Battlefield 3's debut series of trailers, Fault Line, showed a game that distinguished itself from its looming competition by taking a more serious and realistic (but not too realistic) look at modern military combat -- less Michael Bay and more Generation Kill. After playing through the Fault Line section in the campaign I can't say this impression is wrong, but there're more set pieces and Michael Bay left in the game than many people are expecting. The two of the three single-player missions I played were effectively the same game of terrorist whack-a-mole as Call of Duty.
The mission that made up the Fault Line trailer plays just like you would expect, except that enemies spawn infinitely in unseen areas of the level until the player hits an invisible tripwire. Whereas COD inserts invisible walls to prevent the player from walking into these monster closets, BF3 simply issues a "leaving combat area" warning along with a ten-second countdown. Somehow this is more immersion breaking than COD's invisible barriers, even though they're both conceits designed to prevent the player from breaking the game. Despite this warning, we were still able to sit just inside the "combat area" and take on a never-ending army of terrorists one at a time as they ran out of their spawn area.
Quote:
Our third and final level changed things up. As the gunner on an F-18 I had to take down enemies, drop flares, and paint targets for F-15 and A-10 air-strikes, all while my A.I. lead pilot did the actual flying. This is probably for the best; Battlefield vehicles are notoriously difficult to fly and use effectively. Easing the player into it makes sense, I just hope that later on in the campaign there will be the chance to fly in a more open environment. The aerial levels show off BF3's amazing graphics in a way that the previous level's nighttime environments couldn't. This is definitely a game that looks better in the light with lots of bright colors. However, the effect was lost in the final third of the level which is spent entirely in infrared vision painting targets on a runway.
Quote:
After landing I switched it up and tried some co-op. It could have gone better. The mission I played took place entirely within an office building; again not the best environment for showing off BF3's Frostbite 2 engine. It looked more like F.E.A.R. than Battlefield. Graphical quibbles aside, the mission lacked the polish of the single-player levels I had played. Enemies would walk right over claymores that my partner and I had planted, and an unfortunate lack of checkpoints meant we had to start the level over at least seven times before we managed to make it to the end. This wouldn't have been so bad had death not come quickly and arbitrarily. At one point I had to breach a door simultaneously with my partner. During the breaching animation, my character was entirely computer controlled. This is a standard scenario for a modern shooter. However, Battlefield adds an annoying twist to the formula: There was an enemy directly behind the door who stabbed my character in the chest (one shot kill) halfway through said animation. There was no way to avoid death. Thankfully, the enemy was in a different location during my next playthrough.
Co-op troubles aside, it's clear that Battlefield will be as **** and thrill packed as one could hope for, even if it's not as "real" as some are hoping for. I know that Battlefield 3 will be fun, but I can't help but be a bit disappointed at the same time. The series first attempt at a single-player campaign was the original Bad Company, which had an entertaining if flawed campaign with large open areas. Bad Company 2 took the game down a more COD-like rollercoaster direction, but still featured a few surprises. Battlefield 3 may just complete the series' transformation, but there's still the rest of the campaign to play. I hope it, too, has a few surprises.