To be blunt, "Battlefield 3" was a bit of a disappointment to me. In some respects, namely in terms of presentation, it is clearly the best game in the series; however, there are several aspects of it that I found painfully frustrating. Without going into too much detail, there were technical and design issues that I felt prevented it from reaching its potential and made it feel like a game that had been rushed to market, which it almost certainly was due to a little thing called "Modern Warfare 3." :)
Many of the issues I had with the game are admittedly of the subjective, nit-picky variety; however, there was one major problem that eventually led to me effectively giving up on it– that being the near-constant cheating taking place on just about every server I played on for about a month or two leading up to the release of "Battlefield Premium" and the "Close Quarters" expansion.
Wall hacks, aim bots and other shady business became so common and flagrant that I finally threw up my hands and said "enough is enough."
I played a bit of the "Close Quarters" expansion when it was released and found it fairly entertaining. It also seemed to me that there was less cheating or at least less tolerance for it on the part of server admins (especially those running "premium" servers) than had previously been the case but I also wasn't enthralled with the "Close Quarters" gameplay. Everything about that expansion felt very competent and well crafted but it simply didn't hook me as it didn't really provide the sort of experience that plays to "Battlefield's" strengths.
There's something about the way "Battlefield" games are tuned that really lends itself to medium and large scale maps. Something about the movement speed of the players, the speed at which weapon switching occurs and the way a myriad of other subtle factors are tweaked just works better in those contexts than it does in extremely close quarters. At least, that's how I feel about it.
The good news for those who agree with me is that the latest "Battlefield" expansion, "Armored Kill" features four of the biggest maps in the series' history that offer four aesthetically and functionally different takes on the wide-open battlefield premise.
Each map has something special about it in terms of visual design and structure that make it feel unique and fresh versus the existing maps already available in the game. With the possible exception of "Armored Shield," which feels a little too reminiscent of "Caspian Border" for my taste in places, I think each of them brings something new and vital to the overall package that make it feel more complete and true to the spirit of the series.
To be sure, there are other refinements to be found in "Armored Kill" such as new vehicles and unlocks but in my estimation the new maps are the stars of the show and do not disappoint in terms of providing fun and functional new playgrounds that really let the best aspects of the game shine.
I'm actually surprised that I'm enjoying "Armored Kill" as much as I am because I figured it would be the least appealing of the expansions when it was first described to me but there's something about the way its content meshes into "Battlefield 3" that just works and I find myself compelled to seriously play the game for the first time in months as a result.
For more on "Armored Kill" and the "Death Valley" map in particular, check out this video!
Battlefield 3 - http://www.battlefield.com
No comments:
Post a Comment