I told myself I’m just going to shut up and play the game. I indulged in every mode, every feature and every multiplayer match type for two straight days. I stopped frequenting every message board or online gaming community to gather up everyone’s impressions on Battlefield 3. I stopped reading the reviews. I skipped over every Battlefield 3 segment in every gaming podcast that I listen to. Why? Battlefield 3’s widespread media focus is annoying. It became too much. In fact, I even annoyed myself when I looked at how many times I wrote about Battlefield 3, or how many times I would tweet about it, or how often it would be the topic of discussion amongst my friends. I had overloaded myself with too much Battlefield banter, and by the time the game was in my hands, I was already drained. That’s quite a contrast from the norm. Usually, all of the immense pre-release hype surrounding a big game serves to fuel the excitement, right? Instead, I was worn out on this game before I even popped the disc into the damn console. I almost ruined my enjoyment of Battlefield 3, and it taught me a valuable lesson or two.

As soon as I went on that media/community blackout, Battlefield 3 was Battlefield 3 again. Instead of dwelling on all of the kinks, quirks and hot-button issues stemming from its pre-release melodrama, I could simply play the game for what it is. Everything else was moot. My being able to formulate my own opinions about the final product feels like a relief. Now I can finally surface from my self-made cave and talk about the game with a clear head. I love this game. It certainly isn’t without its share of problems or disappointments, but in the end, Battlefield 3 lived up to what I wanted it to be – an involving experience that I will enjoy and come back to for years to come. Much of that long term replay value has to be attributed to the strength of the multiplayer component, which is Battlefield 3’s strongest suit. Battlefield 3’s multiplayer picks up where Battlefield: Bad Company 2 left off, and includes most of the traditions of Battlefield’s standard design -- intricate maps, class-based systems, leveling progression and killer vehicles/aircraft are back once again. While each of those aspects of Battlefield 3’s multiplayer retains the fun familiarity that fans beckoned for, there are a few tweaks and streamlines made that allow the other crowd to relate to the experience a little faster.

At first glance, that element of accessibility can sound like a bad thing, depending on who you are. Team Deathmatch might not be what Battlefield is all about to us enthusiasts, but I see no harm done in including that matchtype if it keeps the casual crowd entertained. Merging the medic and assault class together was another ballsy move from DICE, but it works surprisingly better than expected. Not only did it eradicate the “nobody wants to be a medic” ignorance, but it gives teams more opportunities to assist each other than standard kill counts or objective points can. The sizes of the maps are perhaps a little more scaled back (at least on consoles) than Battlefield’s predecessors, but I appreciate the fact that it gets players relatively closer to the action, yet not close enough to the point where you’re dead 15 seconds after you respawn. I can understand how those refinements could be a too much for Battlefield diehards to stomach, but none of those things take too much away from what we came to expect out of Battlefield 3. In short, I came into Battlefield 3’s multiplayer in a somewhat defensive stance because of my knowledge of those forthcoming changes; but after playing it, I am beyond satisfied at how well it ended up working.

DICE incorporated a similar philosophy into the single player campaign; and as expected, there are some mixed results. I won’t say that Battlefield 3’s campaign isn’t important, but it definitely wasn’t the most important feature of the overall experience. For me and many others, Battlefield campaigns are typically a one-off playthrough that we won’t touch again. So in my case, I was a little more relaxed about Battlefield 3’s campaign being groomed for the Call of Duty audience. There’s no question that Battlefield 3 fits the Call of Duty mold as the “intense, action-packed blockbuster” game of the holiday season, but that choice of direction came with some expected drawbacks. The campaign mode plays and feels like a carbon copy of any ordinary military shooter – ripe with booms, bangs and explosions that are supposed to give you those “holy shit” moments. Unfortunately, it’s all too predictable, and that causes the campaign to feel a little flat and uninspired. Pair that with a storyline that lacks any real depth or incentive, and you have a campaign that feels more contemporary than remarkable. While I can’t fault DICE for making a hard-nosed campaign experience, Battlefield 3 could have benefited from having some personality. Battlefield: Bad Company 2 did a terrific job of getting players to form a bond with the protagonists in a way that compelled players to keep plodding through the game to see the story through. Battlefield 3 tips the scale in the other direction, and sadly this disconnect leaves little to nothing for players to truly grasp on to or appreciate in the long run. It’s just a bunch of stiff military missions with tiny bits of an unimaginative and trite story peppered in.

As a whole, Battlefield 3 is an excellent experience that continues to thrive on its past successes, yet falters from the same failures. By no means am I saying that Battlefield 3 isn’t worth your time – actually, I think it’s one of the strongest FPS releases in recent memory. The issue here is that Battlefield 3 isn’t exactly a great all-around experience. The star of the show is the multiplayer, and that’s fine. If there’s anything I’d want DICE to knock out of the park, it’s just that. If this is the point where you’re thinking about Modern Warfare 3, then you’re just in time. As far as the campaign and multiplayer go, Battlefield 3 set the bar both low and high, and it’ll be interesting to see how Call of Duty fares against its biggest competition in quite some time. The thing that is ultimately going to set these two games apart is, in fact, the campaign modes. I can’t help but catch a whiff of irony – I find it funny that the single player portion of these games are usually the afterthought, when it could very well be the one mode that determines which game truly trounced the other. Look, Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3’s multiplayer components are foregone conclusions. We knew exactly how both multiplayer modes would function, because they are more-or-less the same as they were before. This rivalry will have to be measured by something else, and I think the strength of the single player modes will be the best way to gauge who comes out on top. We’re a hair under two weeks to go before we know for sure, but until that time comes, Battlefield 3 remains atop. How copy?

I told myself I’m just going to shut up and play the game. I indulged in every mode, every feature and every multiplayer match type for two straight days. I stopped frequenting every message board or online gaming community to gather up everyone’s impressions on Battlefield 3. I stopped reading the reviews. I skipped over every Battlefield 3 segment in every gaming podcast that I listen to. Why? Battlefield 3’s widespread media focus is annoying. It became too much. In fact, I even annoyed myself when I looked at how many times I wrote about Battlefield 3, or how many times I would tweet about it, or how often it would be the topic of discussion amongst my friends. I had overloaded myself with too much Battlefield banter, and by the time the game was in my hands, I was already drained. That’s quite a contrast from the norm. Usually, all of the immense pre-release hype surrounding a big game serves to fuel the excitement, right? Instead, I was worn out on this game before I even popped the disc into the damn console. I almost ruined my enjoyment of Battlefield 3, and it taught me a valuable lesson or two.

As soon as I went on that media/community blackout, Battlefield 3 was Battlefield 3 again. Instead of dwelling on all of the kinks, quirks and hot-button issues stemming from its pre-release melodrama, I could simply play the game for what it is. Everything else was moot. My being able to formulate my own opinions about the final product feels like a relief. Now I can finally surface from my self-made cave and talk about the game with a clear head. I love this game. It certainly isn’t without its share of problems or disappointments, but in the end, Battlefield 3 lived up to what I wanted it to be – an involving experience that I will enjoy and come back to for years to come. Much of that long term replay value has to be attributed to the strength of the multiplayer component, which is Battlefield 3’s strongest suit. Battlefield 3’s multiplayer picks up where Battlefield: Bad Company 2 left off, and includes most of the traditions of Battlefield’s standard design -- intricate maps, class-based systems, leveling progression and killer vehicles/aircraft are back once again. While each of those aspects of Battlefield 3’s multiplayer retains the fun familiarity that fans beckoned for, there are a few tweaks and streamlines made that allow the other crowd to relate to the experience a little faster.

At first glance, that element of accessibility can sound like a bad thing, depending on who you are. Team Deathmatch might not be what Battlefield is all about to us enthusiasts, but I see no harm done in including that matchtype if it keeps the casual crowd entertained. Merging the medic and assault class together was another ballsy move from DICE, but it works surprisingly better than expected. Not only did it eradicate the “nobody wants to be a medic” ignorance, but it gives teams more opportunities to assist each other than standard kill counts or objective points can. The sizes of the maps are perhaps a little more scaled back (at least on consoles) than Battlefield’s predecessors, but I appreciate the fact that it gets players relatively closer to the action, yet not close enough to the point where you’re dead 15 seconds after you respawn. I can understand how those refinements could be a too much for Battlefield diehards to stomach, but none of those things take too much away from what we came to expect out of Battlefield 3. In short, I came into Battlefield 3’s multiplayer in a somewhat defensive stance because of my knowledge of those forthcoming changes; but after playing it, I am beyond satisfied at how well it ended up working.

DICE incorporated a similar philosophy into the single player campaign; and as expected, there are some mixed results. I won’t say that Battlefield 3’s campaign isn’t important, but it definitely wasn’t the most important feature of the overall experience. For me and many others, Battlefield campaigns are typically a one-off playthrough that we won’t touch again. So in my case, I was a little more relaxed about Battlefield 3’s campaign being groomed for the Call of Duty audience. There’s no question that Battlefield 3 fits the Call of Duty mold as the “intense, action-packed blockbuster” game of the holiday season, but that choice of direction came with some expected drawbacks. The campaign mode plays and feels like a carbon copy of any ordinary military shooter – ripe with booms, bangs and explosions that are supposed to give you those “holy shit” moments. Unfortunately, it’s all too predictable, and that causes the campaign to feel a little flat and uninspired. Pair that with a storyline that lacks any real depth or incentive, and you have a campaign that feels more contemporary than remarkable. While I can’t fault DICE for making a hard-nosed campaign experience, Battlefield 3 could have benefited from having some personality. Battlefield: Bad Company 2 did a terrific job of getting players to form a bond with the protagonists in a way that compelled players to keep plodding through the game to see the story through. Battlefield 3 tips the scale in the other direction, and sadly this disconnect leaves little to nothing for players to truly grasp on to or appreciate in the long run. It’s just a bunch of stiff military missions with tiny bits of an unimaginative and trite story peppered in.

As a whole, Battlefield 3 is an excellent experience that continues to thrive on its past successes, yet falters from the same failures. By no means am I saying that Battlefield 3 isn’t worth your time – actually, I think it’s one of the strongest FPS releases in recent memory. The issue here is that Battlefield 3 isn’t exactly a great all-around experience. The star of the show is the multiplayer, and that’s fine. If there’s anything I’d want DICE to knock out of the park, it’s just that. If this is the point where you’re thinking about Modern Warfare 3, then you’re just in time. As far as the campaign and multiplayer go, Battlefield 3 set the bar both low and high, and it’ll be interesting to see how Call of Duty fares against its biggest competition in quite some time. The thing that is ultimately going to set these two games apart is, in fact, the campaign modes. I can’t help but catch a whiff of irony – I find it funny that the single player portion of these games are usually the afterthought, when it could very well be the one mode that determines which game truly trounced the other. Look, Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3’s multiplayer components are foregone conclusions. We knew exactly how both multiplayer modes would function, because they are more-or-less the same as they were before. This rivalry will have to be measured by something else, and I think the strength of the single player modes will be the best way to gauge who comes out on top. We’re a hair under two weeks to go before we know for sure, but until that time comes, Battlefield 3 remains atop. How copy?