Battlefield 3
Game » consists of 15 releases. Released Oct 25, 2011
Battlefield 3 is DICE's third numerical installment in the Battlefield franchise. It features a single player and co-operative campaign, as well as an extensive multiplayer component.
What are you gonna play first? Singleplayer or Multiplayer?
" Even though it's a Battlefield game, I have a compulsion and must play the campaign first. "Yeah, I'm also pretty crazy about that. I was so bad I remember I wouldn't even play Team Fortress Classic until I finished Half Life.
I imagine for BF3 I'll get in one sitting or so of the SP out of the way and then play SP or multi depending on if my friends are on.
" @Spoonman671 said:Nope, I have to complete the campaign before moving on. It's the rules... that I made up and self-enforce." Even though it's a Battlefield game, I have a compulsion and must play the campaign first. "Yeah, I'm also pretty crazy about that. I was so bad I remember I wouldn't even play Team Fortress Classic until I finished Half Life. I imagine for BF3 I'll get in one sitting or so of the SP out of the way and then play SP or multi depending on if my friends are on. "
I voted singleplayer because I usually start that way to get a feel for how the game functions.
With BF3 though.. I'm not sure. Depends on whether I get the game installed and ready at the same time as my friends or not. I'm not gonna play multiplayer before they're ready to roll.
I actually spent a few hours playing "singleplayer" in BF2 to try the helicopter and plane. Last thing I wanted was to look like an idiot with the Blackhawk.
Singleplayer in one or two sittings and then I'll move onto multiplayer right after. No matter what game I'm playing that has both modes, I will always finish the singleplayer before moving on.
Because first there's the idea of us still having a large enough contingent in Iraq by 2014. Then there's the idea of us fighting Iranians, which I don't think would happen, since the Iranian people actually really like Americans, in general.
i'm not too educated on Iran's stance with Iraq. I can't speak for other countries, but the U.S. will be out of Iraq withen the next year. We've already pulled out a significant amount of troops, and the remaining force is dedicated to building a new military for Iraq. I can't imagine we would have any boots on the ground in 2014, let alone a significant amount of force to combat an invasion right away. The Marine Corps (you play as a Marine) doesn't have a quick response force to combat an immediate call to duty. Army divisions such as the 82nd Airborne have a dedicated Brigade that stay home and are basically on watch for shit to go down. They're trained to deploy within 18 hours. The government also sets aside National Guard units, and Spec-Ops divisions for this purpose." @EpicSteve: So now the question is, which is a more ridiculous premise, this or Homefront? Because first there's the idea of us still having a large enough contingent in Iraq by 2014. Then there's the idea of us fighting Iranians, which I don't think would happen, since the Iranian people actually really like Americans, in general. "
i can't speak to how powerful North Korea and its allies are. However, just keep in mind a lot of fighting would take place in the Pacific and West Coast if they even made it to shore. Then of course they would have to go against America's Middle Eastern, Canadian, Mexican, Asian, and European allies. Not to mention the U.S.'s own military to include an average of 30,000-strong National Guard in every state. They're both pretty ridicules. But i think the North Korean scenario is more "ripped form the headlines", and allows the player to take a break from the Middle East.
Then again, North Korea's only powerful ally at this time is China, and China has no desire to cause problems with the US at this time. Make no mistake, though, China would love to expand its borders throughout Asia, and possibly even throughout the rest of the world, much like Russia would. Russia, China, and North Korea are all fairly imperialist nations, but for various reasons annexation isn't a feasible goal at this time (and probably will never be for Krazy Jong-Il).
I'll play singleplayer just to get it over with, and then I will know if it was a waste of time or not.
If the singleplayer is actually good, I will be super excited. If it's bad (like BC2's) I will probably be upset at DICE and EA for wasting resources and not focusing on MP enough.
" Don't care much for competitive multiplayer. Except in fighting games. And Worms. "Aww Battlefield multiplayer is such an experience... You should at least try it hehe... :P
I only touched the BC2 campain when the MP servers were down on day one, so unless that happens with BF3 I doubt I will even play the campain.
i go through SP first in games, except for Battlefield
i love the mutliplayer so damn much that i'll be playing both SP and MP everyday til the SP ends, and then its just MP
Please Log In to post.
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment