ive been supplementing my new RPG waters with less involved fare and decided to look into all those Battlefield games ive owned for centuries. i never played them, having been on the COD side of things regarding military shooters and for years i only ever heard about their multiplayer. im currently playing 3 and... yeah i can see why slkdfj.
BF3's campaign is an astonishing tech demo and nothing else. here's a bunch of flashy corridors and rooms, poorly connected by a bog-standard terrorism plot so threadbare i stopped paying attention two levels in. it is unbelievably lifeless, something to fill a spot on the back of the box.
which is a shame since what separates BF stands out well here. for 2011 it's almost impossibly good-looking with loads of environmental destruction and sharp texturework. the weapon ballistics are handily the best ive seen in the genre and firefights, coupled with a low TTK, feel messily organic in a way COD never is. on a technical level BF3 feels like it could've come out yesterday, which depending on your perspective of AAA design goals might be a negative but still, impressive. i can't deny that Frostbite sheen.
it's short at least. ive heard the WW1 one has more meat on the bones so i'll try that next.
edit: im a tank in the middle of a desert shooting other tanks and im gonna be honest i have no idea why.
flawless 144hz too. i can imagine the 64-multiplayer mode being a hell of an experience for the time.