Poll: how good is Battlefield 3

Rednog

New member
Nov 3, 2008
3,567
0
0
It a high 6 low 7.
The singleplayer is just a boat load of pointless.
The multiplayer is ok, but the lack of a tutorial for vehicles + an absolutely atrocious unlock system just doesn't work for me.
Also the classes just don't feel right. Assault, people are playing it basically like the front line attackers and really aren't running around and dropping med kits or reviving. Sniper, they have a gadget to help people deploy on the front lines....but they're all sitting in the back or off on the side...so a bit pointless. Support, sure they can drop ammo kits, but that requires them to be on the front lines which their LMGs are definitely not suited for. Engineer really seems to be the class to play, you have a wide variety of different range guns, and you have anti vehicle weapons. I really think they should mix up the recon/support/assault; assault should have the recons tool to spawn forward, support ammo and med kits, recon should have the supports mortars and what not.
 

park92

New member
Aug 1, 2009
514
0
0
--

Have not gotten to try the COOP... No friends can join me, and I can't join them.[/quote]

I had that problem with coop too but after rebooting a couple of times it works
 

wooty

Vi Britannia
Aug 1, 2009
4,252
0
0
Not gone near the campaign, so cant vote on that. Multiplayer I'd give an 8.5/9 so far, being dragged down a bit by occassional lag and hardcore campers.
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Apr 18, 2020
7,118
1,352
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
Single player campaign is short, badly written, and really restrictive. There are a lot of areas where you feel like you can go somewhere, but then the moment you reach that place the game kills you for going outside of the map, which REALLY annoyed me.

The multiplayer is great, and the graphics are fantastic, but I sometimes feel like the graphics get in the way of the gameplay. The lighting is fantastic, but good luck sniping with the sun in your face, you're constantly blinded by it which gives your enemy an advantage. Also, because the textures are all so detailed it can be REALLY difficult to see people at any decent range without a scope. Again, this can get really annoying until you upgrade some of your weapons.

Also Origin is annoying, and so is Battlenet. I don't care what people say, it's a pain in the ass to constantly have to alt+tab out of the game whenever I want to find a new server. Sometimes my computer can't take the constant alt+tabbing and ends up freezing for a minute or two, and then I end up having to wait WAY longer than if it just used an in-game server menu.

All in all the game deserves a solid 7/10. Better than average game, but the single player campaign really drags the score down and so does EA's stupidity. After how much they talked about the campaign I really expected more than what was delivered.
 

Skops

New member
Mar 9, 2010
820
0
0
really depends what plaform you get it on. For all EA is marketing towards the CoD Fanbase, DICE certainly didn't help out with making a PC game and the console versions lacking visually severely.

PC: 9.5/10
PS3/360: 8/10
 

Pedro The Hutt

New member
Apr 1, 2009
980
0
0
The mere fact they bothered with a single player campaign also means that they should've made it a decent experience and not one that has almost literally bored people to tears. If they couldn't be arsed to put any real effort in the campaign then they should've focussed solely and exclusively on the multiplayer, which is something I felt they should have done indeed. So every reviewer who deducts several points for the lacking single player is perfectly in their right to do so.

From the looks of things, the multiplayer is decent but nothing ground breaking. Certainly nothing I'd stop playing Red Orchestra 2 for.

As to the graphics, at least on the consoles all the fancy lighting effects (that stop you from seeing pretty much anything important in certain situations) are largely used to throw dust into the eyes of the gamers and wow them with what's otherwise largely average stuff. Especially on consoles the character models can be lacking in detail.

And frankly, I find them distracting, this is a first person shooter, I have no need for lens flares since I'm technically not looking through a lens and considering not all characters have goggles I don't need a dust on the lens effect either. Just let me see where the enemy is so I can shoot him.
 

GLo Jones

Activate the Swagger
Feb 13, 2010
1,192
0
0
In my opinion, it's everything you'd expect from 'Battlefield 3'.

So as long as EA can get the servers sorted out. It should be my second favourite game this year.
 

Dyme

New member
Nov 18, 2009
498
0
0
It is REALLY fun.
But there are many bugs and glitches (game crashes really often, for everyone I know and play with), most servers lag and origin steals your data and shares it with everyone, and checks your computer for other stolen EA games.

Oh and Singleplayer is boring, and Coop is a joke (about 1 hour of gameplay, if you take it really slow on hard difficulty).
 

vivalahelvig

New member
Jun 4, 2009
513
0
0
I don't know, but you fight a RAT in a QUICKTIME EVENT.
This game gets a 100/10, regardless of actual quality.
It's that epic. Buy now.
 

5t3v0

New member
Jan 15, 2011
317
0
0
Yosharian said:
I myself haven't played the multiplayer yet because I'm waiting for either new drivers off ATI or a patch for the game - currently it doesn't support hyperthreading which effectively means it does not work on most dual-core Intel CPUs - at the moment I'm having to run off one core as a result. Not gonna play multiplayer with a substandard framerate.
Well from what I hear its actually more GPU based than CPU based, which is a plus, considering on my old Core 2 Duo build BC2 ran like a dehydrated ass while games like ArmA 2 and Just Cause 2 actually ran rather nicely considering my 2010 era Entry level graphics card (the 1gb DDr3 ATI 5570. New build though so I don't have to use it anymore! :D)
 

C95J

I plan to live forever.
Apr 10, 2010
3,491
0
0
I haven't got it, but judging by what I played on the demo, I would say it was a 6 or 7. Not too much of a change from Bad Company (I never really played Battlefield 2), but it was still a great game.
 

42

Australian Justice
Jan 30, 2010
697
0
0
Why is everyone taking Battlelog on the chin? if people just give it a simple attitude devs will take this as a good thing, and then we will be seeing more of this kind of crap. The single player took sequences from Call of duty, which in turn took it from movies. as for multiplayer, it's the usual battlefield affair, not much has changed. the game has truly awesome bits, but the problems of crap like battle log, the shit campaign, and (yeah i get it xbox 360 can't take the sharp image hurrdy durr i don't give a fuck i can't afford a pc rig) the really awful graphics on xbox. even after installing the texture pack it still looks like arse. which begs the question, If Crysis 2 is able to look pretty on consoles even though its PC gamings trial by fire, then i don't get why DICE can't bother putting in the effort.
Im not saying Battlefield 3 is bad, far from it, the shooting mechanics work and it is fluid. it's solid as a shooter. but the faults took away from the experience. and before i get accused of playing BF3 for single player HURP DERP if i fork out 89 bucks for a game like BF i expect to get my full money's worth campaign, multiplayer lock stock the fucking lot. *sigh* well there are still 3 games that still have chance to not disappoint me. MW3, Saint's Row the Third and Skyrim.
 

flamingjimmy

New member
Jan 11, 2010
363
0
0
Solid 9 in my book, I'll be sinking hundreds of hours into the multiplayer I'm sure, so why would I care that the campaign is short? I've enjoyed it so far anyway, nothing special but decent enough entertainment for when my shitty internet connection goes down.