Ef You Treyarch...

Battlefield 3 According to Burgetta

Field report request

By: Burgetta for burgetta.wordpress.com

I think the biggest problem I have with Battlefield 3 is that it was made well known this game was to “compete with Call of Duty.”  I played previous Battlefield entries, and they were good.  They weren’t great, but they were fun shooters (for the most part).  They were a change of pace from Call of Duty.  Since you claimed to want to “compete with Call of Duty,” I now have no choice but to judge your game against the Call of Duty series; before they were two separate franchises, each with their own bright spots and flaws, but separate franchises.  Your game is not as good as Call of Duty.  I understand you probably weren’t trying to make a CoD clone, but they definitely play much better.  They are fast, they are fun, and they are challenging. The controls are tight, and for the most part, this is key, everything works.  Your game is almost completely devoid of any action at all for long stretches.  Spawns often require you to run a ridiculous distance to an objective.  These are 2 things that do not add up to a “fast and fun” gaming experience.  As far as your game being challenging, I find the hardest part is to make it from point A to point B without being sniped from a rock or a window.  Nevermind getting kills, or capturing objectives, you can’t even get to them.  This is probably the number 1 biggest problem I have.  It is the exact opposite of fun.  Your game is being dragged down immeasurably by those who select the sniper class, then find a spot and sit there.  Why would they move?  There is absolutely no penalty at all for camping.  The killcams are a joke.  I have long held the belief that there should be much harsher penalties for play like a bitch in this manner, or AT LEAST a separate game type where camping is not an option.  If you do not move from where you are within a set amount of time, say 10 seconds tops, you die.  Good idea, right?  I’m sure you will fuck it up.  Battlefield’s controls are far less responsive than that of CoD, I would even say they are muddy.  CoD has it’s moments, but for the most part they work.  Your game was and is horribly broken.  You want to compete with Call of Duty you say.  You release an embarrassingly bad beta, and a game that requires a 2GB patch to play.  2GB?  2GB.  There is also another somewhat sizable patch I have not yet downloaded, and never will.  People paid you real actual money for your game, and you weighed down their hard drives with 3GB worth of patches, because you chose to release a game that didn’t fucking work.  Brilliant.  Fuck you.

“You have an opinion on Battlefield 3™. And we’re listening. Your feedback will help shape the future of the game. Take the Survey.”

Category: Humor, Video Games


2 Responses

  1. burgetta says:

    I am both amused and ashamed by this diatribe. True story though.

  2. GunBunnie says:

    I prefer BF3 myself. I played MW2 A LOT when it came out, but I had never played a BF3 game prior to BF3. So when BF3 was coming out, I was persuaded by the hype machine and decided to give it a try.

    To me Battlefield is much more tactical and rewards you for playing that way. In BF3 you can systematically clear a room and usually not have someone run up behind you and kill you with dual wielding shotguns because you generally have a good idea where the enemies are.

    When MW3 came out, I tried playing it and just kept dying over and over again. In the CoD games the winning strategy seems to be to just keep running and whenever you come across someone, hope that your reflexes are better than theirs.

    Neither game is objectively better, I can definitely see the appeal of CoD, but I’m not as good at it and thus I prefer BF now. Having to walk long distances can be a problem, but as long as you put yourself in a squad, you can always spawn next to a squadmate, which limits that. Getting sniped in the wide open areas is a huge bitch though, and has caused me to drop many F-bombs.

Leave a Reply