Tag Archives: gameplay

Battlefield 3


Finally the long awaited Battlefield 3 has arrived! I started playing Battlefield when Battlefield: Bad Company 2 came out. A lot of hardcore Battlefield fans might say ‘no!’ to me but even though the campaign wasn’t that great the multiplayer was were that game shined. I don’t care what people say, Bad Company 2’s multiplayer was damn good and it was damn fun. I don’t care if it didn’t have jets in it, it was my first Battlefield game and it was epic. Anyway, this isn’t about Bad Company 2. I guess what I’m trying to say is that this game is an improvement to its previous games, I know I should be comparing this to Battlefield 2 more than Bad Company 2 but unfortunately I never played it. I know there are slight differences between console and PC versions of the game, for this review I will be talking about the Xbox 360 version. Again the hardcore Battlefield along with the PC community will be going crazy at me and may not even take this review seriously but it’s the platform that I play most of my games on. I did try to get the beta working on my PC. I recently upgraded my PC because my old one couldn’t run anything but sadly for some reason even after I downloaded the driver it told me to download it wouldn’t let me join a match. I would just sit there staring at a spinning circle on Battlelog.

One main thing about Battlefield that everyone loves is the graphics. I thought the graphics were really good in Bad Company 2 and when I heard they were stepping up their engine to Frostbite 2 I was really excited. I play Battlefield 3 on the console so obviously the graphics aren’t going to be superior, if you play console you’re just going to have to accept that and if you don’t you’re stupid. This is coming from a console gamer so don’t get too offended. Coming up to the release I was a little bit scared how the game would look and run on the Xbox 360. I heard a lot of crap from mostly PC elitists who have nothing better to do than to insult console gamers. I’ve played the game for almost 24 hours and I can safely say that you don’t have to listen to anyone who says this game plays terribly on console because it doesn’t. It simply doesn’t. I only ever found one recurring problem and I doubt it happened on PC was that there was sometimes a huge drop in frames per second during the single player. This only happened maybe four or five times throughout the roughly seven hour campaign. During multiplayer the only problems I have encountered was server lag and quick match problems, each of them I only encountered maybe around three times which is a lot less than what everyone else is complaining about.

The singleplayer is pretty awesome. I’ve only played this and Bad Company 2 and the Bad Company 2 campaign wasn’t that great so I didn’t have much to compare it to. I don’t want to compare it too much to Call of Duty because they really are different games and you’ll understand that more if you play a lot of video games. I installed the HD texture pack straight away so I haven’t don’t a comparison but I have seen one and there is a difference. There’s a difference in the small detail of things but there isn’t in the big picture if that makes sense. I would say, don’t play this game without the texture pack. There isn’t any reason not too and it does make a difference. It’s the small things that make a difference! Call of Duty campaigns rarely disappoint. I’ve played since World at War and I have played the COD4 campaign and I haven’t been disappointed by one yet. I’ve heard that the singleplayer of Battlefield 3 was just an excuse to show off the graphics. Even if it was they’ve done a good job. The dark knight in the city alone was really eerie. The whole singleplayer had a great atmosphere around it the whole time. Right at the beginning they make sure you see the handcuffs around your wrists which I thought was pretty cool once I got to the end of the singleplayer. My favourite mission was when you were playing as the Russians in Paris. That mission was really colourful and I really liked the gun I was given.

Now down to the multiplayer. This is what everyone is excited about and rightly so. Bad Company 2’s multiplayer was a lot of fun but it definitely wasn’t perfect. No game is ever going to be perfect but this one is amazing. One of my favourite things about this game is the animation of the characters. When you think about it, it’s a small thing but now I realise how huge and important it is. The animation of the Engineer reloading an RPG, Gustav or AT4 in Bad Company was god awful. In Battlefield 3 the animations are so smooth. The running animation is so realistic I find myself staring at other people in the game rather than doing anything. Of course, the thing that everyone loves in Battlefield are the jets. I’m just going to be honest here, I suck major nut sack at the jets. I can fly them but I fail sometimes and crash but most of the time I just can’t shoot anything else done with my god damn gun! 300 points doesn’t seem that much when you look at the little progress bar but the odds are against you when you are flying against a pilot who has flares, heat seeking missiles, the fancy map thing that I don’t know the name of. I got this game on the 31st of October. I preordered it so I have the limited edition with the code for the Back to Karkand DLC. I live in Europe so I had to wait a couple more days to get it. By the time I got it loads of people were already flying around with all this jet gear that I’m probably not going to get till Battlefield 4! Personally I shine on the ground with a gun in my hands, that’s the player I am.

The multiplayer is amazing but it isn’t perfect. I find myself getting spawn killed a lot, and when I say a lot I mean a lot. It could just be my fault and I’m sure some of them are but it just seems like it happens way too much. I could be really stupid and not realise that people are in combat and I shouldn’t spawn on them. They have taken spawn invincibility out of the game which I guess I’m happy about. In Bad Company 2 it was such a bitch and it would always cost me a kill. That is probably the only criticism of the multiplayer. I like the idea of the degrading vehicles. I don’t like the idea of vehicles regenerating health but when I heard what DICE said about it I felt better, to keep vehicles in the game and make them more of a core part of combat. It seems like they have taken out of decreased at least the recharge of the defibulators. I’m not sure if that’s a good or a bad thing in terms of gameplay but I like it. One thing I really praise DICE for doing is increasing the amount of points for capturing or destroying an M-COM. This really helps people actually go for the objective. I still get frustrated when nobody does it but it feels like more people are trying harder to get to the objective.

For some reason I can’t get into Battlelog and check out my stats. I’ll keep trying and get back to you if I can.

This game definitely has a lot of play time in it, much more than Bad Company 2. I will be playing this game a lot and I’m really looking forward to the DLC. This game is really awesome and there is no reason why you should be on the fence about buying this game.

I still rage in the multiplayer but I give it the double thumbs up, 9/10

By the way, I did a MW3 wish list a while back and I didn’t do one for Battlefield 3. The reason for that is because I wasn’t worried that this game was going to be a disappointment.


Portal 2


I have to admit, I wasn’t the greatest at the first Portal, it took me a little longer than some people, not like 5 hours longer or anything but it was a different story regarding Portal 2. I finished Portal 2 a couple of days ago and have been meaning to write about it. I finished it over 2 days. The first day I was so excited I played it for like 8 hours straight. The next day I polished it off in 2 hours. Gameplay wise it was approximately 10 hours or so and what a 10 hours it was!

It’s amazing how much content you can squeeze out of the Source engine and it still looks up to date with current games. It doesn’t look as amazing as games like Crysis 2 or anything but no one plays Portal 2 for the graphics, you play it for the gameplay and I think this is a perfect game to explain how I am trying to look at games currently and in the future. A lot of review sites review games based on gameplay, graphics, sound and longevity but I want to add another factor that people don’t seem to take into account when rating a game, how fun it is. All the other factors are still hugely important but I think the fun factor trumps them all and that’ll play an important part in this review and others to come.

Portal 2 takes place years after the first Portal. Aperture Laboratories are overgrown with nature and you have just come out of stasis. GLaDOS is dead. As you progress through the game the laboratories are slowly rebuilt. Portal 2 is even more funny than the last one in my opinion. With the addition of Wheatley, voiced by Stephen Merchant and Cave Johnson, (every line he has is hilarious) voiced by J. K. Simmons there are more hilarious quotes than the last. And of course GLaDOS, voiced by Ellen McLain, comes back in the sequel who is equally funny if not more.

Now into the meat of the game, the puzzles. In the first one there wasn’t too many puzzles. I believe there were 19 test chambers and more puzzles when you escaped. In Portal 2 I think there are 41 test chambers, that sounds way too much but I think there are 22 in the first section then 19 later on and that isn’t including puzzles when you escape… I think. Don’t hold me to those numbers. Basically there is a crap load more puzzles to solve in Portal 2. I don’t know what it was, maybe because I had played the first one and knew what I was getting into or Portal 2 was easier but I zoomed through the singleplayer. I got stuck on 2 or 3 puzzles but I solved them in the end. Most importantly I didn’t use a walkthrough! In Portal, if you get stuck all you got to do is keep on moving around the test chamber until you see the puzzle in a different way. I did that (and stayed calm and didn’t throw my controller across the room) and I ended up solving puzzles I got stuck on and it feels pretty good when you’re stuck on a puzzle for 45 minutes then suddenly you get a brainwave and you solve it!

I know I can’t complain because Portal 2 is a lot longer than the first and it could be because I played it a lot on the first day but I really wish there were more puzzles to solve! I hope Portal 2 is supported with a crap load of DLC. And I haven’t had a chance to play coop yet, hopefully that will take up a lot of my time.

There isn’t much else to Portal other than voice and gameplay. It’s a really fun game. The puzzles aren’t too difficult that you get frustrated and you never feel as if it’s the games fault. I was really pleased with the ending of it too but I won’t ruin anything. If you haven’t played it, go play it. It’s a different game to others and it’s a lot of fun even if you aren’t shooting at people.


Team based or lone wolf?


I enjoy a good game of Call of Duty but I also enjoy a game of Battlefield or Halo. I enjoy these games for different reasons and everyone will have a different opinion. Call of Duty, even if you’re playing a team game, is a lone wolf game. Even in Team Deathmatch or Team Slayer, everyone is competing for the kills. The fact that there’s a kill limit really increases the competition. In Battlefield the games aren’t necessarily based on kills as it is a class based game. The multiplayer is split up into different classes that are meant to perform different tasks to benefit the team. By introducing tasks that don’t involve killing, the game turns into something a bit more sophisticated. By not even showing the amount of kills, assists, deaths and kill death ratio, it changes how the game is looked upon even more.

Halo may have games like Team Slayer and Lone Wolf game modes but there are more team based games that are actually team based. Doubles requires a lot of team work to effectively eliminate the other two enemies. In Halo: Reach, with the introduction to jet packs, sprint, evade, active camo and armour lock it creates even more team work, different people who are good at different things need to choose the best load out to achieve their goal. A sniper might choose a jet pack to get to high places or active camo. A player who likes to rush might choose sprint or evade or even armour lock. Halo and Battlefield and other games like Homefront (a game that I have no intention of playing) all have vehicles, something that Call of Duty STILL lacks in it’s gameplay. The use of vehicles creates a sense of team play, especially in Battlefield, one player in charge of something, the other in charge of another thing. Personally the best game that has mastered both of these things is Halo, it has the team work part in some game types and has other game types that suit solitary players but in the end I would take a game that takes team work and communication, like Battlefield, over Call of Duty. It forces you to communicate with other players and actually use a strategy and use your skills to complete the objective. I would love it if games started to meander to the team work side of gameplay but there will always be games like Call of Duty that live on, I can only dream that a team based game will be the next COD killer.


What does Kill/Death Ratio mean to you?


I’m going to start this off being nice and frank, K/D means something to me. It shows how well you play, it shows how well your strategy is working, it shows how many points you are giving away and it shows how careless you’re being. All these things are important in Team Deathmatch and Deathmatch or Free For All, whatever you want to call it. Currently my K/D on Call of Duty: Black Ops is 1.50. I know a lot of people argue that it takes the fun out of the game, it makes the game too serious and too competitive. For me it doesn’t, I pretty much only play Call of Duty with friends because I’m not trying to capture gameplay, I’m just trying to have fun and getting impressive K/Ds is fun for me. I’m not saying I’m SeaNanners and get ridiculous K/Ds nearly all the time but I wouldn’t say I’m a stranger to them.

In my opinion an impressive K/D is a ratio over 10. That would be impressive to me, a high K/D to me would be a 5 or over, I’m not saying I get these all the time but if I get over 1 I’m happy. I usually go above 1, if I come top of the leaderboard but I have a K/D below 1 I wouldn’t be content, no matter how many kills I got. For me K/D is important to me, it’s just as important as anything else on the leaderboard. By the way, my highest K/D is 32.00, 32 kills and 0 deaths. That was on Nuketown, I was shaking.

My Gamertag was different back then, I was so excited when I got Microsoft points.