Intervention: Battlefield 3’s single player campaign

Hi Battlefield 3. How’re you doing? Please have a seat. We’re here today because we care about you. We’re your friends, your players; your fans, and your customers. With a heavy heart, we’ve—

…can you put down the gas duster can for a minute? Please, just listen, okay?

We’ve arranged this intervention because we want you to seek the help that you need. We want your children, and your children’s children, not to end up in the bargain bin within weeks of release, their DVD jackets adorned with “50% OFF!” stickers. Most of us have enjoyed your multiplayer mode, and we think you’ve done a good job there. It’s really just your single-player campaign we’d like to talk about.

Battlefield 3, your SP campaign has hurt me in the following ways.

I was hoping for a deeper, more meaningful, and more enjoyable experience than what I’ve gotten from the Call of Duty series lately. Your preview videos looked wonderfully tantalizing, and I figured that, after Modern Warfare 2 jumped the shark with that whole Red Dawn scenario, everyone else would get the message: over-the-top, on-rails shooters have been done to death, and it’s time to move on. I know that game sold literally jillions of copies and allowed Activision to install gold toilets around its offices, but I didn’t expect the Battlefield series to sell out in the same fashion.

Imagine my disappointment when I realized that, while you looked like the prettiest girl at the dance, your gameplay was essentially Modern Warfare 2 on steroids—or canned air. From the outset, you coaxed me along set paths filled with dreary cut scenes, endlessly respawning enemies, and unforgiving quick-time events (you know, those things where the game randomly gives you half a second to click a mouse button… or else).

All attempts at initiative or creative thinking were mercilessly quashed. I had to progress at exactly the pace you determined. Any slower, and infinite spawns of enemies would pin me down; any faster, and quelling those infinite spawns would cost my character his life. Sometimes, even when progressing at the designated pace and crouching behind the designated cover, I would be gunned down by an unseen enemy, a hail of bullets turning my vision into a blurry, splotchy mess that extinguished any hope of a timely counterattack. Time and time again, I would progress through your levels by trial and error, obediently awaiting the next instruction. “Run over there,” you’d say. “Pick up that machine gun!” “You have three picoseconds to hit E so that your character doesn’t die!” More times than I can count, I had to move out of the way so my team could follow its scripted path to the next objective. I wasn’t leading or following; I was trying to stay out of their path and not get myself killed.

Battlefield 3, I know that being a real-world soldier is largely about following orders, sticking with your team, and trying really hard not to get shot. But I don’t want to be a real-world soldier. That’s why I’m sitting here at my computer and not thousands of miles away in Afghanistan, cold and tired, mourning lost friends and hoping my squad doesn’t run into an IED. I don’t have the guts for any of that. I just want to play video games and pretend I can take on a whole platoon of bad guys all on my own.

The fact of the matter is, people play video games to get a sense of achievement. It feels great to complete an objective against all odds, using your wits and skill to outmatch the enemy. That’s why open-world games are so much fun. They create the illusion that you’re left to your own devices, making it all the more satisfying when you clear a dungeon or advance the storyline. Trial and error still comes into play, but succeeding after repeated failures is all the more enjoyable, because you had an active part in the decision-making process.

What you’ve done, Battlefield 3, is rob me of that enjoyment. At no point in the campaign did I feel like I, the player, had any part in what was happening. How could I? The scripting system so transparently pushed me from point to point, barking orders at me and punishing me with instantaneous death whenever I failed to respond in time. My problem-solving skills were left untapped. Instead of determining the best tactic for a firefight or coming up with the best way to infiltrate a building, I simply tried to make sense of the game’s instructions. Whenever I died, I questioned not my strategy, but whether I had interpreted those instructions correctly.

Playing your single-player campaign, Battlefield 3, felt like watching a very expensive action movie where the main character kept forgetting his lines, walking off-shot, or misinterpreting the script. The director kept yelling “cut,” and I was forced to sit through each ruined take. Somehow, I felt guilty about those takes getting ruined. Also, the movie cost $60, and I needed a pretty fast graphics card to watch it.

Scripting shooters to that extreme extent is just a recipe for disaster. At one point near the end of the game, I walked into a mansion and the game took the reins. I watched as my character walked into a Russian special forces guy, who started a long expositional monologue. I took my hands off the keyboard and mouse to pay closer attention. Eventually, another character entered the scene and asked the Russian guy to put his hands up. The Russian guy turned to my character and said, “You don’t shoot him, millions will die.” I waited for the cut scene to continue, but my character suddenly and inexplicably died. After starting over, I realized that I was supposed to take control and shoot the other character right there and then. I had to click the left mouse button at just the right time within a one- or two-second window. Any other course of action was punished by instant death—and being forced to re-watch the whole cut scene. Unlike previous quick-time events in the game, this one provided no on-screen instructions, either.

That wasn’t the only instance where I was forced to go through the motions and punished for not following the script—far from it—but it was definitely the most puzzling and frustrating.

Battlefield 3, I wouldn’t have complained if you had supplemented your multiplayer mode with a cheesy in-engine action movie. I probably would have watched it. But you had to get all Call of Duty on me and awkwardly pad a cheesy in-engine action movie with heavily scripted gameplay portions that weren’t any fun to play. I can tell it all took a lot of effort, and I feel so, so sorry that you persevered in that path without realizing the error of your ways.

I’ve booked you a ticket to rehab clinic in California, but I don’t think you’ll take it. However, perhaps your example can serve as a warning for future Battlefield titles. Perhaps your offspring will realize that not having a single-player campaign is okay, especially if it means more development resources allocated to multiplayer. They may even figure out that single-player campaigns can be enthralling without being scripted to the gills. Rage, Borderlands, and Deus Ex: Human Revolution are great examples, and there are many others. More importantly, I hope they understand that, if a certain game franchise with an awful single-player mode sells zillions of copies, aping that franchise’s worst traits isn’t the way to make a good game…

…and making good games is still what it’s all about, right? Right?

Comments closed
    • delsydsoftware
    • 8 years ago

    To be honest, I haven’t even bothered with the single player game at all. It’s annoying that companies insist on making feature checklists. I bought BF3 for multiplayer, and I’m really pleased with it. I could care less about the single-player experience, because the focus of Battlefield has always been multiplayer. At the same time, I don’t understand why game companies will make an excellent single player game and then tack on a multiplayer game for no reason. Why does an excellent game like Uncharted 3 need multiplayer in the first place, other than to satisfy a feature checklist?

    So, my only complaint about the single player option in BF3 is that it took some budget money and development time away from the multiplayer experience. Some of that development time could have translated into more maps or more bug fixes.

    • CasbahBoy
    • 8 years ago

    I kind of feel bad about supporting the creation of such a crappy single player campaign in the process of buying BF3 purely for the multiplayer.

    • burntham77
    • 8 years ago

    “More importantly, I hope they understand that, if a certain game franchise with an awful single-player mode sells zillions of copies, aping that franchise’s worst traits isn’t the way to make a good game…”

    I see this happening more and more lately. People think that because a product does well, that everything about it was awesome, and that is almost never true. I loved the new Batman movies, but hated the forced gravely “Batvoice” that Bale used. Suddenly, that same kind of voice is popping up elsewhere, like in the new Deus Ex.

    This was the article that I needed to read to make my final choice on BF3, and my choice is to skip it. I don’t mind if a game kicks in an occasional script to show me something neat, like in the F.E.A.R. series, but to keep things on rails and to throw stupid button-mashing quicktime events at me is the worst.

    Really, the best thing I took away from this article is that I should just go buy Rage and forget about Battlefield 3.

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 8 years ago

    I enjoyed 4 major events in the game, that night time charge into iran and that jet fighting sequence(not the black and white stuff but the actual dog fighting), paris(well ok it was more interesting than great) and the tank section… that was it. Probably added up to less than 1 hr of gameplay in the sp game. The story was…BAD, the story telling was worse. The Narrative(subtle cues etc keeping the setting and characters all in tune etc.) was great and combined with the graphical fidelity of the sp was quite the premium. I just felt like more scripted rails sections like that of the jet fighter sequence would have benefited from contrast with some better dynamic gameplay book ending it, not more of the same linear drivel.

      • Draphius
      • 8 years ago

      u like how they brought up the lady from the plane mission that somehow musta had something to do witht he story yet they never tied it in lol. cracked me up cause even the char your playing says he never heard of her before the mission. he never did cause she had nothing to do with anything other then letting us sit in the back of a plane and ride a rollercoaster

    • Scrotos
    • 8 years ago

    This seems appropriate for some reason:

    [url<]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1ZtBCpo0eU[/url<]

    • Jon
    • 8 years ago

    Playing Single Player in BF3 was one of the most frustrating experiences I’ve ever had in a PC game, I played on Hard because I felt I wanted a bit of a challenge, the problem is exactly what everybody else here mentions, and that is it is incredibly scripted and no degree of strategy you put into the experience will help you, it’s simply a matter of moving from objective A to objective B and trying not to get hit. Of course in Hard mode it made it almost impossible because of the never ending waves of enemies.

    The graphics were amazing, but honestly, the way the game made you play it tarnished the experience considerably and I felt frustrated and just wanting to get through the game. I will never play Single Player again. Ever.

    • marraco
    • 8 years ago

    PRESS “D” NOW, or your browser will close!…

    Worst idea ever.

    That turns you onto an frustrated, obeying, trained monkey.

    • Draphius
    • 8 years ago

    its funny if they had branded BF3 as BF bad company 3, everything starts to make sense about the game. i wish i could get my money back, plus origin billed me the day of release when i preordered it months ago and that day just happened to be the day after i paid my mortgage,bills, and dropped 15K on materials for a job i was starting that week causing my account to go negative racking up fees just so they could inflate there release day sales

      • njenabnit
      • 8 years ago

      I’m pretty sure most online preorders don’t charge until it is shipped/released. I don’t see how your financial situation is the fault of Origin. If you are blaming $60 as the reason you overdrafted, you probably shouldn’t have spent that $60 in the first place.

        • Draphius
        • 8 years ago

        the money isnt the issue but its just another problem that origin has. many preorders bill u the instant u buy it. out of all the games ive preordered thats the only one that waited till release day. i preordered swtor recently and it instantly charged my account which is new for amazon cause they did the same thinbg origin did to me which caused me not to buy from amazon till they changed there policy. the money wasnt the issue, it was the aggravation of it that bothers me. if i buy something charge me for it. dont make me remember for months that im going to have a pending charge eventually. btw ive had over a dozen preorders this year, so its not a normal thing with most companies

        • Vaughn
        • 8 years ago

        Agreed.

        Its not EA/Origins fault that $60 caused you to go into overdraft. That has to be one of the dumbest comments i’ve seen posted on this site.

      • SPOOFE
      • 8 years ago

      Couldn’t you have just pinched a few pennies and spent only $14,940 for your job?

    • Proxicon
    • 8 years ago

    I actually wasn’t expecting a single player at all, being a veteran from the other 2 games. So, the fact there was a single player at all was a bonus to me. There is a lot of things I don’t like about the game, but whining about single player is not one of them. Seems to be alot of hackers so far.

      • Draphius
      • 8 years ago

      dont u miss the stuff that made the battlefield games what they were though? no mcomm stations,no aradar,no artilery,no uavs, no supply drops, NO COMMANDER, etc etc the list goes on. this game would make sense if it was branded bfbc3 but its not, its supposed to be a sequel to BF2 and it left its core mechanics at the door. i remember in interviews with dice devs when they were releasing BFbc 1 & 2 and they always stated that it was not meant as a sequel to the battlefield series but as an offshoot with a more arcade feel to it. i dont know what happened between then and now but apparently they forget there core values and the direction they were trying to head in and just created a game thats a perfect sequel to the BC series and if it had been branded that i would have nothing bad to say about the game. also dont u miss the singleplayer with bots then from battlefield? u got a singleplayer game that played like battlefield where u could practice all day long without screwing your team over while u practice in actuall rounds

    • Madman
    • 8 years ago

    Battlefield 3 is probably THE WORST game I’ve seen in my life. The orgin sucks beyond imagination, the game is buggy as hell, with sound stuttering all around. The web based launcher sucks, and the price is overinflated.

    A genuine piece of a turd.

    I’m lucky I saw the whole process, because a friend brought the game, and I didn’t purchased it myself. After seeing it I have zero wish of buying or playing it. And the graphics is still way behind the Id tech 5.

      • Yeats
      • 8 years ago

      Perhaps the sound issue lies with your friend’s PC? Many folks – including me – have played BF3 with no problems.

      I happen to prefer the BF3 graphics to Rage, but its not a big deal.

        • JohnC
        • 8 years ago

        No, no, no! It is definitely evil EA’s fault! It’s always their fault! “We should not support it”, “they are absolutely terrible”, etc.

      • mduncan62
      • 8 years ago

      I’m going to guess that your buddy must be on dial-up and probably doesn’t meet the requirements with his computer.

      Other than some lag, I think pretty much everything about the game is awesome. Congrats on your decision not to purchase.

      • Proxicon
      • 8 years ago

      must be your computer. u mad brah?

      • Draphius
      • 8 years ago

      i have rage and BF3 is better in some areas then rage and rage is better at somethings aswell. neither do everything perfect and cant really be compared cause that all comes down to a persons perspective and opinion

    • ALiLPinkMonster
    • 8 years ago

    Damn. I was hoping it was as epic as it looked in the trailers. Ohh well, this just gives me more of a reason to wait until my system is built to buy the game.

    • Aussienerd
    • 8 years ago

    Who bought this game for the SP? If it was not there would you have still bought it? I think the majority would say yes they would still have bought it! So you have an extra SP game that is not great thrown in. Either play it or don’t, I don’t get the people saying it should not have been included, ?????? I don’t get it.

    If you bought this game for a SP experience you are lacking in the understanding of what Battlefield is all about!!!! Added extras do not effect the product.

    • Mystic-G
    • 8 years ago

    That’s exactly how I felt after I played the campaign. I don’t think reviewers went too hard on the campaign, I think fans just go to easy on it, exempting and excusing it from any real criticism just because of the multiplayer. It’s honestly about time EA/DICE goes back to multiplayer-only with this franchise. People aren’t dishing out $60 for a campaign in a BF game. Especially, when the campaign has as many flaws as it does. As far as I’m concerned, it’s three strikes you’re out. If DICE can’t make a half decent campaign that at the very least doesn’t bore you to death or piss you off with bugs and design flaws, then it’s time to take things back to basic training and just work on what made you so great in the first place.

    I think if EA/DICE focused soley on making a very robust multiplayer experience with better balance, better map design, more emphasis on teamwork, and polishing/adding core mechanics, with majority of the kinks worked out pre-release, then I believe the high review scores that would flow in for the game would ensure higher sales. At least higher sales than a game that sacrifices development focus, time, and financial investment, for a single player experience that ends up being the broken leg on what could’ve been a game more memorable than Battlefield 2

      • EtherealN
      • 8 years ago

      Multiplayer-only but with good “bots” (that is, that use proper teamwork and use cover correctly etc), that would be perfect. I live in the sticks so cellular internet is all I’ve got, and while it can usually offer me 90ish ping, fog and rain will make the connection slow and jumpy to the point that regular MP becomes impossible.

        • Mystic-G
        • 8 years ago

        I’d love to see a insurgency mode or something similar from Project Reality on there. Would be nice to have random bot civilians hiding and running around. Would be a definite game changer.

    • Aveon
    • 8 years ago

    What is wrong in expecting a good SP campaign from shooter like BF3. The game has come long way developing a MP game, BF2 BC had a great a SP campaign although scripted .

    What’s wrong with a scripted game. DICE was clearly interested in competing with COD campaigns which are as well scripted and if they wanted to do it why not put some good effort at it rather than do it for namesake.

      • Kaleid
      • 8 years ago

      “are as well scripted ” well and scripted doesn’t go together.

        • Aveon
        • 8 years ago

        COD modern warfare was a well scripted game !

          • Kaleid
          • 8 years ago

          Really? It certainly wasn’t memorable.

            • Aveon
            • 8 years ago

            it may not have been for you . But there is a whole lot of fan base who liked the script and thats why they sold.
            Eventually everyone has a different taste and liking .

            For me BF 3 would have been great either way scripted or non scripted.
            But the current script looks more of a Black ops rip off which is seriously bad and they could have done with a better story .

      • Draphius
      • 8 years ago

      Also BFBC 1 & 2 werent meant to be sequels in the Battlefield series, digital illusions (dice) made that very clear when they made those games. whats wrong with putting in the original singleplayer games with bots that used the core mechanics of BF? i would have been very happy with that rather then what they gave us that i will only play one time. sometimes its fun to go offline and load up a bunch of stupid bots so u can feel like rambo for abit and get a 150kills and 0 deaths in a round

    • Joerdgs
    • 8 years ago

    Battlefield 3’s singleplayer contains NOTHING from what makes the multiplayer so great and amazing. It’s purely an attempt to pull CoD fans in. I’d even say it was less fun than Bad Company 2’s single player. At least there you had some characters shouting funny lines around and a battalion of bad guys to mow down on your own.

      • dashbarron
      • 8 years ago

      COD release seems to have gotten A LOT of press but BF3 hardly got any.

      I’m disappointed in the SP campaign and I had no idea it was scripted when I bought the game.

      The co-op was a lot of fun and I’ve yet to try the MP. The SP really has soured me into loading up the game.

    • Bensam123
    • 8 years ago

    I agree fully with this. I tried playing it on hard because I didn’t want auto aim, but got so sick of dieing that I stopped playing it and I have no motivation what so ever to start playing it again. It’s not that I’m a terrible player, it’s the scripted death that fucking pisses me off.

    I can be a perfect player and try to play in my own style and the game just kills me.
    I stealth through the whole level and enemies spawn all over me.
    I pick off enemies from afar and they never end unless I moved up to the exact spot.
    I saved all my teamates and they were script killed and all fell to the ground when new ones spawned.

    Single player removes all feeling of control over your character or how you play the game. I agree fully, I wouldn’t minded watching the movies if they were just movies. Quicktime events are soooooo terrible. They shouldn’t exist in any game in existence. They’re just there to replace the lack of control over your character by forcing control onto you, which doesn’t let you control your character at all. It’s so asinine and backwards it makes me sick.

    Adding to this the random enemies that the game scripts to JUST shoot at you. One of the first levels in the game when you’re on the skyscraper and covering the street from up top. There were people on the ground firing at the people across the street, two of them come out the door and fire DIRECTLY at me. They don’t care that there are people 10 feet in front of them, they shoot at someone 200 feet up and out of sight.

    Now bad AI is one thing, but if you add the fact that like 3-4 bullets kill you on hard, it’s a very nasty scripted death you can’t avoid unless you look at only those that are shooting at you. Adding to this frustration: you can’t change the game difficulty mid campaign (you have to start over) and you can’t save manually. You have to reach the predesignated, unmarked save points. In operation guilitine that was extremely painful.

    Like I said in my forum post, this was more like a puzzle game of figuring out exactly how you’re supposed to go through a level then a FPS. It’s fucking stupid.

    EA I have one word for you that you should learn and fucking respect: Self-efficacy. You crushed every single players ability to think, play, strive, and achieve for themselves. Not just EA, all game developers should learn that word and what it means.

      • Aveon
      • 8 years ago

      Whats wrong with QTE. If you donot like it that does not mean they should not exist in a game there is a whole lot of crowd who likes those QTE . BTW only 10-15 % of the game is QTE based .

        • paulWTAMU
        • 8 years ago

        WTF is the POINT of quick-time experiences from a game standpoint? Just leave it as a cutscene if that’s how they want it…all they are is a glorified cutscene anyway

          • Aveon
          • 8 years ago

          I suppose you are not the kind of person who likes QTEs .
          I loved Quick time events in prince of persia two thrones [the speed kill].It goes the same with Dead space, COD series, ninja blade, heavy rain etc.
          QTE events just engross you more into the game for the moment add more realism.

            • Draphius
            • 8 years ago

            i disagree i think they take u out of the game and make u feel like your not in control of whats happening and therefore choosing your own destiny, they are hitler in a software package

      • Aveon
      • 8 years ago

      Looks like a bunch of COD haters !

      • Aveon
      • 8 years ago

      I seriously dont understand why you guys are expecting freedom of thought in a game that is supposed to give you a feel of an actual battlefield .

      [quote<]Battlefield 3, I know that being a real-world soldier is largely about following orders, sticking with your team, and trying really hard not to get shot. But I don't want to be a real-world soldier. That's why I'm sitting here at my computer and not thousands of miles away in Afghanistan, cold and tired, mourning lost friends and hoping my squad doesn't run into an IED.[/quote<] There is a bunch of RPG games like fallout 3 and borderlands which let you do so.

        • Draphius
        • 8 years ago

        atleast this guy gets it. i dont get y so many people gave u thumbs down. Battlefield is supposed to be about playing a soldier and following orders. if u dont like that there are plenty of other games like aveon pointed out. i Srsly think we are f’d if people have these stupid thoughts rambling through there head. i mean do u go to a movie theatre to watch an action flick and get pissed when its missing the chick flick part of the story for u?

    • indeego
    • 8 years ago

    SP advantages: Don’t have to worry about 12-year old’s. I get a game exactly as a creative Director and their team intended. I’m not at the mercy of pings, lag, server outages/reboots. Sometimes you want to kick ass and not worry about “ranking” or “Achievements.” Story. Dialog. Thought provoking.

    I’ll admit I don’t have friends that play this game online, the draw of playing strangers isn’t there. The only way I would buy this game were if it had a compelling SP experience. I think it would be great if they could split out the versions and just offer it for cheap to play SP, even if it is only a few hours.

      • dashbarron
      • 8 years ago

      I’m looking for someone to die with, hit me up.

    • mduncan62
    • 8 years ago

    Honestly, I would have never know that BF3 had a SP mode. I’ll never play it, but I’ve played 20+ hours on MP. I’d like to think that anyone even considering buying BF3 wouldn’t be doing it because of the SP.

    I don’t think they missed the mark at all, and put out one hell of a MP game.

    Look at Black Ops, everyone talked about how great the SP was, and it only took a couple hours to run through.

    • steelcity_ballin
    • 8 years ago

    I will not support EA in any way shape or form no matter WHAT must-have item comes out. They are an absolutely terrible company with a history of abuse, bullying, and fraud. Stop supporting them.

      • JohnC
      • 8 years ago

      I’m sure EA cares a lot about your personal subjective opinion.

      • Yeats
      • 8 years ago

      [quote<]I will not support [b<]the computer industry[/b<] in any way shape or form no matter WHAT must-have item comes out. They are [b<]absolutely terrible companies[/b<] with a history of abuse, bullying, and fraud. Stop supporting them.[/quote<] Fixed.

        • A_Pickle
        • 8 years ago

        That… really doesn’t even come close to being accurate.

          • Yeats
          • 8 years ago

          Actually, what I’ve said is quite accurate. Many HW & SW companies engage or have engaged in business practices that many people would consider to be abusive and/or fraudulent. Such is “big business”.

      • Dashak
      • 8 years ago

      I will also not support EA. Come at me, downvotes.

        • Yeats
        • 8 years ago

        Nah. It’s no fun if you’re beggin’ for it. I’d rather you put up a fight.

      • indeego
      • 8 years ago

      My brother has this philosophy that he never does business with a company that he feels has stolen from him. Seems reasonable. So when he lived in NY, NYNEX charged him money randomly, and he was never able to recover the $20 or whatever small amount it was. He swore off NYNEX, and now Verizon. This means he actively can not use Verizon per his philosophy, or any related company. He only has a few of these companies.

      I have a similar philosophy, except it has to do with spam. If a company I work with as a client, customer, or vendor spams me, and I request off the spam list, and they spam me again, I blacklist them. My list is [b<]~25 companies[/b<] long. I also blacklist companies I received crap support on, and right now that is Dell and OCZ. Dell because I had a server that had a critical issue with Exchange loooong ago and we call up Microsoft and they say it's a dell problem. Sure enough, Dell had not released an update for a storage controller, and that introduced partial corruption into our Exchange database. We spent a weekend applying the fix, exporting the backups, rebuilding the database. I slept on a couch in our lobby after 27 hours being awake. Never again. I also blacklist Apple because of the RDF and I just can't stand them. I am perfectly willing to recommend them to friends/family however to get those people off my support queue. Enough ramble.

        • Aussienerd
        • 8 years ago

        I hope you never have an issue with Intel. Cause then your screwed!!!

          • indeego
          • 8 years ago

          Indeed. But I have never had an issue with Intel. Every product I’ve ever bought has been well worth it, and I’ve never seen a dead processor, SSD, NIC, motherboard, or wireless from them, period.

          • Yeats
          • 8 years ago

          Over the course of nearly 20 years, I’ve never had a significant issue with Intel – products, reps or support. No issues with AMD, either.

        • tanker27
        • 8 years ago

        so whats up with OCZ?

          • indeego
          • 8 years ago

          Vertex 2 died within a month of purchase.
          RMA took two weeks.
          RMA1 died after 3 months.
          RMA2 they shipped the wrong drive.
          RMA3 seems to be running now for ~5 months.
          I’m not alone on their forums.
          Yeah so not too keen on OCZ.

      • DeadOfKnight
      • 8 years ago

      I will only support EA as long as BioWare doesn’t crash and burn.

      • Draphius
      • 8 years ago

      have u ever played a game run by Sony Online Entertainment? ive been burned by them every single time yet occasionally something good comes out from under EA’s umbrella

    • dpaus
    • 8 years ago

    [quote<]making good games is still what it's all about, right? Right?[/quote<] To about the same extent as 'playing good hockey' is what the Toronto Maple Leafs are all about.

      • LoneWolf15
      • 8 years ago

      Okay. I LOL-ed.

    • Arclight
    • 8 years ago

    Imo they shouldn’t have made the SP at all. Now imagine all that time spent on single player transferred to making multi-player maps. Yeah, i know, they could have made something legendary….

    Old BF fans know they don’t buy a game like this for single player. It’s like buying Counter Strike to play with bots….where’s the fun in that?

      • squeeb
      • 8 years ago

      This. The Battlefield series was never about SP (unless you wanted to play MP maps with bots). I haven’t even fired up SP since playing the game on release day and I probably never will with my growing backlog of games to play.

    • GasBandit
    • 8 years ago

    They didn’t NEED a single player campaign. This isn’t bad company. It’s Battlefield 3. 1942 didn’t have a “campaign,” it had bots filling in for players on the same multiplayer maps. Battlefield 2 had bots filling in for players on the same multiplayer maps. All 3 needed was the ability for bots to fill in for players on the existing multiplayer maps. I’m not always in the mood to play with random 14 year old screaming pottymouths. Sometimes I want to play with 1 or 2 friends, and let bots fill in the rest of the holes. That’s why we STILL play BF1942 with the desert combat mod. It was, and still is, the bomb, yo, despite being *nine* years old.

      • mdkathon
      • 8 years ago

      GB –

      My thoughts exactly. I did love this little write up though. When pre-ordering BF3 I was pretty excited about some single player action to get me in the mood for multiplayer. What ended up happening after 3 or 4 SP sessions is that I gave up and went to MP.

      • JohnC
      • 8 years ago

      I agree – as much as I like playing with live people I do sometimes prefer to play with bots for various reasons (to learn the new map without unnecessary distractions or to simply “screw around” without bothering other players with my abysmal “performance” because I am currently not feeling well/healthy enough to play as a part of the team).

      • puppetworx
      • 8 years ago

      Not all us potty-mouths are 14 year olds you ******.

    • Yeats
    • 8 years ago

    This reads as though you hadn’t been paying attention to what [i<]nearly everybody in the universe has said about BF3 SP.[/i<]

      • Paul1960
      • 8 years ago

      Amen, amen and AMEN! You have captured my thoughts exactly.

      • Waco
      • 8 years ago

      What, that it sucks?

        • Yeats
        • 8 years ago

        From, like, almost everything I’ve read, “yep”.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This