If a game is going to be packaged as one product, then it must be evaluated as one product. Is it fair to evaluate both halves together as one game? The other half is a massive multiplayer romp that, while not particularly innovative, is still a blast for anyone who enjoys team-based online first-person shooters (FPSs). One half is a linear, droning single-player campaign that fails to stand out in any real way. The campaign in Halo 3 was woefully short and unsubstantial, but the multiplayer was top notch.īattlefield 3 falls into Halo 3's multi-heavy camp, and thus it presents an interesting dilemma in game evaluation: here we halve two wildly different games in one package. As examples, Metroid Prime 2's multiplayer was infamously shoehorned in where it was clearly not needed, but the single-player was still good, if a little lackluster. The problem with this approach is that usually one side of the experience suffers at the expense of the other. In fact, it's becoming the standard if the previews of Mass Effect 3 are any indication.
WTF OH MY GOD GUYS COME LOOK I'M FLYING THE HELICOPTER I'M SO COOL *crash*Ī game being split between a dedicated single-player and multiplayer experience is not new. LOW I have to launch the game through a web page? Is this 1998? HIGH Driving a tank, running into an enemy tank, frantically trying to shoot each other, and then getting out and destroying both tanks with rockets.