Battlefield 3 review

Back to Article


  • WarWasp - October 30, 2011 3:23 p.m.

    Let me start by saying that I love your reviews David.But I find it a bit annoying that you ragged on the campaign so much.Let's face it,it's a Battlefield game.The campaign is not its strong suit.If your experience with the campaign was so terrible,you don't need to write a four-page review and dedicate three pages to your bad experience;make the review shorter,if you must,and focus on how incredible the multiplayer is.Remember that you are one man - your experiences may be isolated and exclusive to your playthrough.If I had never played a BF game before,and I read this review,I would NOT be inclined to buy it,because even though you gave it an 8/10,the overwhelming majority of your review was nothing but negative.My point is,if you think a game is good (which your score indicates) do it justice in your review and be positive.
  • MsSmith - October 30, 2011 7:40 p.m.

    But lets face it, who really reads the review and not the arbitrary number? (playing devil's advocate)
  • JangoFettN7 - October 29, 2011 10:46 p.m.

    a fair review, as always from GR.
  • Project93FTW - October 29, 2011 7:54 p.m.

    Decided to skip this game and go for Mw3. After reading reviews about the BF3's campaign. I'm a campaign first kind of guy, but multiplayer sounds great though. Have Fun kids!! Lol
  • Pwnz0r3d - October 29, 2011 5:06 p.m.

    To be honest, anyone who is basing their opinion of this game on the singleplayer is seriously missing the point. The campaigns for the BF's since Bad Company have all been terrible; the main selling point of the series is its multiplayer. Based on the MP alone, yes, this game is a 9/10. The focus never was having a good singleplayer; they put it in there because "that's what call of duty does," and people will bash them if this was a MP only title for $60. I agree with this review totally. 8 seems like a reasonable score when you talk about the campaign along with the superb (albeit somewhat broken) MP.
  • UberNoob - October 30, 2011 12:37 a.m.

    Battlefield has always been MP focused. Thing is, not everyone is after MP. I tend to play the campaign first. I don't even touch MP until I've beaten the campaign. It is a bummer the campaign isn't as good as MP. Not an overall balanced game. It's still worth buying I guess.
  • tacoman38 - October 29, 2011 3:47 p.m.

    well, if it's as good as Halo Reach, I guess I could play it.
  • monk_on_the_run - October 29, 2011 9:22 a.m.

    Just started playing the single player campaign,at first I thought it was ok, AI was annoying, my team mates seemed to end up pushing me out of a certain hiding spot because they had been scripted to go there, but the main thing I'm really disappointed about is the flying mission...I WANT TO FLY!!! Plus the following objectives were dull and I couldn't wait to just finish the mission. On the other hand, so far I've loved the online aspect and actually ended up on a winning streak. If all else fails...we still have Michael Bays upcoming new film called Modern Warfare 3 to watch
  • Balaska - October 29, 2011 9:21 a.m.

    The campaign is ok, the multilayer (on both PC and Xbox) is epic. Anyone buying a BF game for the campaign is really missing the point.
  • CitizenWolfie - October 29, 2011 1:38 a.m.

    I actually quite like the campaign. Sure I've fell victim to the AI pushing me out of cover and dealing with psychic enemies but with missions like "Thunder Run" and the fighter jet one I think it does a pretty good job of making you feel part of a wider team than just being a one man army. Which sort of sums up the BF3/COD comparisons I suppose. Being a total noob to Battlefield multiplayer I have to say I prefer Call of Duty (so far). I really am trying to make a difference for my team but it seems the only way I can do that is to hang back in Recon and spot people. Setting up camp with a sniper rifle just feels a bit dirty. The best way I can sum it up really is this - BF3 (for me) feels like going paintballing: It's fun and a bit chaotic but ultimately you will keep getting your ass kicked by people who take it too seriously and/or have been playing for years.
  • GR_DavidHoughton - October 31, 2011 2:24 a.m.

    If you're looking for an easy way to get into BF3, go Assault and concentrate on providing medical assistance for your squad. You'll learn the rope of working with a small team really quickly, and you'll level up FAST. Once you get the defib, you'll never look back. ] Also, do not feel dirty for camping. In other FPS it might be cheap, but in Battlefield (as in real life) sniping is a perfectly legitimate tactical, and important part of supporting your team's overall victory bid.
  • CitizenWolfie - October 31, 2011 12:02 p.m.

    Thanks for the advice David. I also found hanging back a little and providing LMG suppressive fire seemed to help as well. Just takes a little getting used to coming out of the CoD mindset I suppose.
  • Beoftw - October 29, 2011 12:17 a.m.

    FYI, BF3 was made for PC first, and consoles second. The only reason consoles have a version of this game is to rake in cash. Review this game on a PC like it should be played on, and stop making up excuses to down score it just because a condensed port of it has a bug.
  • Tazerbri - October 29, 2011 3:08 p.m.

    Because everyone is going to play this game on PC. No one wants to know the console issues. You're right. Knowing console problems is stupid. PC elites go away.
  • Beoftw - October 30, 2011 12:21 a.m.

    really because like i said, bf3 is just a port of the PC version. Bugs in its less superior version are just a hassle to the company. The ONLY reason there is a console version is to make money, theres a reason the features on PC out perform them in every way.
  • GalaxyNewsRadio - October 30, 2011 3:09 p.m.

    K, but the point of any video game is to make money. Just because it's console bugs doesn't mean it should be ignored.
  • Beoftw - October 30, 2011 9:47 p.m.

    Not ignored, but not judged on when there is obviously a better version with less bugs....
  • Person5 - October 31, 2011 9:06 a.m.

    also remember not everybody wants to play this game on Origin (I don't) and correct me if I'm wrong but I heard that consoles get the server browser and PC gets the normal matchmaking consoles usually have, also I agree, PC elitists, go away, no one wants you around anymore
  • Beoftw - October 31, 2011 10:20 p.m.

    Origin does suck, exactly why I have that program sandboxied like a criminal in solitary confinement. And whoever told you the PC version doesn't have server browsing lied to you. We have an entirely different window that opens in in browser where you can filter and select what server you want to log into before every game. Call us elitists all you want. We have better specs than you, more features than you, and our builds do an infinite number of more things that your half assed consoles do. Get real.
  • Security77 - October 29, 2011 6:18 p.m.

    If it was reviewed on the PC it probably would have gotten the same score. I constantly hear PC gamers complain about Origin and Battlelog, claiming how broken and tedious they are. The single-player is bad no matter what platform you play it on, the scripting and AI doesn't change based on that.
  • Beoftw - October 30, 2011 12:23 a.m.

    Oh i agree, i HATE origin and i HATE EA. But the multiplayer still out performs consoles in every way. Graphically and size wise, ill deal with origin over getting a dumbed down game.

Showing 21-40 of 140 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000

More Info

Available Platforms: Xbox 360, PS3, PC
Genre: Shooter
Published by: Electronic Arts
Developed by: DICE
Franchise: Battlefield
ESRB Rating:
Rating Pending
PEGI Rating:
Rating Pending