The irony about battlefield 3 using the same plot structure as black ops, is that black ops at least elaborates in the hows and whys of everything, all of the flashback stories are told in chronological order (except for the one with some backstory) from the start of events up until the point you were captured and interrogated in the first place Unlike Battlefield 3 that starts the game at the climax and then starts juggling you around the most confusing, and inconsistent points of the story... There was even a Rick and Morty episode mocking this very same writing style of starting at the interesting part then doing the "2 weeks early" crap
Yeah, i agree..black ops campaign was really great (and many ppl consider it as one of the best campaigns in the whole cod series), compared to boringfield's awful campaign
What BF needs is offline Multiplayer. BF2 was awesome because it offered you the chance to lay bak and rek bots, trying underpowered guns without dying as much, just having innocent fun. I still "nearly liked" BF 3+4s singleplayer, but a offline MP would have been a million times better.
I know right? I personally like fps bots because it allows you to play multiplayer maps and game modes while being offline. you don't need an internet experience to have a good time.
The problem with military FPS' in today's world is that they try and go to the ultra realistic real life soldier/marine thing. Where the low and puny infantry soldier/marine doesn't know anything about the mission, and that they are told is "go here, go there and take/kill this person/point of interest". Game companies THINK they know what real soldiers/marines go through on a "I'm nothing more than a 'roger that' machine" basis. I've been in the Army and I was Infantry at that, I have a 13 month long skip across the pond under my belt, and I will tell you that it's nothing like that in real life. If a squad or platoon get's tasked out on a mission or patrol, they know everything they need to know. And don't get me wrong, I've definitely been outside the wire asking myself "what the fuck are we looking for or doing" but those times were times where I honestly didn't need to know whats up, and I was there just for security. Yet most of the time I always knew the information if we were likely to run into resistance, how long this outing should take, if I need an Assault Pack or a Ruck, how far we're going, do I need to rearrange my kit to fit some more mags, and what the guy looks like if we're looking for someone. Game companies try and simulate that you are "nothing more than a bullet sponge and you will do this no matter what. If your PL or PS doesn't fill you in, we don't care". It simply mind boggles me that some game devs have never heard the words "briefing" or "schools in session". I'd rather sit through 15 minutes of exposition in a game than just getting straight into killing everything for no reason. Also I wish game devs would stop using the military the way they do in games basically saying you don't need an emotional level with these people because they are soldiers/marines. You should feel bad for him getting shot just because he's an American in war.
I suspect that a nontrivial fraction of this "realistic" "do what I say, no you don't need to know why, also our reasons why are nonsensical" comes from the practices of the Vietnam War, where (realistic or not) that was the experience of many of that era's conscripts. They were sent to a jungle to kill a bunch of people for a reason most of them didn't care about and many of them didn't comprehend. I am glad that the modern US army is no longer like that.
The funny thing is, is that a campaign in this style of modern FPS has been done SO much better and the one modern FPS game that probably has the best campaign is Medal of Honor: Airborne. Not the shitty gritty reboots, they sucked but Airborne is the franchise's real last hurrah. Thanks to its open non-linear level design, health pack system (health packs woooo!), scarcity of ammo and weapons (Enemies rarely drop weapons so you have to find ammo packs and guns around the level, old school style) and finely tuned gameplay with a great mix of tactical and run n' gun ways to approach combat, it's by far the best campaign in this style because it makes full use of the game's multiplayer elements and incorporates it in the singleplayer. Having a big, explorable area to run around in, capturing a multitude of objectives and defending locations that the enemy tries to take back makes it incredibly dynamic and a whole heap of fun to play because it let's the player loose to feel free how they want to tackle the game. It only has six missions but they're pretty big and very well designed and the replay value comes in by allowing players to approach different objectives at different times with wildly different weapon loadouts with each run as well as a semi-randomised enemy placement system where there are different numbers and types of enemies each time you play with only a few deliberate, scripted moments here and there combined with a basic but nifty little weapon upgrade system that makes a great incentive to try out every single weapon. It baffles me how some people didn't like it because it's so cleverly designed with a lot of love, care and attention and is just a damn good campaign for a game that deserves more love and I believe that if this type of shooter is going to stick around then they should ALWAYS look towards Medal of Honor: Airborne if they want to know how to do a campaign for this kind of multiplayer-focused FPS the right way.
Yes! I love MOHA for everything you just said. The levels are mini sandboxes where you can approach your objectives from anywhere you want, the depth of abilities and control that you have over your character, especially the peak-n-lean cover system, is phenomenal, and the enemies don't infinitely respawn until you cross the magic trigger point. That's exactly how you make an amazing FPS that strikes s perfect balance!
Making a SP battlefield campaign should be easy: 1; You take the MP maps and then create a story sequence with them. 2; You then create multiple challenges for each map, making it unique from the MP. 3; Maps would be broken into segments, each segment introducing new concepts or testing a player's ability to adapt new strategy It would be easy to think of hundreds of challenges and this way they could create a long SP campaign with fewer assets. Not to mention the added benefit of teaching the players map layouts and good techniques, improving the game's community. It would also help the game stand out in the marketplace as a truly unique SP FPS experience. Challenge examples: A: Stealth & sniping/point capture, the enemy takes a longish time to re-spawn, you only have a sniper rifle. You must kill a bunch of enemies then move to capture before they re-spawn. B: The enemy destroys your only re-spawn point a few minutes in, now you have to capture a new point without dying. You can choose between capturing an AIR BASE [3 fighter helicopters, 3 transport helicopters] or a FORTIFIED POSITION [height advantage and 3 AA guns]. Afterwards you must capture the Capture the other base, before running out of soldiers. If a battlefield developer wants to use my idea then go ahead, just give me credit for it :)
I like that. Or you could also acquire credits or some form of currency to build up a squad or platoon however you want. Want 30 snipers? Then do that. Want 2 helis or 5 tanks? Whatever you want. And then assign check points and objectives to various members of your team. Make it strategical as well as tactical.
***** I reckon that would work, but I would make it part of a separate career mode. One where you fight out a virtual war, kinda like the dawn of war games. But in a battlefield game. Damn we would make one awesome battlefield SP experience.
How to make a successful battlefield campaign. 1) Theres a war, who cares why its between two super powers 2) NO SPEC OPS SHIT 3)Huge armies are fighting eachother 4) Losta splosions and things 5) Plot? You are at war. Fight Fuck you don't ask questions DONE
I think the best way a Battlefield Singleplayer should have been done is similar to Arma where its an open world and you have the freedom to explore and pick how you want to fight your fights like if you want to charge headfirst or have your squad put down covering fire as you flank or you could just night fight and sneak your way through the level
How to make a good Battlefield singleplayer: You are a squad of marines who are sent in to prevent a cartoonishly evil bad guy group from conquering the world, and the other players are payed agents who try to stop them. All they have to do is make the set pieces over the top, the villains james-bond evil, make the atmosphere like something out of an 80's action movie, & you have a recipe for success.
"It's more like a movie that just won't play unless you click on the right things at the right time." This is a PERFECT description of the single player of the game. Don't know what the hell they were thinking.
Yeah, the rate at which your health regenerates and the huge amount of enemies that infinitely spawn in is really realistic. It makes it hard not to take this game seriously.
@360Ragequit Sometimes I wish single player campaigns should be sold separately. I for one am not an avid multiplayer fan. I really loved the BF1 War stories, and hope EA doesn't screw BF 5 campaign too for the SJW agenda.
I've never played a game so restrictive and afraid you'll have any kind of fun that it actively kills you instantly if you accidentally stray 2 seconds behind/ahead of your "allies".
You should check out "History Channel Battle For The Pacific." For the entire game if you're not right next to your guide at all times you automatically fail. You can't even stop to pick up the enemies' weapons because you can't sprint at all.
This is probably an unpopular opinion here, but I liked the BF3 campaign. Of course it's no MGS1 or 3, but it has its moments, and the plot is not nearly as convoluted as Bunnyhop makes it sound. Of particular stand out are the Russian missions. I liked the fact that it was a close knit squad of undercover agents sent on a near suicidal mission to literally save the world, except the very world that they're risking life and limbs to save assume that they're the enemy, and they can't say anything about it, let alone get recognition or glory from it. THAT is why the Russian character is apparently about to commit suicide at the closing of the game. And I also liked the treatment of Sgt. Assface. Yeah, his introduction and over zealousness was shoved in way too late, but in ONE mission's time they managed to establish his villainy, and made you hate him enough to where shooting him was very believable (in light of the exposition by the Russian character just mere seconds before), which in turned triggered the whole interrogation part of the game. So all in all, even though Bunnyhop does have the silver tongue to captivate us with his videos, I feel like he's just overly negative and intentionally obtuse about certain things (like plot points) just to have something to shit on for 30 minutes.
I mixed opinion, because I liked the campaign but I agree with this video. I also agree with your point entirely. I thought they touched on some themes that could've been great. It would've been better if they fleshed out some emotion in regards to your squad mates, at least then I'd feel like I was fighting for something rather than going through a shooting gallery. At least the COD campaigns set the stage and make me feel like I'm fighting for something. I've always said battlefield in my opinion could honestly be 99999999 times better if they flesh everything out more.
***** True about the fleshing out part, particular about BF3. The thing is, CoD's story AND MP are focused on weaving an epic sage, mostly from 1 POV. BF3's story AND gameplay tried to go the "bigger picture from multiple view points" route, and as a result every view point feels watered down. Still commendable what they managed to do with BF3's story though. Then again, BF3's story isn't something to write home about. It's easy to flip its strong points and argue against them. Reminds me of this (sort of) famous blogger who tried to rip FFX a new one. The first thing he complained about were the fucking color and shape of the lamp posts on the elevated walkway in the very beginning of the game. WTF? Most people would applaud the cool futuristic world design with a Okinawan twist. Nitpicking click-bait at its best.
BF2 Modern Combat also had a really good take on single player :) that game was GREAT back on the original xbox, that console was pushing such great graphics for the time
Wow you hit the nail precisely on the head in this video Bunnyhop. This is exactly what i thought about BF3s single player. I could not have said it any better myself. Every one buys Battlefield for it's multiplayer. Because the multiplayer is what makes the Battlefield games fun. So why dont Dice just give us what every one wants. Just give us Battlefield multiplayer with bots for a single player, instead of giving us a boring nonsensical drawn out single player campaign copy of Call of Duty!!!
"your related to that guy with the pole in his gut" omg are you serious? i can't roll my eyes hard enough. this plot just keeps on giving (or taking, depending on perspective.)
A way they could make the campaign is to start off at a base with 5 characters or something, each is in a differnt division, tank crew, pilot, sniper, ect, and they each do a training range to get you accustomed to the different roles and mechanics, and then afterwards you pick one of the people and then start the next mission, where you fight on a big battlefield and complete a mission, they could have a short breifing scenario where you learn the maps layout the enemy faction and your mission, or make the exposition like operations from bf1, they could also give the ability to switch between these characters whenever you wish to keep things fresh.
man I'm a new subscriber! I think you really are educated and your videos are totally worth the time I take watching! really love them. keep the awesome job of your up :)
It's funny because I actually really, really enjoyed the BF3 campaign, haha - I even go back and play chapter of it from time to time. It had such a fantastic tone to it, quite a lot of really cool moments in it. That being said, the actual story/script itself was all over the place.
if they're ever refrained to making a single player in the first place I would have been really glad to never known the whole franchise in the first place
Battlefield 2 modern combat, frontlines fuel of war and the strike force missions from black ops 2 are what they should use as a basis for bf campaigns going forward.
I would buy that. It would only give us less to complain about, after all. Imagine if they put all the time and effort that went into the single-player and used it to further polish the multiplayer...
More-or-less because it wasn't planned to be. It gradually turned into something greater as I was writing it, but I feel like a Critical Close-Up would've been a more comprehensive review that would include a whole lot about the multiplayer rather than the single-player.
I love this videos where you analyse the story of the games, nobody else does this. Everyone else review the mechanincs but very little the story. You should make story analysis on most games, you do this very good.
I didn't notice that the ballistics of the tanks were so different when I played through BF3's campaign, but I loved that mission, because it actually helped me practice something I could use in multiplayer mode. All they need to do to make a good BF single player game is: 1 tank mission, 1 helicopter mission, 1 jet mission, 1 mission per infantry class in sandbox environments where you need to use your class abilities and optionally drive cars. Heat to 350 degrees F and let sit for 20 min.
For me perfect BF campaign would be: You start off in Commander mode with a goal to conquer the full map from multiplayer. You can customize all your squads and take control over any of your men. After you capture one pint you get a bonus, like a tank. Sometimes you have to go back and defend previously captured points. Between each map there is a cutscene with your superevil willain that wants to take over the world. Heck, it could even be Total War style, where maps are territories in "Campaing Map". This would sooooo awesome!
This is by far one of the best gaming channels on TH-cam. All of these videos provide a highly detailed analysis and are really just amazing to watch. I would really love to hear their opinion of Red Dead Redemption.
I actually liked the Russian missions better because I actually got somewhat attached to the squadmates. For the American missions, I had no idea who my squadmates were and even when they died I thought I was actually supposed to be sad for someone else.
BC1 was probably, no, it is the best SP in a MMS. Colors were vibrant and beautiful, less linear/sandboxy, had great humor, likable characters. BC2 removed some of the humor and the sandbox. BF3 removed all that. BF4 removed all that, but added few mission were it was a little bit more "open" (but was still linear like BF3).
How to make a singleplayer Battlefield game? 1. Ban the idea of a "singleplayer campaign" from the overall game design 2. Make the multiplayer 3. Add bots 4. Focus all the effort on the bot A.I. that you would normally be focusing on the online player connectivity and interaction. 5. Congratulations, you have an amazing experience that's accessible at any time. Not dependent on other players. The bots from Battlefield 2 are the reason I still occasionally revisit that game. If someone put some REAL EFFORT into bots for multiplayer, they could actually be impressive. A good example of competent multiplayer bot A.I. : enemy territory quake wars.
The SP had been designed with a particular environment version in mind. If they patched up the weapons and whatnot in SP, then they'd probably need to adjust the difficulty (number of enemies, damage, etc) to compensate. There are public servers (on the PC) that are empty most of the time. One should check them out to learn how to use guns.
I have not played this game but I did play battlefield Bad Company 2. Mr Bunnyhop, this game appears to be an accurate reflection of how wars are presented to us in the Western world. How many media organisations go into detail about the various conflicts our armed forces involved in? I read and watch news provided by several news organisations but I have to do a fair amount of digging on the internet to get some idea of what sparked these conflicts and what our armed forces might have contributed to them. Going by your assessment of this game, it appears the developers have merely held up a mirror to the mass media and given us the opportunity to participate, at intervals in a fictional but not dissimilar representation of how wars are presented to us. In years to come, this game might be seen as representational art. Not merely a bad game.
RIP in Peace, Vladimir. In all seriousness, great video, and having two of my favorite TH-camrs do videos on the same topic (more or less) within a day of each other is awesome. Keep up the great work.
Exactly. "The tone's in the wrong place." It's not brainless cathartic fun, it's not brutal difficult fun, nor is it some kind of thinking man's fun. It grits its teeth about the seriousness of war so hard, but doesn't follow it up with any deeper cerebral insights about it. The campaign of MW1 looks like Shakespeare in comparison.
The Bad Company games had good single player campaigns! Endearing characters, coherent story lines, freedom of movement / engagement is a lot of ways, great games :)
The fact that you can finish this game's story in one morning is also pretty troubling as well. There are soooo many topics I could've gone over in the video-- even 30 minutes isn't enough time for them. It's a case of something being fascinatingly bad-- I could probably write a book about this game if I didn't hold myself back.
Here's another critical difference between the two: the movie that BF3 wants to be would make for a pretty bad movie. MGS3's moivegame story is told through pretty non-interactive means and is about as silly a spy fiction as they come, but its done so well that no one seemed to mind. That story was told with so much skill and grace that I don't think anyone would complain if I just started using it as a gold standard for "silly military action game" stories.
... and you'd be able to tackle it's challenges in any way you see fit. You could approach with stealth, agressive combat, droid deployment, air support, etc... You could have a small squad of troops that you could give orders to, kind of like in XCOM: The Bureau, which would open up a lot of unique tactical freedom and variety. Lastly, I think it would be cool if you could capture lone enemies and interrogate them to learn about hidden areas or bonus side-missions.
1:16 Finally someone said it, THANK YOU. There are two battlefield games imo that totally done the campaign justice: Battlefield 2: modern combat and BFBC1, and it is hilarious that both are console exclusives. No battlefield games after these two did it right, they always try to copy other games instead of improving what's been built. It's mindboggling.
I absolutely loved the Bad Company campaigns, but this one was a massive letdown. It restricted your freedom at every turn, you had to wait for your squad to do everything, the story was boring and confusing and the style of it was done a lot better by earlier games like BLACK and Call Of Duty Black Ops, and there were way too many scripted events, on-rails turret sections and QTEs. The tank level was the only decent vehicle section in the whole game because you actually got to physically control it. The fighter jet mission could've been removed entirely because it was so boring and useless. I didn't care about any of the characters because they were so poorly developed and almost all of them ended up dying anyway. They should've stuck with Bad Company's formula instead of completely trying to ripoff Call Of Duty every second!
Damn. I googled this just now and pretty much had the exact reaction you probably predicted: "Where have I heard this before? Argh, it's right at the tip of my tongue but I can't remember where it was used before!" I dunno, this was in a commercial or something. Where's it been? Now it's gonna drive me nuts!
The two best single player shooters I ever played were Star Wars: Republic Commando, and the original Doom. And I believe they hold the possible approaches to make the genre work. The first is heavy focus on themeing, worldbuilding and characters, combined with a varied combat sandbox. Give us a word we care about, and let us explore it to our hearts content within the context of the game. ArmA, FEAR and Crysis for example are very good at this. The other approach, is to make a world with clearly defined and simple rules, and provide a mechanical challange. A pure arcade game. Superhot, Painkiller, Ziggurat, Counterstrike. You know this sort of game. We seem to have a lot of good examples. Frankly I would like to see more of the former. It seems to have died out since 2010.
Yeah, the worst part is that there's no on-screen prompt or anything. You just have to figure out for yourself that you have to actually hit the fire button right when the Russian's done talking.
Stuff like this has seeped into movies too where some are all about the roller coaster ride experience but when you stop and think nothing is explained or makes sense.
It holds up pretty well, in fact it actually serves as a rather nice example about how the bf series has hardly gone anywhere with it's concept except getting shiney-er
Oh. And the reason why the SP mechanics feel different is because BF3 MP has undergone a series of patches over the years, to make the game more balanced. These patches are not needed in SP (since you're fighting against A.I.), hence they weren't installed into the SP game environment.
Furthermore, saying that the SP's lack of bullet drop/recoil (although it did suck) didn't prepare you for MP is like saying that the SP's lack of maneuverable interceptor aircraft didn't prepare you for flying with jets in MP. That's not what SP is for. SP is to provide players with a BF-ish experience without the *hassle* of an internet connection. I have never heard a dev say that SP was developed to prepare players for MP.
Can somebody explain why is GRU is actually shooting people? This is Генеральное Разведывательное Управление, Main Intelligence Directorate. They are mainly in control of information and, overseeing communications and occasionally spying: gain intel. In this game GRU are russian common unit dispatched to hunt terrorists. I'm confused.
In the book Dima and the russian dudes are tasked with finding some arms trader in iran to find some nukes stolen from russia. Dima isn't on the GRU payroll but they need him because it's a black op. But then the tech team that came with them went on a powerfantasytrip and screwed everything up, leaving the russians stranded in iran. They do stuff to find the nukes but blackburn finds the one in the vault before them so they have to other stuff to find it. They go to russia and then to the eagles nest to kick the arms dealers ass, but the US somehow made it there aswell (don't remember if that was explained) and the same cole shooting happens. They learn that solomon, who was Dimas apprentice back when he actually worked for GRU has the nukes and is planning to blow up france. They find the nuke hidden in a printer and defuse it. Story ends. The book focuses much more on the russians and its actually way better that way. I really wish EA would've done the same.
BF3: Very pretty (though not as pretty as Crysis 2), extremely good textures. Basically a next-gen title back in 2011. Extremely well optimized. Extremely good sound design. Extremely good MP. HORRENDOUS campaign design, story, design, difficulty, scripting or set pieces.
lovin your narration style, and have sub'd. I do find it a shame that you don't sound like you like the Battlefield series that much, but I love them, but I do like thepoints you raise and the way you do it, so you have won another subscriber. Sounds like DICE could do with your kind of input. Are you a soldier ? Or a War historian or something ? Or just a Gamer ?
When you brought up documentaries I started thinking, someone needs to make a video game documentary... Like a super realistic game with factual locations characters, guns, dialogue, you know exactly based off a real event. Someday.
Agreed. BF3 is one of my favorite games of all kind... Because of the multiplayer. The campaing only has one memorable part: "... I don't even remember the name of the level" you know that one with the open field and hundreds of russian enemies? The one that almost feels like a multiplayer match? Yeah, that one's pretty cool
I don't want to sound like an anti-literary ignoramus here, but it really grinds my gears when fictions leave out important plot holes that are filled by secondary works like comic books, novels and such. Maybe the writers of the game and the writers of the novelization could've collaborated a bit to strengthen the story of the game itself? But then again, maybe leaving things vague wasn't a deliberate choice after all. Maybe the whole production was just one expensive fumble after another.
What's funny is that the novel ''Battlefield 3: The Russian'' has more characterization, depth, and story than actual game itself. If anybody has not read the book before, you should. The book also states why the PLR exists and their agenda. And the villain Solomon has a backstory. So in words, go read the book. It's pretty good.
I see two problems that probably can't be addressed until there is a market reaction to over saturation. 1. Developers do not really need to increase plot plausibility in the short term because the audience usually does not generally play these games for plot or single player. 2. Even if one of these franchises secures a decent writer, like how CoD ghosts has Stephen Gaghan of Syriana, they still are driven toward spectacle over substance because of current industry norms.
I hate doing this, but the book really does do a much, much better job of telling the story than the game does. For one, it's not told out of sequence; and two, there's actual characterization and reasons are given for plot events/character actions.
Yup, RE6's campaign suffered from the same thing: a story who's events and level structure(s) don't mesh w/ the actual mechanics w/ a bunch of incoherently combined plot points. Where as the other mode(s) is the good one.
I'm surprised you completed the campaign. I completely gave up on it after about the first hour of pretty much nothing but walking, cut scenes, and quick time events. Anyway, if they aren't going to put forth the effort to have an actually good story mode, I think they should do something like what Counter-Strike: Condition Zero did. It took bot matches, and made them fun by putting in challenges you had to complete.
I want a battlefield game set during the cold war with the premise of a historically accurate campaign centered around missions from well known wars like Vietnam to small conflicts like the rhodeisan bush war and Falkland's war, it wouldn't take a lot of time and resources into creating these missions similar to war stories and will inform players on events and wars they haven't even heard of. And then for the multiplayer it could be its own story entirely with it being the classic USA vs USSR vibe cold war heated up, insert mini cutscene on WWIII and then boom your introduction to multiplayer which would have opponents from NATO fighting the Warsaw Pact, each side could use a variety of weapons from each side like past battlefield games had done and you could add in entirely new elements for example wouldn't it be cool to captured a point in conquest and then have access to a davy crockett mini nuke? And then you could incorporate limited customization for your soldiers, have a mix of maps ranging from something like Berlin being invaded to the open deserts of Afghanistan. An alternate history multiplayer of what could of been set during the early eighties in my opinion would be a fun game in my opinion and would allow for dynamic destruction and your typical battlefield moments.
Absolutely LOVE your videos SBH! :) (oh and in all fairness to True Grit, Cash's song fits the theme of 19th century Protestantism, emphasised by the sound track which is dominated by hymnody. Cash's song fits that, seeing as it's all about Rev 19 and Jesus' return)
I like to think of CoD as our generation's version of 80's Schwartzneggar movies. Hardly an original analogy-- but bear with me. Commando, for example, is bloddy hilarious nowadays. But back in the 80's before those kinds of movies became a ridiculous satire of their own genre (see: Kindergarten Cop, Expendables) it could still unsettle an audience or two. I bet in 20 years time, BLOPS games are going to be a comedy goldmine. On the other hand, I'm betting no one will remember BF3.
Good military story? The Ace Combat series, of all things, delivers. Well, as long as it isn't Assault Horizon. They usually follow the same story of "rebels capitalise on political shortcomings to expand their regime, take over cities and build makeshift bases, in order to take over the country", but it is presented in so many different styles, and with different context, that it makes both following the story, and playing the game feel fresh. Ace Combat 2 (from 1996 btw), presents you with an in-depth briefing in order to provide the perfect amount of context to what you are doing throughout the game, and it also reminds you that the rebels are that. Rebels. You are sent out on one mission to blow up their front base, and it's nothing special at all. Just a castle that they decked out with gun emplacements and storage buildings. Fucking immaculate.
![ตีสิบเดย์ [FULL] | เปิดใจ "อาจารย์ เบียร์ ฅนตื่นธรรม" นักสนทนาธรรมสายดุดัน!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vqaBI_mnoDk/mqdefault.jpg)
How to make a single-player Battlefield: Give us the ability to set up multiplayer games with bots like 1942
And with smart and complex bots ! Not those bots like CS:GO that only go through waypoints in the middle of action only to die.
Bouffe Ton Galil ! Even on expert mode it is still way too easy to play
I don't think Battlefield was around in 1942...
Can't tell if you're joking or not....
Kitty40 Are you joking? I really can't tell...
i bursted out laughing when the Half Life 2 sounds poped up as it fit so bloody well.
Same 😂
The irony about battlefield 3 using the same plot structure as black ops, is that black ops at least elaborates in the hows and whys of everything, all of the flashback stories are told in chronological order (except for the one with some backstory) from the start of events up until the point you were captured and interrogated in the first place
Unlike Battlefield 3 that starts the game at the climax and then starts juggling you around the most confusing, and inconsistent points of the story... There was even a Rick and Morty episode mocking this very same writing style of starting at the interesting part then doing the "2 weeks early" crap
That Backstory was the Backstory of Reznov in COD World at War.
Black Ops is a Direct sequel to WaW.
Yeah, i agree..black ops campaign was really great (and many ppl consider it as one of the best campaigns in the whole cod series), compared to boringfield's awful campaign
What BF needs is offline Multiplayer. BF2 was awesome because it offered you the chance to lay bak and rek bots, trying underpowered guns without dying as much, just having innocent fun.
I still "nearly liked" BF 3+4s singleplayer, but a offline MP would have been a million times better.
I know right? I personally like fps bots because it allows you to play multiplayer maps and game modes while being offline. you don't need an internet experience to have a good time.
I come back to this video, get to the Johnny Cash rant bit, and realise OH GOD THE SONG'S IN A BATTLEFIELD 1 TRAILER TOO?
The problem with military FPS' in today's world is that they try and go to the ultra realistic real life soldier/marine thing. Where the low and puny infantry soldier/marine doesn't know anything about the mission, and that they are told is "go here, go there and take/kill this person/point of interest". Game companies THINK they know what real soldiers/marines go through on a "I'm nothing more than a 'roger that' machine" basis. I've been in the Army and I was Infantry at that, I have a 13 month long skip across the pond under my belt, and I will tell you that it's nothing like that in real life. If a squad or platoon get's tasked out on a mission or patrol, they know everything they need to know. And don't get me wrong, I've definitely been outside the wire asking myself "what the fuck are we looking for or doing" but those times were times where I honestly didn't need to know whats up, and I was there just for security. Yet most of the time I always knew the information if we were likely to run into resistance, how long this outing should take, if I need an Assault Pack or a Ruck, how far we're going, do I need to rearrange my kit to fit some more mags, and what the guy looks like if we're looking for someone. Game companies try and simulate that you are "nothing more than a bullet sponge and you will do this no matter what. If your PL or PS doesn't fill you in, we don't care". It simply mind boggles me that some game devs have never heard the words "briefing" or "schools in session". I'd rather sit through 15 minutes of exposition in a game than just getting straight into killing everything for no reason. Also I wish game devs would stop using the military the way they do in games basically saying you don't need an emotional level with these people because they are soldiers/marines. You should feel bad for him getting shot just because he's an American in war.
I suspect that a nontrivial fraction of this "realistic" "do what I say, no you don't need to know why, also our reasons why are nonsensical" comes from the practices of the Vietnam War, where (realistic or not) that was the experience of many of that era's conscripts. They were sent to a jungle to kill a bunch of people for a reason most of them didn't care about and many of them didn't comprehend.
I am glad that the modern US army is no longer like that.
R.I.P. Vladimir you won't be missed
Mmmm what'cha saay
Old videos call for old memes I guess.
Bot.
Mode.
We've yet to return to the glory days of BF2 and BF1942
Gron Gamer 1942 is the best battlefield
+Xxx_gaben_xxX nah it BTF Vietnam
You said it.
@@aaziikaaa2262 2142 is a masterpiece
Fucking died at, _"Mmm whatcha saaay"_
The funny thing is, is that a campaign in this style of modern FPS has been done SO much better and the one modern FPS game that probably has the best campaign is Medal of Honor: Airborne. Not the shitty gritty reboots, they sucked but Airborne is the franchise's real last hurrah.
Thanks to its open non-linear level design, health pack system (health packs woooo!), scarcity of ammo and weapons (Enemies rarely drop weapons so you have to find ammo packs and guns around the level, old school style) and finely tuned gameplay with a great mix of tactical and run n' gun ways to approach combat, it's by far the best campaign in this style because it makes full use of the game's multiplayer elements and incorporates it in the singleplayer. Having a big, explorable area to run around in, capturing a multitude of objectives and defending locations that the enemy tries to take back makes it incredibly dynamic and a whole heap of fun to play because it let's the player loose to feel free how they want to tackle the game.
It only has six missions but they're pretty big and very well designed and the replay value comes in by allowing players to approach different objectives at different times with wildly different weapon loadouts with each run as well as a semi-randomised enemy placement system where there are different numbers and types of enemies each time you play with only a few deliberate, scripted moments here and there combined with a basic but nifty little weapon upgrade system that makes a great incentive to try out every single weapon.
It baffles me how some people didn't like it because it's so cleverly designed with a lot of love, care and attention and is just a damn good campaign for a game that deserves more love and I believe that if this type of shooter is going to stick around then they should ALWAYS look towards Medal of Honor: Airborne if they want to know how to do a campaign for this kind of multiplayer-focused FPS the right way.
Yes! I love MOHA for everything you just said. The levels are mini sandboxes where you can approach your objectives from anywhere you want, the depth of abilities and control that you have over your character, especially the peak-n-lean cover system, is phenomenal, and the enemies don't infinitely respawn until you cross the magic trigger point. That's exactly how you make an amazing FPS that strikes s perfect balance!
Making a SP battlefield campaign should be easy:
1; You take the MP maps and then create a story sequence with them.
2; You then create multiple challenges for each map, making it unique from the MP.
3; Maps would be broken into segments, each segment introducing new concepts or testing a player's ability to adapt new strategy
It would be easy to think of hundreds of challenges and this way they could create a long SP campaign with fewer assets. Not to mention the added benefit of teaching the players map layouts and good techniques, improving the game's community. It would also help the game stand out in the marketplace as a truly unique SP FPS experience.
Challenge examples:
A:
Stealth & sniping/point capture, the enemy takes a longish time to re-spawn, you only have a sniper rifle. You must kill a bunch of enemies then move to capture before they re-spawn.
B:
The enemy destroys your only re-spawn point a few minutes in, now you have to capture a new point without dying. You can choose between capturing an AIR BASE [3 fighter helicopters, 3 transport helicopters] or a FORTIFIED POSITION [height advantage and 3 AA guns]. Afterwards you must capture the Capture the other base, before running out of soldiers.
If a battlefield developer wants to use my idea then go ahead, just give me credit for it :)
I like that. Or you could also acquire credits or some form of currency to build up a squad or platoon however you want. Want 30 snipers? Then do that. Want 2 helis or 5 tanks? Whatever you want. And then assign check points and objectives to various members of your team. Make it strategical as well as tactical.
*****
I reckon that would work, but I would make it part of a separate career mode. One where you fight out a virtual war, kinda like the dawn of war games. But in a battlefield game.
Damn we would make one awesome battlefield SP experience.
How to make a successful battlefield campaign.
1) Theres a war, who cares why its between two super powers
2) NO SPEC OPS SHIT
3)Huge armies are fighting eachother
4) Losta splosions and things
5) Plot? You are at war. Fight Fuck you don't ask questions
DONE
Brandem Beardmore Yup simply Blue vs Red
Prosymna Foods SUCK IT BLUE!
I think the best way a Battlefield Singleplayer should have been done is similar to Arma where its an open world and you have the freedom to explore and pick how you want to fight your fights like if you want to charge headfirst or have your squad put down covering fire as you flank or you could just night fight and sneak your way through the level
5 Years later, BF5 proves they learned nothing.
Same with Battlefield 2042. The bots in that game are online-only.
You are an excellent writer - concise yet engaging, i really enjoyed this.
How to make a good Battlefield singleplayer:
You are a squad of marines who are sent in to prevent a cartoonishly evil bad guy group from conquering the world, and the other players are payed agents who try to stop them.
All they have to do is make the set pieces over the top, the villains james-bond evil, make the atmosphere like something out of an 80's action movie, & you have a recipe for success.
+Zelousmarineinspace they've dug themselves so deep they might have to make it 70s action B movie
Hawkeye Gough Like Deathwish? I don't see how that will relate to the multiplayer
+Zelousmarineinspace how did a squad of rejects blowing up some assholes correlate to multiplayer?
Did you say, "Battlefield Bad Company 1"?
So near BC1? Also, I don't think it would work, it seems too linear.
"Why is the single player so different to the multiplayer!?"
Simple. It was farmed out to a different studio.
"It's more like a movie that just won't play unless you click on the right things at the right time."
This is a PERFECT description of the single player of the game. Don't know what the hell they were thinking.
I just finished Battlefield 4's campaign and compared to that, Battlefield 3's story is a Shakespearean Masterpiece!
the part with the half-life 2 audio cracked me up
Yeah, the rate at which your health regenerates and the huge amount of enemies that infinitely spawn in is really realistic. It makes it hard not to take this game seriously.
It doesn't need to be that realistic though, just believable..too much realism would make a game boring
Wild that this came out 10 years ago
Oh my God... people in the comment section is defending Battlefield 3's Campaign, whats next? they will defend Battlefield 4's campaign?
Diego Jose I liked BF3s campaign.
But damn
I could make a better "story" for BF4
I would rather watch Chuunibyou English dub over playing such fuckery of a campaign ever again
@360Ragequit Sorry not educated enough to buy bf 5 😔
@360Ragequit Sometimes I wish single player campaigns should be sold separately. I for one am not an avid multiplayer fan. I really loved the BF1 War stories, and hope EA doesn't screw BF 5 campaign too for the SJW agenda.
@360Ragequit Really! Oh God this game is getting worse every day...
I've never played a game so restrictive and afraid you'll have any kind of fun that it actively kills you instantly if you accidentally stray 2 seconds behind/ahead of your "allies".
You should check out "History Channel Battle For The Pacific." For the entire game if you're not right next to your guide at all times you automatically fail. You can't even stop to pick up the enemies' weapons because you can't sprint at all.
About as much as I'd do for a klondie bar. And no, but the beta was fun...
This is probably an unpopular opinion here, but I liked the BF3 campaign. Of course it's no MGS1 or 3, but it has its moments, and the plot is not nearly as convoluted as Bunnyhop makes it sound.
Of particular stand out are the Russian missions. I liked the fact that it was a close knit squad of undercover agents sent on a near suicidal mission to literally save the world, except the very world that they're risking life and limbs to save assume that they're the enemy, and they can't say anything about it, let alone get recognition or glory from it. THAT is why the Russian character is apparently about to commit suicide at the closing of the game.
And I also liked the treatment of Sgt. Assface. Yeah, his introduction and over zealousness was shoved in way too late, but in ONE mission's time they managed to establish his villainy, and made you hate him enough to where shooting him was very believable (in light of the exposition by the Russian character just mere seconds before), which in turned triggered the whole interrogation part of the game.
So all in all, even though Bunnyhop does have the silver tongue to captivate us with his videos, I feel like he's just overly negative and intentionally obtuse about certain things (like plot points) just to have something to shit on for 30 minutes.
I mixed opinion, because I liked the campaign but I agree with this video. I also agree with your point entirely.
I thought they touched on some themes that could've been great. It would've been better if they fleshed out some emotion in regards to your squad mates, at least then I'd feel like I was fighting for something rather than going through a shooting gallery. At least the COD campaigns set the stage and make me feel like I'm fighting for something.
I've always said battlefield in my opinion could honestly be 99999999 times better if they flesh everything out more.
***** True about the fleshing out part, particular about BF3. The thing is, CoD's story AND MP are focused on weaving an epic sage, mostly from 1 POV. BF3's story AND gameplay tried to go the "bigger picture from multiple view points" route, and as a result every view point feels watered down. Still commendable what they managed to do with BF3's story though.
Then again, BF3's story isn't something to write home about. It's easy to flip its strong points and argue against them. Reminds me of this (sort of) famous blogger who tried to rip FFX a new one. The first thing he complained about were the fucking color and shape of the lamp posts on the elevated walkway in the very beginning of the game. WTF? Most people would applaud the cool futuristic world design with a Okinawan twist. Nitpicking click-bait at its best.
@@JapanForSale but for every CoD before ghosts the SP are multiple POV that relates with each other
BF2 Modern Combat also had a really good take on single player :) that game was GREAT back on the original xbox, that console was pushing such great graphics for the time
Wow you hit the nail precisely on the head in this video Bunnyhop. This is exactly what i thought about BF3s single player. I could not have said it any better myself. Every one buys Battlefield for it's multiplayer. Because the multiplayer is what makes the Battlefield games fun. So why dont Dice just give us what every one wants. Just give us Battlefield multiplayer with bots for a single player, instead of giving us a boring nonsensical drawn out single player campaign copy of Call of Duty!!!
"your related to that guy with the pole in his gut" omg are you serious? i can't roll my eyes hard enough. this plot just keeps on giving (or taking, depending on perspective.)
nice! the menu music from the Battlefield 1942. loved that game. so much fun with friends.
A way they could make the campaign is to start off at a base with 5 characters or something, each is in a differnt division, tank crew, pilot, sniper, ect, and they each do a training range to get you accustomed to the different roles and mechanics,
and then afterwards you pick one of the people and then start the next mission, where you fight on a big battlefield and complete a mission, they could have a short breifing scenario where you learn the maps layout the enemy faction and your mission, or make the exposition like operations from bf1,
they could also give the ability to switch between these characters whenever you wish to keep things fresh.
man I'm a new subscriber! I think you really are educated and your videos are totally worth the time I take watching! really love them. keep the awesome job of your up :)
I'm insulted by your comment about the plot of Zardoz.
It's funny because I actually really, really enjoyed the BF3 campaign, haha - I even go back and play chapter of it from time to time. It had such a fantastic tone to it, quite a lot of really cool moments in it. That being said, the actual story/script itself was all over the place.
if they're ever refrained to making a single player in the first place I would have been really glad to never known the whole franchise in the first place
Battlefield 2 modern combat, frontlines fuel of war and the strike force missions from black ops 2 are what they should use as a basis for bf campaigns going forward.
Now Battlefield 2042 cut the campaign in favor of bot support, too bad you still need to be online to play with bots
Man I really really loved Battlefield 2 Modern Combat campaign mode.
It had those kind of campaigns you don't see on shooters anymore.
Battlefield 2 Modern Combat campaign was pretty fun
I would buy that. It would only give us less to complain about, after all. Imagine if they put all the time and effort that went into the single-player and used it to further polish the multiplayer...
More-or-less because it wasn't planned to be. It gradually turned into something greater as I was writing it, but I feel like a Critical Close-Up would've been a more comprehensive review that would include a whole lot about the multiplayer rather than the single-player.
unfortunately they didnt learn, battlefield 4's campaign was even worse
I love this videos where you analyse the story of the games, nobody else does this. Everyone else review the mechanincs but very little the story. You should make story analysis on most games, you do this very good.
I didn't notice that the ballistics of the tanks were so different when I played through BF3's campaign, but I loved that mission, because it actually helped me practice something I could use in multiplayer mode. All they need to do to make a good BF single player game is: 1 tank mission, 1 helicopter mission, 1 jet mission, 1 mission per infantry class in sandbox environments where you need to use your class abilities and optionally drive cars. Heat to 350 degrees F and let sit for 20 min.
6:55 They just recycle some sound assets from Half-Life 2... That is simply unforgivable.
No, Bunnyhop himself put them there for comedic effect. Are you really expecting DICE to use HL2 assets?
Good troll
Halid Yusein PLEASE DONT FEED THE TROLL! It only makes him stronger
***** Actually, I wasn't trolling. The sound was vague that I can't really tell if DICE was seriously using sounds from Half-Life 2 or not.
I'm so glad to have met someone as nice as you on youtube, normally I'd expect an argument. I will remember you as that 1 youtuber who made my day
For me perfect BF campaign would be:
You start off in Commander mode with a goal to conquer the full map from multiplayer. You can customize all your squads and take control over any of your men. After you capture one pint you get a bonus, like a tank. Sometimes you have to go back and defend previously captured points. Between each map there is a cutscene with your superevil willain that wants to take over the world. Heck, it could even be Total War style, where maps are territories in "Campaing Map". This would sooooo awesome!
This is by far one of the best gaming channels on TH-cam. All of these videos provide a highly detailed analysis and are really just amazing to watch. I would really love to hear their opinion of Red Dead Redemption.
I actually liked the Russian missions better because I actually got somewhat attached to the squadmates. For the American missions, I had no idea who my squadmates were and even when they died I thought I was actually supposed to be sad for someone else.
George, we need another one of these for the Battlefield 4 campaign. God, I can't believe I went through that one...
BC1 was probably, no, it is the best SP in a MMS. Colors were vibrant and beautiful, less linear/sandboxy, had great humor, likable characters. BC2 removed some of the humor and the sandbox. BF3 removed all that. BF4 removed all that, but added few mission were it was a little bit more "open" (but was still linear like BF3).
Actually, linear is what makes it unique
How to make a singleplayer Battlefield game?
1. Ban the idea of a "singleplayer campaign" from the overall game design
2. Make the multiplayer
3. Add bots
4. Focus all the effort on the bot A.I. that you would normally be focusing on the online player connectivity and interaction.
5. Congratulations, you have an amazing experience that's accessible at any time. Not dependent on other players.
The bots from Battlefield 2 are the reason I still occasionally revisit that game. If someone put some REAL EFFORT into bots for multiplayer, they could actually be impressive. A good example of competent multiplayer bot A.I. : enemy territory quake wars.
The SP had been designed with a particular environment version in mind. If they patched up the weapons and whatnot in SP, then they'd probably need to adjust the difficulty (number of enemies, damage, etc) to compensate.
There are public servers (on the PC) that are empty most of the time. One should check them out to learn how to use guns.
I have not played this game but I did play battlefield Bad Company 2.
Mr Bunnyhop, this game appears to be an accurate reflection of how wars are presented to us in the Western world. How many media organisations go into detail about the various conflicts our armed forces involved in?
I read and watch news provided by several news organisations but I have to do a fair amount of digging on the internet to get some idea of what sparked these conflicts and what our armed forces might have contributed to them.
Going by your assessment of this game, it appears the developers have merely held up a mirror to the mass media and given us the opportunity to participate, at intervals in a fictional but not dissimilar representation of how wars are presented to us. In years to come, this game might be seen as representational art. Not merely a bad game.
RIP in Peace, Vladimir.
In all seriousness, great video, and having two of my favorite TH-camrs do videos on the same topic (more or less) within a day of each other is awesome. Keep up the great work.
Exactly. "The tone's in the wrong place." It's not brainless cathartic fun, it's not brutal difficult fun, nor is it some kind of thinking man's fun. It grits its teeth about the seriousness of war so hard, but doesn't follow it up with any deeper cerebral insights about it. The campaign of MW1 looks like Shakespeare in comparison.
The Bad Company games had good single player campaigns! Endearing characters, coherent story lines, freedom of movement / engagement is a lot of ways, great games :)
The fact that you can finish this game's story in one morning is also pretty troubling as well. There are soooo many topics I could've gone over in the video-- even 30 minutes isn't enough time for them. It's a case of something being fascinatingly bad-- I could probably write a book about this game if I didn't hold myself back.
Here's another critical difference between the two: the movie that BF3 wants to be would make for a pretty bad movie. MGS3's moivegame story is told through pretty non-interactive means and is about as silly a spy fiction as they come, but its done so well that no one seemed to mind. That story was told with so much skill and grace that I don't think anyone would complain if I just started using it as a gold standard for "silly military action game" stories.
... and you'd be able to tackle it's challenges in any way you see fit. You could approach with stealth, agressive combat, droid deployment, air support, etc... You could have a small squad of troops that you could give orders to, kind of like in XCOM: The Bureau, which would open up a lot of unique tactical freedom and variety. Lastly, I think it would be cool if you could capture lone enemies and interrogate them to learn about hidden areas or bonus side-missions.
1:16 Finally someone said it, THANK YOU. There are two battlefield games imo that totally done the campaign justice: Battlefield 2: modern combat and BFBC1, and it is hilarious that both are console exclusives. No battlefield games after these two did it right, they always try to copy other games instead of improving what's been built. It's mindboggling.
I absolutely loved the Bad Company campaigns, but this one was a massive letdown. It restricted your freedom at every turn, you had to wait for your squad to do everything, the story was boring and confusing and the style of it was done a lot better by earlier games like BLACK and Call Of Duty Black Ops, and there were way too many scripted events, on-rails turret sections and QTEs. The tank level was the only decent vehicle section in the whole game because you actually got to physically control it. The fighter jet mission could've been removed entirely because it was so boring and useless. I didn't care about any of the characters because they were so poorly developed and almost all of them ended up dying anyway. They should've stuck with Bad Company's formula instead of completely trying to ripoff Call Of Duty every second!
Damn. I googled this just now and pretty much had the exact reaction you probably predicted: "Where have I heard this before? Argh, it's right at the tip of my tongue but I can't remember where it was used before!"
I dunno, this was in a commercial or something. Where's it been? Now it's gonna drive me nuts!
The two best single player shooters I ever played were Star Wars: Republic Commando, and the original Doom. And I believe they hold the possible approaches to make the genre work.
The first is heavy focus on themeing, worldbuilding and characters, combined with a varied combat sandbox. Give us a word we care about, and let us explore it to our hearts content within the context of the game. ArmA, FEAR and Crysis for example are very good at this.
The other approach, is to make a world with clearly defined and simple rules, and provide a mechanical challange. A pure arcade game.
Superhot, Painkiller, Ziggurat, Counterstrike. You know this sort of game. We seem to have a lot of good examples.
Frankly I would like to see more of the former. It seems to have died out since 2010.
Cole shooting you is the weirdest thing ever. It took me several long loading screen repeats to get past it because I thought it was a cutscene.
Yeah, the worst part is that there's no on-screen prompt or anything. You just have to figure out for yourself that you have to actually hit the fire button right when the Russian's done talking.
Stuff like this has seeped into movies too where some are all about the roller coaster ride experience but when you stop and think nothing is explained or makes sense.
Well I loved the campaign for Battlefield 3 and wished the ones for 4 and Hardline were more like it.
I actually love this campaign, and agree with everything you said. Some pretty awesome videos you make man.
6:16 this guy would be great at sinema sins
It holds up pretty well, in fact it actually serves as a rather nice example about how the bf series has hardly gone anywhere with it's concept except getting shiney-er
Oh. And the reason why the SP mechanics feel different is because BF3 MP has undergone a series of patches over the years, to make the game more balanced. These patches are not needed in SP (since you're fighting against A.I.), hence they weren't installed into the SP game environment.
Furthermore, saying that the SP's lack of bullet drop/recoil (although it did suck) didn't prepare you for MP is like saying that the SP's lack of maneuverable interceptor aircraft didn't prepare you for flying with jets in MP. That's not what SP is for. SP is to provide players with a BF-ish experience without the *hassle* of an internet connection. I have never heard a dev say that SP was developed to prepare players for MP.
Can somebody explain why is GRU is actually shooting people? This is Генеральное Разведывательное Управление, Main Intelligence Directorate. They are mainly in control of information and, overseeing communications and occasionally spying: gain intel. In this game GRU are russian common unit dispatched to hunt terrorists. I'm confused.
In the book Dima and the russian dudes are tasked with finding some arms trader in iran to find some nukes stolen from russia. Dima isn't on the GRU payroll but they need him because it's a black op. But then the tech team that came with them went on a powerfantasytrip and screwed everything up, leaving the russians stranded in iran.
They do stuff to find the nukes but blackburn finds the one in the vault before them so they have to other stuff to find it. They go to russia and then to the eagles nest to kick the arms dealers ass, but the US somehow made it there aswell (don't remember if that was explained) and the same cole shooting happens.
They learn that solomon, who was Dimas apprentice back when he actually worked for GRU has the nukes and is planning to blow up france. They find the nuke hidden in a printer and defuse it. Story ends.
The book focuses much more on the russians and its actually way better that way. I really wish EA would've done the same.
@@hakes98 what is the book you talking about?
Battlefield 1's campaign sounds a lot like this video's ideas
RIP in peace vladimir ure one solid russian dude i guess....
The 20 minutes I knew you were the best 20 minutes of my life. RIP.
I had fun playing this campaign. But I had more fun watching this video. And this video didn't cost me $69.99.
BF3: Very pretty (though not as pretty as Crysis 2), extremely good textures. Basically a next-gen title back in 2011.
Extremely well optimized.
Extremely good sound design.
Extremely good MP.
HORRENDOUS campaign design, story, design, difficulty, scripting or set pieces.
Excellent work my friend. I hope DICE see this
You need more subs. This is definitely one your best videos. This video was just...whoa...
I'm glad you put "celebrated" in quotes while referring to MoH.
lovin your narration style, and have sub'd. I do find it a shame that you don't sound like you like the Battlefield series that much, but I love them, but I do like thepoints you raise and the way you do it, so you have won another subscriber. Sounds like DICE could do with your kind of input. Are you a soldier ? Or a War historian or something ? Or just a Gamer ?
Black burn was a last name of a pilot named Clyde.he was a hero in WW1.
In my opinion. “Death from above” sections of games are really only fun if I have to protect an objective.
When you brought up documentaries I started thinking, someone needs to make a video game documentary... Like a super realistic game with factual locations characters, guns, dialogue, you know exactly based off a real event. Someday.
Agreed.
BF3 is one of my favorite games of all kind... Because of the multiplayer.
The campaing only has one memorable part: "... I don't even remember the name of the level" you know that one with the open field and hundreds of russian enemies? The one that almost feels like a multiplayer match? Yeah, that one's pretty cool
I don't want to sound like an anti-literary ignoramus here, but it really grinds my gears when fictions leave out important plot holes that are filled by secondary works like comic books, novels and such. Maybe the writers of the game and the writers of the novelization could've collaborated a bit to strengthen the story of the game itself? But then again, maybe leaving things vague wasn't a deliberate choice after all. Maybe the whole production was just one expensive fumble after another.
What's funny is that the novel ''Battlefield 3: The Russian'' has more characterization, depth, and story than actual game itself. If anybody has not read the book before, you should. The book also states why the PLR exists and their agenda. And the villain Solomon has a backstory. So in words, go read the book. It's pretty good.
O nice SuperBunnyhop likes NIN.
I feel pretty good right now.
I'm genuingly surprised some studio hasn't approached you yet to consult them in game design.
I see two problems that probably can't be addressed until there is a market reaction to over saturation. 1. Developers do not really need to increase plot plausibility in the short term because the audience usually does not generally play these games for plot or single player. 2. Even if one of these franchises secures a decent writer, like how CoD ghosts has Stephen Gaghan of Syriana, they still are driven toward spectacle over substance because of current industry norms.
I hate doing this, but the book really does do a much, much better job of telling the story than the game does. For one, it's not told out of sequence; and two, there's actual characterization and reasons are given for plot events/character actions.
Lol, love your commentary. And the HL2 throw back.
Yup, RE6's campaign suffered from the same thing: a story who's events and level structure(s) don't mesh w/ the actual mechanics w/ a bunch of incoherently combined plot points. Where as the other mode(s) is the good one.
I'm surprised you completed the campaign. I completely gave up on it after about the first hour of pretty much nothing but walking, cut scenes, and quick time events. Anyway, if they aren't going to put forth the effort to have an actually good story mode, I think they should do something like what Counter-Strike: Condition Zero did. It took bot matches, and made them fun by putting in challenges you had to complete.
They just tack on a low-effort single player campaign alongside a rich and interesting multiplayer experience so they can keep the price at $60 base.
I want a battlefield game set during the cold war with the premise of a historically accurate campaign centered around missions from well known wars like Vietnam to small conflicts like the rhodeisan bush war and Falkland's war, it wouldn't take a lot of time and resources into creating these missions similar to war stories and will inform players on events and wars they haven't even heard of. And then for the multiplayer it could be its own story entirely with it being the classic USA vs USSR vibe cold war heated up, insert mini cutscene on WWIII and then boom your introduction to multiplayer which would have opponents from NATO fighting the Warsaw Pact, each side could use a variety of weapons from each side like past battlefield games had done and you could add in entirely new elements for example wouldn't it be cool to captured a point in conquest and then have access to a davy crockett mini nuke? And then you could incorporate limited customization for your soldiers, have a mix of maps ranging from something like Berlin being invaded to the open deserts of Afghanistan. An alternate history multiplayer of what could of been set during the early eighties in my opinion would be a fun game in my opinion and would allow for dynamic destruction and your typical battlefield moments.
Absolutely LOVE your videos SBH! :) (oh and in all fairness to True Grit, Cash's song fits the theme of 19th century Protestantism, emphasised by the sound track which is dominated by hymnody. Cash's song fits that, seeing as it's all about Rev 19 and Jesus' return)
Thanks! Much love
I like to think of CoD as our generation's version of 80's Schwartzneggar movies. Hardly an original analogy-- but bear with me. Commando, for example, is bloddy hilarious nowadays. But back in the 80's before those kinds of movies became a ridiculous satire of their own genre (see: Kindergarten Cop, Expendables) it could still unsettle an audience or two. I bet in 20 years time, BLOPS games are going to be a comedy goldmine. On the other hand, I'm betting no one will remember BF3.
that was some pretty good journalism if u can call it that and alot of effort that was put into this video.
Good military story? The Ace Combat series, of all things, delivers. Well, as long as it isn't Assault Horizon. They usually follow the same story of "rebels capitalise on political shortcomings to expand their regime, take over cities and build makeshift bases, in order to take over the country", but it is presented in so many different styles, and with different context, that it makes both following the story, and playing the game feel fresh.
Ace Combat 2 (from 1996 btw), presents you with an in-depth briefing in order to provide the perfect amount of context to what you are doing throughout the game, and it also reminds you that the rebels are that. Rebels. You are sent out on one mission to blow up their front base, and it's nothing special at all. Just a castle that they decked out with gun emplacements and storage buildings. Fucking immaculate.
Fellow Ace Combat fan, hell yeah