Battlefield 3 review

Back to Article
Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000
  • larkan - October 28, 2011 8:16 a.m.

    I honestly don't know anyone that actually bought this game for the campaign/co-op aspect, and I really don't think they could pack any more into the multiplayer. I really think this is a game that has potential, but as of the launch it still feels like I've paid for a beta. There's lag on basically every server larger than 24 people, and I know it's not the fault of my rig or my internet connection. Also, hit detection is horrid in some cases...I mean honestly, if I hit someone with 3 shots from a tank MG, they should die....not run away. Despite these and other flaws, I still find it very engrossing when playing in a squad with friends, as this game definitely encourages teamwork and strategy when playing on the bigger maps. I just hope that there are some patches heading our way in the near future to help alleviate some of the problems that the majority of the user base is experiencing.
  • db1331 - October 28, 2011 8:20 a.m.

    Weird. I've only seen a TINY amount of lag on the Tehran Highway map, and that's a known issue. I haven't had any problems with hit detection, and I had problems with that in every single round of BC2.
  • awsomemaster - October 28, 2011 8:10 a.m.

    for me i actually kind of liked the campaign (mainly its story) its nothing special but i guess i've gotten used to short 5-6 hour long point and shoot SP games :P the SP for me was mainly to give me something to do while DICE was/has been fixing all the server issues on consoles.
  • AwesomeMan - October 28, 2011 8:08 a.m.

    Fantastic review. I've been playing the Battlefield franchise since it's debut in 2002 w/ BF:1942 and in all those years I haven't found a really accurate way of describing the multiplayer to someone until now...Needless to say I will be linking people to this review when they ask "So what's so special about BF Multiplayer" Just one thing I think you failed to mention. I'm not in a position of having a powerful enough PC to play BF3, so I've noticed that the larger maps are very empty with the 24 player limitation on consoles. I still love it but I wish the console experience wasn't so nerfed :(
  • MidianGTX - October 28, 2011 8:24 a.m.

    Have you read any reviews of the PC version? Maybe of those complain about the exact same problem. Just as the console maps are too big for 24 players, the bigger maps are -still- too big for 64 player. People are constantly spawned far outside the battlezone in so-called "buffer zones" which serve only to delay the player from getting back into the action too quickly. No vehicle? Have a nice walk. Considering the problem seems to be widespread, I'm no longer concerned about getting the little maps. If a lot of meaningless buffer zone has been shaved off to concentrate on the important areas, so be it.
  • MidianGTX - October 28, 2011 8:25 a.m.

    Damn typo... "many", not "maybe".
  • GhostbustTyler - October 28, 2011 8:06 a.m.

    Awesome review Dave! I have never really been a Battlefield fan (always have had Nintendo consoles up until last year) but BF3 sounds fun. My only concern is that I won't be able to get into the game as much as I did with BC2 and just feel suicidal over sucking so much in multiplayer (like I did in the beta). Still will probably ask for this for Christmas though. Thank god I bought a hard drive for my 4GB 360!
  • boondocks50 - October 28, 2011 7:54 a.m.

    Great review form reading what you said i agree with the 8/10. im just curious for those who beat it, which campaign was better BC2 or this because i enjoyed BC2 story( i hope they go back to it) a fair amount.
  • groxack - October 28, 2011 7:46 a.m.

    So is as good as Halo reach,lol sorry I can help my self, anyways I think that it really deserve at the least a 9, the multiplayer is just to awesome.
  • Mezolitik - October 28, 2011 7:30 a.m.

    After playing MMOs for a few years, I don't like people anymore, so I'd only be buying this for the single-player campaign. I loved CoD MW2's campaign, but as most people have said, single-player is dying a death in FPS. So, I'll probably give this one a miss. The 'army guys'-style games will soon become 100% multiplayer, I reckon.
  • ObliqueZombie - October 28, 2011 7:41 a.m.

    I don't necessarily agree with the fact that campaigns are a dying tradition in FPSes. Sh*t, some of the BEST campaigns are FPSes. But I DO think that campaigns are dying in the CoD-syle Modern Warfare Shooters. Completely different.
  • ShortFuse - October 28, 2011 7:23 a.m.

    Really good review Dave. To be honest, as you assert, I am one of the many who are only really getting BF3 for the multiplayer, the campaign was always considered a nice distraction or just a way to pick up the gameplay details before trying multiplayer. Most of these war based FPS games have ridiculous campaigns now that are, as you state, a Michael Bay rollercoaster ride. However, when you talked about the multiplayer I got an overwhelming sense of excitement that games and game reviews haven't made me feel in a while now! Thanks for that!
  • db1331 - October 28, 2011 7:21 a.m.

    I don't have a problem with anything you said in the review. You do at least realize that the SP isn't what matters here. The Score doesn't bother me either. I'd say the game is a 9.5 right now, and should be a 10 once they iron out some of the MP problems, like being spawned right in front of an enemy and getting shot in the back before you can take a step. Honestly though, reviewing this game based on the 360 build is a bit bonkers. It would be like reviewing MW3 next month based off the Wii version. The same people who are about to flame me for this post would lose their minds if a reviewer did that.
  • HeavyTank - October 28, 2011 7:31 a.m.

    I'm not going to flame, but if there is a SP mode and it's crap, you can't give a 9.5, which is almost perfect. Okay, the game is multiplayer-FOCUSED, but not multi-only, so you have to take one or two points off for that.
  • db1331 - October 28, 2011 7:47 a.m.

    No, you don't. Anyone who knows what a BF game is all about would have paid full price for just the MP, no SP and co-op. When I say "the game is a 9.5", I mean that the MP is a 9.5. Because the MP IS the game. Criticizing the SP in this game would be like going out to eat and having the best meal of your life. Then the waiter comes by and offers you a slice of carrot cake for free, because someone ordered it but never picked it up. You don't really even like carrot cake, but hey, it's free. Then you take a bite, and it's not even good carrot cake. Then in the car on the way home you think, "I don't know if I'm going to eat there again. That was some lousy carrot cake." Of course it's Dave's duty to warn people about the SP. I just can't stand when a game's SP gets blasted for being too much like CoD, and then when the next CoD comes out and does the exact same thing, its SP is amazing.
  • MidianGTX - October 28, 2011 8:05 a.m.

    I came here to say the exact same thing. Uncharted 2 is essentially the reverse effect, the single player is fantastic, the multiplayer is generic at best... somehow it scores 10/10. Whenever a game comes along where the opposite is true, it gets shot down. Why do reviewers still refuse to accept the online portion of a game can be the significant part? I've got nothing wrong with this review in theory, most of what it says is correct, but when looked at logically alongside something like Uncharted, the whole philosophy begins to crumble. This is 2011, a lot of people buy Battlefield for the multiplayer in the exact same way they buy other games for single player and that number is only going to grow.
  • Sketchydevil - October 28, 2011 9:10 a.m.

    That is actually one of the smartest things I have heard seriously. genius with the carrot cake. I repeated this example to my friends numerous that's exactly how it should be looked at.
  • HeavyTank - November 13, 2011 6:05 p.m.

    Really?I thought it was a pretty stupid example (honestly, no offense to db1331 though). I don't care if they don't know how to make a decent SP experience, if they included it in the game it MUST be good or the overall score will be penalized, that's how it works. And I'll tell you another thing, the example with the carrot is silly because the carrot is for free.The campaign is not an afterthought in the dev's minds as they bragged a lot about it in the previews, and the game is fully-priced, meaning that it's supposed to be "the whole package".If they made it multiplayer-only the price tag would be too high.
  • ObliqueZombie - October 28, 2011 7:44 a.m.

    I agree, it seems a bit silly to review it on the 360 build. But really, this isn't the consoles' problem, it's the developers problem. There is NO WAY IN HELL the console should look that bad--most games on it look fantastic, like Arkham City or Gears of War 3 or Skyrim. So, while they should do two reviews I believe, they really need to point out this HUGE flaw that Dice made with the console (or 360, really) version. This is unforgivable.
  • db1331 - October 28, 2011 8:01 a.m.

    It's not really fair to compare this to games like Arkham City or Gears. I haven't played it yet due to the 1 month PC embargo, but I'm pretty sure in Arkham City, Batman can't put explosive gel on the front of a 4 story building and blow the whole face off of it on a whim. Arkham City is more predictable from a design standpoint. The devs know what you are going to do when you enter an area. In BF3, they don't know if that car over there is going to still be a car 3 seconds from now, or a giant, smoking ball of fire. They don't even know what you are going to do to entire buildings sometimes. Maybe you won't touch it. Maybe you'll knock out the corner on the 2nd floor. Maybe you'll bring down the whole thing. The point is, they have to use so many resources for "just in case" stuff, that it results in less resources being available for things like wall textures. It's actually pretty disgusting to see all the gripes from the consoles. They pulled off a damn technical marvel to even get the game running at 30fps on hardware that was made 6 years before their game released, and nobody even realizes it. As bad as everyone says it looks, even without the "HD" textures, it still looks better than MW3, which isn't even out yet.
  • kor2disturbed - October 28, 2011 8:32 a.m.

    I have to disagree Modern Warfare 3 looks good for Modern Warfare 3. It doesn't really look any better than MW2 but it's not really trying to nor does it need to. Battlefield uses graphics as one of it's main driving points, Call of Duty doesn't. As long as MW3 looks respectable and plays smooth, I'll be happy. Battlefield 3 without the texture pack looks PS2 godawful, MW3 looks 360 good, so I don't where you getting that from.

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