In one of Jeff's recent Jar videos he mentioned that football games weren't as fun as they used to be. That in the 90's you had access to football games that didn't require an intimate knowledge of the sport to have fun. Games these days are so intricate in their systems that a player could easily become overwhelmed and discouraged from continuing. After listening to this I tried to apply it to my feelings on Battlefield 3.

I adored Bad Company 2. While I know the tone in the games single player campaign is meant to be different between the two, I enjoyed Bad Company 2's story and multiplayer more because it didn't take itself too seriously. Battlefield 3 tried to put me in a real world scenario in the Middle East and it failed. I see that shit on the news every day. I read about it all the time. What makes developers think I want to play through similar scenarios in my games? I think there's less room for creativity and originality when they commit to serious, real world issues and inherently the game is less fun because of it.

One other issue I took with Battlefield 3 is that they toned down the destruction to make it accurately represent real life. No longer can you take out a building with a few grenades. That, to me, was what made BC2 so much fun. The unrealistic physics and destruction are what provided me with countless Battlefield moments. Those moments that make you wish the game had a built in theater mode. With Battlefield 3 you get fewer of those moments and the game is less memorable.

Because of the serious tone and lack of meaningful destruction, it feels more like Call of Duty. In Modern Warfare you get to shoot people, that's it. There are no vehicles to drive, no destruction what-so-ever. I think the reason Call of Duty multiplayer works so well is because they're multiplayer is not unlike an RPG. It's less about killing people and more about collecting things, and people love collecting stuff. They have a nice mix of arcade and simulation, a solid grounding in reality but enough of an arcade feel to make it fun.

What I've come to realize is the closer a games subject matter is to real life, the less fun the game is for me. My life is serious enough, I play games to have fun.

I think there is a place for realistic games like L.A. Noire, it just depends on what mood you are on.

You know just because Battlefield 3 came out doesn't mean every copy of Bad Company 2 just vaporised itself. Some people will play a more "realistic" Battlefield 3 but others can still play Bad Company....I'm glad both games are different, both gave me awesome, unique and fun moments. (Multiplayer, not singleplayer for Battlefield 3)

Some people prefer to spend hours figuring out how to pilot a simulation AC10 Warthog and have a blast, to each their own...fun is super objective.

@Vinny_Says: I understand that I can still play Bad Company 2. What I'm saying is that I won't buy Battlefield 3 because of the changes that were made. I'm simply vocalizing my distaste. Also, I really enjoy flight simulators because at some point there is a payoff. You get the thing in the air after hours of flipping switches. For me, there was no payoff in Battlefield 3.

I think they took down the destruction becuase of the balance. I always felt a good heli pilot could own the game, the same goes for someone who knew what covers to blow up and wich ones to not blow up. Limiting the destruction is reasonable is some ways, don't you think?

@Coreymw: I felt the same at first with Battlefield 3 but then everything came together and I'm having the time of my life, I just wish there were more maps. I guess it's not for everybody though, feel free to voice your opinion... Some people will say that flipping switches for 3 hours then flying and crashing after 3 minutes is boring and would prefer to play Ace Combat or something, once again: to each their own :)

@Vinny_Says: I would equate flipping switches in a flight simulator to playing dark souls. They both require a level of mastery that once attained provides a feeling of accomplishment you don't really get in many games.

@Christoffer: A skilled chopper pilot could definitely destroy a round, but that's where having a good squad comes in handy. Battlefield 2 was good at making you feel like part of a squad, I don't get that in Battlefield 3. It feels like you could do just as well by yourself as you could in a team, sometimes more so.

I agree with you in some ways. I don't necessarily think realism makes a game worse, but I don't like to be put in real life war scenarios. Why would I want to be a soldier in an illegal war fought for private interest? I much prefer campaigns like in MW2, still kind of a realistic setting but everything is so over the top and it doesn't take itself to seriously.

@duder123:Exactly. I want the game to be beautiful to look at and loosely based in reality, but I don't want real world problems in my games.

I tend to prefer games that do not strife for realism, but instead strife for fun.

My life is fun so I look for seriousness in games.

While I think Battlefeld 3 is a far superior multiplayer game than Modern Warfare 3, I've put twice as much time into the latter, because even though Battlefield 3 is great, I think it's incredibly boring and frustrating to play alone, and Modern Warfare 3, to me, is simply just way more fun.

@OtakuGamer: I love Halo because it's fantastical and isn't based in reality. I love the Call of Duty campaigns because they do a good job (mostly) of putting you in over the top scenarios against a mostly unrealistic overblown reality backdrop that feels familiar but really isn't.

@JacDG: They are two different games. Call of Duty, to me, feels more like an arcadey experience. Battlefield 3 is all about the realism.

I play a bunch of games that are not fun to play, but they are mad interesting so it really doesn't matter

@Animasta said:

I play a bunch of games that are not fun to play, but they are mad interesting so it really doesn't matter

Surely the fact that they are interesting makes them 'fun'?