HIGH Exceptional multiplayer. 

LOW Lackluster campaign. Some slow progression.

WTF Staying up late during work nights to try and end on a win.

Within the storied history of multiplayer shooters, few contenders can carry the weight of something like DICE’s Battlefield. This long-running military series has been a major staple in the online space, offering large-scale battles across different settings ranging from World War I to the far-flung future. 

Over the last decade or so, players have experienced some highs (Battlefield 1) and lows (Battlefield 2042), but nothing has truly brought the series back to its peak. The best installments, Battlefield 3 and 4, seem like distant memories now, but over the last couple of weeks with Battlefield 6, I’ve walked away telling myself something I never thought I’d say — Holy shit, Battlefield is back. 

Developed by the newly-formed Battlefield Studios (comprised of developers DICE, Criterion Games, Motive Studios, and Ripple Effect Studios), Battlefield 6 is a first-person shooter comprised of two main game modes — a story-driven, single-player campaign and an online multiplayer suite. The latter is the obvious star of the show, with multiplayer being the bread and butter of any great Battlefield experience, but the campaign deserves mention. 

Being the first Battlefield campaign since 2018’s V (and the first non-episodic entry since 2013’s 4) I was surprised at its inclusion at all, given the series’ history as a multiplayer-first experience. Taking place between the years 2027-2028, players control a series of US Marines who are fighting a private army known as Pax Armata. Set across locales like Brooklyn, Cairo, and Tajikistan, gameplay in the single-player is largely linear. 

Most levels have players shooting enemies, running from one point to another, and ending each chapter on a major setpiece. Certain levels feature elements that shake things up, like giving light commands to AI squadmates — telling them to scout enemies ahead or to fire on a large group of hostiles. 

Overall, Battlefield 6’s campaign felt like a ‘best of’ collection comprised of various military shooter bits. There are dedicated sniper missions where players sneak around the perimeter of an area and take enemies out from afar, there are plenty of vehicle sections where players either drive large trucks or man turrets, and there are even some sections that play out in a neat night-vision mode focused entirely on stealth. Those who have fond memories of playing things like Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (2007) might get some enjoyment out of the campaign’s short length and ease of play. 

While the narrative itself is not the most interesting, the main reason to play is that it essentially serves as an extended tutorial to the mechanics. Things like squad commands, different weapon types, vehicles, and even the destructibility of certain levels all come into play when players take to the online modes. The offline adventure is a good way to ease into it, even if it’s not a dramatic extravaganza. 

The campaign is gorgeous in terms of presentation though, with Michael Bay-esque set pieces and Hollywood-level sound design coming together to create something cool. Playing with some decent headphones elevated this experience and added to the immersion. However, with all that said, the real meat of BF6 is the multiplayer. If the campaign was less than impressive, the chaos that comes from any given multiplayer match more than makes up for it.

Spread across several different modes, the main offerings in rotation are Conquest, Breakthrough, and Rush. All three revolve around a mix of defending and attacking certain objectives or sectors on the map. Up to 64 players across both teams can play in these modes, with each team being separated into groups of four called squads. 

From the jump, the gameplay loop is exceptional thanks to these large-scale battles, ensuring that no two matches are ever the same. The tension that comes from dealing with enemy snipers, constantly trying to revive fallen teammates, or using a sledgehammer to tear down walls and create new perches was all exciting. Most matches last between 30-40 minutes, and the hours flew by as that “one more game” feeling kept hitting.

While the gameplay structure of each mode is largely unchanged from prior BF titles, there are some smart tweaks to the formula and refinements that I can appreciate. The overly large, sprawling maps from 2042 are gone, replaced with smaller (yet still huge for an online shooter) arenas that feel more dense. Navigating these zones no longer feels like a drag, and the annoying weather events from the last installment are also gone. The experience has been refined down to its purest elements.

Also returning from prior BF games is the class system, with each offering different advantages and weapon specialties. I mostly ran with the assault class, which primarily uses assault rifles and has faster health regeneration thanks to an adrenaline shot. BF6 clearly labels which guns work best for each class, and leveling up is a straightforward affair. Killing with specific guns levels them up and unlocks slots for attachments, while raising the overall level of the player unlocks more weapons. There are also class-specific assignments that unlock gadgets and secondary items ranging from simple feats like getting kills with a shotgun, or something more specific like getting kills while on adrenaline. 

I like the progression here, as everything is telegraphed clearly, and I’m always working towards something — even bad matches that end in a loss feel like they get me closer to my overall goals. I do wish that leveling up were a bit faster, though — it does feel like a slight grind when it comes to reaching the next level, but it didn’t impact my enjoyment of multiplayer. 

At launch, there’s a lot to love, and I was especially surprised by how smooth the experience has been. I had no major connection issues to impede progress, and I was unaffected by long server queue wait times. Connectivity has been stable, and being able to squad up with friends via crossplay is nice.

Playing Battlefield 6, I was transported back to a time when I enjoyed online multiplayer. I hopped off the competitive shooter train a while ago, trading my regular Call of Duty sessions in for sports and racing titles. However, in the last couple of weeks, I’ve spent all my free time here, and as dangerous as this might be to a full-time student with a demanding full-time job, the quality of that time spent rests heavily on the fact that I’m going to stick with it after my review is complete. While the campaign might be little more than a glorified tutorial, this remains a war worth fighting.

Rating: 8.5  out of 10

Buy Battlefield 6 – PC – PS – XB 

Disclosures: This game is published by EA and developed by Battlefield Studios. It is available on PC, XBX/S, and PS5. This copy was obtained via publisher and was reviewed on PS5. Approximately 30 hours were spent across the single-player and multiplayer.

Parents: According to the ESRB, this game is rated M for Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, and Strong Language. According to the site: Battlefield 6 is rated M for Mature 17+ by the ESRB with Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, and Strong Language. Also includes Users Interact and In-Game Purchases. This is a first-person shooter in which players command a NATO squad against a private military faction during a war. Players engage in military missions, firefights, and battle mode with enemy soldiers/other players. Players use pistols, machine guns, sniper rifles, and explosives to kill enemies in frenetic combat. Battles are highlighted by blood-splatter effects, realistic gunfire, cries of pain, and large explosions. Players can perform stealth attacks on enemies, using knives to stab them from behind. One cutscene depicts a character getting his thumb cut off close-up. The word “f**k” appears in the game.

Colorblind Modes: Colorblind modes are present in the options menu.

Deaf and Hard of Hearing Gamers: There are plenty of visual cues during gameplay, in the form of markers and map icons. All of these can be adjusted in the menu. Subtitles are present and can be resized. As no audio cues are needed for gameplay, I’d say this is fully accessible.

Remappable Controls: The controls can be remapped.

The post Battlefield 6 Review appeared first on Gamecritics.com.

HIGH It’s a marvelous Swiss watch of storytelling and experience.

LOW Selling all of my data a couple of turns too soon.

WTF There’s no ending if you [REDACTED]???

It’s rare that a follow-up title from a developer connects with me if their last one didn’t click, but that’s exactly what happened with Citizen Sleeper — and not only did this one click, it’s one of the year’s best.

I loved the concept of In Other Waters, the debut release from developer Jump Over the Age, but the approach was too dry and abstract — it felt more like a mental exercise than a videogame. As such, I was a hesitant to get into Citizen Sleeper, but I gave it the benefit of the doubt and I’m glad I did! While both games share the same narrative focus and unconventional approach to mechanics, the expanded systems, detailed artwork and wider scope of the world in Sleeper make all the difference.

In Citizen Sleeper, the player takes on the role of a synthetic human who’s on the run from the corporation that created them. They stow away on an interstellar freighter and end up at a remote space station near the tail end of the universe. Once there, they’re free to pursue whatever goals they wish in an effort to carve out whatever kind of life they can.

Mechanically, Sleeper is a little hard to describe.

In large part, it’s a visual novel with story told through chunks of text accompanied by wonderful still images. However, it’s also a resource management affair, as there are several kinds of ‘currencies’ needed to perform actions and move storylines forward. At the same time, it reminds me of dice-based boardgames that have been adapted into electronic formats — Tharsis is the closest point of comparison that comes to mind. And the world? It’s a simple 3D render of the station with hotspot locations sprinkled across its surface.

Broken down this way, Citizen Sleeper might sound like a random hodgepodge of spare parts mashed together, but nothing could be further from the truth.

When the game starts, things are a bit confusing. The player reads a few paragraphs explaining their situation, and then dice come into it. Literal dice. At the start of each in-game ‘day’, the player is assigned a certain number of dice with values from 1-6. These dice are to be slotted into events and activities, and their value determines how successful the player is.

Attempt to earn some cash at a day-labor job by using a ‘6’ die, and the payday is good. Try the same job with a ‘2’ die and it’s the player might go home with nothing to show for it but injuries. Use up the dice and the day is over — time to go home, get some shuteye and prepare for the next.

When the player gets ‘tired’ or their synthetic body starts to break down, they have fewer dice to use. This leads into finding ways to replenish energy and repair, which then leads to ways they can pay for or earn such service, which then leads into exploring the world for opportunities.

While trying to work out how to survive, players will come across not only the means to replenish their resources, but a surprising number of characters who populate the station, each with their own story and sidequest. This discovery, both of the wonderfully rich characters and of the surprising scope of the world (which initially seems tiny!) is marvelous.

Once the player has discovered more hotspots to visit and made the acquaintance of a few faces, it’s up to them how to proceed. There are a wide number of plotlines to pursue, and each one has branching choices — trust the fleeing scientist or not? Spend time with the lunch cart chef or move on? Support the commune’s work or shore up the local syndicate’s grip on the station?

Every single story and character is well-written and compelling, both on an individual basis and in the larger sense of the themes they represent. As a work of Science Fiction, Citizen Sleeper runs the gamut — the corporatization of space, an individual’s right to autonomy, the ethics of creating artificial life, transhumanism and more. It’s a masterwork of rich vignettes, each one waiting to be discovered and unwrapped.

While each of Citizen Sleeper’s aspects are well done in their own right, what’s even more impressive is how ingeniously everything fits together. The dice system is straightforward and clearly lays out how to accomplish tasks. The tasks’ role in moving storylines forward is elegant. The stories are fascinating, and provide more than enough motivation to dig into the world. These seemingly-disparate elements support each other perfectly.

However, even with all of this success, I’m not sure that Citizen Sleeper would be as amazing as it is without its heart. When the game begins, things are confusing and staying alive is a struggle. Money is tight, options rare, and there aren’t many welcoming faces. It often feels like failure is only two moves away, but when friends are made and connections forged, the quality of life improves. Before long a support system materializes, resources become more plentiful, and new avenues of exploration become apparent. In this way, the player goes from surviving to thriving, and actually does build a life for themselves out in the distance of the universe.

Citizen Sleeper isn’t harsh or punitive despite the pressures and perils the player might face. No, it ultimately feels like a slow, incremental triumph over adversity in a way that I wish was as easy to accomplish in the real world. This genius array of interlocking circles and Swiss watch gears is flawlessly synchronized with every piece spinning as it should, and it ultimately delivers not only a top-tier Sci-Fi tale, but a larger commentary on community, friendship, and the experience of life itself.

Disclosures: This game is developed by Jump Over the Age and published by Fellow Traveller. It is currently available on PC, Switch and XBX/S. This copy of the game was obtained via publisher and reviewed on the XBX. Approximately 10 hours of play were devoted to the single-player mode, and the game was completed. There are no multiplayer modes.

Parents: According to the ESRB, this game is rated T and contains Fantasy Violence, Use of Alcohol, and Language. While there is some non-graphic gun violence and some characters do die, the majority of the game is conveyed via text only. The content here is on-par with many Sci-Fi novels that might appeal to teens (or above) so the rating is a good indicator in this case.

Colorblind Modes: There are no colorblind modes available in the options.

Deaf & Hard of Hearing Gamers: All communication happens via text and the text is resizable.  The game is turn-based and there are no audio cues needed for gameplay. This experience is fully accessible.

Remappable Controls: No, this game’s controls are not remappable. Controls are straightforward — one button to confirm selections, one button to cancel, one to switch between the real world and the “online” world, and the sticks choose selections and scroll the map.  

The post Citizen Sleeper Review appeared first on Gamecritics.com.

HIGH Incredible visuals and sound design.

LOW Lots of bugs, and a disappointing story campaign.

WTF Why was spotting enemies removed?

World War II is where the Battlefield series began over 16 years ago, and now the latest game in the franchise, Battlefield V, returns to those well-worn fields and streets. A lot has changed in the series in the years since it debuted — BFV was supposed to be a big step forward for the franchise, and a new evolution in multiplayer combat. I don’t find this to be the case.

Like Battlefield 1 before it, BFV is a first-person shooter that includes a collection of small singleplayer campaigns called War Stories. These stories each take about two hours to complete and are unconnected to each other, focusing on different characters, countries and time periods of WWII. While BF1’s stories were great and felt like a massive improvement over previous narrative attempts, BFV’s stories feel messy, frustrating, and boring.

The standout is one where players take on the role of a young woman who’s part of the resistance in Norway. She has to ski, sneak and fight her way from night to day, killing Nazis the whole time. At one point players have to help her survive the cold of winter while sneaking from one Nazi camp to another. It’s a fantastic bit of design, but sadly, it’s one of the few story moments that’s memorable or interesting.

The rest of the War Stories are mostly boring fights or frustrating stealth segments that feel ripped out of the PS2 era, and the stealth is especially bad because I spent most of my time accidentally triggering alarms or alerting guards, and rarely did I understand why. And then sometimes the game would just break — the music would stop, HUD elements would bleed into cutscenes, or my character would get stuck on small hills or walls.

However, the singleplayer campaign, no matter how good or bad, is never the draw of Battlefield. Like the rest of the series, BFV’s focus is on multiplayer, but unfortunately this entry has some serious problems.

The most obvious and annoying problem? All the bugs I ran into while online. I’m a longtime BF fan, and I’m used to the jankiness. At this point it feels like part of the experience, but BFV goes beyond the expected jank and lands a lot closer to being unfinished.

For starters? Half of the multiplayer menu is locked away until a later date. In a more technical sense, I had general performance issues, gun noises not syncing, lag, getting killed while behind cover, I saw bodies floating in the air, vehicles and turrets breaking and freaking out, not being able to spawn on players, getting stuck in menus and tons more. It’s a rough launch.

On the plus side, one of the new features in BFV is fortifications, which allows players to build sandbag walls, dig trenches and create other structures near checkpoints and objectives. This isn’t Fortnite, however, so players can only build in certain areas of the map. That said, I was actually surprised at how many areas were usable — sometimes it was just a small sandbag wall, but others allowed my team to build giant forts, complete with turrets. However, this feature is buggy, like so much of BFV.

Building is simple when it works, but the building controls often didn’t function, fortifications would fail to pop up when I was done, or I sometimes had to hold a button for many seconds after I should have been finished. It’s a shame it’s so glitchy because fortifications change the way BFV feels compared to older BF games. Holding down an objective is no longer just about hiding behind a wall, but instead building up some new ones, while also thinking about where to build and when to build. In my time online, teams that built more were teams that won more often.

Beyond building walls and trenches, BFV also changes up some other aspects of the Battlefield experience, but these changes are less positive.

The other new feature is the new mode, Grand Operations, an evolution of BF1’s Operations mode. In Grand Operations, players fight through multiple rounds and game modes, structured like days in a battle. Win a mode one day, and the winners might get an advantage the next day, like more spawns or starting with more objectives captured.

While I sometimes enjoyed Grand Operations, they take a long time to complete, and that extra length (coupled with modes that aren’t as straightforward as BF1’s) make it feel less intense and less satisfying. Another issue is that some rounds played out like standard ‘conquest’, and friends who joined me weren’t happy that Grand Operations forced them to play this mode in some rounds. As a whole, this mode feels like filler to make the operations feel bigger.

BF1 was all about pushing forward and getting a foothold in enemy territory. A small squad could get lucky and beat the odds, saving their team and moving the battle forward. In Grand Operations, I wasn’t always sure what I was doing, or how to win the match. Also, some parts can be broken by a single player — during modes that involve placing bombs, someone can hold bombs and camp at their spawn, and when this occurs, the match grinds to a halt.

For those who like classic Battlefield, Conquest returns and some infantry-focused modes are included. It’s a good selection of modes, but I wish there were a few more maps to play on — after only a dozen hours or so, I’m already tired of how often I’m playing the same few.

Classes in BFV are similar to BF1. Players can choose between assault, recon, medic or support. Assault is the fast-moving soldier, recon is the sniper, medic is the… medic and support carries big machine guns and gives ammo to teammates. However, an issue that BF has always had is that snipers and assault classes get picked more than the other classes, which can lead to scenarios where a match is just a sniper party with everyone camping and hiding, or matches where nobody is a medic, so players never get revived or healed. Both are frustrating. BF1 helped balance the classes to avoid these scenarios, but BFV didn’t learn the same lesson.

The recon class is now more powerful than ever. In previous games, any player could ‘spot’ enemy players or vehicles. This allowed for teams to communicate without mics or gestures. That fantastic feature has been removed and now only players who are snipers can spot enemies. They also have powerful rifles, making them a deadly and exciting class to play.

Medics, my favorite class, are now less useful and being one feels like a punishment. Squadmates in BFV can now revive each other, even if they aren’t medics, making the class less necessary. Medics also only have SMGs, all of which do the same damage and feel worse when compared to the weapons of the assault and support. Even the support is a better choice now since it allows players to build fortifications quicker. The weapons and classes need some balancing ASAP, or the game might find itself back in the same pickle it tried to get out of.

In many ways, Battlefield V feels like a big step backwards for the franchise. The campaign is boring and frustrating, multiplayer is unbalanced, and bugs keep popping up in every mode to ruin the experience. The fortification system is a good shakeup, but the good it brings is tempered by the cumbersome and murky Grand Operations. With some patches, balance changes and bug squashing, BFV could be a fantastic game, but at the moment, this soldier needs to go back to basic training. Rating: 6 out of 10

Disclosures: This game was developed by DICE and published by EA. It is currently available on PS4, Xbox One and PC. This copy of the game was obtained via publisher and reviewed on the PS4 Pro. Approximately 13 hours of play were devoted to multiplayer and 5 hours of play devoted to single player, and the story campaign was completed.

Parents: According to the ESRB, this game is rated M and contains Blood, Strong Language and Violence. Players can shoot, stab and explode other players and AI enemies, all of whom look like real, living humans. Guns and explosives look authentic and death animations are sometimes bloody and violent. In-game soldiers will swear and scream. Bodies can be burned and crushed.

Colorblind Modes: Players can completely change the color of every element of the hud, including hitmarkers and crosshairs.

Deaf & Hard of Hearing Gamers: It can sometimes be useful to hear offscreen enemies and the game uses on screen indicators for gunshots, objectives, downed teammates and other important gameplay elements. Subtitles are available for dialogue only, and the size of these can be changed.

Remappable Controls: There are multiple control schemes and players can also customize every control layout for each role, such as flying or sniping. Players can also change dead zones, stick speed and other small controller variations.

The post Battlefield V Review appeared first on Gamecritics.com.

Battlefield is returning to where it all started. The original Battlefield 1942 was set in WWII. Now, 16 years later, Battlefield V is again heading back to the second world war. While BFV had an alpha earlier this year on PC, this latest open beta is going to be the first time most fans will be able to finally get their hands on it.

The open beta, as of this writing, only includes two modes: Conquest (the classic Battlefield mode all about capturing and defending points on the map) and a new mode titled Grand Operations — it’s a multi-stage large-scale battle with changing rules. The beta also only contains two maps. Narvik is an open, spacious map filled with snowy hills and icy waters. Rotterdam is a large urban map containing buildings, alleyways and canals. Between the two, Rotterdam is my favorite since the urban environment reminded me of maps I liked from previous Battlefield titles. However, both were fantastic once I got a feel for how they were laid out. Within a few matches I was taking part in classic BF chaos like driving a tank through a building or hiding behind a rock from a group of enemy snipers.

These maps are also filled with places to build fortifications, a new feature added in BFV, and one of the biggest changes to the formula. Players can now build walls and other structures in preset locations. These fortifications can help block a road from enemy vehicles or reinforce a building after walls have been destroyed.

Building fortifications is simple and players don’t have to worry about collecting resources to build. The only restriction is where walls and trenches can be built, and these things are dependent on the player’s class. For example, in the beta the support class can build faster than other classes and can create large metal blockades or even powerful mounted weapons, both of which can stop enemy vehicles. Meanwhile, other classes like assault and medic are limited to building sandbag walls, small turrets and trenches.

Oddly, for a feature that’s so new and shakes up gameplay so much, the beta does an awful job of actually telling players how to access it. It took me a few matches to figure out how to build, and friends I played with had no idea they even could, assuming that the feature was locked out of the beta. The actual building process is simple — walk up to a marked spot and hold a button. So why hide it? Hopefully the full game will fix this issue.

While fortifications are easily the biggest and most obvious change in BFV, there are a host of other, smaller things that will shake up the way people play. One such change is that players no longer regenerate health over time, which drastically alters how players have to think about combat. Also, it makes medics more valuable.

At one point I was defending a location and took a sniper hit from an enemy, losing nearly all my health. Ahead of me I saw enemies coming, and I left the area to find a medical supply crate before going back into the fight. The lack of regen will make people to be a little more thoughtful about every combat encounter. However, I also fear that it might have the knock-on effect of making some players more prone to camping. In the matches I played, I felt like I was running into more players hiding than I have in the past, which made the pace of some matches slow to a crawl. I hesitate to say this is a major problem, however, as the beta only had a small amount of items and upgrades available. The full release might offer ways to counter camping or help players survive.

It’s not just health that’s limited, though — ammo is scarce in BFV, and while on foot and in vehicles, players will have to worry about how much they have. Fortunately, players can throw ammo to others and squadmates and can find ammo on dead bodies.

Overall, this lack of ammo and health made me more dependent on teammates and on scrounging the battlefield. The longer I stayed alive in BFV, the more desperate and dangerous the situation became. It added a lot of tension to the matches, but for more casual players or those who don’t have friends to squad up with, it might be frustrating. Also, one major issue I have with BFV is the decision to limit squads to four players. This feels like a downgrade after BF1 supported five-player squads.

Now, looking at the new mode, Grand Operations. This mode seemed like it was the feature that EA and DICE were most excited about. So what is it? It basically builds on the popular Operations mode from BF1. The basic concept is that Grand Operations will span across multiple rounds and matches, changing up the rules, time of day and other aspects between rounds. In the beta players get a small taste of these epic battles. The first part of the Grand Operation had players parachuting in while the other team tried to defend their AA guns from the aerial invasion. If the attacking team wins, then second part of the operation begins. In the next phase, the attacking players have to capture sectors from the defending players. It sounds like the full game will offer Grand Operations that are larger and will take even more time to complete, but even this small taste had me excited to play more when BFV comes out in November.

After being in the beta for a few days, I’m happy to report that Battlefield V is shaping up to be a worthy successor to the franchise, and the tweaks and additions on display are already changing the way I play. Some of these changes might end up slowing matches down or frustrating solo players, but it’s hard to say based on this beta. However, if everything comes together and Grand Operations are just that, BFV could end up being a wonderful evolution.

The post Battlefield V Preview appeared first on Gamecritics.com.

HIGH The game looks amazing.

LOW The entire progression system.

WTF Who thought Star Cards were a good idea?

Star Wars Battlefront II is exactly what happens when squeezing every last dollar from a customer is prioritized above making a solid game. What should have been a slam dunk following Battlefront‘s entertaining (but shallow) 2015 entry has turned into a gameplay and PR nightmare. The progression system on offer here is horrendous, grindy and random, and not even the inclusion of a disjointed single-player campaign is enough to justify paying full price for this.

What Battlefront II gets right, it nails perfectly. Its backdrops are gorgeous, the iconic sounds of blaster fire and TIE screeching overhead are impeccable, and the gunplay finally feels like it has some weight to it. Most importantly of all, it feels like Star Wars. Seeing the top of an AT-ST crest over the hovels of Mos Eisley or strafing helpless rebels from above over Hoth all invoke feelings of nostalgia and wonder from the movies. The problem is that great aesthetics aren’t enough to make a great game.

Multiplayer is where the meat of the package is, and this time there are five different modes.

The two decent offerings are the 24-player Starfighter Assault, and the 40-player Galactic Assault — the closest there is to Walker Assault found in 2015’s Battlefront. This mode offers massive battlegrounds with 20 people per side on the ground, and sometimes in the air. One team has a progressing series of objectives such as planting bombs, capturing points, or escorting a lumbering vehicle while the other side defends against them.

Sadly, despite being the best way to spend time in the game, there’s little tactical nuance to it — victory is often decided by whichever group of troopers has better aim. Doing well earns the player battlepoints that can be used to purchase special classes, vehicles, or even heroes that can quickly turn the tide. However, this system can quickly spiral out of control.

While there’s a limit to how many special classes can be on the map at once, there’s no limit to how many times the same player can pick a better class if they have enough points. For example, if I get enough points and upgrade into a low-level vehicle like a landspeeder, its extra power lets me rack up even more points at a faster rate, and then suddenly I have enough to be a top-shelf combatant like Darth Vader. Cutting down swaths of rebels with his iconic red saber will then rack up even more points. With enough pooled, I could instantly hop back into Vader again the moment I was defeated, keeping anyone else from getting him and continuing the beatdown.

A cooldown on heroes and special classes would go a long way here, but with the current system it’s just the same dominant players in the same top-tier heroes, and if they have powered up Star Cards, there’s almost no stopping them with anything short of massed, coordinated firepower.

So, about those Star Cards. These are the rewards in Battlefront II‘s excuse for a progression system, and they destroy any sense of balance in the game. Simply playing gives a trickle of credits that can be used to buy loot crates that contain a random assortment of cards or crafting parts to make these cards better, along with more mundane rewards such as emotes. These randomly-gained perks can dramatically improve damage output, resistances, cooldowns, weapon handling, accuracy, or swap out abilities for each class.

I need to stress that what comes in these crates is completely random, meaning that it’s entirely possible to open dozens of crates and get Star Cards for classes and heroes that a player will never touch. In fact, after 25 hours of playing I only unlocked one Star Card for my preferred class, and it was a skill that wasn’t even beneficial to my playstyle! By tying progression to lootboxes, the obvious push is to get players to spend real-world cash on a virtual slot machine in hopes of getting what’s desired — and make no mistake, fully-leveled Star Cards are required to hit the top of the leaderboards.

At the time this review was written, in-game purchases had been temporarily turned off due to a massive public backlash against EA. However, the system is still in place, meaning that getting the perks I want for my preferred classes is an infuriating grind of getting enough credits for one more randomized lootbox in hopes of coming out a winner.

Even my favorite mode, Starfighter Assault, is plagued by this pay-to-win system. Dogfights between X-wings and TIE fighters are tense affairs, especially in some of the more complex maps like the ruins of the second Death Star. However, skill doesn’t matter so much if my opponent has Star Cards that gives them stronger lasers, reduced cooldowns, and more health.

Consequently, there was more than one instance where my standard TIE fighter would open fire on a Millennium Falcon powered by fully-leveled Star Cards and I’d barely even scratch the paint. Worse, what little damage I’d manage to do didn’t even matter because the ship had Star Cards that reduced the cooldown on its healing ability. With this cash-fueled imbalance in play, the enemy pilot was able to ignore me while they flew in a straight line while firing at the objective, and there was literally nothing that could be done about it.

Any prospective players reading this review and thinking that they don’t care about multiplayer and just want to jump into the campaign shouldn’t bother. Clocking in at just under five hours, the plot is disjointed, confusing, and rushed. Especially frustrating is that main character Iden Versio is great, but half of the story is spent in the roles of other heroes that dilute her impact. Additionally, the marketing push of “Fight for the Empire” is blatantly misleading. Versio flips her loyalties in the first third of the campaign, throwing the promise of seeing a Star Wars conflict from the other side right out the window. Battlefront II really missed a chance to explore with the concept of loyalty in the face of evil, and could have created a story with many layers of grey. Instead, what we get is a routine franchise plot that feels like it was designed by committee.

The worst thing about Star Wars Battlefront II is that it could have been great. Without the terrible leveling system designed to milk money from players, the multiplayer would be a blast. If the story was expanded and focused on Versio, it could have been worth discussing. Instead, the final product is so cynical and wrongheaded that it’s added fuel to a larger discussion about lootboxes and gambling that’s starting to grab the attention of lawmakers outside the industry. Rating: 4.5 out of 10

Disclosures: The author of this review has worked with Battlefront II’s campaign story co-writer Mitch Dyer in 2015. This game is developed by EA DICE and published by Electronic Arts. It is currently available on PC, PS4, and XBO. This copy of the game was obtained via publisher and reviewed on the PS4. Approximately 4 hours of play were devoted to the single-player mode, and the game was completed. 20 hours of play were spent in multiplayer modes.

Parents: According to the ESRB, this game is rated T and contains Mild Language, a Snarky Duros, and Violence. There is nothing that would be seen outside of any other Star Wars movie here. There could be concern about the idea of playing on the Imperial side for a few missions, but it’s morally clear who the bad guys are here.

Deaf & Hard of Hearing Gamers: The game offers subtitles and there were no elements in the game that require sound to complete.

Remappable Controls: On the PS4, the game offers a small selection of preset configurations, but they are not customizable beyond that.

Colorblind Modes: There are three colorblind modes for Deuteranopia, Protanopia, and Tritanopia.

The post Star Wars Battlefront II Review appeared first on Gamecritics.com.

HIGH Operations Mode is incredible.

LOW Some balancing issues with assault class.

WTF Loot boxes.

As an American, World War I is a bit strange to me. Our pop culture and education seem more obsessed about WWII than the first Great War, and I actually feel a bit embarrassed with how little I know about it. I can name WW2 battles, list the countries who fought, where they fought, how the war ended and so on, but not so with its predecessor.

This lack of knowledge is why I was both excited and nervous about Battlefield 1. I was excited to play a game based on a period of history that I rarely get to see in videogames, but nervous as hell to write about it because I know this war means a lot to people around the world in ways I’ll never fully understand.

To its credit, Battlefield 1’s depiction of World War 1 and how it discusses the subject are more somber and respectful than I expected. The Battlefield series has long been chasing Call of Duty’s campaigns, and that often led to bland writing and attempts at epic-slash-global stories. Hell, most people’s favorite in the series, Bad Company 2, is a series of jokes set during a war. No so with BF1. Instead, the script often mentions the futility of war and how awful it is… Even how many people died.

Breaking away from the Call of Duty mold in other ways, Battlefield 1 does something different with its campaign by giving the player a series of vignettes that can be chosen in any order. None of these short stories will take more than two hours to finish, but this brevity means that Battlefield 1 cuts out the long slogs of boring combat that some modern shooter campaigns feel stuffed with. Every ten minutes I was moving on and doing something new, and it’s excellent. One moment I was in a tank, the next I was sneaking into a town, and then the next I was a carrier pigeon. The pacing is fantastic, and I never felt bored or caught myself looking at my phone.

It’s not just the pacing and the diverse activities in the campaign that kept me hooked, but also the narrative of each short sequence. The stories are simple, personal, and never feel ‘epic’. They focus on a small group of people, usually no more than three or four, trying to accomplish something. There’s a green recruit just trying to stay alive, an old vet reaching the end of his journey, a man looking for his brother, a woman fighting for her freedom, and a con artist becoming something more than what he started off as. They aren’t terribly new ideas — I predicted the ending for most well before I reached the conclusions — but I’ll take an old idea done well over a confusing idea done poorly.

The most disappointing part of the campaign was the Harlem Hellfighter sequence that starts things off. The Hellfighters were a black infantry regiment from New York, and I was interested in seeing more about them. Unfortunately, as quickly as the game introduces them, it leaves them dead in the mud. Literally. Having the Hellfighters featured is nice, but doing nothing with them is a poor decision and a missed opportunity.

While the campaign is (mostly) a well-made singleplayer experience, it also doubles as a way to learn the game’s various mechanics and get prepared for the multiplayer. However, as good as it is, I wish there was a better tutorial specifically for the multiplayer. I had a basic knowledge of Battlefield 1’s online mode from past experience, but it does a really poor job of explaining anything to those who might be brand-spanking new.

Once the player does understand what’s going on, they should get ready for a chaotic and intense experience. Battlefield’s multiplayer has always felt like this, but BF1 ramps it up. Explosions are bigger and louder, guns are brutal and messy, grenades are scary, tanks are large and feel indestructible, giant airships made me hide, huge battleships bombard players with explosions, horses trampled over me, players charged at me and ran me through with their bayonet and gas grenades forced me into a claustrophobic mask.

…And there’s more. A lot more. But, the point is that multiplayer in BF1 is exciting and terrifying in a ways no other BF has been.

One of my favorite new additions is the ability to charge with a bayonet. There are few things that feel as good in gaming as when I’d run my blade into an unsuspecting enemy. It’s incredibly brutal, and those who are normally subdued may find themselves shouting and swearing in the thick of it.

The classic Battlefield modes are still on offer in BF1, but another new add is Operations. In this mode, one side attacks and the other defends. The attackers have a limited number of spawns but the defenders have no such limit. The map is split into a series of sectors, and each one has a few points to be captured. Operations combines all of the parts of Battlefield I enjoy into one singular mode, and I found it hard to go back to any other game type once I got hooked on this one. It really is one of the best parts of BF1, and a mode that I hope future Battlefield games include.

While Battlefield 1’s multiplayer is one of the best in the franchise’s history, there are some parts of it that stand out as frustrating. One of my biggest gripes is that the assault class is garbage. Its weapons are out-ranged by other classes, it has no way to help teammates, it can’t give ammo, or health, or fix tanks… It just shoots, and doesn’t even do that all too well.

Another issue is that unlocking weapons is a dice roll. Battlefield 1 gives a bit of info about each weapon, but there’s no way to test them or watch a video of a weapon being used. Some way to test out weapons before spending in-game cash to unlock them would be a smart addition.

It was also strange to see a loot system. At the end of each match, a few players are randomly given a box that could contain a weapon skin. That’s it. Most of the skins are barely noticeable and many were ugly. It seems like a dashed-off, inconsequential addition and EA seems to agree with me, as there’s no way to buy loot boxes in-game.

Most of my complaints about Battlefield 1 are small. With a few tweaks and an update or two, Battlefield 1 could be the best in the series, and it feels like the refresh this series has needed for a while. Setting Battlefield in WW1 paid off and I’m excited to see what the series does next. But for now, I can’t wait to jump back in and pull off another successful bayonet charge. Rating: 8 out of 10

Disclosures: This game is developed by EA DICE and published by EA. It is currently available on PS4, Xbox One and Windows PC. This copy of the game was obtained via Publisher and reviewed on the PS4. Approximately 7 hours of play were devoted to the single-player mode, and the game was completed. 16.5 hours of play were spent in multiplayer modes.

Parents: According to the ESRB, this game is rated M for Mature and contains Blood, Strong Language and Violence. This is a violent game. People are stabbed and shot constantly. Swearing is done throughout the game. Dead bodies are numerous.

Deaf & Hard of Hearing Gamers: BF1 could be difficult to play without the ability to hear some things, like footsteps coming from behind or sniper shots getting close. Some onscreen information alerts players to some things, but not all dangers are highlighted on screen.

Remappable Controls: No. There are no remappable controls, but players can choose from a series of different controller schemes and can fine-tune multiple levels of zooming and movement.

Colorblind Modes: Yes, there are colorblind modes available in the options. I’m not colorblind so I can’t say for sure, but the amount of options are large. Different colors can be set for different hud elements, and there are presets available for those who don’t want to tweak everything.

The post Battlefield 1 Review appeared first on Gamecritics.com.

HIGH A graphical stunner full of eye candy and fan service.

LOW The lack of depth and small selection of environments.

WTF Apparently, the job requirements for Han Solo's voice actor were "Male. Preferably conscious."

Fans have waited a long time for this one, and I'm happy to report that for the most part, they're rewarded with a game worthy of the wait. Star Wars: Battlefront is a winner and it's money well-spent for even casual Star Wars fans. But before running out and dropping the cash, experienced shooter fans should read the rest of the review–most of my complaints about the game will be relevant to them.

But we'll get to that–let's start with the positives.

Graphically, Star Wars: Battlefront is stunning to look at. Locations are exactly as fans like myself imagined them from the movies, with levels of polish and detail that make even the most visually charged titles seem pedestrian. The thick forests of Endor are captured with loving accuracy, full of lush greenery, hollowed logs, and convenient tree perches. The dusty, wind-blown browns of Tatooine and desolate ice spans of Hoth are brought to life in striking detail as well, with just enough shifts in scenery and terrain to make these maps effective playgrounds.

Just as impressive are the player models and outfit options, which are also true to the source material. When players get up close and personal with a Stormtrooper, they can expect to see reflections in the Imperial visors … at least until that Stormtrooper becomes aware of their presence and fires off those iconic "pew pew" laser blasts into their gray matter.

This authenticity continues when players get the chance to shed their anonymity and become named characters, either through Hero cards or during the Heroes vs. Villains mode. In these occasions, gamers finally get the chance to show off Jedi acrobatics or Fett-styled "death from above" blasts. It's enjoyable fan-service moments like these that offer a unique value that can't be matched by any other shooter out there.

On the other hand, I'm guessing that EA's budget was blown on visuals, because the rest doesn't stack up.

The voice acting in Star Wars: Battlefront is grating at best and painful at worst. Few voices hit the mark, and a handful are so bad, they removed me from the moment entirely. I actually checked the credits to see if the actor who voiced Han Solo was "Morty the Sausage Guy from Wrigley Field." It wasn't, but the beer-stained memories remain.

Mechanically, Battlefront is a smooth, tight multiplayer shooter that manages to be accessible to online newcomers while also offering some interesting play modes–and they need to be interesting, because unlike previous incarnations of the SW:BF series, there is no campaign mode and very little to do for solo gamers.

Basically, lone wolfers can tackle short missions against AI-controlled enemies, with the mode mostly serving as a tutorial for the shooting mechanics and obtaining power-ups. The other single-player offerings, like a generic Horde-type challenge or a bot-driven deathmatch, aren't exciting enough to hold a person's attention unless their Internet connections are down.

While solo players don't get much, online is where this game lives. When Battlefront is at its best, such as in the 40-player, land and air Supremacy mode, it's sheer joy to any fan of the IP. The mode centers on controlling a series of points on the map. It's focused enough to keep teams on task, while open-ended enough to allow newer players to contribute along the way.

Likewise, the Droid Run (escort) and Blast (team deathmatch) modes work well, especially with smaller, more unified teams that allow players to bask in the surroundings while still staying competitive.

Unfortunately, Battlefront tends to get a bit too chaotic for its own good during more elaborate modes, like Walker Assault–a mode seemingly designed for Twitch uploads. Though I've heard countless reports of this being Battlefront's source of memorable moments, I found my three-plus hours in it to be a discordant mess full of air-to-ground deaths, odd glitches, and some of the most camper-friendly respawn sites in recent memory.

By the time a team successfully downs an AT-AT (something that hasn't been done smoothly since the Atari 2600) players will likely miss the setpiece payoff due to respawning or trying to avoid being sniped from above. Is the chaos true to the Star Wars universe? Absolutely. But as massive as it is, I doubt many will play through after the initial "wow" factor fades.

Despite the chaotic missions and sparse single-player content, the biggest complaint I have is, unfortunately, a big one. Star Wars: Battlefront is simply too shallow in its current incarnation. Sure, the game is primed for a ton of DLC additions (several free add-ons have been announced in addition to a paid season pass) but is it too much to ask that a game be more complete at launch?

With just a handful of locales and a few extra maps within each type of environment, Battlefront isn't going to make anyone forget the other big-name shooters out there. The areas are beautiful and provide entertainment for a few hours, but if this game is going to have any real legs, the upcoming additions had better deliver some substantial variety and depth. Similarly, the weapon upgrades and loadouts are extremely limited, and the ‘Card' system was done much better in Titanfall, another EA game that seems like it came out a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.

In my view, it seems that EA set out to bring Star Wars to as wide an audience as possible, trying to satisfy both shooter newcomers and twitch-pro frag artists, and everyone in between. The problem is that while Battlefront delivers a rich Star Wars experience, the play is far too limited for shooter veterans, and too intimidating for multiplayer Padawans.

Of course, for the huge fan base that falls between those two extremes, Star Wars: Battlefront is going to be a massive hit, and with good reason. The game is gorgeous, authentic, highly detailed, and rife with potential to grow into something much bigger. And, with The Force Awakens coming to theaters any minute now, there's no better time for gamers to reacquaint themselves with the ways of the Force this holiday season. Rating: 8 out of 10

Disclosures: This game was obtained via purchase and reviewed on the Xbox One.

Approximately 5 hours of play were devoted to the single-player mode, and the game was not completed. 20 hours of play were spent in multiplayer modes.

Parents: According to the ESRB, this game is rated T. While the game is centered on shooting and violent action, the fantasy nature of the characters, and the complete lack of blood and gore keeps this on the right side of parental concerns. Compared to what's out there, Battlefront is less aggressive than a chapped lip.

Deaf & Hard of Hearing: The game's music, effects and environmental sounds add A LOT to the overall experience. However, there are subtitles, and the game is fully playable for those who are deaf or hard of hearing.

The post Star Wars: Battlefront Review appeared first on Gamecritics.com.

HIGH Watching a massive tower collapse in multiplayer.

LOW The uninspired, bland single-player campaign.

WTF Seriously, why do I have to launch this game from my browser?

As a franchise, Battlefield has always been a multiplayer-centric first-person shooter. This changed slightly when the Battlefield: Bad Company spin-offs were released, both of which contained entertaining and humorous story modes that actually felt like some effort was put into their writing. Battlefield 3 was a huge step back in this regard, and Battlefield 4 is no better.

The solo campaign is a formulaic military “epic” in which America fights (of course) China and (of course) Russia. Why they’re at war, I have no idea. There's some sort of rebellion in China against the current regime, and Russia somehow plays a role, but I started losing interest after the second mission. Honestly, the narrative is littered with so much yelling, so much jargon, and so many forced, melodramatic “emotional” scenes, that it's pointless to even attempt to follow along.

Each mission is standard cinematic fare found in games of this ilk. There are stages on ships, on-rails segments, urban warfare, timely escapes from submerged vehicles, a forced-stealth level, and shootouts on snow-covered mountains. Basically, anything the developers could think of to show off their shiny new physics engine is present.

These areas are generally fine in design, and many have plenty of places that can be explored or used to engage the enemy from a different angle. There's nothing absolutely awe-inspiring here, but they suit their purpose. The problem? The other squad members.

I entered a jet hangar with my team fully expecting it to be filled with Chinese soldiers (and it was) so I began “spotting” all that I could find with my camera, then gave the order for my squad to attack. They did, but it was a shameful performance.

None of them attempted to flank or find better vantage points, and they stopped firing when the “engage” meter stopped flashing. Of course, I couldn't tell them to start shooting again until the gauge refilled, so the combat became more hectic since every bad guy turned their sights on me in the interim.

Mechanical scenarios like this happen often, and they become even more frustrating when running to find more ammo or a safe place to recover since the squad immediately quits fighting and tags along. To be fair, there are instances when the friendly AI decides to be helpful and attacks without being given direct orders, but they're awful shots and I found it was easier to ignore them half the time.

The silver lining here is that the Frostbite 3 engine makes all of this, including the multiplayer, absolutely stunning to behold. I was spellbound by how water flowing from a drain pipe looked, or rain running down the characters faces. My jaw dropped when I a witnessed a skyscraper collapse. There's a fantastic amount of detail here, though it’s best experienced on a high-powered gaming PC.

As with the majority of the Battlefield entries, Battlefield 4 is truly intended to be played online with friends. DICE's brand of squad-based multiplayer is strategic, balanced, thrilling, and allows for more customization and creativity than most other games in the genre.

While all of this is still present, there are some problems. The biggest? Not much has changed from Battlefield 3. The classes (Assault, Engineer, Recon and Support) have been tweaked, but the only major additions are the new Obliteration mode, which has teams scrambling for a randomly placed bomb to blow up objectives, and the heavily advertised “Levelution” gameplay.

What Levelution means is that instead of the maps remaining static, most of them go through changes as a match progresses, or when players trigger an event like blowing up a dam, or toppling the aforementioned skyscraper. They do look nice, but they don't have much of an impact on how a session plays out.

Disappointingly, old issues remain. The large maps are an absolute bore to traverse when running between objectives, and most of the weapons and gadgets are locked in the beginning. It’s rewarding to gain experience points in order to unlock a snazzy gun, but there needs to be a wider selection available from the outset in order to keep it from feeling like too much of a chore.

Even so, riding around in tanks and jets while destroying the opposition is a predictably good time… When the game is working.

Patches are on the way, but servers are prone to crashes and are plagued with bugs. Most are minor, like missing textures, but a few ruin the action and should have been fixed before launch–one such killed me instantly by tossing me out of bounds right after I exited a helicopter. Worse, I had trouble a couple of times when queuing up to join a server and had to reload the game, and in another instance the experience I gained during a match wasn't saved.

Even if multiplayer wasn't buggy, Battlefield 4 would still only be a barely passable installment in all respects besides the snazzy graphics. EA and DICE played it safe by providing the same thing they did the last time around, with another phoned-in campaign and only minor alterations to the online. Methinks it's time for a change. Rating: 6 out of 10

Disclosures: This game was obtained via publisher and reviewed on the PC. Approximately 6 hours of play were devoted to the single-player mode, and the game was completed. 7 hours of play were spent in multiplayer modes.

Parents: According to the ESRB, this game contains blood and gore, intense violence, strong language. This is a violent, moderately bloody experience that is definitely not designed for kids, especially considering the crude language and trash talk used by many of the players in the multiplayer portion of the game.

Deaf & Hard of Hearing: I attempted to play it with the sound off, but it was incredibly difficult. There are visual cues that show where shots are coming from when hit, but not being able to hear the shots can cause some problems, especially during multiplayer. Granted, enemies are displayed in red on the mini-map, but only if they've been “marked” by allies or are firing their guns. It's doable to play the game without being able to hear it, but it makes it so much more challenging that it may not be worth it.

The post Battlefield 4 Review appeared first on Gamecritics.com.

HIGH Kamikaze jet kills versus infantry never get old.

LOW Someone stole a nuclear device! Again!

WTF Where is everybody?

How do you topple the giant at school who stole your style? "How indeed?" asks Battlefield 3 looking glumly across the lunchroom at that other, more popular gaming franchise.

At its core, Battlefield 3 is a multiplayer military shooter that, in this day and age, stands as "the other Call of Duty," like it or not. Battlefield may have the age and pedigree as a multiplayer game, but I think it's safe to say that Call of Duty is what most modern gamers think of when they want to fire up this sort of thing.

Surely, this put EA in a funny position when it came to making their new game stand out, and from the look of the single-player campaign, they surely pushed developer DICE to do Call of Duty one better in every aspect. In fact, the single-player campaign is so Call of Duty in its cinematic ambitions, I'm sure Activision was simply blushing when they got their hands on it. Let's not forget, too, how the billboards that preceded the game's launch flew up all over my Los Angeles screaming, "Above and Beyond the Call." Not content to be seen as "the other" military shooter, they went all out in making sure that it was better.

That said, comparing the two games is probably the best way to review them, as–let's be honest–there's not a whole lot that is truly innovative here, or in these types of games in general. I hope that statement doesn't surprise you. Say what you will about the genre's ever-evolving system of on-the-fly evolutions (or perks), the military FPS is not only long in the tooth, it's also built to provide the same experience from year to year–it's Madden for shooters. There's nothing wrong with that at the core, but it certainly makes it hard to try and look any deeper into the game than its newest engine technology.

As Richard said, and as most probably already know, Battlefield is all about its multiplayer. Like Call of Duty, Battlefield has been brought up-to-date with its own share of myriad perks and expansions that improve player abilities as they earn experience points in battle. Of course, what sets it apart from Call of Duty is the addition of vehicles to the combat. Does this spice things up in the game? Absolutely. With huge playing fields, destructible buildings for a tank to tear into, and plenty of air space in which to cruise around in a jet, the vehicles' additions give the game a lot more variety than your typical Call of Duty session. In fact, I'm willing to bet that Battlefield's variety and more nuanced gameplay made possible by said vehicles will amuse more fans over the long haul than Modern Warfare 3's insta-high, feed-bar-hitting multi experience.

Unfortunately, the "real" Battlefield experience is most likely lost to those who would play it on a console, as I did. 64 players in one battle (as you find on the PC) would be pretty astounding if you could get a great squad together of truly dedicated fans. The 24 player limit on consoles is fine for the smaller maps (though none are tiny) but on the larger maps, the lack of players can lead to feelings of searching for squirrely nomads in a ghost town. This is, in my opinion, the game's most notable shortcoming–well, aside from the lackluster single-player campaign.

Richard was right-on when he said that the single player leaves a fair amount to be desired. It's the standard military run-n'-gun with checkpoints, squad-mates, and yes, a shocking twist.

DICE's Frostbite 2 engine is commendably capable of realistic character models and realistic destructible environments, yet they aren't able to make the game transcend the "realistic shooter" norms. As I said before, there are plenty of intensely cinematic roller-coaster moments and QTEs aplenty-even some well-acted cinemas with serious emoting. What it all adds up to, though, is just a sum total of the limitations of what can be offered by realistic military shooters. Double crosses and nuclear devices shouldn't be boring, yet it's just such well-worn territory by now.

Herein lies the big, big problem with these sorts of games: they're no more "realistic" than anything else out there. They're great at replicating some shooting with actual real-life firearms, but hewing so close to these tropes leaves unfortunate devs nowhere to go.

Let's not forget, too, that as exciting as we want these situations to be, the real life events that inspire these recreations are never something that actual soldiers would like to go back to. Perhaps it's reaching to take some moral high ground when it comes to war simulators, but I tend to think it's a little more respectful to create games that allow for a healthy patina of the unreal. With that in mind, I think more adventurous and risky games would result. At the very least, the powers that be should limit us to one realistic military shooter every five years, so that new technologies can give us true upgrades to this sort of experience.

Of course, I probably would have enjoyed this game much more if I wasn't so god-awful at online shooters. Wait, should that have come as a disclaimer at the beginning of this review? The author smiles slyly… Rating: 6.0 out of 10.

Disclosures: This game was obtained via publisher and reviewed on the Xbox 360. Approximately 8 hours of play were devoted to single-player modes (completed 1 time on Hard Mode) and 6 hours of play in multiplayer modes.

The post Battlefield 3 Second Opinion appeared first on Gamecritics.com.

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.

LOW I have to launch the game through a web page? Is this 1998?

WTF OH MY GOD GUYS COME LOOK I'M FLYING THE HELICOPTER I'M SO COOL *crash*

A game being split between a dedicated single-player and multiplayer experience is not new. In fact, it's becoming the standard if the previews of Mass Effect 3 are any indication. The problem with this approach is that usually one side of the experience suffers at the expense of the other. 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 campaign in Halo 3 was woefully short and unsubstantial, but the multiplayer was top notch.

Battlefield 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. One half is a linear, droning single-player campaign that fails to stand out in any real way. 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). Is it fair to evaluate both halves together as one game?

I think so. If a game is going to be packaged as one product, then it must be evaluated as one product.

The single-player game is, as I said, a linear slog. Just like countless others in its genre (Homefront, Call of Duty: Black Ops, etc.) the campaign is a simple point to point journey interspersed with shooting and explosions. There is little to say about it, other than when playing I was constantly questioning why it existed. Run to the objective marker, shoot the thing/things in my way, run to the next objective marker. Repeat step three until finished.

Honestly, Battlefield would be better served by a freely accessible set of tutorial missions instead of having this sort of single player mode. Being able to practice things like basic tactics, learning the differences between the classes, and above all else, grasping how to fly the helicopter would have been extremely welcome. Instead, I was forced to find a newb practice server and just stand around waiting until the helicopters and jets respawned.

In contrast, the multiplayer is exactly what one would expect, which is a good thing. Taking part in a 64-player game of Rush was a great time, even without any kind of tutorial I found myself picking up the nuances of the game within a reasonable period. I stuck primarily with the Engineer class (which should not be a surprise given my Team Fortress 2 habits) and sticking to my role of healing the tanks and blasting rockets every which way. It's clear that Battlefield 3's multiplayer was the focus during development, and in this regard I enjoyed myself without question, even with the twitchy helicopter.

The PC is obviously the ideal platform for Battlefield 3, as dedicated servers and support for such a large amount of players would be impossible on a console platform. However, while I had some great sessions once I got into a game, the process of finding a game is far more troublesome than it should be.

In order to do anything online, players must use the Battlelog, a web-based interface for joining games and maintaining a friends list. The Battlelog is a pain to use, as simple things like adding someone to my friends list, setting up voice chat, or even just browsing for a server are hidden within a mess of unnecessary pages. It's mind-boggling to me why they chose to do something like this instead of having a simpler in-game system to handle it, because in the age of sleek infrastructure systems like Steam and Battle.net, this kind of mess is totally inexcusable.

I enjoyed my time with Battlefield 3's multiplayer, and I wish my thoughts about the game could end there. Unfortunately it also tried to force a totally unnecessary single-player game on me, and the browser interface looks like it came straight out of the 90s. It's a shame that the developers couldn't realize which half of their game was the better one, since ditching the single-player in favor of ironing out the problems with multiplayer might have resulted in something truly epic. Rating: 7.0 out of 10.

Disclosures: This game was obtained via publisher and reviewed on the PC. Approximately 2 hours of play was devoted to single-player modes (not completed) and 5 hours of play in multiplayer modes.

Parents: According to the ESRB, this game contains blood, intense violence and strong language. The level of violence and cursing is about on par with what once could expect in an average war movie, so kids should probably be kept away.

Deaf & Hard of Hearing: You should be fine, mostly. The screen is rife with visual aids and audio isn't a major gameplay factor. However, if you try to play multiplayer in hardcore mode (where visual aids are at a minimum) you will likely have some problems since you'll be far more reliant on sound in that situation.

The post Battlefield 3 Review appeared first on Gamecritics.com.