http://www.gamesradar.com/hands-on-preview-battlefield-3-could-be-better-cod-cod-should-it-really-try-be/ 
 
The spirit of CoD runs right through Battlefield 3, unmistakable in its single-player campaign, but also adding more than a whiff to its co-op component and, most surprisingly of all, bleeding into the normally couldn’t-be-more-different multiplayer like a stabbed haemophiliac. So there are three important questions to be answered. Is Battlefield’s take on CoD as good as CoD’s? Does it negatively affect what makes Battlefield Battlefield? And should the attempt have even been made? 
 
First up, without ruining any of the main plot, the story’s framing device is pure Black Ops. A present-day interrogation. Playable flashbacks to the events discussed. Moral ambiguity. A potentially unreliable narrator. All that was missing was a truckload of LSD and a wander around the Pentagon. Not only was all of this tonally very similar to Black Ops’ linking sequences, but in terms of structural mechanics it turned out to be exactly the same excuse for eclectic (or disjointed, depending on your perspective) jumps between locations and gameplay styles so much favoured by the last two Call of Dutys. ADHD pacing with a narrative justification, basically.

One minute it’s all tense, street-level shootouts, leading to an inevitable “Ramirez! Do everything!” stand-off in which I’m forced to man at least three different weapons within a 50 metre area in order to pull the invisible strings puppeteering the stage-managed flow of the battle. The next, after a convenient day-long black-out, I’m waking up just in time for the obligatory creepy-crawly stealth bit. Enemy soldiers are walking around, pulling the old “Do not run. We are your friends” schtick in order to draw me out. I do not believe them.

It’s tense, and incredibly atmospheric thanks to Battlefield 3’s starkly affecting lighting, but alas the tension evaporates the second I realise that there’s actually barely any way to screw things up unless I do it deliberately. A convenient bit of low-to-the-ground overhanging concrete provides shadowy cover, and coincidentally traces a path the entire length of the short trip from my start point to my objective. I crouch, run a long it, and I’m done. Call of Duty. Smoke and mirrors. The two go together irrevocably these days, and similar seems to be the case for Battlefield 3’s campaign so far.

After that? The series of location jumps sees me climbing into a fighter plane (as a different character, described by a different narrator) parked up on an aircraft carrier in the middle of the ocean. The eventual on-rails gameplay of the level itself consists of little more than lining dots up over moving things until they go beep, and then pressing a button that makes the things that made the dot go beep explode. The atmosphere though, is damnably impressive. And again, that’s very much down to DICE’s bloody impressive tech.

The campaign style sounds disappointing, but not exactly unexpected.

The part of the article quoted doesn't mention anything about your ability to destroy objects in order to shape the battlefield in your favor. I haven't followed any information that has been released about BF3's single player, nor do I know much about BF2 or BF1942, but the destruction feature found on the console games (BC1/2 as well as BF1943) is a main characteristic to that part of the franchise that easily differentiates itself from CoD.

Frankly, I don't care about the campaign or the co-op. I don't make play-dates with other grown men and I don't know anyone who really plays games that much, so I will never touch the co-op. And a campaign in Battlefield makes about as much sense as a campaign in pong. For all I know, it might be great, but that's not what people come to BF for and it's not what they expect from it. They expect a solid multiplayer that is going to keep them busy for another five or six years. Frankly, I wish they had just left it out entirely and put those resources toward another few maps or something.

I'm pretty sure most people are getting it for the multiplayer.

Single player in military fps haven't changed much since the original MoH honestly, calling it COD-like is just buying into this whole cod vs bf thing. And tdm is hardly something COD invented either.

The guy at Games Radar said that the core multiplayer (which Battlefield is all about) is intact and really good. I don't really care about the Singleplayer, but I'm glad it's there.

I actually enjoy COD for its single player so if I can get a similar experience in BF3 I wouldn't complain.

I am getting MW3 for single player and Battlefield for multiplayer so this doesn't bother me at all. I will end up playing through the single player but I am not concerned about its quality.

Everyone did this for Medal of Honor as well. Adam Sessler said something about people weren't even going to give it a fair score just because of how close to the chest it touched on the whole "War" thing, and aside from the multiplayer, that game was the bomb. Now it's a marketing battle between Modern Warfare 3.
 
Welcome to the new politics.

I think this reviewer is the reviewer Jeff and Ryan hated being at gamespot and that's why they left. GamesRadar is little to no different. However your quoted text leaves a lot of the like the reviewer added and in the end at page 3 he states a big sigh of relief as the meat and potatoes of the series is not hurt at all by the inclusion of all the new features. I personally do not care about the single player campaign or the co-op. I never did. I still to this day have not even played the medal of honor single player campaign.

@Branthog:

I like play dates with other grown men

We can't tell for ourselves if the single player is like Black Ops, but the article doesn't mention a thing about the multiplayer. And from what I can tell from what people are saying, the multiplayer is no where near Black Ops or any Call of Duty game.

This is all that matters.

Not when I could start up a Conquest or Rush game on the huge, sprawling fields and hills of Caspian Border. Not when I could parachute off a mountain to lead the frontline charge on Damavand Peak. Not when I could scorch through the skies in a fighter jet over the vast, open ground of Operation Firestorm. Not when I could barrel through trees in an armed jeep , improvising my route based on natural cover in order to keep myself and my squad alive long enough to rescue our pinned-down comrades trying desperately to hold on to the control point ahead.Not when there was counter-sniping and slow, crawling infiltration, and covering fire, and the defending of breach points, and the healing of besieged team-mates, and air-lifting guys into contested areas, and the terrifyingly increasing heart-rate and glorious, rushing adrenalin of watching that capture percentage slowly tick up while praying that that isn’t the sound of a tank I can hear rumbling around the corner. And fortunately, there was all of that. Loads of it. I did it all, I did it frequently and I had the best time I’ve had since… well, since the last time I played full-scale Battlefield multiplayer.

The rest? Well it’s there if you want it. In fact it makes Battlefield 3 the most fully-featured iteration yet. EA knows that it doesn’t want to leave any part of the military FPS market lacking, and all bases so far look thoroughly covered in slick, technically faultless style. Whether you actually want to pitch your flag in every one of those bases is will depend on exactly what you want from a Battlefield game, and how much more CoD-style shooting you think you need. From what I’ve seen so far though, the part that most core fans of the series really care about hasn’t suffered for the inclusion of the rest. And for that, I breathe the same long, relaxing sigh of relief as the rest of you.

@Andorski: the only problem is that dice toned down the destruction because they felt it hurt multiplayer

A Call of Duty style campaign with Battlefield style multiplayer? I'm in.

I knew that the campaign would suck. It's not deterring me from buying the game though. If you're buying the game for amounts to DICE's version of COD style story telling then you will be very disappointed.

Yeah, I'm starting to not care what the press thinks. I am really excited for BF3, and have been since the announcement trailer. I play single-player once to get the story, and I stay on multiplayer.

TL;DR

He said that the traditional style of battlefield is there in it's best form ever (conquest and rush) while they've also added on the more CoD-like modes of single player, co-op and TDM. Basically the game is a buy.

@BUCK3TM4N said:

@Andorski: the only problem is that dice toned down the destruction because they felt it hurt multiplayer

They brought it down to more realistic levels. For example they said that shooting like 12 RPG's at a building isn't going to make it collapse but they will do significant damage. Also: apparently most of the destructibility was removed from the beta but will be in the full version.

I wouldn't say they "slammed" it, the reviewer was pretty positive on the game overall.

I wouldn't say they "slammed" it, the reviewer was pretty positive on the game overall.

@pw2566ch said:

We can't tell for ourselves if the single player is like Black Ops, but the article doesn't mention a thing about the multiplayer. And from what I can tell from what people are saying, the multiplayer is no where near Black Ops or any Call of Duty game.

The article is three pages long and it looks like you've only read the first.

Battlefield for me is purely about the multi player. Couldn't care less about the other stuff.

P.s bring back Titan mode!!

So you've taken two paragraphs, about the bit no-one cares about, out of context, and mis-titled the thread? AWESOME.

Wow, talk about taking things out of context. If you RTFA, he actually praises certain aspects of the singleplayer, just says that its nothing really new. And then he goes on to praise the co-op and multiplayer. The only aspect of the multiplayer he says is COD-influenced is team deathmatch, which was put in the game as a sandtrap to keep all of the people who don't want to play the objective away from those want to.

Stop trying to sensationalize shit and complain and just enjoy video games, you asshats.

Expected/10

If the Battlefield multiplayer is there, what is the problem?

So it's a modern, linear, first-person shooter? I sure am surprised!

well i mean i expected sp to be like that anyone play cod4?? they had great levels and stuff, i mean ghillies in the mist was awesome. so thats not a problem as for multiplayer i played the caspian map definetly battlefield.

so the sp plays like cod big deal. sp was never the main part of the series anyway.

I don't have a problem with CoD's campaign style and as long as the multiplayer stays...Battlefieldy?...Battlefieldish?...Battlefieldlike, I'll be happy.

@blueduck said:

@pw2566ch said:

We can't tell for ourselves if the single player is like Black Ops, but the article doesn't mention a thing about the multiplayer. And from what I can tell from what people are saying, the multiplayer is no where near Black Ops or any Call of Duty game.

The article is three pages long and it looks like you've only read the first.

Woops. I thought the OP posted the whole article in that quote.

Whether the Singleplayer is good or not, who cares, You should all be playing multiplayer in BF3.

@Cloudenvy said:

A Call of Duty style campaign with Battlefield style multiplayer? I'm in.

Oh god...that stupid Budweiser commercial...over and over...

Anyway, I think FPS campaigns like CoD's are a blast to rent, so if I don't end up wanting to keep playing the multiplayer then Battlefield will stay just that, a rental. Very little cost to me :)

He lost me when he decided to do a full-on CoD comparison. I don't mind general aspects, but treating BlackOps like some sort of high bar is pretty fucking poor from any standpoint. I have a feeling that most, if not all descriptions are going to start off like this, and while I enjoyed EA and Activision go at it like two drunken, sexually repressed individuals who caved to their underlying attraction to each other, I expect game journalists who are apparently so sick of that to take a seat outside of this pissing content. And he does it again on the second page...really? His opening paragraph wasn't enough?

And I know, it's an FPS, CoD is an FPS...I really don't care. Make the observation, and then move on. Don't get stuck on it, otherwise you look like you're desperately trying to find some point, and the entire article becomes about one unrelated point. Or at least become self-aware of yourself doing it, then its a joke.

MP is where Battlefield always was anyway, but still...too many CoD comparisons. I can deal with the usual, but I spotted them far too many times to make for serious, or even enjoyable reading. It all became some massive cliche.

That is pretty much what I was expecting. And.... Even thought I'd love to see a more "Battlefield" oriented campaign, I'm alright with what will be there in a couple weeks. :)

@Cloudenvy said:

A Call of Duty style campaign with Battlefield style multiplayer? I'm in.

sounds like a win win ill see you on the battlefield.

@Vestigial_Man said:

I wouldn't say they "slammed" it, the reviewer was pretty positive on the game overall.

Originally the title of this thread was Gamesradar slams BF3 Campaign: ect ect ect but it all didn't fit. I completely agree with the reviewer's overall positive feel about the title, but calling the gunplay "more CoD" and slamming the single player around badly was noteworthy. The single player aspect of any game is important to gamers, so this was news.

Oh, most disappointing was the inclusion of TDM. I hope that doesn't draw people away from Conquest, it was bad enough that they segmented the game with Rush.

ive never played single player so i could care less lol

but i think ill give this one a whirl?

i hardly ever finish the single player in these kind of games so i don't really care about it , battlefield is a MP game getting it for single player is just dumb ...

ive never played single player so i could care less lol

The set-piece campaign is just a lazy solution to scripting AI soldiers to fight on the large multiplayer maps in a quick offline game fashion. Well, not exactly "lazy", just that scripting explosive events still seem more controllable than making an AI that is fun to play with and against. I'd much rather play a loosely connected campaign with good AI soldiers than a tightly scripted COD campaign; Star Wars Battlefront taught me that single player battles can be thrilling and unscripted. Really wished more games tried that.

I don't think GamesRadar ever actually slams anything. About the interrogation set-up for the campaign, this was probably in development before or around the same time Black Ops started, so I'm guessing it's a coincidence. It's happened before.

He lost me when he decided to do a full-on CoD comparison. I don't mind general aspects, but treating BlackOps like some sort of high bar is pretty fucking poor from any standpoint. I have a feeling that most, if not all descriptions are going to start off like this, and while I enjoyed EA and Activision go at it like two drunken, sexually repressed individuals who caved to their underlying attraction to each other, I expect game journalists who are apparently so sick of that to take a seat outside of this pissing content. And he does it again on the second page...really? His opening paragraph wasn't enough?

And I know, it's an FPS, CoD is an FPS...I really don't care. Make the observation, and then move on. Don't get stuck on it, otherwise you look like you're desperately trying to find some point, and the entire article becomes about one unrelated point. Or at least become self-aware of yourself doing it, then its a joke.

MP is where Battlefield always was anyway, but still...too many CoD comparisons. I can deal with the usual, but I spotted them far too many times to make for serious, or even enjoyable reading. It all became some massive cliche.

I for one am sick of all the BF3 bashing coming from both COD fanboys and whiny upset BF fanboys that think that DICE has somehow wronged them by not giving them exactly the game they feel entitled to even though none of them have played the final game.

idk, CoD campaigns have always been fine to me, but most BF fans won't care as long as the multiplayer is good anyway.

@withateethuh said:

Wow, talk about taking things out of context. If you RTFA, he actually praises certain aspects of the singleplayer, just says that its nothing really new. And then he goes on to praise the co-op and multiplayer. The only aspect of the multiplayer he says is COD-influenced is team deathmatch, which was put in the game as a sandtrap to keep all of the people who don't want to play the objective away from those want to.

Stop trying to sensationalize shit and complain and just enjoy video games, you asshats.

This should be on the opening post.

@Ping5000 said:

@withateethuh said:

Wow, talk about taking things out of context. If you RTFA, he actually praises certain aspects of the singleplayer, just says that its nothing really new. And then he goes on to praise the co-op and multiplayer. The only aspect of the multiplayer he says is COD-influenced is team deathmatch, which was put in the game as a sandtrap to keep all of the people who don't want to play the objective away from those want to.

Stop trying to sensationalize shit and complain and just enjoy video games, you asshats.

This should be on the opening post.

so no more idiots just going for kills in objective. hallelujah chorus. :D finally

Some people clearly didn't read the other two pages of that article. Especially the last.

I think the main reason he is making comparisons is because modern military shooters have a hard time of going anywhere else except for the typical OMGWTF! crazy action scenarios. They will forever be trapped between simulation tactical warfare at one end, and arcade deathmatch shooters at the other. The major selling point for BF3 is and has always been the large-scale multiplayer with a broad range of vehicles. Single player / co-op is just an added feature to broaden the appeal.

COD and BF are essentially treading the same path, they just happen to be selling some unique features. Personally I don't care about the single player in these games. To me it's like trying to give CounterStrike a SP experience - it might be possible, but it's kind of beside the point.

All of their criticisms sound reasonable. DICE's best single player campaign was in Bad Company 1, but they are moving further and further away from it.