Battlefield 3 Review

[Aeonknight]

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]

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 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]

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.

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]

Is the bot MP?

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

 

[Waaghpowa]

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

 

[octafish]

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]

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]

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.

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 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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.