Battlefield 3 review

Back to Article


  • 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.
  • 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.
  • db1331 - October 28, 2011 8:40 a.m.

    MW3 doesn't really look any better than Black Ops. Black Ops doesn't really look any better than MW2. MW2 doesn't really look any better than WAW. WAW doesn't really look any better than MW. BF3, even on consoles, even without the tex pack, looks better than MW3.
  • kor2disturbed - October 28, 2011 8:56 a.m.

    And now you're just being a fanboy. I wasn't raking on BF3, I bet the multiplayer is fantastic. Possibly on pc BF3 without the texture pack looks better than the console version of MW3 but, BF3 on consoles without the texture pack looks like sh*t literally worse than CoD 4. So you're just pulling that out of your ass. Though that's remedied by installing the texture pack. I don't know what my point is anymore. Either way I'm going the MW3 route.
  • kor2disturbed - October 28, 2011 8:59 a.m.

    I do agree with your original argument though, BF3 feels like it got cheated out of a higher score. If the multiplayer was as good as he said, then it deserved at least a 9, they obviously didn't focus on the campaign.
  • kor2disturbed - October 28, 2011 7:16 a.m.

    Alright now mw3 just has to get a 9 or above and I'll be happy I picked mw3 of bf3.
  • idlemindkiller - October 28, 2011 7:14 a.m.

    Great review as always David. I'm sure the trolls will be here anytime so let me just say, thank you for the honesty and for taking the time to review the game right. This is why GR is my favorite(yea, that's right I'm American, no u in favorite lol) website around.
  • idlemindkiller - October 28, 2011 7:24 a.m.

    Also, "These aren’t soldiers. They’re mindless, heat-seeking gun turrets wrapped in meat." I laughed hard at that.
  • tomthespesh - October 28, 2011 7:05 a.m.

    The Bad Company games suffered with the same psychic enemies too. Great review Dave.
  • JJBSterling - October 28, 2011 7:03 a.m.

    This seems very fair, having beat the campaign now I can agree to almost all of your points.
  • AlphaSignalSeven - October 28, 2011 7:01 a.m.

    So dave, Had the game just been Multiplayer, which I feel all Numbered Battlefields should be, what would you have given the final score as?
  • idlemindkiller - October 28, 2011 11:51 a.m.

    It said 10/10 right in the review.
  • opeth784 - October 28, 2011 6:58 a.m.

    this reads almost exactly like the halo reach review. oh, and might as well...8/10 WTF. But seriously, thanks for the quality review.
  • flabslapper - October 28, 2011 6:55 a.m.

    I guess it's still too early for the trolls to start sh!tting all over your great review man lol
  • Corsair89 - October 28, 2011 6:53 a.m.

    I'd ask why DICE didn't just leave out the campaign if it's so obvious they didn't give two sh!ts about it, but then fanboy dumbasses would bitch about how the game isn't "complete" and how they shouldn't have to pay $60 for a game without a feature they'd never play anyway.
  • Corsair89 - October 28, 2011 6:55 a.m.

    Great review, by the way.
  • db1331 - October 28, 2011 7:30 a.m.

    They did a SP campaign for the same reason Mass Effect and Uncharted added MP. They just want to have as much stuff to put on the back of the box as possible, no matter how bad the content is.
  • BladedFalcon - October 28, 2011 7:55 a.m.

    I agree with db completely on this point. Yesterday someone in the ME3 Multiplayer preview article called anyone complaining about the MP in ME3 a retard, saying that it would be as arguing that BF3 would be better without a SP campaign... And this review actually proves that it WOULD have been a better game had they focused purely on the MP. Dave outright said it, based on the multi-player alone, the game is a 10. I can only hope the reverse can eventually be said about ME3 though... Bash the MP all they want, but that the SP can be considered a 10 on it's own XD And finally. I know it's unlikely it will ever stop, but seriously, companies should stop trying to check boxes and just focus on what's good about a property.
  • GrandTheftAuto - October 29, 2011 6:59 a.m.

    So wait.. He said that without SP, Bf3 would be a clear 10? So that means this game got TWO FU**ING points lower JUST because the goddamn singleplayer? Lets see what score mw3 gets in a few weeks, it will be amusing.
  • Redeater - October 28, 2011 6:37 a.m.

    That graphics install thing is kind of bothersome but guess we will have to get used to it with games the next couple years. Great review though.
  • HeavyTank - October 28, 2011 6:28 a.m.

    Cheers for not going "OMFG 1000/10" and actually being objective.

Showing 121-140 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