on the campaign and 4 hours on multiplayer.
It shouldn’t be a secret that I’m something of a Windows guy as I’ve essentially made my career in IT out of their products as well as it being my preferred gaming platform. It’s not that I have anything against the alternatives per se, more that there really isn’t another platform capable of doing all the things that Windows can do currently. If I was to stay on the PC platform my only alternatives are OSX and Linux and the former requires an exorbitant investment in hardware which I, as someone who builds his own PCs, am quite adverse to. Whilst the merits of Linux are vast it’s still got a long way to go before I can consider it on par with Windows, even if there’s been significant progress of late.
Indeed it’s gotten to the point where some industry veterans, like DICE creative director Lars Gustavsson, have gone on record saying that Linux is only one killer app away from seeing explosive growth. There’s definitely been an escalating amount of investment in the platform over the past couple years, mostly in the indie space thanks to things like the Humble Bundles, however Linux gamers are still only make up a tiny minority, on the order of 2% (even on the current champion of the platform, Steam). With that in mind whilst I agree with Gustavsson’s point that Linux is only one killer application away from seeing a lot of growth that statement hides the significant amount of work required to make that happen.
For starters hidden within that 2% of users is an incredible amount of diversity in terms of which distribution they’re using. This is less of a problem than it used to be since a couple base distributions now power the majority of the Linux world (Debian, Red Hat, etc.) however it still presents a challenge that needs to be overcome. I think (and feel free to correct me on this) that the majority of this stems from a driver level where there’s a huge amount of fragmentation thanks to either a philosophical standpoint, I.E. no non-free software so binary blobs are out, or simply because manufacturers aren’t willing to provide that level of support to Linux users.
There also needs to be a critical mass of users in order for it to become attractive for bigger developers to want to support Linux as a platform. Now there’s some potential for this to happen with SteamOS and SteamMachines although it will still take some time for that to permeate. It will be interesting to see if SteamOS users will translate into Linux users over time or if they’ll remain as users of the platform, just like current console gamers are. There will need to be significant traction for this critical mass to be reached however as even OSX, which commands around 6% of the PC gaming market, still hasn’t managed to reach that level where big developers and publishers see it as a priority platform to support. What that critical mass is however I am not sure of but it’s definitely far above the current level which Linux reaches to currently.
I’m not saying that any of this isn’t possible, it most certainly is thanks to the mountains of work done by dozens of companies, just that “One Killer App” is so much harder to achieve than what the soundbite makes it sound like. Personally if it happened I’d be pretty excited about it as more competition means better products for the end consumer, even if I don’t completely agree with some of the motivations that are driving it. It’s for that reason that I signed up for the Steam hardware beta as I’d love to see the PC platform make a resurgence as the king of gaming regardless of the software platform it runs.
It’s only been recently that I’ve come around to war based games, especially those in the first person shooter genre. For that I lay the blame squarely at the developers who, for the longest time, churned out title after title that was just the same as the previous one except for maybe some new weapons or a multiplayer game mode. Thus it should come as no surprise that Battlefield 3 is the first in the series that I’ve bothered to play for more than a couple hours at a LAN. You can thank Black Ops for that as their last few instalments showed me that these games could be more than just mere distractions, and Battlefield 3 is certainly a lot more than that.
Battlefield 3 is the 11th instalment in the Battlefield series coming out nearly a decade after the first in the series. The setting is modern day with the majority of the game centring around the middle east. In the campaign you play as Sgt. Blackburn, an officer who’s been brought in for question because he may know something about a potential terrorist threat. The game is then told through a series of flashbacks to various missions that Blackburn carried out, revealing more about the reasons why he’s ended up where he is. The campaign also serves as a tutorial for multiplayer, introducing you to many aspects of the game.
Now I’m usually pretty gushy about graphics and Battlefield 3 is no exception. Indeed the first few trailers I saw of in game footage were the sole reason why I had intended to buy Battlefield 3 in the first place and indeed many of my friends were also convinced in the same way. I do get hit by tech wonderlust though so I was sceptical about how realistic it actually was until my wife, who was about 3 meters or so from my screen, said “Is that real?” when she saw the scene pictured below. Given that she’s seen me play my fair share of games having her ask such a question means that Battlefield 3 really is another step up in graphics technology, putting DICE at the forefront of what’s possible in the realms of computer graphics.
Surprisingly the incredible graphics of Battlefield 3 doesn’t seem to come at the cost of performance. Now my machine is somewhat of a beast: Intel 2600K, 16GB RAM and a HD6950, but even with that I’ve had some recent games slow to a crawl when I’ve put them on max settings. Battlefield 3 however is buttery smooth from inside the smallest corridors to the most wide open of spaces with dozens of players in view. It’s truly incredible that the game doesn’t turn into a complete slideshow when you up the player count to 64 as many graphics intensive FPSs in the past (I.E. the original Crysis) struggled with just over 8 players simultaneously.
The game play in Battlefield 3 is divided into 2 categories: infantry and vehicle. For the majority of the single player you’ll be playing as infantry, slogging your way through on foot whilst you run and gun in your typical FPS affair. There’s a little bit of variety in the missions, ranging from your typical get from point A to point B to providing cover for your allies in the form of sniper fire. The vehicle sections are a bit of a refreshing change from the relative monotony of the infantry sections although they’re fairly limited in scope, serving as only a brief introduction into what you’ll be experiencing in multiplayer.
If you bought Battlefield 3 for just the campaign though you’d be sorely disappointed with it clocking in at just over 4 hours in my play through. This is typical of these AAA titles that are much more focused on providing an on-going experience through multiplayer rather than delivering a single player epic so I can’t really fault it for that. The plot of Battlefield 3 though is somewhat confusing and rather poorly written in sections, taking the cheap flashback route to simply demonstrate the various multiplayer levels in a single player setting. Playing on the most difficult setting will also see all the enemies have sniper like accuracy with whatever weapon they’re carrying, even when they’re blind firing around the corner. It also doesn’t help that your team mates, when you have them, are next to completely useless sometimes walking past enemies and then indicating for you to join them, resulting in you getting gunned down on the spot.
This is where I make a distinction between a game being “hard” on one hand and being just tedious on the other. A game that is truly hard is one that provide a challenge for you to overcome, one that will teach you to be a better gamer for having conquered it. Giving NPCs ungodly abilities like pinpoint accuracy just adds tedium, not challenge, to a game. Indeed I spent much of the campaign of Battlefield 3 explicitly ignoring the game’s instructions because, if I did, I’d be gunned down immediately. Thus instead of it being a challenge where I tried different tactics to see which came out the best I instead found ways to get the game to progress to the next check point, even if that meant doing nothing for 5 minutes whilst events played themselves out.
Of course the real meat of Battlefield 3 isn’t contained within the brief confines of the campaign, it’s all about the multiplayer. Now I was semi-familiar with the lay of the land in multiplayer Battlefield games but after spending a good 20+ hours on Call of Duty: Black Ops I was preconditioned to expect a few things which aren’t exactly the same. That’s not a failing on Battlefield 3’s part by any stretch of the imagination, more I can see why some people stick to one or the other as the multiplayer is a decidedly different experience between the two. The main difference is there’s no vehicles in Call of Duty whilst there’s vehicles aplenty in Battlefield, but that’s really only the beginning of the differences between them.
On the PC the difference starts right from the way that get into the game with DICE introducing a new system called Battlelog. In essence its a social networking service built around Battlefield 3, much like Call of Duty Elite is shaping up to be. You can do all the regular social network-y type stuff, friend people, post status updates, etc. but all your in game achievements and unlocks are also put on display for everyone to see. Interestingly enough everything about Battlefield 3 is accessed through the Battlelog system, the only time it doesn’t come into play is when you’re offline and then Battlefield 3 will just kick you into the campaign.
Battlelog is both a blessing and a curse making some things just so darn simple you wonder how you did without them whilst at the same time providing enough pain to make you wonder why you bothered with trying to play some multiplayer in the first place. The grouping feature, allowing you to create a party and then join a server with said party, is phenomenal and appears to filter down to the squad level when you get into the game. This has made it so much easier to jump on a server with friends and have a good time with them, rampaging through maps as an organised group. Finding friends is also easy thanks to the Facebook integration, allowing you to pick everyone up without having to ask them for their in game name.
However Battlelog also seems to have troubles performing some of its most basic functions. The server filter list, whilst working properly most of the time, sometimes forgets or ignores your settings. I’ve had several occasions where I’d select “1-5 slots free” only to end up in a completely empty 64 person server. The voice chat is also borderline useless, being rather low quality and cutting in and out a lot, especially if you use the voice activation option. I also had several games just up and disconnect me for no reason and Battlelog simply reports “Game was disconnected” even though my Internet connection is fine and I rejoin the server immediately. As the multiplayer really is what Battlefield 3 is all about the Battlelog system having such faults really does it a disservice and one I can’t really pass over.
To DICE’s credit though the multiplayer is fun, action packed and highly varied. If you want you can play it much like Call of Duty as they’ve reintroduced team deathmatch, battling the other team to the death. However most seem to favour the conquest style maps, basically a capture and hold style of game play with a limited number of respawns for each team. The large versions of conquest maps are teaming with various vehicles, allowing you to wreck havoc from all directions. Everything from yourself to your class to the vehicles you drive have persistent levelling up associated with them, unlocking new abilities and upgrades as you go through. I’ve already sunk a good 8 to 10 hours in the multi and feel like I’ve still only scratched the surface and I’ll definitely be playing for a while into the future.
Battlefield 3 impresses me on so many levels which is why it pains me so much to point out the flaws that detract so heavily from its achievements. DICE has been rapidly iterating in order to address the flaws but they simply shouldn’t have existed to begin with. The Battlelog is a brilliant idea that suffers from some elements of poor execution, much like Battlefield 3 does as a whole. Still I wouldn’t recommend against buying Battlefield 3 though as despite all these problems once you’re actually in the game it’s very enjoyable to play, especially when you accidentally ram your jet into the ground for the 3rd time that game. Hopefully the issues that I experienced in the past are eventually worked out and then Battlefield 3 will really be a serious contender to take the crown as FPS king.
Battlefield 3 is available right now on PC, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 right now for $79.99, $108 and $108 respectively. Game was played on the hardest difficulty with 4 hours in the single player and approximately 10 hours of multiplayer total.