Battlefield 3 review

Back to Article


  • CaptCOMMANDO - October 28, 2011 6:10 p.m.

    I really don't think the campaign should weigh it down by 2 points. A 9 sounds acceptable given all the praise you wrote for its multilayer. I honestly thought, before I reached the end of the article,that it would be a 9.I was shocked.
  • Method Dank - October 29, 2011 12:20 a.m.

    The only multiplayer game i have ever played that deserves any score higher than an 8 is team fortress 2, and it was completely without any form of campaign.
  • Goldeneye007 - October 28, 2011 4:08 p.m.

    It's like Halo: Reach all over again. btw, an 8 is not a bad score
  • CommandantOreo - October 28, 2011 4:05 p.m.

    By the logic of BF fanboys, Call of Duty deserves an 11/10 since lag, listen servers, unbalanced gameplay don't count since I am allowed to overlook some things. Accept the fact that the campaign can drag down scores.
  • c-c-c-combo breaker - October 29, 2011 3:25 a.m.

    I like the Call of Duty series more than Battlefield, some would say that makes me a fanboy. However, I play them primarily for the multiplayer - who the hell wouldn't? By all means play through the campaign first to get a feel for the game, but multiplayer is generally the whole point. Battlefield's campaign was crap, ok. I don't care, the multiplayer is excellent. Call of Duty BLOPS (I love that derogatory abbreviation) has given me nothing but lag, huge wait times between games, sub par graphics for the ps3, and a game that has somehow managed to screw the whole exp system up. Don't get me wrong, I loved the earlier CoDs, but BLOPS multiplayer takes the biscuit, and that's all I'd want to play it for. BF3's multiplayer is sound - I truely hope that MW3 does the same, and delivers a great Mp. Don't let bitterness between fanboys change your opinion on a game...
  • D0CCON - October 28, 2011 4:05 p.m.

    That is very true, but I understand why it's often ignored in reviews since I myself have found this to be the one rare exception that the few times teamwork truly works completely overshadow the many times it doesn't. I still remember setting up a tank and six other players in the perfect spot in a match and even though half of the people involved weren't on the same squad and couldn't communicate, we all knew instinctively what to do and the enemy lost about 60 tickets from our actions alone over a 5 minute period.
  • D0CCON - October 28, 2011 4:05 p.m.

    WTF, this was supposed to show up as a reply to flare149
  • BadLadJon - October 28, 2011 3:40 p.m.

    i see why you gave it an 8 with those Cons, so would it be rated a 9 on PS3 since it doesnt have that problem? :P
  • D0CCON - October 28, 2011 4 p.m.

    I doubt it, the whole 360 slim owners having to deal with poor graphics was a footnote compared to how the game completely ignores you in a way that glitches out and ruins the game.
  • meh - October 28, 2011 2:55 p.m.

    It feels like DICE wants to distance themselves as much as possible from the singleplayer. They even put on separate disks for 360. I'm willing to bet that DICE's B-team work on the singleplayer with some tips from the A-team while they were taking a break from working on the multiplayer.
  • CentipedeOrgy - October 28, 2011 2:18 p.m.

    Honestly I could care less about BF single player and personally I dont understand how the single player score should weigh so heavily against it. who in the hell would buy this just for the single player? if i want a great single player I'll play COD multiplayer BF there should be 2 separate scores and not lump them together and average it out especially since BFBC2 had just a terrible single player and amazing multiplayer but its a multiplayer focused game. i dont know whatever
  • iluvpkmnmonday - October 28, 2011 2:36 p.m.

    Its sold as one game so two scores would be a bit silly. Most games now a days feature single player and multiplayer/online. Would you have them score every game twice?
  • LeSieg - October 28, 2011 2:08 p.m.

    Well while I'm disappointed about the campaign being hardly up to snuff, I'm excited about the multiplayer's depth, maybe it will even fill the objective-ecosystem hole in my heart that I've had ever since Star Wars: Battlefront II became old and clunky.
  • mothbanquet - October 28, 2011 11:23 p.m.

    SW:BF old and clunky?! Heresy I say! ;)
  • closer2192 - October 28, 2011 1:59 p.m.

    So it's not as good as Halo: Reach?
  • kylemulderick - October 28, 2011 1:53 p.m.

    Did anyone honestly expect a good single player campaign out of this? Anyone? Battlefield SP is treating with roughly the same apathetic disdain that a 5 year old shows the wrapping paper on their Christmas gifts.
  • Beoftw - October 28, 2011 1:24 p.m.

    Why are you basing your negative scores on just one system....BF3 was made for PC in mind, not consoles. That would have been a solid 9/10 if you guys played it on its true platform.
  • UberNoob - October 28, 2011 1 p.m.

    An 8 is still great, but it really turned me away from getting it. The campaign basically sucks is what I'm being told. I enjoy a great story, but it seems as though BF3 is more of a multiplayer game.
  • Jacko415 - October 28, 2011 3:45 p.m.

    I thought the singleplayer was epic and the story was good. Shouldnt put you off that much.
  • UberNoob - October 28, 2011 5:26 p.m.

    How's the length? I've been told 5 hours, but I don't believe it. Probably rent it first, then see f I like it.
  • ChickenFillet5140 - October 28, 2011 12:50 p.m.

    I'm sad that the campaign is so disappointing, but at least the multiplayer is up to scratch. I'll pick this up after Batman and Skyrim.

Showing 61-80 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