Battlefield 3 Review

Slycne

Tank Ninja
Feb 19, 2006
3,422
0
0
Battlefield 3 Review

Battlefield 3 continues the brilliant multiplayer gameplay of the series.

Read Full Article
 

Mr. Omega

ANTI-LIFE JUSTIFIES MY HATE!
Jul 1, 2010
3,902
0
0
This review is based on the 360 version of the game.
Cue the PC Master Race calling the review "flawed", the article "pointless" and the reviewer "soulless" (seriously, every time someone mentions BF on consoles, the word "soulless" is guaranteed to show up, without fail.), with at least 2 more insults about anything else in 3...2...1...

Also: Actually having the audacity to mention the single player and using it as a criticism while the game doesn't have a perfect score.
Cue the comments of "Nobody plays this game for the single player, you're just nitpicking!" but put in a far less pleasant way in 5...4...3...2...

But in all seriousness, this was a good review.
 

schiz0phren1c

New member
Jan 17, 2008
151
0
0
Mr. Omega said:
This review is based on the 360 version of the game.
Cue the PC Master Race calling the review "flawed", the article "pointless" and the reviewer "soulless" (seriously, every time someone mentions BF on consoles, the word "soulless" is guaranteed to show up, without fail.) in 3...2...1...

Also: Actually having the audacity to mention the single player and using it as a criticism while the game doesn't have a perfect score.
Cue the comments of "Nobody plays this game for the single player, you're just nitpicking!" but put in a far less pleasant way in 5...4...3...2...

But in all seriousness, this was a good review.
I find your lack of a soul disturbing :)
 

Owlslayer

New member
Nov 26, 2009
1,954
0
0
Heh, that's tune brings back a lot of memories. Pretty awesome.
So basically, good multiplayer, bad singleplayer? Well, you can't get everything right.
Maybe if the game will go on sale someday, I'll get it. Not in a very good financial situation right now, so I'll have to stick with Team Fortress 2. Tho I'd love to fly around in choppers and jets.
So... yeah, that was a pretty good review.
 

Warforger

New member
Apr 24, 2010
641
0
0
I don't see what people see in this game and really modern FPS's either. I'm terrible at them and nothing makes me want to get better which is what separates them from other multiplayer games, at Brotherhood I started out terrible but it never made me want to stop playing, sure the tutorial was terrible since so many gameplay aspects were not mentioned in it, but the gameplay was so great I learned them as I went along. When I played the BF3 Beta I didn't feel this, getting good at the game felt like all you had to do was practice constantly on the maps, find good hiding places, find ways to sneak around people etc. while it was only Operation Metro the vehicle section in the final game did not make me want it at all if the normal gameplay was as terrible as it is.

The other reason I dislike modern war shooters is that they're so bland, there's nothing they can bring new to the table other than features in previous games (BF3 suffers this especially), the stories have little possibility to be interesting as well and they tend to be overly-patriotic. The only way they are revered as "Good" is in the multiplayer, which again favors those who are good at FPS's and laughs at those who aren't.
 

Worr Monger

New member
Jan 21, 2008
868
0
0
All I needed to hear was the "Skip it if you're looking for Single Player".

That, and the fact that a buddy of mine couldn't get it running for a day because of Origin... Very glad I avoided this one.
 

Lt. Vinciti

New member
Nov 5, 2009
1,285
0
0
How cute you tried to claim that people should use that T word to play online....I dont need anyone else except me and my KD RATIO!

/sarcasm/
 

Dango

New member
Feb 11, 2010
21,066
0
0
Wait...

At 1:52 in the video review, did that guy just fall out of the sky?
 

Valagetti

Good Coffee, cheaper than prozac
Aug 20, 2010
1,112
0
0
Worr Monger said:
All I needed to hear was the "Skip it if you're looking for Single Player".

That, and the fact that a buddy of mine couldn't get it running for a day because of Origin... Very glad I avoided this one.
Yeah Campaign is not very good. It has glictches, QTEs, boring story and alright gameplay, not to mention its quite short.

Online is simply amazing, very good online!
 

Still Life

New member
Sep 22, 2010
1,137
0
0
Mr. Omega said:
This review is based on the 360 version of the game.
Cue the PC Master Race calling the review "flawed", the article "pointless" and the reviewer "soulless" (seriously, every time someone mentions BF on consoles, the word "soulless" is guaranteed to show up, without fail.), with at least 2 more insults about anything else in 3...2...1...

Also: Actually having the audacity to mention the single player and using it as a criticism while the game doesn't have a perfect score.
Cue the comments of "Nobody plays this game for the single player, you're just nitpicking!" but put in a far less pleasant way in 5...4...3...2...

But in all seriousness, this was a good review.
No, I thought the review was fair. I got enjoyment out of the SP, but it pales in comparison to the fun that can be had on the MP side of things. I think you're being needlessly preemptive.

I played a lot of BF:BC2 and BF2 and I think that BF3 is a successful marriage of the two. I think there are design issues here and there with balance (IR scopes); the in-game menu interface quite frankly sucks ass and is inferior to previous iterations of the series -- at least on PC. Battlelog is functional, but needs some tweaking and there's some issues for PC gamers using Nvidia 500 series cards which are causing online disconnects at random intervals.

Visually, BF3 is stunning on the PC and performs very well on a range of systems. I feel that the visuals translate well for the consoles, all things considered. I still feel that Rage is the best looking FPS release this year because of the unique detailing and exceptional art directing, but BF3 certainly 'wows' visually.
 

XDravond

Something something....
Mar 30, 2011
356
0
0
He he same as more or less every other site "great, but skip SP"...
If it weren't for the QTE all the time in the SP it would been of A LOT better, not great but better...

This review is based on the 360 version of the game... Really o well.. I never play fps on consoles have trouble using the controls... or rather I suck a bit less with a keyboard and mouse...

(Is it only me that find it rather amusing that the "support class" mostly gets an MG and extra ammo for everyone else?... A MG is mostly a lot heavier than the standard assault rifle and you need (a lot) more bullets to it, but you carry around extra rounds for your buddies?...=D)
 

Tsaba

reconnoiter
Oct 6, 2009
1,435
0
0
Maybe I'm missing something, but, the major character deaths I was really more pissed off, so when I had to do what your in trouble for, I got a sense of satisfaction.

I do really miss the humor of BF:BC1 though, it had by far the best story, Truckasaurus-rex made me so happy inside.
I'm posting this only out of the sheer amusement of finding it on youtube.
 

CounterAttack

A Writer With Many Faces
Dec 25, 2008
12,093
0
0
While I myself don't plan on getting BF3 - nor MW3, just throwing that out there to forestall the fanboys - I will say one somewhat unrelated thing about the review. I highly approve of the use of the original Battlefield 1942 theme, especially since BF3's theme music (thanks, YouTube!) is more like a remix taken too far. The bursts of static and other white noise ruin the entire thing for me, even if they're kind of in tune with the (very faint) melody that is prominent in BF1942.

Even if BF3's music is supposed to reflect the more modern war we see these days, just as the game should, 1942's theme always has a place in my heart.



Mr. Omega said:
Cue the PC Master Race calling the review "flawed", the article "pointless" and the reviewer "soulless" (seriously, every time someone mentions BF on consoles, the word "soulless" is guaranteed to show up, without fail.), with at least 2 more insults about anything else in 3...2...1...
Even though I'm a PC gamer - I don't own a 360 or PS3 due to financial reasons - I treat console gamers with just as much respect as PC gamers. I don't believe in a master race: everyone is entitled to their own preferences and I respect that. More people should do the same, in my opinion: people have the right to make up their own minds and people with contradicting opinions shouldn't go and start shunning them because they play differently.

[sub]I am the 1%.[/sub]
 

Vrach

New member
Jun 17, 2010
3,223
0
0
Mr. Omega said:
This review is based on the 360 version of the game.
Cue the PC Master Race calling the review "flawed", the article "pointless" and the reviewer "soulless" (seriously, every time someone mentions BF on consoles, the word "soulless" is guaranteed to show up, without fail.), with at least 2 more insults about anything else in 3...2...1...

Also: Actually having the audacity to mention the single player and using it as a criticism while the game doesn't have a perfect score.
Cue the comments of "Nobody plays this game for the single player, you're just nitpicking!" but put in a far less pleasant way in 5...4...3...2...

But in all seriousness, this was a good review.
Well, anything you have on the consoles, you've got on the PC - which doesn't work the other way around. So yeah, using a console to review this game is not the best option.

And I'm not just saying that as a Battlefield fanboi, there's a couple of BAD thing to say about the PC version. Like how for example, despite DICE marketing every map being playable in any mode and with any amount of players, trying to play a 64 player Conquest match of a map made for Rush - for example Operation Metro - is nothing short of a disaster as it ends up with 32 players on both sides being bunched up. Why? Simple math, Metro is designed to have about 3 approaches, which places about 10 people on each approach on both sides. Putting 10 people in one tiny space with flags close to each other, a relatively quick respawn timer and the ability to revive squad mates rather easily means they're gonna be there and not move for the whole match, every match.

On your second point, while I don't care about Escapist reviews and didn't even notice they had a score, the singleplayer is a problem in this review. Know why? Cause it took over the review. The reviewer spent most of the time talking about the singleplayer and only said "yeah, it's good and unstructured" about the multiplayer. There is so much more to be said about the multiplayer, which makes you wonder, why doesn't this have a 2 part review like most other shooters in the past?

As someone who has played and is still playing BF3, I can tell you that this review barely even touches on what the game is and doesn't provide nearly as much information as it should to anyone watching it to get a clearer picture of what they're getting - this review doesn't provide you with any more information about BF3's multiplayer (which I think we can agree is the main part of the game) than any retailer would with the description that's straight from DICE. But then again, I can't say that's too uncharacteristic for Escapist reviews.

edit: Oh and it doesn't say a word about the co-op, interestingly enough.
 

Grey_Focks

New member
Jan 12, 2010
1,969
0
0
Skip it if you're looking for Single Player
Very well said. Honestly, I just wish they wouldn't even bother with the campaign, would've preferred they either spent the extra resources on the multiplayer or just got it out a few months early.

But yea, the multiplayer really is excellent, though I do keep having some weird rubber-banding issues online. Dunno what that's about.
 

bbad89

New member
Jan 1, 2011
304
0
0
Oddly enough, the PS3 version I have has yet to lag once, campaign or otherwise.
 

Waaghpowa

Needs more Dakka
Apr 13, 2010
3,073
0
0
Grey_Focks said:
But yea, the multiplayer really is excellent, though I do keep having some weird rubber-banding issues online. Dunno what that's about.
That's lag.

OT: Still haven't finished the single player, too busy trying to beat my 547 meter head shot record...
 

Slycne

Tank Ninja
Feb 19, 2006
3,422
0
0
Vrach said:
On your second point, while I don't care about Escapist reviews and didn't even notice they had a score, the singleplayer is a problem in this review. Know why? Cause it took over the review. The reviewer spent most of the time talking about the singleplayer and only said "yeah, it's good and unstructured" about the multiplayer. There is so much more to be said about the multiplayer, which makes you wonder, why doesn't this have a 2 part review like most other shooters in the past?

As someone who has played and is still playing BF3, I can tell you that this review barely even touches on what the game is and doesn't provide nearly as much information as it should to anyone watching it to get a clearer picture of what they're getting - this review doesn't provide you with any more information about BF3's multiplayer (which I think we can agree is the main part of the game) than any retailer would with the description that's straight from DICE. But then again, I can't say that's too uncharacteristic for Escapist reviews.

edit: Oh and it doesn't say a word about the co-op, interestingly enough.
By word count, I actually spent more time talking about multiplayer than I did single player. Perhaps it merely feels like I focus on the singleplayer because I left it for last.

Certainly I could write another 1,000 words on BF3, like how there is no easy way to practice flying helicopters and jets (the older titles at least had bot matches) and that some upgrades really should have been unlocked at the start, but ultimately that doesn't encapsulate much of my thoughts on Battlefield 3. I don't necessarily think it's a great experience because of x, y, and z. It's the unique opportunities to play the game beyond just K:D that makes it good, like stealing that tank as I mentioned.

CounterAttack said:
I highly approve of the use of the original Battlefield 1942 theme.
That simple theme drums up so many memories across this series, so I had to get it in there somewhere.
 

dibblywibbles

New member
Mar 20, 2009
313
0
0
I enjoyed the single player. Not for the story, but for the killing and the odd frustrations(in my ability, it wasn't too easy) the only thing that really got me was the similarities in storytelling that I got last year from Black ops. it was way too similar for my liking. there was the odd frame rate drops at rather inopportune times but I survived. lets face it though, I don't play battlefield for the story though. the multiplayer is fantastic and has kept me engaged since I started playing. I had reservations after the beta, but I'm glad I bought the game. the multiplayer gameplay is virtually flawless. I have no complaints other than the odd "man I totally shot that dude in the face and he didn't die!!" which I would say is more my fault than the game. that being said, the game invites could use some work. stop pitting me and my squad against each other you bastards, we want to play together. we want to play in the same squad as well. all in all a solid game that fills my need to drive around in a tank and blow stuff up, running around shooting people in the face and knifing smarmy snipers. I just really enjoy the team aspect of the game, if I was all about being me first and killing is the only thing, I'd play COD. I'll always prefer a game where K/d ratios aren't as important as supporting your teammates. having a great team makes all the difference in the world in this game, and what makes it stand out. Another thing, don't ever let me get in a jet, I will only disappoint you.
 

Aeonknight

New member
Apr 8, 2011
751
0
0
Single Player campaign lacks polish. Glitches and blah blah. I'd say they actually did a better job on Medal of Honor's campaign, both in writing and execution.

Co-Op? Reeks of an underdeveloped Spec Ops from CoD MW2. I like it, but CoD did it better. Although adding guns for multiplayer that are unlockable only by beating Co-Op was an interesting move.

But yea. Multiplayer is where it's at. Anyone that's played a Battlefield game ever knows this is where the focus was. And that's ok. Love me some anti tank mines.
 

Waaghpowa

Needs more Dakka
Apr 13, 2010
3,073
0
0
Slycne said:
I don't necessarily think it's a great experience because of x, y, and z. It's the unique opportunities to play the game beyond just K:D that makes it good, like stealing that tank as I mentioned.
That's one thing that drives me nuts about this generation, everyone seems to want to play nothing but Deathmatch and rub themselves to their awesome KDR. If I wanted to play a Deathmatch game, I'd go back to Unreal tournament. I can't think of a decent team based shooter that doesn't have "Battlefield" in the name, excluding TF2 of course.
 

octafish

New member
Apr 23, 2010
5,137
0
0
Still Life said:
snip Battlelog is functional, but needs some tweaking and there's some issues for PC gamers using Nvidia 500 series cards which are causing online disconnects at random intervals.

Visually, BF3 is stunning on the PC and performs very well on a range of systems. I feel that the visuals translate well for the consoles, all things considered. I still feel that Rage is the best looking FPS release this year because of the unique detailing and exceptional art directing, but BF3 certainly 'wows' visually.
So it is my GTX 580 that is causing my disconnects? Bugger. I hope that is patched soon, as that is the only problem I have with BF3. Port Forwarding and disabling UPnP hasn't helped so far.

I guess the review is accurate, I haven't played the campaign beyond the rat, but I'm willing to judge the whole single player experience as crap based on what I have seen so far.

However there are a lot of destructible structures. Caspian Border stands out, you can pretty much raze Hilltop to the ground. Just don't mess with shipping containers, those things are solid.

Waaghpowa said:
snip
That's one thing that drives me nuts about this generation, everyone seems to want to play nothing but Deathmatch and rub themselves to their awesome KDR. If I wanted to play a Deathmatch game, I'd go back to Unreal tournament. I can't think of a decent team based shooter that doesn't have "Battlefield" in the name, excluding TF2 of course.
Enemy Territory? Either one is good. Day of Defeat maybe? Definitely Enemy Territory though, and one of them has been free longer than TF2.
 

Tanis

The Last Albino
Aug 30, 2010
5,266
0
0
Is the bot MP?

I feel like that's the only way I can really get myself ready for online play.
 

Waaghpowa

Needs more Dakka
Apr 13, 2010
3,073
0
0
octafish said:
Enemy Territory? Either one is good. Day of Defeat maybe? Definitely Enemy Territory though, and one of them has been free longer than TF2.
Sorry, I should have said "recently" because that's what I was thinking in my head :p
 

octafish

New member
Apr 23, 2010
5,137
0
0
tanis1lionheart said:
Is the bot MP?

I feel like that's the only way I can really get myself ready for online play.
Disappointingly, no there isn't. I would have preferred unranked bot matches to the single player campaign.
 

Warforger

New member
Apr 24, 2010
641
0
0
CounterAttack said:
While I myself don't plan on getting BF3 - nor MW3, just throwing that out there to forestall the fanboys - I will say one somewhat unrelated thing about the review. I highly approve of the use of the original Battlefield 1942 theme, especially since BF3's theme music (thanks, YouTube!) is more like a remix taken too far. The bursts of static and other white noise ruin the entire thing for me, even if they're kind of in tune with the (very faint) melody that is prominent in BF1942.

Even if BF3's music is supposed to reflect the more modern war we see these days, just as the game should, 1942's theme always has a place in my heart.
Yah I loved 1942's theme, but I don't feel that BF3's theme music really has the same effect, it makes modern war look like a computer based type of warfare, but in BF3 it really isn't possibly aside from the airplane section. Sure the HUD is pretty technologic, but the gameplay itself is still the same ol' same ol' in 42.

But I'm more pissed that they didn't have 3 AD combat as the title would suggest! C'mon 1942 had WWII era gameplay and I don't think the Romans had jets!
 

Vrach

New member
Jun 17, 2010
3,223
0
0
Slycne said:
By word count, I actually spent more time talking about multiplayer than I did single player. Perhaps it merely feels like I focus on the singleplayer because I left it for last.
Possibly, but what I mainly meant are two things:
1) Why didn't this get 2 reviews like other games that have two significant components?
2) It's odd to spend that portion of time (even if it's only 50%) talking about the singleplayer when the multiplayer is gonna take up a lot more of both the player's time and interest.

Slycne said:
Certainly I could write another 1,000 words on BF3, like how there is no easy way to practice flying helicopters and jets (the older titles at least had bot matches) and that some upgrades really should have been unlocked at the start, but ultimately that doesn't encapsulate much of my thoughts on Battlefield 3. I don't necessarily think it's a great experience because of x, y, and z. It's the unique opportunities to play the game beyond just K:D that makes it good, like stealing that tank as I mentioned.
The problem is that you don't offer anything in your review that I can't get off from the back of the box and there's so much more to be said about the game, both for the good points and bad (for the record, I love BF3, even though I wish some things were a little different and see room for improvement). If you don't say anything more than I can get off the back of the box when I'm buying the game, what's the point of writing a review on it?

Mainly I believe the problem is in the fact you only gave BF3 half the time it('s multiplayer) deserved (well, less than that, but I'm talking compared to Escapist review lengths). You could've placed singleplayer and co-op in one review (and you'd have enough to fill it out) and multiplayer in another, having enough time to properly talk about it.

Slycne said:
CounterAttack said:
I highly approve of the use of the original Battlefield 1942 theme.
That simple theme drums up so many memories across this series, so I had to get it in there somewhere.
Indeed, the BF1942 soundtrack is one of the most epic gaming scores ever. I'm not totally averse to the BF3 adaptation either though (full versions starting about halfway in):

While the original is certainly better, I like the ambience the new version creates. It's a shame the singleplayer couldn't live up to it, it really had some potential (the 2 seat plane level took my breath away for the first few minutes)
 

Dirty Apple

New member
Apr 24, 2008
819
0
0
Warforger said:
But I'm more pissed that they didn't have 3 AD combat as the title would suggest! C'mon 1942 had WWII era gameplay and I don't think the Romans had jets!
I see what you did there. I approve.

O.T: First, listening to the original theme brings me immediately back to my friend and I buying the game on release day. So awesome. Second, as much as I love Battlefield play, I found that BF:BC2's online play was a bit laggy. Unless you had home server advantage, or a mammoth machine, attempting to shoot someone was like trying to nail jello to the wall. The fun level never fully surpassed the frustration level.
 

42

Australian Justice
Jan 30, 2010
697
0
0
The only problem i have with the game is Team Deathmatch which isn't enjoyable, Way too many campers, and jets handling like wet fishes in slippery hands. i fucking hate jets.
 

Metalrocks

New member
Jan 15, 2009
2,406
0
0
really a nice review. i wanted to get my self this game but well......origin. dint care for the SP though, i was really more interested in the MP. but as long origin is the devil, i rather have MW3 on my pc.
 

CarlsonAndPeeters

New member
Mar 18, 2009
686
0
0
At around 1:20 in the review he says "blowing up walls and killing people behind them never stops losing its appeal"

So the experience of destroying the environment constantly gets less and less interesting? Most be some kind of mathematical function that approaches, but never reaches, 0.
 

instantbenz

Pixel Pusher
Mar 25, 2009
744
0
0
lag when enemies spawn in the single player? ... wait ... ohh! there's your problem right there! you're playing it on a 360.

tell me if you have the same issue on a ps3 or YOUR pc. i never had that issue.

fps qte's are ruining this genre's campaigns.

I had an issue with the section in which your captain says 'get down on the ground'.

DO I get down on the ground? oh! i'm not supposed to? okay, thanks for the heads up game!

Also, for those whiny pc gamers avoiding this due to origin, it's not half bad ... i've had no problems. i get into great games quickly and i've only had one glitched out match in which explosions were the only way to kill an enemy. that was on day 2. i assume it's been corrected.
 

leviadragon99

New member
Jun 17, 2010
1,055
0
0
"And firing a grenade launcher, exploding a section of wall and killing the guy on the other side Never stops losing its appeal."

Nice double-negative there, I'm guessing this review didn't follow a script per se?
 

dantoddd

New member
Sep 18, 2009
272
0
0
Warforger said:
The other reason I dislike modern war shooters is that they're so bland, there's nothing they can bring new to the table other than features in previous games (BF3 suffers this especially), the stories have little possibility to be interesting as well and they tend to be overly-patriotic.
There is so much truth to this. If anyone picks up one of the original CoD or MoH games from the early 2000s you'll see that games like BF3 offer exactly the same experience with updated game engines
 

Doom-Slayer

Ooooh...I has custom title.
Jul 18, 2009
630
0
0
Vrach said:
Slycne said:
By word count, I actually spent more time talking about multiplayer than I did single player. Perhaps it merely feels like I focus on the singleplayer because I left it for last.
Possibly, but what I mainly meant are two things:
1) Why didn't this get 2 reviews like other games that have two significant components?
2) It's odd to spend that portion of time (even if it's only 50%) talking about the singleplayer when the multiplayer is gonna take up a lot more of both the player's time and interest.
I find that idea strange. Hes reviewing the game, not two different games. If you buy it, you get the SIngleplayer and the Multiplayer, so he spends half the review doing each. Also the "people only play this for MP" is a bit of a cop out. BF games have always had fairly decent SP campaigns, Bad Company 2 for example had a great one SP campaign, this doesn't quite live up to that.

I'm also reminded by Yahtzee, because if this game had had an amazing SP element, all the fans like yourself would be talking abut that, but since it doesn't the inevitable comment of "nobody plays it for that" comes up. If a game puts focus into both elements it needs to make them both of a high standard. Either do one well, or both well, don't skimp on one of them.
 

RA92

New member
Jan 1, 2011
3,079
0
0
dantoddd said:
Warforger said:
The other reason I dislike modern war shooters is that they're so bland, there's nothing they can bring new to the table other than features in previous games (BF3 suffers this especially), the stories have little possibility to be interesting as well and they tend to be overly-patriotic.
There is so much truth to this. If anyone picks up one of the original CoD or MoH games from the early 2000s you'll see that games like BF3 offer exactly the same experience with updated game engines

Wha...? BF3 might provide an updated experience of the previous iterations of its franchise, but CoD and MoH? When did those ever have vehicular combat, which by and large separates BF from other shooters?
 

Zulnam

New member
Feb 22, 2010
481
0
0
They did the 2-reviews-1-game thing only for MW2, i think.

Personally, i like the campaign. Not finished with it though, but it's fun. And the engine really shines in there, too.

BUT, EA should go directly to hell for launching this game with 24-man only MP. I mean, come on, seriously? Not even 32? The PS3 easily supports 32. Hell, it supports 256.
 

kingmob

New member
Jan 20, 2010
187
0
0
Mr. Omega said:
This review is based on the 360 version of the game.
Cue the PC Master Race calling the review "flawed", the article "pointless" and the reviewer "soulless" (seriously, every time someone mentions BF on consoles, the word "soulless" is guaranteed to show up, without fail.), with at least 2 more insults about anything else in 3...2...1...

Also: Actually having the audacity to mention the single player and using it as a criticism while the game doesn't have a perfect score.
Cue the comments of "Nobody plays this game for the single player, you're just nitpicking!" but put in a far less pleasant way in 5...4...3...2...

But in all seriousness, this was a good review.
Calling them the 'PC Master Race' and condemning people for something that they haven't done yet (you are the second poster), is however the height of maturity.
 

dantoddd

New member
Sep 18, 2009
272
0
0
Raiyan 1.0 said:
dantoddd said:
Warforger said:
The other reason I dislike modern war shooters is that they're so bland, there's nothing they can bring new to the table other than features in previous games (BF3 suffers this especially), the stories have little possibility to be interesting as well and they tend to be overly-patriotic.
There is so much truth to this. If anyone picks up one of the original CoD or MoH games from the early 2000s you'll see that games like BF3 offer exactly the same experience with updated game engines

Wha...? BF3 might provide an updated experience of the previous iterations of its franchise, but CoD and MoH? When did those ever have vehicular combat, which by and large separates BF from other shooters?
I was referring to the non-vehicular part. But both series had vehicular combat segments ,especially COD, but they weren't as integral as BF:1942.
 

KafkaOffTheBeach

New member
Nov 17, 2010
222
0
0
NpPro93 said:
At around 1:20 in the review he says "blowing up walls and killing people behind them never stops losing its appeal"

So the experience of destroying the environment constantly gets less and less interesting? Most be some kind of mathematical function that approaches, but never reaches, 0.
He also has that very same phrase in the written review.
Funny really - you'd think that something like that would have been spotted somewhere down the line.
 

RA92

New member
Jan 1, 2011
3,079
0
0
dantoddd said:
Raiyan 1.0 said:
dantoddd said:
Warforger said:
The other reason I dislike modern war shooters is that they're so bland, there's nothing they can bring new to the table other than features in previous games (BF3 suffers this especially), the stories have little possibility to be interesting as well and they tend to be overly-patriotic.
There is so much truth to this. If anyone picks up one of the original CoD or MoH games from the early 2000s you'll see that games like BF3 offer exactly the same experience with updated game engines

Wha...? BF3 might provide an updated experience of the previous iterations of its franchise, but CoD and MoH? When did those ever have vehicular combat, which by and large separates BF from other shooters?
I was referring to the non-vehicular part. But both series had vehicular combat segments ,especially COD, but they weren't as integral as BF:1942.
And that's exactly why the franchises are so different - vehicular combat. Vehicles mean larger battle zones and the lack of it creates smaller, tighter levels.CoD and BF scratches very different itches.

(Talking about multiplayer here obviously.)

Doom-Slayer said:
I'm also reminded by Yahtzee, because if this game had had an amazing SP element, all the fans like yourself would be talking abut that, but since it doesn't the inevitable comment of "nobody plays it for that" comes up. If a game puts focus into both elements it needs to make them both of a high standard. Either do one well, or both well, don't skimp on one of them.
Ha ha! Well put.
 

Hanzo Hattori

New member
Aug 4, 2009
147
0
0
I love the game itself, but it's not that Battlefield 1942 or 2 feeling anymore. And I really hate Origin, they should've made it more like 1942 speaking in interface-terms. I don't want to go to website in my browser just to start a game which is installed on my HDD anyways.
 

Geisterkarle

New member
Dec 27, 2010
282
0
0
Worr Monger said:
That, and the fact that a buddy of mine couldn't get it running for a day because of Origin... Very glad I avoided this one.
The problem "Origin" should have been mentioned more in this review! Because (in short) this thing is basically Spyware, that tells EA what OS, hardware, software, ... you are using and what files you have on your hardrive etc.
This is a "NO BUY" condition for me!
 

ASnogarD

New member
Jul 2, 2009
525
0
0
This is a good reason why platform specific reviews should be used...

On the PC version, event the multiplayer has a lot of flaws, and while many can be patched a few are intrinsic to the game.

A player adopting the game now and joining a server would not experience the joys of using various vehicles and infantry combat. The new player would lack the majority of vehicle equipment needed to actually be effective ( silly things like countermeasures, and missles on the jets ), would be put at a significant disadvantage no matter which role the player tried to play in due to the lack of equipment the player must unlock...

... how do you unlock this equipment? By playing in the roles, but for example you cant revive a teammate as the medic assualt until you unlock the defibulators, but as you only have the iron sights to use with your basic assualt rifle you will be outgunned by even a Engineer and his SMG at long range... good luck assualting anything.

The basic equipment on all roles and vehicles puts you at such a substantial disadvantage versus players who have put a lot of hours into the game to unlock the equipment, its frustrating and not fun at all until you somehow manage to grind a few levels out to get some equipment... yes you read that correctly, grind because thats what it is... a grind trying to get the needed number of kills on a basic weapon with iron sights only to unlock some better sights, or equipment.

In short: New players are given a potatoe gun and a plastic knife and need to battle other players who have unlocked much better equipment and out gun and out range the new player, AS WELL as have the advantage of being familiar with the maps and mechanics.

I wonder if BF 4 will make you unlock bullets to go with your gun ?
 

DTWolfwood

Better than Vash!
Oct 20, 2009
3,716
0
0
the damn dirty lens affect annoyed me to no end during that escape sequence! the Rat QTE was comical XD Single player is completely throw away. I was pissed when the only flying sequence in the game was on RAILS! wtf man!

(im pretty sure the SP was outsourced kinda like Deus Ex's boss fights were outsourced.)

This game is the only game i want to play on Multiplayer, and for that they did the Battlefield franchise right!
 

NLS

Norwegian Llama Stylist
Jan 7, 2010
1,594
0
0
Hanzo Hattori said:
I love the game itself, but it's not that Battlefield 1942 or 2 feeling anymore. And I really hate Origin, they should've made it more like 1942 speaking in interface-terms. I don't want to go to website in my browser just to start a game which is installed on my HDD anyways.
That's Battlelog, not Origin.
Yeah I know, they could've made both products a lot better, but in the end, the game itself is a blast.
Geisterkarle said:
Worr Monger said:
That, and the fact that a buddy of mine couldn't get it running for a day because of Origin... Very glad I avoided this one.
The problem "Origin" should have been mentioned more in this review! Because (in short) this thing is basically Spyware, that tells EA what OS, hardware, software, ... you are using and what files you have on your hardrive etc.
This is a "NO BUY" condition for me!
This review is based on the 360 version, so there's no Origin involved. Also, Origin makes all the info anonymous upon sending it to EA, so no, they won't know shit about you as an individual.
 

Alexnader

$20 For Steve
May 18, 2009
526
0
0
Warforger said:
The other reason I dislike modern war shooters is that they're so bland, there's nothing they can bring new to the table other than features in previous games (BF3 suffers this especially), the stories have little possibility to be interesting as well and they tend to be overly-patriotic. The only way they are revered as "Good" is in the multiplayer, which again favors those who are good at FPS's and laughs at those who aren't.
I think you're being too fatalistic here, to paraphrase the great Jeremy you may not be pro but you can train and then you'll still just be a trained noob but at least you'll be able to beat all the other noobs. Or in less retarded terms practice makes perfect.

In my opinion unless you're a 40+ year old who has difficulty comprehending and navigating 3 dimensional space mapped on to the 2D plane that is your TV/monitor then there's no wall preventing you from enjoying the game. (E.g. My dad can't get past the starting village of Twilight Princess because he can't steer the horse, nor can he walk around in TF2 on an empty server). You just have to like the game enough to still have fun when you're getting dominated.

This especially true for Battlefield in my opinion since it's perfectly viable to get points by healing, repairing, piloting armour and aircraft etc. So essentially if you can't beat the quickscoping 13 year old in reaction times you can go grab a tank and turn him into red mist.

dantoddd said:
Warforger said:
There is so much truth to this. If anyone picks up one of the original CoD or MoH games from the early 2000s you'll see that games like BF3 offer exactly the same experience with updated game engines
*Fanboy mode activated

You say updated engines like it's nothing at all. Immersion, scale and the scope of player-environment interaction have been given a massive shot in the arm since the days where an inch think piece of plywood would function as cover against an LMG. That all counts for quite a bit in terms of how good the experience can be.

Non-trivial destruction for instance in my opinion should have been as big a game changer as GoW's cover system and I think it would have been if it wasn't so hard to do right. First you need an engine that can support it, then you need level designers to balance maps that will change dynamically as the game progresses.

Finally I ask you this, how much has any other AAA genre diversified in the last decade? For that matter to what degree have non-FPS franchises evolved? To use one of the most anticipated non-FPS games at the moment, it looks to me like I'll have as much fun in Skyrim as I did in Oblivion or Morrowind (i.e. not much). You're still pressing X to stab a guy with a sword and relying on him having less health than you. At least they've progressed from Morrowind where I walked up to some retarded grub thing, started stabbing it and had lots of fun watching it come up with misses over and over again.

The sad point is, if you want revolutionary changes to a genre you'll probably have to look to the indie scene. In my mind the big corporate structures of EA and Activision are only good for refinement of an already good idea.
 

Slycne

Tank Ninja
Feb 19, 2006
3,422
0
0
42 said:
The only problem i have with the game is Team Deathmatch which isn't enjoyable, Way too many campers
For the record, I hate Battlefield for reasons I'm not going to go into in this post, but surely at this stage in the mili-fps cycle, calling out a shooter for the campers is like calling out a fighting game because people block?
 

Alexnader

$20 For Steve
May 18, 2009
526
0
0
Tin Man said:
42 said:
The only problem i have with the game is Team Deathmatch which isn't enjoyable, Way too many campers
For the record, I hate Battlefield for reasons I'm not going to go into in this post, but surely at this stage in the mili-fps cycle, calling out a shooter for the campers is like calling out a fighting game because people block?
Battlefield is an objective based game. In TDM the objective is to kill more of the opposition then they do of you, so in many ways camping becomes viable but is also set in stark contrast to the general perception of TDM as something that's fast and fluid.

Other game modes require people to get out of their ditch and capture a point or arm/disarm an Mcom station in order to win. Furthermore people expect there to be defenders at those points and Mcoms so they're less inclined to rage about being ambushed by all the "campers".
 

Hanzo Hattori

New member
Aug 4, 2009
147
0
0
NLS said:
Hanzo Hattori said:
I love the game itself, but it's not that Battlefield 1942 or 2 feeling anymore. And I really hate Origin, they should've made it more like 1942 speaking in interface-terms. I don't want to go to website in my browser just to start a game which is installed on my HDD anyways.
That's Battlelog, not Origin.
Yeah I know, they could've made both products a lot better, but in the end, the game itself is a blast.
Oh sorry, my fault! But I think you know what I mean. You're right, the game is great fun but everything around it seems a little unreasonably, why not just make the stat tracking like in Battlefield 2?
 

Slycne

Tank Ninja
Feb 19, 2006
3,422
0
0
Alexnader said:
Battlefield is an objective based game. In TDM the objective is to kill more of the opposition then they do of you, so in many ways camping becomes viable but is also set in stark contrast to the general perception of TDM as something that's fast and fluid.

Other game modes require people to get out of their ditch and capture a point or arm/disarm an Mcom station in order to win. Furthermore people expect there to be defenders at those points and Mcoms so they're less inclined to rage about being ambushed by all the "campers".
I think we agree, so I'm reading your post in a positive tone lol. There are always going to be campers in shooters, but in a game like Battlefield its par for the course because the maps are huge, and therefore sniper friendly. Not to mention you die pretty much instantly, so running and gunning is best left to highly experienced players that know the maps like the back of the hands and therefore know all the danger points and how best to run around them. But yeah, I still have no love for BF3.

I'm tempted by MW3, but not for the straight up multiplayer, for spec-ops and survival. Not to mention loads of class customisation.
 

Slycne

Tank Ninja
Feb 19, 2006
3,422
0
0
"The single-player barely holds up"

So... its like Call of Duty with better multiplayer? :p
 

wooty

Vi Britannia
Aug 1, 2009
4,252
0
0
Still not even touched the single player yet, but Battlefield is probably the only series I ever buy solely for the multiplayer, and after 39 hours of MP madness and more to come, I can safely say that I've definately gotten my £35 worth of entertainment out of it.
 

ViciousTide

New member
Aug 5, 2011
210
0
0
BF3 will make you want to break the disc or sell it back for many reasons. Too many Campers, level 50's already who practically have nuclear weapons and slaughter the battle field of players who can't level it quickly because they can't win a game. Tanks have upgrades for higher level players, need i say more? You get shot once in the foot from a level 50's sniper riffle and you fall over after shooting him 4 times with your sniper riffle. I swear i meleed this guy in the back 5 times and the animation didn't activate for the kill.

Helicoptor "hopping" from base to base is the best way to win Conquest on the big maps.

This game literally makes me want to rent Modern Warfare 3 to see if that will be any better when it comes out. I doubt it though. Thank God Skyrim is coming out next Friday!
 

Frank_Sinatra_

Digs Giant Robots
Dec 30, 2008
2,306
0
0
While I'm not sure about the 360 version, it is worth noting that the PS3 servers have had a bad case of the gremlins for a while now.
The squad system is still broken, even after the latest patch, and the voice chat servers are still wonky.
Generally I would excuse this for the first couple of weeks of release, but these were both open, and closed beta issues.

For a game that stress teamwork, those are some things you'd expect to have fixed by now, yes?
 

Vrach

New member
Jun 17, 2010
3,223
0
0
Doom-Slayer said:
I find that idea strange. Hes reviewing the game, not two different games.
It's not an idea, it's a precedent:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/reviews/2445-Call-of-Duty-Black-Ops-Video-Review
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/reviews/2447-Call-of-Duty-Black-Ops-Multiplayer-Overview

I'm merely wondering why they didn't follow it as it's obviously the better route of doing it. The point is not two reviews, it's giving enough time to review an element. If you prefer, you can keep it in one review and make it twice as long or as long as necessary to actually explain what the game is about, the ups and downs and generally, just give an actual review that informs whoever's watching it.

Doom-Slayer said:
Also the "people only play this for MP" is a bit of a cop out. BF games have always had fairly decent SP campaigns, Bad Company 2 for example had a great one SP campaign, this doesn't quite live up to that.
First off, Battlefield games never had a singleplayer. They had a bot match through all the maps with a small historical description while the map was loading. The Bad Company spin off series has had SP, but I wouldn't regard it as great.

Doom-Slayer said:
I'm also reminded by Yahtzee, because if this game had had an amazing SP element, all the fans like yourself would be talking abut that, but since it doesn't the inevitable comment of "nobody plays it for that" comes up. If a game puts focus into both elements it needs to make them both of a high standard. Either do one well, or both well, don't skimp on one of them.
I'm not saying "people only play this for MP". I'm saying "people who buy this will finish the SP in 6 hours, then spend 100s of hours on the multiplayer - so how can you spend an equal amount of time reviewing both?". Though again, equality isn't the issue, not giving the multiplayer its due review is (which is not surprising considering the whole review is some 5 minutes long and giving a review in half that time is not really reasonable). And again, not saying this as a fanboi because "YOU DIDN'T SAY HOW AWESOME MULTIPLAYER IS!!!11!11!", merely observing the fact the review is not at all informative, of the multiplayers good and bad sides.

For the record, no, it's not ok that BF3's singleplayer is meh. I was quite disappointed with it as the launch trailer really pumped me up and made me hopeful they'd make a game that has a good singleplayer. It wasn't my number one concern, but I was looking forward to it and am rather disappointed on that end. I don't regret buying the game because of it - not by a long shot. I knew going in that this is a multiplayer game, that's why I was buying it and the singleplayer would only be a bonus. But it's sad nonetheless because the singleplayer trailer made it look like it had potential and I always hate to see wasted potential.
 

Slycne

Tank Ninja
Feb 19, 2006
3,422
0
0
The multiplayer is a broken glitchy mess with an unlock system that unbalances play and rewards the most tedious grinding outside of Korea.
 

Slycne

Tank Ninja
Feb 19, 2006
3,422
0
0
ViciousTide said:
BF3 will make you want to break the disc or sell it back for many reasons. Too many Campers, level 50's already who practically have nuclear weapons and slaughter the battle field of players who can't level it quickly because they can't win a game. Tanks have upgrades for higher level players, need i say more? You get shot once in the foot from a level 50's sniper riffle and you fall over after shooting him 4 times with your sniper riffle. I swear i meleed this guy in the back 5 times and the animation didn't activate for the kill.

Helicoptor "hopping" from base to base is the best way to win Conquest on the big maps.

This game literally makes me want to rent Modern Warfare 3 to see if that will be any better when it comes out. I doubt it though. Thank God Skyrim is coming out next Friday!
I entirely agree. There are parts that were clearly not even tested. The spawn beacon is one of the most poorly implemented ideas i've ever seen. How you can allow people to then spawn nowhere near the beacon and off the map beggars belief.
 

battlefield3hc

New member
Nov 4, 2011
2
0
0
Hello,

Do you have anyone who can look over this site http://www.fpscheats.com/topic122941.htm and fix the problem with EA and these Battlefield 3 Hacks? I have four people in my clan using the hack and it's simply not fair the way these guys can see every single enemy on the screen. The last guy using it had 17,000 points and was ranked 50 already. I'm currently serving in the Marine Corp and Battlefield 3 is what I do to relax (believe it or not).... but these cheaters have made me so mad. What can I do? It doesn't seem like anything.

I called EA support FIVE TIMES (was on the phone for 90 mins total) and every person I talked to said the game had no hacks out for it. I even sent them to the website and showed them the videos and screens and they said they were fake... c'mon, are they serious?

I also tried to post asking for help on the EA Forums and every single time they delete my post. After spending $60 and EA made $5 Million in sales the FIRST WEEK I think a deserving LEGIT player like me deserves some sort of answer about a fix. Can you help?

Regards,
Chris Johnson
 

ravensshade

resident shadow
Mar 18, 2009
1,900
0
0
use of the loading music from bf 1942 secret weapons? awesome
and yes.. the single player is crap.. i took me a bit to notice that there was a quick time event
 

The_Emperor

New member
Mar 18, 2010
347
0
0
Multiplayer awesome buuutt....

Where are the destructible buildings? seriously, like the maps have taken a step down imo, the lack of destructible buildings, too many choke points, they even feel a little smaller even if they aren't.

I loved BC2 because I could blow a hole in a wall and get away from impending doom, or i could blow a sniper out of a sniper nest with a RPG etc

Seems wrong to take it out.

Also single player is aaaaaaaawful, like visually nice but boring story, boring action, boring acting, WAAAY too many qte, basically this really annoyed me because it's like they didnt even try.

TBH all in all Battlefield BC2 is a little better I think BF3 is a step down.

some things are better but a lot of things are worse.

It seems like they just wanted to poach the modern warfare crowd. For some reason me thinks EA has been too involved.

When there is a lot of money on the line games seem to suck more I've noticed. I still enjoy BF3 but it seems like it's just going to be another cash cow where they develop to what they think players want instead of what they think will be a good game.

seriously I really think they screwed up with the removal of most of the destructible buildings. It was one of the main gameplay mechanics. Now it just seems a bit blander.
 

Excludos

New member
Sep 14, 2008
353
0
0
Vrach said:
Indeed, the BF1942 soundtrack is one of the most epic gaming scores ever. I'm not totally averse to the BF3 adaptation either though (full versions starting about halfway in):

While the original is certainly better, I like the ambience the new version creates. It's a shame the singleplayer couldn't live up to it, it really had some potential (the 2 seat plane level took my breath away for the first few minutes)
completely unrelated to your post, that trailer makes the game look really good, until you realize its actually showing every good moment in the entire game, and that between every one of those clips theres usually just hours of pure boring.

Worst part is that I think they came really close too. The graphics and sound are nearly perfect for the experience..and then it just gets pummeled with bad story and quicktime events. for instance the Fighter Jet level was amazing the first few minutes as you take off from the carrier..and then its proceeded by 10 minutes of you click "x", and 10 minutes of you aiming at dots on the ground through a black and white lense. That level would have been perfect if after 2 minutes, they just let you take over and fly (Admittedly I'm not sure how exactly they should pull that off..but anything would be better than what they did)

Really good review, pretty much sums up my thoughts on it
 

Vrach

New member
Jun 17, 2010
3,223
0
0
Excludos said:
completely unrelated to your post, that trailer makes the game look really good, until you realize its actually showing every good moment in the entire game, and that between every one of those clips theres usually just hours of pure boring.

Worst part is that I think they came really close too. The graphics and sound are nearly perfect for the experience..and then it just gets pummeled with bad story and quicktime events. for instance the Fighter Jet level was amazing the first few minutes as you take off from the carrier..and then its proceeded by 10 minutes of you click "x", and 10 minutes of you aiming at dots on the ground through a black and white lense. That level would have been perfect if after 2 minutes, they just let you take over and fly (Admittedly I'm not sure how exactly they should pull that off..but anything would be better than what they did)
Yep, agreed 100%. Every part of their story had potential to be awesome, but it was just very badly executed. It just shows they didn't put their A game into making the singleplayer, which, while not surprising, is more than a little disappointing, as delivering on all 3 fronts (singleplayer, co-op, multiplayer) would've made it the ultimate game.
 

Slycne

Tank Ninja
Feb 19, 2006
3,422
0
0
Just fix the fucking multiplayer, stop charging for online passes and get rid of the k/d whores.
 

klasbo

New member
Nov 17, 2009
217
0
0
Slycne said:
Certainly I could write another 1,000 words on BF3, like how there is no easy way to practice flying helicopters and jets (the older titles at least had bot matches) and that some upgrades really should have been unlocked at the start, but ultimately that doesn't encapsulate much of my thoughts on Battlefield 3. I don't necessarily think it's a great experience because of x, y, and z. It's the unique opportunities to play the game beyond just K:D that makes it good, like stealing that tank as I mentioned.
Wait, what? No botmatches?

So there's no more 3 vs 60 LAN games then. And no learning how to fly the (now probably broken) jets and helicopters, unless you know people that have empty servers available for you (which I do, but still).

I'm also wondering what "good" features there were in Bad Company 2. Because I don't know of any. BC2 esports died 3 weeks after launch, for a reason. BF2 esports is still going.
The destructible terrain isn't destructible, it's just an object replacement with particle effects. Come back when you can deform the terrain in real time. I want to see permanent marks from driving the tank in the mud, not buildings being "destroyed" in the exact same way each and every time.
 

Mumorpuger

This is a...!
Apr 8, 2009
606
0
0
Slycne said:
Vrach said:
On your second point, while I don't care about Escapist reviews and didn't even notice they had a score, the singleplayer is a problem in this review. Know why? Cause it took over the review. The reviewer spent most of the time talking about the singleplayer and only said "yeah, it's good and unstructured" about the multiplayer. There is so much more to be said about the multiplayer, which makes you wonder, why doesn't this have a 2 part review like most other shooters in the past?

As someone who has played and is still playing BF3, I can tell you that this review barely even touches on what the game is and doesn't provide nearly as much information as it should to anyone watching it to get a clearer picture of what they're getting - this review doesn't provide you with any more information about BF3's multiplayer (which I think we can agree is the main part of the game) than any retailer would with the description that's straight from DICE. But then again, I can't say that's too uncharacteristic for Escapist reviews.

edit: Oh and it doesn't say a word about the co-op, interestingly enough.
By word count, I actually spent more time talking about multiplayer than I did single player. Perhaps it merely feels like I focus on the singleplayer because I left it for last.

Certainly I could write another 1,000 words on BF3, like how there is no easy way to practice flying helicopters and jets (the older titles at least had bot matches) and that some upgrades really should have been unlocked at the start, but ultimately that doesn't encapsulate much of my thoughts on Battlefield 3. I don't necessarily think it's a great experience because of x, y, and z. It's the unique opportunities to play the game beyond just K:D that makes it good, like stealing that tank as I mentioned.

CounterAttack said:
I highly approve of the use of the original Battlefield 1942 theme.
That simple theme drums up so many memories across this series, so I had to get it in there somewhere.

Out of curiosity, for a game like this, why didn't you do separate reviews for the single player and the multiplayer like for Blops? Seems like it was warranted here.
 

Slycne

Tank Ninja
Feb 19, 2006
3,422
0
0
Mumorpuger said:
Out of curiosity, for a game like this, why didn't you do separate reviews for the single player and the multiplayer like for Blops? Seems like it was warranted here.
We did that in the past when editors felt they were better suited to only comment on one aspect of the gameplay. I enjoy both avenues of singleplayer and multiplayer so no such splitting was required.
 

Mumorpuger

This is a...!
Apr 8, 2009
606
0
0
Slycne said:
Mumorpuger said:
Out of curiosity, for a game like this, why didn't you do separate reviews for the single player and the multiplayer like for Blops? Seems like it was warranted here.
We did that in the past when editors felt they were better suited to only comment on one aspect of the gameplay. I enjoy both avenues of singleplayer and multiplayer so no such splitting was required.
Ah, okay. Great review! I feel like it was very accurate.
 

Alexnader

$20 For Steve
May 18, 2009
526
0
0
battlefield3hc said:
Hello,

Do you have anyone who can look over this site http://www.fpscheats.com/topic122941.htm and fix the problem with EA and these Battlefield 3 Hacks? I have four people in my clan using the hack and it's simply not fair the way these guys can see every single enemy on the screen. The last guy using it had 17,000 points and was ranked 50 already. I'm currently serving in the Marine Corp and Battlefield 3 is what I do to relax (believe it or not).... but these cheaters have made me so mad. What can I do? It doesn't seem like anything.

I called EA support FIVE TIMES (was on the phone for 90 mins total) and every person I talked to said the game had no hacks out for it. I even sent them to the website and showed them the videos and screens and they said they were fake... c'mon, are they serious?

I also tried to post asking for help on the EA Forums and every single time they delete my post. After spending $60 and EA made $5 Million in sales the FIRST WEEK I think a deserving LEGIT player like me deserves some sort of answer about a fix. Can you help?

Regards,
Chris Johnson
Wow that sucks, take your story to the Battlefield 3 reddit my friend. They have a community manager from DICE on there who's pretty cool so if your story gets upvoted you could well get noticed.
 

Ganath

New member
Jan 24, 2011
265
0
0
I really feel this game is more enjoyable on the PC, I've played Xbox and PC so far, Xbox version belonging to my brother and overall, the PC version actually got me hooked on the game, while the Xbox version felt kinda meh. It's weird. I'm talking about the multiplayer here and general setup. Not the graphics, actually. Plus, I've grown really fond of Battlelog, which I can't even figure out why some people are complaining about.

Origin hasn't proved a bother either, I hardily even look at it, spending most of my time either playing or glaring at the battle log, eh. Now, I did however have some problems with getting my connection timed out in the middle of games, which I didn't have on the xbox. However, that solved itself when I forwarded ports, as I havn't ever since.

As for the campaign, It's.. okay, I guess. I didn't buy this game to play that myself though. I remember back in the days when I used to play Battlefield 2k, The futuristic one. That was awesome, what with titans and all. This game helped revive some of those fond memories, although could still do with the titans:D

To clarify, on the Origin part, I got an account just to play this game, was it worth it? Hell yes.
 

SpAc3man

New member
Jul 26, 2009
1,197
0
0
I am actually really enjoying Battlelog. There have been heaps of bugfixes to it that would normally be put in a patch we have to download. Instead they just update their own end over a half hour period. So much easier.

Being educated at uni in various methods of software development probably helps me to realise how ingenious this system is but I really think this is a new direction games will head into. Especially with the continued rise of cloud computing.
 

plainlake

New member
Jan 20, 2010
110
0
0
Ah, I`l buy it when it gets on a steam sale... Never you say? ok, I will never get it legaly then.
 

Buizel91

Autobot
Aug 25, 2008
5,265
0
0
Is there still that graphics problem? Having to download a package to get HD graphics? I remember a thread about it a while ago, Does it affect the 360?

Anyway, i'll probably pick this up for chrimbo, getting MW3 then as well so i get to compare and see which one i like ;D
 

ezeroast

New member
Jan 25, 2009
767
0
0
arc1991 said:
Is there still that graphics problem? Having to download a package to get HD graphics? I remember a thread about it a while ago, Does it affect the 360?

Anyway, i'll probably pick this up for chrimbo, getting MW3 then as well so i get to compare and see which one i like ;D
There is a texture pack for the 360 on the second disc. I'm fairly sure you don't have to download it.
 

Alandoril

New member
Jul 19, 2010
532
0
0
I don't think it exactly a bad thing you don't feel anything for the characters. The vast majority of people playing this game (not to mention those who developed it) don't even think about what it's actually like to be in a combat situation, and treat the characters they are playing as as expendable. So that's what they become.

And actually, that's what I think is one of the strongest elements of this kind of modern warfare fps. In general you are playing an average, working class man who has essentially been paid by his government (and by extension the vast military-industrial complex) to die in order to further territorial and financial gain. What these games show, although I doubt anyone making or playing them gives it a second thought, is that the people pulling our strings don't care about our lives...even the slightest bit.

Don't throw "single soldier dies, national tragedy" news stories at me because they're just concocted to assuage the guilty conscience of those who want to think they care but actually don't.
 

Withard

New member
Feb 4, 2010
180
0
0
The MOST disgusting optimized game I have EVER played.

Constant crashes, gliches, problems, crashes, did I mention crashes, Minimizing working games followed by crashes.

Horrendous effort