At the end of the train, we're taken back eight hours to where Blackburn is being interrogated by two government agents. You play Sergeant Blackburn, who starts the game by leaping onto the roof of a moving train, kicking in the back window and then shooting his way through each narrow carriage filled with terrorists. It's the world's most expensive audition tape for the job of developing a Call of Duty rival. It's a ten-hour long exercise in contractual obligation: here are the multiple protagonists here are the vehicle sections here is the terrorist intrigue and appropriate level of moral grittiness. It's a waterslide with pictures scrawled on the insides. Wouldn't it be cool if deathmatch had vehicles? Wouldn't it be cool if it wasn't deathmatch at all, but teams, and squads, and objectives, and dozens of players? Wouldn't it be cool if there were tanks and jeeps and helicopters and jets? Wouldn't it be cool if the maps were enormous and buildings could collapse?īattlefield 3's singleplayer is not a movie. Battlefield games have always been grand, ridiculous, futuristic designs. If someone had told me 15 years ago that this is what online gaming would be, I wouldn't have believed them. I'll spot a glimmer from a hillside 300 metres away, and it'll be a sniper readying to kill me. On the ground below, a tank has smashed through the lower floors of the building. In the air above me, jets twirl, chased by artillery. In the distance, smoke stacks rise from a burning forest. On its best maps – like the 64-player Caspian Border – every pixel on screen flickers with battle. Battlefield 3's multiplayer makes me want to place a deckchair in the desert and watch the chaos happening all around.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |