Poll: how good is Battlefield 3
- Thread starter MCrewdson001
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
This game gets a 100/10, regardless of actual quality.
It's that epic. Buy now.
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!Yosharian said:
)
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.
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.
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.
I LOVE the boxart and the overall colur scheme for the menus and such...
its the first time I really tries multiplayer..and while fun,,I dont know, I guess it would be more fun if there was more comunication going on, since no one uses a mic on PSN, then again mabye having freinds would help
its the first time I really tries multiplayer..and while fun,,I dont know, I guess it would be more fun if there was more comunication going on, since no one uses a mic on PSN, then again mabye having freinds would help
I've been playing it for about 7 hours so far (4 on the single, 3 on the multi) and here are my current thoughts.
The Campaign is a complete joke. QTE's everywhere for no reason (there is one where you have to fight a rat and if you fail you give it the middle finger before you die. Seriously). It's linear to the point of choking. Textures are occasionally blurry. Enemies are bullet sponges. Enemies fire on your position and only your position whether they have a right to know where you are or not. The story is delivered with all the panache and emotion of a 35 year old reading from a telephone book.
You can't counter enemy melee attacks (which, by the way, are one hit kills). Your team AI are skitzophrenic idiots who will push you out of perfectly decent cover, run past enemies that are shooting at you and them, take grenades to the face and do nothing about it and (in one truly headscratching moment) completed my objective for me. Checkpoints are ludicrously placed (often meaning that if you die 10 seconds after the last super difficult battle you have to go back and do the whole fucking secttion again). Load times are unacceptable...
It's fitfully exciting and looks brilliant (most of the time) but I wouldn't have accepted this as a budget title in 2006. 2/5
But then you hit the multiplayer and it all melts away. It looks gorgeous (more so than in the single player). It runs almost lag free all the time. It's almost perfectly balanced. The maps are ace. The vehicles are great. And when you get put in a squad that sticks together, everything falls into place. It's an extremely rewarding game that I have often found myself having extreme amounts of fun with! There are still some connection issues (Quick Join doesn't work) but they are trying to fix it.
The multiplayer is the world beating first person shooter we were promised the whole package would be and I couldn't recommend it more. 5/5
So, whilst I haven't tried the Co-Op yet, I'm giving the full game the bottom rung of a 4/5. The single player really drags it down but it's also probably really short (I'm about half way but half my single player time consists of me replaying the same sections over and over again) and, let's face it, you buy a Battlefield game for the multiplayer. The overall package is a mixed bag, but the campaign will be a distant memory when you're furiously trying to hold off the attacking side with your tightly knit squad at the Caspian Border.
This mini-review applies to the PS3 version.
The Campaign is a complete joke. QTE's everywhere for no reason (there is one where you have to fight a rat and if you fail you give it the middle finger before you die. Seriously). It's linear to the point of choking. Textures are occasionally blurry. Enemies are bullet sponges. Enemies fire on your position and only your position whether they have a right to know where you are or not. The story is delivered with all the panache and emotion of a 35 year old reading from a telephone book.
You can't counter enemy melee attacks (which, by the way, are one hit kills). Your team AI are skitzophrenic idiots who will push you out of perfectly decent cover, run past enemies that are shooting at you and them, take grenades to the face and do nothing about it and (in one truly headscratching moment) completed my objective for me. Checkpoints are ludicrously placed (often meaning that if you die 10 seconds after the last super difficult battle you have to go back and do the whole fucking secttion again). Load times are unacceptable...
It's fitfully exciting and looks brilliant (most of the time) but I wouldn't have accepted this as a budget title in 2006. 2/5
But then you hit the multiplayer and it all melts away. It looks gorgeous (more so than in the single player). It runs almost lag free all the time. It's almost perfectly balanced. The maps are ace. The vehicles are great. And when you get put in a squad that sticks together, everything falls into place. It's an extremely rewarding game that I have often found myself having extreme amounts of fun with! There are still some connection issues (Quick Join doesn't work) but they are trying to fix it.
The multiplayer is the world beating first person shooter we were promised the whole package would be and I couldn't recommend it more. 5/5
So, whilst I haven't tried the Co-Op yet, I'm giving the full game the bottom rung of a 4/5. The single player really drags it down but it's also probably really short (I'm about half way but half my single player time consists of me replaying the same sections over and over again) and, let's face it, you buy a Battlefield game for the multiplayer. The overall package is a mixed bag, but the campaign will be a distant memory when you're furiously trying to hold off the attacking side with your tightly knit squad at the Caspian Border.
This mini-review applies to the PS3 version.
Its pretty average, however, I wouldnt give it a six because:
-the multi favours snipers over all other classes
-health takes very long to start recharching
-you lose health very, VERY quickly, as your character can die by being shot 5 times by any gun.
-respawn times are an absolute b****: 25 seconds waiting time breaks flow
-Too many thick bushes.
Its just my opinion though, I think that I'm just not a Battlefield type of person, I prefer Modern Warfare, becuase at least respawning doesnt take so god-damn long, and you could (arguably) become an elite player with any gun/ class.
To me, its gonna take more than pretty graphics, a good physics engine and huge maps to convince me that this is better than MW.
-the multi favours snipers over all other classes
-health takes very long to start recharching
-you lose health very, VERY quickly, as your character can die by being shot 5 times by any gun.
-respawn times are an absolute b****: 25 seconds waiting time breaks flow
-Too many thick bushes.
Its just my opinion though, I think that I'm just not a Battlefield type of person, I prefer Modern Warfare, becuase at least respawning doesnt take so god-damn long, and you could (arguably) become an elite player with any gun/ class.
To me, its gonna take more than pretty graphics, a good physics engine and huge maps to convince me that this is better than MW.
can I ask what platform youre on? I put lack of comunication down to being on PS3 (or mabye country has somthing to do with it)apsham said:
but yeah, multiplayer is fun in a way, but in the end..not all that satisfying, I guess im just not a multiplayer person
I say a 7. Althought ive played better FPS Single players, i couldnt help but be reminded of the ps2 game BLACK all the way through it.
The two are far too similiar! I did enjoy the later levels where the settings where a bit different and the gameplay was a bit more frantic.
.. love the multiplayer though, thats a strong 9 from me.
The two are far too similiar! I did enjoy the later levels where the settings where a bit different and the gameplay was a bit more frantic.
.. love the multiplayer though, thats a strong 9 from me.
The whole levelling business has gone too far in my opinion. FFS it isn't World of Warcraft. I'm much more of a competetive gamer, and that means that everyone should have the same mechanics at the start of a game/round/map, where skill and experience outside the game will translate to good results ingame-- ie I shouldn't have to "grind" a couple of maps for XP before I can even begin to be an effective medic when playing assault. Horrible design from a gameplay perspective, although it certainly makes sense from the MMO perspective.
Together with a direct insult to me as a gamer (the SP campaign) I'd have to say its squarely a 4, but if you are a bit more forgiving and can ignore the fact that they spent all those resources on the shitty SP instead of refining the MP (and no "separate budget" bullshit plz, that in itself is a management decision) -- then I'd say it's closer to a weak 6, but dragged down to a mediocre 5 due to general software issues and the poor design from a competetive stand-point.
Together with a direct insult to me as a gamer (the SP campaign) I'd have to say its squarely a 4, but if you are a bit more forgiving and can ignore the fact that they spent all those resources on the shitty SP instead of refining the MP (and no "separate budget" bullshit plz, that in itself is a management decision) -- then I'd say it's closer to a weak 6, but dragged down to a mediocre 5 due to general software issues and the poor design from a competetive stand-point.
I AMDexter111 said:
Its just my opinion, Im not gonna rage all over the internet, but to me, its like Coke and Pepsi, It all depends on personal taste, and I just dont like Battlefield as much as everyone else seems to.
Also, I was talking about Modern Warfare 1, not 2 or 3 when I said that the MP was better.
I am quite offended.Dexter111 said:It all just reminds me so much of this...Akichi Daikashima said:
Also, most of your arguments don't even make sense e.g.:
- You don't Regen health because it's a Team-based shooter, that's what the medic class is for and they drop Medi-Packs all around, the previous iterations didn't even have Regen at all, like say... Team Fortress 2 and of course you lose Health quickly... you're being shot at with weapons lol, what do you want to be required to kill you, Tank Shells and immunity to bullets?
- Sniper Class while staying somewhere and picking off people is the most useless of the classes, Battlefield isn't about Kill
- Regarding Respawn again it's a Team-based shooter, if you die that much you're doing it wrong, get in a Squad with a Medic and they can Revive you instantly, other than that the game would be pointless if you just killed 3-4 enemies trying to defend an Objective to take it for your team and they could instantly spawn there like 3-4x... in Counter Strike for instance you can only spawn once per round and that's still like the most played competitive FPS out there...
I understand that some of points don't add up, but I'm not a loud mouth troll, believe me.
Shooters are a small fraction of my gaming library, but how about we end this arguement by me just coming out and asying I like MODERN WARFARE, but I CAN be partial to BATTLEFIELD 3, its just too slow for me.
Well the single player portion was mediocre but we all know it was just a tech demo for Frostbite 2.
This is Battlefield back where it belongs. Its a wonderful combination of classic BF gameplay with the parts of the Bad Company series that were good and now with extra sexy graphics. The huge maps are heaps of fun to play and each one is played slightly differently. It seems to be exactly what we have been waiting for since BF2.
This is Battlefield back where it belongs. Its a wonderful combination of classic BF gameplay with the parts of the Bad Company series that were good and now with extra sexy graphics. The huge maps are heaps of fun to play and each one is played slightly differently. It seems to be exactly what we have been waiting for since BF2.
