Impressions: Battlefield 3

Let me make this as clear as possible before I continue: Battlefield is not Call of Duty. Anyone who has played both will gladly testify to that. Now, with that out of the way, let's talk about what you came here to read: Battlefield 3.

Campaign

In Battlefield 3, you (primarily) play as Sergeant Blackburn, a marine who is being interrogated about missing nuclear warheads. The story unfolds through flashbacks, though not the entire story plays out this way. By the end, you will have played through a tense sniping portion, shot down enemy fighter jets, and raced against the clock in order to prevent a nuclear explosion. You will also have played as several characters in different areas around the world (sound familiar, yet?)

Let me get this out of the way: if you bought Battlefield 3 expecting a great single player campaign, look somewhere else. What's available on the disc isn't terrible, by any stretch of the imagination. The main problem is that we've already seen this before, even in DICE's own Battlefield: Bad Company games! Nuclear threat? Check. Russian villain that becomes the main target? Check. It's all run-of-the-mill, standard affair. This would be more bearable if the single-player campaign delivered edge-of-seat thrills and memorable setpieces. It doesn't. Regardless, the campaign does deliver some exciting setpieces which will want you playing through them to see what happens in the end.

Oh, don't mind me. I'm just a heavily-scripted setpiece.

In addition, everything just feels heavily scripted. There are segments where you even see the script with your own eyes. For example, in Operation Swordbreaker, you are given an AT4 in order to take out a sniper from a building parallel to your location. The game literally tells you when to shoot, and where exactly to shoot. Give us the option to take him out before that point! It doesn't sound like much, but when heavily-scripted actions occur several more times over any given time span, it gets boring. Oh, and let me not forget those stupid quick-time events that feel unnecessary and tacked on.

The campaign attempts to break up any monotony by putting you inside of a fighter jet, as well as driving a tank. When in the fighter jet, you feel exhilarated as final checks are made. Adrenaline is pumping through your veins as the jet powers on...until you realize that you don't actually fly the damn thing! This would have been a perfect opportunity to introduce flying mechanics, so when the player makes the jump to multiplayer, they will have gotten the basics down, but nope. DICE only gives you the options to shoot a turret or missiles. Weak. Still, admittedly, this was an exciting setpiece, with several dispersed throughout the 6-8 hour campaign.

As for co-op, well it's pretty disappointing. In my opinion, it is uninspired, with no real added benefit. If you die, you will start from the beginning of that level. It's that fucked up. Co-op just feels like two people going through a map, instead of one person doing one person, and another person doing something else, while communicating with each other and devising tactics. In short, co-op is nothing to write home about.

Am I saying the campaign is terrible? No, I am definitely not. What I am saying is that we've already seen this done before, and better. You might be saying to yourself, "Call of Duty is scripted, too!" That is definitely true, but the difference is that Call of Duty constantly delivers on the excitement factor. This is, funny enough, balanced by the relatively boring Battlefield 3 campaign. It might feel boring because it delivers more on realism than does Call of Duty's campaign. Be honest: Call of Duty's campaign can be over-the-top sometimes, and you don't get that feeling with Battlefield 3's campaign. Still, Battlefield 3's campaign delivers tight gunplay, along with some exciting setpieces and a focused narrative, although everything about it is run-of-the-mill and derivative.

Multiplayer

Sign up only if you're truly dedicated. There is no such thing as instant gratification when it comes to Battlefield 3's multiplayer. You better be prepared to play if you launch Battlefield 3's multiplayer suite, and damn what a package. Multiplayer is DICE's bread and butter, and Battlefield 3 is no different. Be warned, however, that console matches are limited to 24 players at a time, as opposed to 64 players on the PC version. Regardless of the limit for console players, Battlefield 3 multiplayer is still a shitload of fun.

Players can choose from four classes: Assault, Support, Engineer, and Recon. The multiplayer modes are Rush, Conquest, Team Deathmatch, and all squad variants. From the get-go, you can play each map in any mode. Speaking of maps, Battlefield 3 ships with a total of nine maps, with four re-imagined maps. Needless to say, every single one of the nine maps are fantastic, with vehicles only adding to the frenzy. Thanks to DICE's addition of tanks, jets, jeeps, and helicopters, as well as on-foot soldiers, multiplayer feels like you are fighting a war.

Unlike the PC version, you do not need to exit the game in order to launch a multiplayer game from a browser. Everything is seamless, with chat options, server lists, and stats all streamlined for consoles, though some matches might result in some lag. The same occurred with some of my matches, though I don't know if it's more of a widespread problem.

Overall

Absolutely gorgeous.

The game looks mighty fine, though 360 owners will be doing themselves a favor if they make the 2 GB sacrifice in making the game look better. I assure you, it will be one of the smartest things you will ever do. There are some framerate issues with the console versions, though, as well as instances of textures popping into view. On occasion, the framerate would drop below 30 FPS, but only when there a lot of concentrated fighting, as well as vehicles showing up at the same time. Other than that, animations look impressive, with realistic and smooth animations. Guns and explosions feel like they have weight to them, with the environment getting realistically torn apart because of gunfire and explosions. If you have a surround sound system, then Battlefield 3 will be your show-off game whenever people come over. It truly takes advantage of that system, rocking your senses to the core.

Though Battlefield 3 delivers the best campaign in franchise history, it is derivative and run-of-the-mill, with setpieces dispersed evenly throughout the 6-8 hour campaign. The multiplayer easily makes up for the flawed campaign, maintaining the high bar that DICE always sets for Battlefield games. Newcomers and seasoned veterans alike will find much to love about Battlefield 3. However, you have been warned. If you're getting Battlefield 3 solely for the campaign, prepare to be disappointed. If you're getting Battlefield 3 for the total package, then gear up and be prepared for the best DICE has to offer.

Sid Meier's Civilization V Review

Sid Meier's Civilization V is the fifth iteration of the popular game series Civilization. Civilization V is an amazing game that offers awesome gameplay, stunning graphics, and endless entertainment. Check out the video for more information on this awesome video game!

YouTube

AppFeast: The Best iOS Apps of August

AppFeast is a new monthly segment in my channel where I give a preview of 3 noteworthy apps that follow a common theme. August's theme is food games. Be sure to watch all the way through the video for a little something extra at the end!

YouTube

A Look at Gaming Review Scores

With the recent release of the legendary 'vaporware' Duke Nukem Forever, the subsequent reviews got me thinking about gaming reviews, and the usage of scores to rate games, along with what reviewers actually entail, and what I believe they should. This includes 1-10, A-F, and 1-5. These ratings are supposed to follow the general pattern of the lowest score being a complete disaster, the middle score (5, C+, 2.5) meaning mediocre, and the highest score meaning Outstanding. However, recent reviews have begun to make me think differently. Do these scores really reflect what they should? Let's have a deeper look.

The aforementioned Duke Nukem Forever was met with mixed reviews at best, but some of the scores, and what they reflected, astonished me. There are quite a few examples of this, two of them being the Edge review, and the Eurogamer review. Both of these reviews gave the game a 3/10, which to me reads 'very disappointing'. But before we delve into the reviews themselves, I think it's definitely worth taking a look at Duke Nukem Forever as a game, first and foremost.

Duke Nukem Forever began production in 1996, and was just released now in 2011. Throughout this 15 year production hell, the game was given several release dates which were quickly made moot, and was made by two different developers. Originally, 3D Realms began production in 1996, but were down-sized in 2009 for financial reasons. This led to a legal battle between 3D Realms and 2K games, until in 2010, it was announced that Gearbox Software would be finishing the development of the game. The game was just released in 2011, after 15 years of hype and disbelief. The background of the game definitely has a bearing on the review scores.

Generally, most reviews agree that the game is mediocre-at-best, and is worthy of 1 play through at the most. However, some reviews say practically the same things about the game, but give them different scores, ranging from .5 to 2 whole points. The question this raises is whether all reviewers should stick to a general reviewing system, such as 1 specific score meaning a specific thing. This would benefit gamers because this system works without any hype or presumptions affecting the score, just the game's quality. However, this may take away reviewer's disappointments which other reader's may agree with, even if they are from hype or what they took the game to be. 

In the end, gaming review scores are only opinions, but it is very interesting to see what changes some people's opinions, and in turn the review scores. Some reviewers review the game on it's merits as a stand-alone product, away from any hype and comparisons with other games. Whilst this prevents the reviewer's pre-conceived notions affecting the score, it also does not factor in better options within the gaming market, which may lead to a reader feeling scammed. On the other hand, some reviewers like to incorporate their own opinions and other games heavily into their reviews, in order to make the review much more representative of the game's 'stature' within the gaming market as a whole.

Now this post did not exactly have one sole purpose, except to view game reviews from a different perspective, especially as consumers are beginning to look for reviews to separate 'must-buys' from 'rentals' in these hard times. In my opinion, gaming reviews are not rules to follow, but merely guidelines and sophisticated recommendations from the industry's experts, which is why I prefer reviews to have opinions galore and to involve everything, ranging from the effect of the game's hype (or lack thereof) to what the reviewer was initially expecting. But this is just my opinion, so feel free to comment and let me know how you feel about gaming reviews, and what they represent. 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-06-12-duke-nukem-forever-review?page=3#justposted

http://www.next-gen.biz/reviews/duke-nukem-forever-review

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Nukem_Forever

Could Sega be getting ready to release a video game console?

Could Sega be getting ready to release a next-gen console to compete against the Nintendo Wii U? Let's look at the possibilities.

Photo Credit: 2DShooter.com

The picture above shows Sega's last console, the Dreamcast. It was a flop compared to the Sony PlayStation 2 that was about to come out at the time. While it had a lot of cool features, it wasn't on top because the PlayStation 2 had the at-the-time revolutionary DVD drive. Just 10 years later, the PlayStation 3 uses Blu-rays and DVDs aren't revolutionary at all. Why, isn't that funny?

Sega could/is likely to be getting ready to release something BIG. That will blow away most of the current consoles and be a main competitor to the Wii U to be at the center of your entertainment center. The time is perfect and the market is ripe for a fourth player in the fierce console market.

If Sega did, it would definitly have competition but it would definitely be a BIG SUCCESS in the console and gaming market. The time is perfect and there's a void that they can fill. With one more day, they could possibily announce it this year at E3.

What do you think? Post it in the comments.

SuperPC