Battlefield 3

 PC
User Score
7.6

Generally favorable reviews- based on 5642 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4,003 out of 5642
  2. Mixed: 872 out of 5642
  3. Negative: 767 out of 5642
Buy Now
Buy on

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. anderson211
    Jan 29, 2012
    6
    I love everything about how this game should play. Masterful multiplayer, perfect for the 4 of us friends to enjoy together, fantastic maps/weapons/vehicles, and the best graphics to date in gaming. If I could play it all day long with friends, I probably would. But I can't. Punkbuster took me out of BF3 all this week after a known security flaw was finally abused. The awful OriginI love everything about how this game should play. Masterful multiplayer, perfect for the 4 of us friends to enjoy together, fantastic maps/weapons/vehicles, and the best graphics to date in gaming. If I could play it all day long with friends, I probably would. But I can't. Punkbuster took me out of BF3 all this week after a known security flaw was finally abused. The awful Origin web-based Steam-wannabe launching platform boots me from whatever server I'm in about once per hour. The game freezes and crashes about once per two hours, separate from Origin. The amount of deaths sustained in any 4 hour marathon play session from bugs, glitches, and most notably from hackers requires constant effort to find an enjoyable server. Nothing from EA, Dice, or punkbuster has removed the massive amount of cheating on PC play. Just look at the leaderboards Origin gives you. None are legit.

    This game was going to be absolutely huge upon release. Everyone knew that. EA was going to make a fortune on this game no matter what, and their preference to take extra net income over spending a few million bucks to make this game work is very obvious. Steam anti cheat has worked properly for many years, as has their delivery system and platform. EA elected not to use that system this time around, obviously to make even more money. The cash grab that is Origin is fine, if it works properly!!! It doesn't. At all. When the gaming community hands you a billion dollars of our money, we shouldn't have to deal with such issues. We should all be talking about balancing issues, new items, new maps, how to further improve such a great release, but the only thing the BF3 forum produces is complaints of stability, complaints about hacking, complaints about bugs, etc. We are far beyond the initial release kinks that every massive selling game will endure. EA's traditional business model of spamming out a game with a higher number behind the title to make more money on the franchise continues, and I won't be suckered into buying another unless I read how stable and flawless the game is 3-6 months after release.    … Expand
  2. Jadzwing
    Nov 26, 2011
    6
    Excellent realistic gun sounds, very good, realistic graphic, destruction, and thats end of good things in the game. Singleplayer is trying very hard tell story very similar to Modern Warfare series! There's like in CoD "difficult choice" and "big end with killing super bad character". I like end's like this, but why similiar end is in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Call of Duty 6: ModernExcellent realistic gun sounds, very good, realistic graphic, destruction, and thats end of good things in the game. Singleplayer is trying very hard tell story very similar to Modern Warfare series! There's like in CoD "difficult choice" and "big end with killing super bad character". I like end's like this, but why similiar end is in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Call of Duty 6: Modern Warfare 2 and Call of Duty 8: Modern Warfare 3?
    Multiplayer is very good, destruction is amazing, and showing a real war. Sounds are great too but there's break with them, there's a lot of bugs... Nice 6 for very bad single, and bugged multi.    … Expand
  3. Freki
    Nov 4, 2011
    5
    I could spend this space writing about how great the game looks, how well it sounds, how fun it can be and all that - and I probable should as that is usually what people want to hear in a review be they gamers, publishers or developers..
    But quite honestly what I feel like writing about is all the frustration I'm left with after having finished the campaign... A game is not supposed to    I could spend this space writing about how great the game looks, how well it sounds, how fun it can be and all that - and I probable should as that is usually what people want to hear in a review be they gamers, publishers or developers..
    But quite honestly what I feel like writing about is all the frustration I'm left with after having finished the campaign... A game is not supposed to ship in such a state - you are not supposed to have a browser window open to find solutions to the game breaking bugs, you are no supposed to give up playing the multiplayer game because you can't play for more than a few minutes before it crashes..

    Dice have created a really beautiful game that serious gamers should play, but they should wait as it's certainly not finished yet - it's no secret PC gamers are getting the short end of the stick in this console era, but dear Dice and EA - I think most of us would much rather have waited for the finished game in December than be given an unfinished Beta in October..

    Anywhoo, when it works it looks and plays awesomely - so do pick it up, just do yourself a favor and wait until the first couple patches are out as it will save you a lot of frustration..    … Expand
  4. Tkwz
    Oct 31, 2011
    6
    This game is great and would deserve at least 8/10, most likely 9/10. So why 6/10? Because this game is UNFINISHED, plenty of bugs from beta are still in final version and the ONLY reason for this is... they wanted to get a pre-CoD premiere. Well screw you, maybe we get bugged games all the time right now, but that doesn't mean it's what WE the gamers want. We want to buy game, a comp toThis game is great and would deserve at least 8/10, most likely 9/10. So why 6/10? Because this game is UNFINISHED, plenty of bugs from beta are still in final version and the ONLY reason for this is... they wanted to get a pre-CoD premiere. Well screw you, maybe we get bugged games all the time right now, but that doesn't mean it's what WE the gamers want. We want to buy game, a comp to it's spec and play it and have fun, not tu realise we need to wait for patch for who knows how long. So 6/10, learn something for the future.… Expand
  5. Chapy
    Nov 5, 2011
    6
    I have a confession to make, seriously. The day BF3 was released I came on here and posted my user review as a 10. Here's the thing, after you play 20+ hours of BF3, it's simply a lie to yourself if you rate it a perfect 10. BF3 has many patches to go before it (hopefully) approaches perfection. I joined the BF series with BF2, a **** masterpiece. I'm still a huge BF3 fan and will stillI have a confession to make, seriously. The day BF3 was released I came on here and posted my user review as a 10. Here's the thing, after you play 20+ hours of BF3, it's simply a lie to yourself if you rate it a perfect 10. BF3 has many patches to go before it (hopefully) approaches perfection. I joined the BF series with BF2, a **** masterpiece. I'm still a huge BF3 fan and will still play because even with its faults, the moments of brilliance are not easily matched by any other competitive FPS. But the faults are (seriously now) SOME-OF-THE-MOST-INFURIATING-FUN-KILLING-EXPERIENCE-RUINING faults I've ever witnessed. You must understand the degree of game experience ruined by several very specific design flaws and bugs. 1) Dying behind cover. This happens. In fact it happens every time you're capable of experiencing it, which is when you're running into cover. I don't mean cardboard box cover here boys and girls, I mean you've rounded a concrete building, you've jumped over a cement barrier, you've dodged into an alleyway, yet you take fire and DIE 5 to 10 feet behind impenetrable cover. This anomaly has nothing at all to do with cover, it has to do with BF3â… Expand
  6. Astro_Zombie
    Oct 25, 2011
    5
    I joined metacritic solely for the purpose of writing this review and hopefully saving some people the frustration EA has caused me. I've been a long time battlefield fan and couldn't wait for this game to hit store shelves. Critics seem to rave about it and people who are wowed over by pretty visuals seem to love it. I on the other hand have had more frustrations with this game andI joined metacritic solely for the purpose of writing this review and hopefully saving some people the frustration EA has caused me. I've been a long time battlefield fan and couldn't wait for this game to hit store shelves. Critics seem to rave about it and people who are wowed over by pretty visuals seem to love it. I on the other hand have had more frustrations with this game and EA's piss pore attempt at an online distribution site than I think I have ever had in all my time PC gaming. The game crashes, battlelog is an absolute joke right now, errors left and right, and glitches out the ass. Not to mention the swarm of hackers already flooding the servers. As of right now I have played maybe 20 minutes of the game and could honestly care less about it. Maybe EA will fix these problems (which were also present in the beta, funny absolutely none of it was addressed upon release). As of right now though I have had no fun with BF3. But hey, they got my money like they wanted and the game looks great on my PC so I guess thats a plus.

    Personally, I'm going right back to BC2 and plan on leaving this in the dust until EA does something about Origin and the many bugs plaguing this game right now. Maybe a good game in the future but I wish I would have passed for now.    … Expand
  7. Ranmauzo
    Oct 25, 2011
    5
    Terrible, inexcusable single-player. Crappy multiplayer netcode. Another proof that FPS games are considered an excuse for mediocrity because terrible CoD kiddies will pay for it no matter how crappy. All these 10 ratings might as well be ignored, the single player is so terrible every review should be brought down at least 4 points.
  8. Travie
    Oct 25, 2011
    5
    First off, I have to say that the multiplayer is actually quite good in many ways, and many of the beta bugs were fixed. Now, for the bad... many weren't. Sometimes animations don't load properly and you will see some members of your team just hang there floating from point A to point B, other times after you land a kill the enemy will just stay there in ready position. I only encounteredFirst off, I have to say that the multiplayer is actually quite good in many ways, and many of the beta bugs were fixed. Now, for the bad... many weren't. Sometimes animations don't load properly and you will see some members of your team just hang there floating from point A to point B, other times after you land a kill the enemy will just stay there in ready position. I only encountered those bugs maybe twice each in 3 hours of gameplay, but it was still quite annoying. Then I have to mention the singleplayer. It was candidly... awful. QTEs every few minutes of gameplay, enemies spawned in two at a time from spawn points that were clearly in view, voice acting that was sub par. I know most people don't play Battlefield for the singleplayer, but every single other Battlefield game had a GREAT singleplayer experience attached, making it all the more disappointing.

    Lastly Origin. Any game that forces you to use third party software for all gameplay immediately gets a a negative mark, but Origin is one of the worst offenders that I've seen. It collects personal information about your hard drive and what games you have installs, what you play, and how long you play it. In systems like steam this is a non-issue, because steam doesn't collect and use this information, but EA does not have that moral hangup. If not for Origin this would be a solid 7/10, if not for the bad singleplayer 8.5/10.    … Expand
  9. PessimisticMan
    Feb 1, 2014
    5
    The strength of this game is based almost only on the multiplayer. The story is not worth remembering.
    PROS:
    +The multiplayer is very well balanced. +Amazingly wide variety of weapon customization. +The maps are pretty good. I'm not a fan of the large maps, but a lot of people are. +You got a lot of say of the track of the game (multiplayer) by just playing. Everyone has the pressure    The strength of this game is based almost only on the multiplayer. The story is not worth remembering.
    PROS:
    +The multiplayer is very well balanced.
    +Amazingly wide variety of weapon customization.
    +The maps are pretty good. I'm not a fan of the large maps, but a lot of people are.
    +You got a lot of say of the track of the game (multiplayer) by just playing. Everyone has the pressure of making or breaking the game.
    +There are glitches. "Isn't that a bad thing?" you may ask. No, because it is hilarious!
    CONS:
    -The story sucks. I don't need to into detail, it's just bad.
    -The multiplayer isn't noob friendly. If you're new to FPS, get a CoD game with bots for practice.
    -The planes and tanks in the multiplayer are more of an annoyance then anything.
    -Web-based game, because EA hates their fans or something.
    -EA
    I don't know. Do like multiplayer? Get it. If you want a game with value, don't.    … Expand
  10. JohnR
    Apr 20, 2012
    5
    I have re-reviewed BF3 after having played it extensively over a long period. The battle-log interface, and so many elements of the game play are just plain irritating. BF Bad Company 2 is much more fun, and the interface is simple and well laid out. It is a better game than BF3.
  11. Lemmiwinks
    Nov 3, 2011
    7
    I really wanted to give a higher score but i cannot ignore the glaring issues. Graphics, multiplayer and gameplay are out of this world 9/10, COD will not touch it. Singleplayer is terrible though, it may look pretty but it is just sooo boring, nothing really happens. Next time think up a better storyline or scrap it, i know it is more about multiplayer but my cat could have done a betterI really wanted to give a higher score but i cannot ignore the glaring issues. Graphics, multiplayer and gameplay are out of this world 9/10, COD will not touch it. Singleplayer is terrible though, it may look pretty but it is just sooo boring, nothing really happens. Next time think up a better storyline or scrap it, i know it is more about multiplayer but my cat could have done a better job.

    Key binding! why allow me to bind my own keys but then during all quick time events make me use the original ones! Too many quick time events too. Still buggy, my comrades got stuck at one point(they continued to shoot at a wall when all enemies were dead), i carried on and eventually it fixed itself. Kept crashing on the last level due to key bindings. walked over invisible rocks. final fight, first time around my enemy was invisible! Multiplayer is excellent, shame about using origin and the browser as it can be very slow. Its such a shame as this game could have been awesome, instead its just good. They probably could have stolen a few COD fans if they had included a couple of smaller maps.    … Expand
  12. MellerYeller
    Nov 8, 2011
    7
    I wish I could give this game a higher score than 7 but unfortunately I have quite a few issues with it. First of all, half the maps are tiny and aren't open at all. They basically are just linked chokepoints which is not the BF style. These maps can work for Rush but they're a mess on Conquest. Second, Battlelog is crap in its current state. It randomly stops working all the time and I'veI wish I could give this game a higher score than 7 but unfortunately I have quite a few issues with it. First of all, half the maps are tiny and aren't open at all. They basically are just linked chokepoints which is not the BF style. These maps can work for Rush but they're a mess on Conquest. Second, Battlelog is crap in its current state. It randomly stops working all the time and I've gotten countless errors from it. Still, to get a 7, I have enjoyed my time with the game. The other half of the maps are really good and there's tons of gameplay options with all the new unlocks and whatnot. Gameplay is still solid in general but don't even both with the campaign as it's even worse than BC2's.… Expand
  13. ACESsiggy
    Jan 25, 2012
    7
    Pretty interesting game to play. I really enjoyed a shake-up to the constant barrage of expansion packs from the Moder Warfare saga. Single player was very interesting and action packed. It is pretty heavy on my PC and my video card defenitely kicks into overdrive playing it. Multiplayer I didnt enjoy too much. The game requires you to install Origin to play and install a add-on to yourPretty interesting game to play. I really enjoyed a shake-up to the constant barrage of expansion packs from the Moder Warfare saga. Single player was very interesting and action packed. It is pretty heavy on my PC and my video card defenitely kicks into overdrive playing it. Multiplayer I didnt enjoy too much. The game requires you to install Origin to play and install a add-on to your webbrowser. I think it's pretty dumb that you need to open origin then just to click the play button in an internet browser page once more. Basically extra steps for nothing just to get into multiplayer. On top of that the initial load time (first time entering a match) it takes at least 3-5 minutes to load. After that load time is minimal.

    Overall glad to see Modern Warfare having some competition on the market finally.    … Expand
  14. goatranced
    Jan 24, 2012
    7
    Overall I think this is a pretty good game. I've been playing it for a about a month now and it still seems to have many items for me to unlock. BEWARE though the multiplayer is full of cheaters and hackers that apparently remain one step ahead of countermeasures. It's not uncommon for these players to go 50 plus kills with 1 or 2 deaths. A good admin server with voting removal canOverall I think this is a pretty good game. I've been playing it for a about a month now and it still seems to have many items for me to unlock. BEWARE though the multiplayer is full of cheaters and hackers that apparently remain one step ahead of countermeasures. It's not uncommon for these players to go 50 plus kills with 1 or 2 deaths. A good admin server with voting removal can help immensely but usually unless you have some cheaters on your team too it can totally distort the outcome of the game before they are removed and many slide under the radar anyway.… Expand
  15. reFUTCHable
    Jun 10, 2012
    5
    Ok, so this review is late but i believe it needs to be said. Although this is not related to the actual game design, this is part of the game experience. Team stacking and hacking are the only things you'll run into in the multiplayer side of the game. DICE should remove the 'swap team' button as all the so called 'good players' often use that to their advantage and you'll see a largeOk, so this review is late but i believe it needs to be said. Although this is not related to the actual game design, this is part of the game experience. Team stacking and hacking are the only things you'll run into in the multiplayer side of the game. DICE should remove the 'swap team' button as all the so called 'good players' often use that to their advantage and you'll see a large amount of servers with constant baserape. This is just my impression of the game and after 100+ hours of gameplay I took a minor hiatus only to return and find battlefield premium. Now i have no problem with the notion of pay once get all dlcs, but to prioritise queuing for premium members is just a tad unfair to the rest of us. Thank you EA, for reminding me how little regard you have of your customers. I'll be enjoying all the free DLC's ive gotten from the Witcher 2.… Expand
  16. Jon2011
    Jul 29, 2012
    5
    This is not a BF game, but this rating isn't about how good of a sequel it is.
    Gunplay is mediocre at best, suppression ruins the gunplay.
    Vehicles are crippled by disabling at 50%, makes them no fun to use. Health regeneration on vehicles and infantry. Squad perks make ammo almost useless. 3D spotting makes everything easy mode. Gun customization is neat, but overdone. Vehicle    This is not a BF game, but this rating isn't about how good of a sequel it is.
    Gunplay is mediocre at best, suppression ruins the gunplay.
    Vehicles are crippled by disabling at 50%, makes them no fun to use.
    Health regeneration on vehicles and infantry.
    Squad perks make ammo almost useless.
    3D spotting makes everything easy mode.
    Gun customization is neat, but overdone.
    Vehicle perks make the vehicle game even more dull.
    No VOIP for squads to communicate.
    Maps are too small for 64 players. (all maps except Gulf of Oman)
    Origin and battlelog are required to play, no way to launch game through desktop.
    No mod tools.
    Too much emphasis on unlocking stuff, less emphasis on actual fun.
    Great view distance!    … Expand
  17. Ranisz
    Oct 31, 2011
    7
    Nice but little bit disappointing. It is really hard to avoid comparisons to previous Battlefield 2 and Bad Company 2. I'll start with good things - graphics and sound are just amazing, The Battlefield is there, all around. Frostbite shows its claw at every step. Maps are enormous and it is the very first time I've seen maps like that. At this point I would give 10 but... lets start toNice but little bit disappointing. It is really hard to avoid comparisons to previous Battlefield 2 and Bad Company 2. I'll start with good things - graphics and sound are just amazing, The Battlefield is there, all around. Frostbite shows its claw at every step. Maps are enormous and it is the very first time I've seen maps like that. At this point I would give 10 but... lets start to deduct - The Battlelog - biggest -1 I can give, I still don't get why do I need to have browser open during playing a video game. Battlelog would be just fine without need to have it open all the time. -1 for game play, for me BC2 was perfectly balanced in terms of size of maps and allowed players, I know it is really nice to have a sightseeing tour on the Caspian Border but sometimes it takes few minutes to get to the fight. Final -1 unlock system, completely broken, unlocking scopes per each rifle?! It means once I get new weapon unlocked I must start scoring with it from scratch to bring it to a usable level... Strange and far too complex for me... To put everything together - I will keep playing both BF3 and BC2, each of them for different reasons. Both games physics is close enough to provide smooth shift between them.… Expand
  18. hooner
    Jul 13, 2012
    5
    This is a challenging game, and I really want to like it, but I uninstalled and wont go back. Just my opinion, but some maps are way too big, and others are way to small, some are just horrible (metro and Seine crossing). Unless you are going to play as a team you'll get nailed all the time and worst of all Origin and all the **** software you have to install just killed this for me. EAThis is a challenging game, and I really want to like it, but I uninstalled and wont go back. Just my opinion, but some maps are way too big, and others are way to small, some are just horrible (metro and Seine crossing). Unless you are going to play as a team you'll get nailed all the time and worst of all Origin and all the **** software you have to install just killed this for me. EA are forcing you to let them monitor your internet usage, and then go sell the data for £££.… Expand
  19. HaMSt3rBoT
    Nov 1, 2011
    7
    First of all, EA, GET YOUR ORIGIN'S GRUBBY, RANK, UNWASHED MITTS OFF MY DETAILS. No? Deleted.

    Now as much as people are raving on about the graphics, there are some nice touches, but all in all, it's rather gimmicky, light flares lighting up nothing but the immobile transparent predefined collection of splatters on your face to enthrall your eyeholes. High res textures are nice, some    First of all, EA, GET YOUR ORIGIN'S GRUBBY, RANK, UNWASHED MITTS OFF MY DETAILS. No? Deleted.

    Now as much as people are raving on about the graphics, there are some nice touches, but all in all, it's rather gimmicky, light flares lighting up nothing but the immobile transparent predefined collection of splatters on your face to enthrall your eyeholes. High res textures are nice, some rather clever shortcuts that still look flashy without sacrificing performance, but you'll need to be liberal with performance if you want to steal any thunder from the likes of Crysis 1, which I still consider the graphics overlord (I'm a whore for eyecandy), or to perform a jump in visuals as it did for it's time.
    What DOES steal the show for me, I have to say, is the audio. Excellent backdrop noises, distanced action, indoor echoes, footsteps that actually sound like what you're maneuvering on, and gunfire around you that makes you bloody well hope it's not coming towards you as you dive for your flimsy brick and mortar cover. Top notch job here.

    Singleplayer is a major downer, as it's a rather dramatic story with some decent acting added that ultimately culminates in something utterly forgettable and lifeless. Crummy plot told in an entirely unartistic, uninnovative and tardy prequel format, and the closest deviation towards something remotely hinted to as a twist is shooting your own CO. Though I have to say, I'm happy you don't trundle along with the mobility of a stocked dairy freezer chest as BF:BC2's protagonists did. Though there was talk of a Vanilla milkshake in there somewhere.

    Multiplayer on the other hand is a little bit more of a dusty gem. The Battlelog interface is a bloody dealbreaker, since you have to quit and reconnect to change server, (OR IF YOUR NVIDIA DRIVER STOPS RESPONDING, which seems to be a clock frequency issue... Tut tut, DICE.) but even with their stubborn refusal to add an ingame server browser, what was wrong with running an interface from that abomination called Origin that we were forced to have on our PC's in the first place? Why have ANOTHER middleman?
    But all in all, past all the **** the multiplayer handles well, the weapons are responsive and do what they're expected to do, and your thunderthighs prepare you for miles of endless sprinting which speeds things up a bit. It's really fun and the unlocks are varied and satisfying enough to give you incentive to keep going.

    Just one thing... SPAWNING. OH GOOD LORD THE SPAWNING.

    In short, if you have either consoles (which I usually don't consider for any FPS at all, but Battlelog really makes exceptions here), consider yourself a multiplayer buff, and enjoy a massively open battlefield with some serious distanced fighting (on foot anyhow) and exquisite audio, buy. PC, beware of that hive of scum and villany known as ORIGIN and Battlelog.
    I've uninstalled it in the hopes that DICE will prefer to host it on a different service or standalone, though chances of that are tentatively slim.

    However, HALT CRIMINAL SCUM! It's off to Skyrim!    … Expand
  20. SittinginBasket
    Oct 23, 2012
    7
    After spending much time on this game, and re-evaluating it after playing more than 150 hours, the game is pretty decent overall. The campaign, although relatively linear and not as well done as it could have been, is still quite fun to play. There are some great moments, but the entire campaign is let down by the less than stellar shooting-gallery feel.

    Now the major part of the    After spending much time on this game, and re-evaluating it after playing more than 150 hours, the game is pretty decent overall. The campaign, although relatively linear and not as well done as it could have been, is still quite fun to play. There are some great moments, but the entire campaign is let down by the less than stellar shooting-gallery feel.

    Now the major part of the game, the multiplayer. The gameplay is great, but one thing that really kicked me in the ass is the Battlelog system. What it basically decides to do with stat-saving is not save your stats when you get extremely good stats, and when you play poorly and get bad stats, it saves that for you, and in the end your stats get screwed to oblivion because the system decided not to save the stats of half your games. It essentially destroys the experience by giving you nothing when you put effort into playing the game, and sucker-punches you when you don't, and instead of feeling fulfilled when a round is completed, you are left sitting there, crossing your fingers and hoping that it saves your stats from that round. Thanks a lot, Battlelog.    … Expand
  21. Nirkbirk
    May 9, 2012
    6
    Well, first off, the Singleplayer sucks, so I'm not even going to bother talking about that or including it in the review score. This is a multiplayer game at heart. Secondly, the Co-Op is terrible unless you're with someone you know and have VoIP with them, cause they couldn't even be bothered to include the multiplayer text chat in it, making a successful game through public matchmakingWell, first off, the Singleplayer sucks, so I'm not even going to bother talking about that or including it in the review score. This is a multiplayer game at heart. Secondly, the Co-Op is terrible unless you're with someone you know and have VoIP with them, cause they couldn't even be bothered to include the multiplayer text chat in it, making a successful game through public matchmaking nigh on impossible. That leaves the Multiplayer. It's good, but even nearly 8 months after release, it's still riddled with bugs and exploits. Expect random connection drops, copious amount of lag, and crashes. That said, the game - in essence - is pretty fun, but it's the lack of effort on the part of the developers to make the game robust that drops the score in my opinion. There's also the completely unnecessary origin platform, which does, quite frankly, **** all besides increase the time it takes to get into a game, and if its servers are down for maintenance or whatever (occurred twice in the 5 days that I've been playing) you cannot log in to origin, or, if you're already on battlelog, join any server. Another thing that really annoys me is Battlelog - why they couldn't have just put it inside the game client is beyond me, as to switch to another server, you have to first quit the game, then find a server in battlelog, then run up the game, which in all takes 2-3 minutes, whereas on bad company 2 or BF2, you could be back in a game in under a minute. There's currently a poll on Battlelog (DICE's **** excuse for a server browser/stat tracker) asking what users are most excited for: some of the 'DLC' (glorified map packs) or the next patch. The next patch is winning by a long way, which goes to show how fed up people are of playing a game that isn't actually finished and to a standard at which it's easy to enjoy. When it does work, it's really fun, especially if you get into a squad that works together, and the unlocking system is pretty fun too, rewarding you for using certain weapons a lot.
    All in all, could've been fantastic, but seems rushed and not up to DICE's standard. It's certainly not worth the £40 Origin is asking for, and the B2K DLC is probably only worth £5. I only bought this game because Origin gave me a £10 off voucher, and to be honest, I'd rather have just taken the £10.    … Expand
  22. LittleMeow
    Nov 6, 2011
    7
    It's just plain not ready to come out. They released the beta way too late, and didn't have enough time to fix any problems. This game will be better after it gets patched a few times, so until then I definitely recommend waiting. It definitely has potential to be fun, but right now, it's just completely frustrating.
  23. NinjaPepeprs
    Oct 27, 2011
    7
    A good buy. The single-player is enjoyable although it does lack originality. The multiplayer is chaotic and frustrating but still worth playing, especially if you are a die hard FPS fan. This game would be much higher rated if it's selection screen wasn't web browser based and actually had its own dedicated in game pages. As well as this the screen selection looks cheap and tastelesslyA good buy. The single-player is enjoyable although it does lack originality. The multiplayer is chaotic and frustrating but still worth playing, especially if you are a die hard FPS fan. This game would be much higher rated if it's selection screen wasn't web browser based and actually had its own dedicated in game pages. As well as this the screen selection looks cheap and tastelessly done and is riddled with bugs. In summary the games lackluster single player, a frustrating but fun multiplayer and a buggy, cheap, tasteless loading screen will leave you wanting for more. Despite this in its essence the game is still really enjoyable, you should wait for it to come down in price or wait for them to make improvements before buying it. 7/10.… Expand
  24. V3smic
    Oct 26, 2011
    7
    The multiplier interface being out of game is less than desirable. Until this game is more stable and the web interface is able to work quicker and more consistently, I can hardly recommend the game to anyone for 60 dollars. That being said, once in the game it is absolutely beautiful and plays very well. This game has great potential once some patches are able to address the previouslyThe multiplier interface being out of game is less than desirable. Until this game is more stable and the web interface is able to work quicker and more consistently, I can hardly recommend the game to anyone for 60 dollars. That being said, once in the game it is absolutely beautiful and plays very well. This game has great potential once some patches are able to address the previously mentioned issues.… Expand
  25. C4K3
    Dec 13, 2011
    5
    Gameplay is severely lacking. Instead of the feeling of huge maps in battlefield 2, it's as if they've tried to combine BF2 with CoD, which has just failed quite spectacularly. Battlefield isn't suppose to give fast-paced action, it's suppose to give the feeling of a large battlefield, where you spend time trying to get to that perfect spot. Where you hide from the tank/helicopter goingGameplay is severely lacking. Instead of the feeling of huge maps in battlefield 2, it's as if they've tried to combine BF2 with CoD, which has just failed quite spectacularly. Battlefield isn't suppose to give fast-paced action, it's suppose to give the feeling of a large battlefield, where you spend time trying to get to that perfect spot. Where you hide from the tank/helicopter going past you. Where you can snipe somebody from far away. This game gives absolutely nothing of this. Then there are all the balance and spawnkilling issues, but it would take too long to get into them.

    Now, this game would still be worthy of a green rating if you weren't forced into having to deal with glitches constantly. First there's the obvious one, the horrible game launcher forcing you to reload and unload the entire game every time you want to switch servers. Which incidentally also forces you to be in a game while setting your settings. Then there's the weird movement, they've tried making the game more smooth by adding animations and the sort for jumping over things. The problem is they've failed miserably, and it's not smooth at all.

    Then there are all the problems with EA, I've found ea support to be not only slow and unhelpful, but that they'll also directly lie to you about billing (yes, I've been billed twice on my single copy of BF3, and despite contacting support about this for the first time BEFORE the game was released, I have yet to receive any sort of refund at all) Of course this doesn't say anything about the actual game, it just shows that EA doesn't care about it's customers.    … Expand
  26. Lowzar
    Oct 28, 2011
    5
    A pretty average shooter by all accounts. Origin is just ridiculous, as is battlelog.
    Singleplay is short and pointless.
    Wait till it hits the bargain bin, I wish I did.
  27. DanielSun
    Oct 26, 2011
    7
    Overall, I would recommend the game. It is not my favourite at the moment but I will give it time and see what happens.

    First off, I wasn't impressed having to launch my game through a browser. This was mostly because it wouldn't launch. After hours of messing around, I isolated it to Internet Explorer 9. Probably one too many security boxes clicked. I had a gut feeling it was IE9    Overall, I would recommend the game. It is not my favourite at the moment but I will give it time and see what happens.

    First off, I wasn't impressed having to launch my game through a browser. This was mostly because it wouldn't launch. After hours of messing around, I isolated it to Internet Explorer 9. Probably one too many security boxes clicked. I had a gut feeling it was IE9 from previous experiences- the browser gets goofy on some sites. I opened it through Chrome and it worked. It's how I get around all of my IE9 issues.

    The game does look good. Enough said there. My GTX 580 SC @ 2560 x 1600 ultra graphics does a pretty good job. It did slow down during intense firefights in multiplayer once so far but to be fair maybe it was lag (gf was watching Netflix).

    I only touched the Single Player Campaign to get a feel of the game before having my ass handed to me online. From what I've played so far, the storyline is a FILE ---> SAVE AS from Black Ops.

    Now the reasons for the low score. I gave it enough to keep it positive because I don't feel it deserves anything less. This is all multi-player related.

    My biggest issue is the size of the maps. Even with 64 players, it's still too big. Too much area to cover, too much running. I thought I was playing ARMA for a minute. It's also a sniper's wet dream. Playing COD, I hated any open map because of the snipers. Some open area is fine. There is too much open area here. I loved a lot of the COD maps. Plenty of buildings for cover and ambush, escape from attack, track down campers and safely eliminate them, whatever. The best part was sneaking around and knifing snipers/campers/anyone really. If I start taking fire in BF3 going cover to cover, which is like a 20+ second sprint, don't bother. Respawn, start from the beginning and run another marathon across the map to where the action is.

    This point is simple- you can't run over enemies with vehicles. I tried and looked stupid. I saw someone kill a teammate. Driving a vehicle at the time I was like hey, let's run this mofo over. Nope. Slammed into a wall and as I was trying to reverse and take off, buddy shot me dead. Went right through him. I even think he was surprised. Next point, COD wins for class customization. I loved building my character classes and choosing different ones depending on the job that needed to get done. Also, it doesn't appear BF3 has the options COD has (weapons, attachments, secondary weapons, perks, camo, etc.). You get some stuff here and there, but it seems limited. This isn't for sure, just how it looks at the moment. I like customization/options. Simple as that. BF3 may come through and surprise me- fingers crossed.

    BF3 is a much different game than COD. I do need to play it more to really appreciate it all. For me, the huge map thing might be what kills it for me. If I get picked off by snipers regularly in these opens maps, this game won't get touched again. For now, I will keep playing it and seeing how things go for me. For anyone still waiting to buy this game, I'd wait until after Modern Warfare 3 launches. The game might not be as pretty but if the multiplayer is better, who cares? I know I don't.    … Expand
  28. iplaygamesalot
    Dec 20, 2011
    7
    This game is pretty much your standard shooter but with the Battlefield staple of land, sea, and air vehicles. The visuals on PC are simply amazing, and the multiplayer gameplay can be extremely hectic. For example, I was cutting through an alley to an objective when a tank rotated its turret in my direction, shot, missed and hit the wall above me sending debris falling on top of me as aThis game is pretty much your standard shooter but with the Battlefield staple of land, sea, and air vehicles. The visuals on PC are simply amazing, and the multiplayer gameplay can be extremely hectic. For example, I was cutting through an alley to an objective when a tank rotated its turret in my direction, shot, missed and hit the wall above me sending debris falling on top of me as a helocopter was unloading rockets into the tank destroying it before my eyes. Then the helicopter crashed into the side of the building as i emerged from the alleyway only to be greeted by a hail of bullets among the debris and flames. Those are the moments in battlefield that make the game so addicting. And is why i will continue to play.… Expand
  29. RatingnHating
    Dec 24, 2011
    7
    Battlefield 3 is a good game but it has it's flaws. The singleplayer is a boring tutorial like experience with a very cliche plot. But that being said it's multiplayer is really were the game belongs. Multiplayer is a fun chaotic experience with pretty good graphics and destruction. But this is brought down by the numerous glitches that have yet to be patched, and the fact that usersBattlefield 3 is a good game but it has it's flaws. The singleplayer is a boring tutorial like experience with a very cliche plot. But that being said it's multiplayer is really were the game belongs. Multiplayer is a fun chaotic experience with pretty good graphics and destruction. But this is brought down by the numerous glitches that have yet to be patched, and the fact that users are forced to use Origin which is a slow system and also contains spyware. Then on top of that we have to launch the game from a browser so you cannot play anything without internet.… Expand
  30. FFStudios
    Aug 5, 2012
    6
    First, let's deny the existence of the single player, which I feel is one of the most blisteringly awful campaigns I've ever played through thanks to its boring story & characters and lack or direction. Origin is a bit of nuisance but I've decided to rate the game and not the software. Anyway, my first impressions of BF3's multiplayer were good; the weapons feel much tighter than BadFirst, let's deny the existence of the single player, which I feel is one of the most blisteringly awful campaigns I've ever played through thanks to its boring story & characters and lack or direction. Origin is a bit of nuisance but I've decided to rate the game and not the software. Anyway, my first impressions of BF3's multiplayer were good; the weapons feel much tighter than Bad Company 2 and the graphics are technically superb on ultra settings. I will also give credit to DICE for making a game which actually feels at home on the PC with optimised graphics and intuitive controls. Now to the negatives; despite the technical side of the graphics, they still carry that current-generation problem of being incredibly dull and colourless; I understand perhaps horror games might need it but games like Battlefield just don't benefit from it because everyone looks indistinguishable from one another against murky backgrounds. There's another thing, why are most of the environments either desert industrial or urban? Bad Company 2's lurid jungles were way more visually appealing than BF3's dull maps. Frostbite 2 might shine, but graphics will never be able to carry a game, I don't care how advanced your volumetric lighting is, the game should still be able to stand up without good graphics. All these problems would normally be quite small, but there is one massive problem I have with this game that just ended it for me; health amount. It may be acceptable in games like DayZ and ARMA that you die easily since they're both realistic simulations; but BF3 is not that sort of game. You can take about three hits before dying, making smaller fights not really a matter of who has the best aiming and skill as it is whoever spotted the other first. I'm sure BF3 will suit players who somehow like low HP and dull, samey maps, but for me Battlefield 3 was probably the most disappointing game of 2011.… Expand
  31. Barney99
    Nov 20, 2011
    7
    Would have given this game a 9, because gameplay wise, it's excellent. I know it's not what a lot of people were expecting, a return to the slower BF2 style gameplay, it's still leaning more towards BC2's gameplay, and that has disappointed some people. Still, It's a blast to play. What really brings it down is Origin and Battlelog. I have no problem with Battlelog, it would just be niceWould have given this game a 9, because gameplay wise, it's excellent. I know it's not what a lot of people were expecting, a return to the slower BF2 style gameplay, it's still leaning more towards BC2's gameplay, and that has disappointed some people. Still, It's a blast to play. What really brings it down is Origin and Battlelog. I have no problem with Battlelog, it would just be nice if it were optional and there was an actual game menu. Now, Origin, well I just prefer Steam, and I don't want to have games split between 2 clients. That and it's questionable TOS and EULA, and though they've revised both, the damage was done. All in all, excellent game, crappy system.… Expand
  32. ZEN369
    Jan 20, 2012
    7
    Describe all the variety and quality of the multiplayer, and the other buns games, such as the incredible sound in Battlefield 3 is difficult, it takes a long time and huge amounts of text, even considering that the single had practically no effect, so if you are not indifferent to the genre of online FPS, just go to the store for a license disk and will not be disappointed ... Are youDescribe all the variety and quality of the multiplayer, and the other buns games, such as the incredible sound in Battlefield 3 is difficult, it takes a long time and huge amounts of text, even considering that the single had practically no effect, so if you are not indifferent to the genre of online FPS, just go to the store for a license disk and will not be disappointed ... Are you still here? But the company complete **** =) Play only if for multiplayer.… Expand
  33. newtee2
    Mar 6, 2012
    7
    I don't feel like writing a long review so here you go : +Great graphics +Same ol' Battlefield formula +SP is a great tech demo +Great audio -Rushed -Doesn't feel like a true BF2 sequel -SP was lame and typical -Many technical issues
  34. F_U_Wannabes
    Mar 7, 2012
    6
    the single player its pretty and lets not deny it but pretty graphics and animations doesn't takes away how linear and small and boring the single player campaign is. but for how is veteran of battlefield knows that battlefield was designed for sole multiplayer.

    this game had all to be the FPS of the decade, the new engine, graphics, animations, the whole features and everything else, but    the single player its pretty and lets not deny it but pretty graphics and animations doesn't takes away how linear and small and boring the single player campaign is. but for how is veteran of battlefield knows that battlefield was designed for sole multiplayer.

    this game had all to be the FPS of the decade, the new engine, graphics, animations, the whole features and everything else, but the maps are the worst in the whole franchise, the netcode is again ignored by being horribly failing. the release version had issues but most technical, balance have been fairly adjusted post open beta and it quite felt good and weapons and classes cleary offered each a different feeling and even weapons each had their own up's and down's making each weapon requiring their own playstyle but.......

    all the technical issues still own (lag,punkbuster, ea servers giving you **** rubberband,netcode,and the list goes on) and still ignored, meanwhile we assist the nerfing and content made into the lowest generic and worthless possible way making this game a generic shooter where wich gun or class doesn't matter anymore. lets be clear this game is the prettiest fps of ever but on many ways currently stands below bad company 2.

    the new maps package are great and maps looks awesome but the balance between both teams are terrible and DICE keeps being sttuborn by refusing making possible play as normal conquest/conquest 64 on this maps.    … Expand
  35. 017
    Mar 6, 2012
    5
    This game, despite how great the gameplay actually is, suffers from a lot of issues. A number of which are because DICE doesn't test their own patches and updates thoroughly, as well as the fact that EA rushed their development. Dedicated server stability is an issue to this day, as well as client stability. The game is great, besides the single player, but I, and a lot of other people,This game, despite how great the gameplay actually is, suffers from a lot of issues. A number of which are because DICE doesn't test their own patches and updates thoroughly, as well as the fact that EA rushed their development. Dedicated server stability is an issue to this day, as well as client stability. The game is great, besides the single player, but I, and a lot of other people, don't enjoy playing when there's nearly always a game-crashing bug that's going to appear. I also had my own dedicated server for a bit, and sadly, they made it impossible to get traffic to stay on our servers due to the complete lack of care to ensure the systems were stable when released. (How else does Karkand come out and they include a bug that crashes an entire server, easily?)

    Server and client issues aside, there is also the fact that the single player is a god-awful setup of super-linear COD style "shoot down an alley at infinitely respawning goons" type gameplay. Apparently whoever was in charge of the single player has no idea what battlefield is known for, because anyone with a brain would have made the gameplay the opposite of linear. perhaps if the single player had used the series' strength as a tactical shooter instead of trying to pretend to be call of duty in the single player, it might have been more remarkable. Instead, we got an awful linear, very **** single player. Which is really too bad.    … Expand
  36. xMin
    May 22, 2012
    6
    BF3 would be better if it hadn't got Single player !
  37. nebz
    Feb 9, 2013
    7
    Amazing graphics Yes, yes we all know that (Frostbite 2) Campaign is pretty sloppy but as with most games these days, multiplayer is where it's at. Addictive game play and a very detailed progression system make this a lasting experience. Only problems i have with this game is that there is no team VOIP.. Seriously don't know why they didn't add this feature as Dice seems to throw ''teamAmazing graphics Yes, yes we all know that (Frostbite 2) Campaign is pretty sloppy but as with most games these days, multiplayer is where it's at. Addictive game play and a very detailed progression system make this a lasting experience. Only problems i have with this game is that there is no team VOIP.. Seriously don't know why they didn't add this feature as Dice seems to throw ''team based game'' around when advertising this game. Squad sizes are decreased compared to BF2. What upset me the most was the absence of the Commander role Dice really took a large chunk of the team experience which i really did dislike.… Expand
  38. Peanits
    Jul 30, 2012
    5
    I've been playing the Battlefield franchise since BF1942, and this game has ruined everything about Battlefield. The game focuses mostly on graphics, and not the gameplay. Probably the largest problem is the game relies of vehicle based combat if you ever want to get anywhere, or play any map besides Metro. Of course, there's not enough vehicles for everyone. Not to mention that theI've been playing the Battlefield franchise since BF1942, and this game has ruined everything about Battlefield. The game focuses mostly on graphics, and not the gameplay. Probably the largest problem is the game relies of vehicle based combat if you ever want to get anywhere, or play any map besides Metro. Of course, there's not enough vehicles for everyone. Not to mention that the helicopters are outrageously powerful.

    To be completely honest, I have never seen a mainstream game published with so many bugs and flaws. From little issues such as being able to shoot your gun straight ahead and you vault over a railing, to larger problems like broken weapon mechanics that take ages to be fixed.    … Expand
  39. Hefewy
    Oct 28, 2012
    5
    I have little to praise about this game. The graphics, while not terrible, have some really overdone effects such as the glare filter being not only unrealistic but quite annoying. I don't think the people at Dice know what outside looks like. At the same time, every map seems to consist of just different shades of one color, because that's realistic looking apparently. The destructibleI have little to praise about this game. The graphics, while not terrible, have some really overdone effects such as the glare filter being not only unrealistic but quite annoying. I don't think the people at Dice know what outside looks like. At the same time, every map seems to consist of just different shades of one color, because that's realistic looking apparently. The destructible environments, while not terrible, are inconsistent and there are plenty of times where a chunk of a building will be indestructible yet it looks exactly like a piece that you can destroy. The weapons are made so the ranges on them are terrible even on regular assault rifles, forcing you to get up close and personal with your target. This is probably done to make it seem more intense, to cover up for some lazy gun programming on the developers part. For anti-aircraft launchers, their range is also extremely limited. I assume this is to balance game-play (Because war is known for being balanced), but it only forces you to get right next to the vehicle you are aiming at to hit your target with one of these. I'd like to point out that the missiles in this game, again in what seems to be an attempt to balance the game out, go incredibly slow, and most vehicles can actually outrun your shot even if it is locked onto them. What a genius idea. A vehicle outrunning a missile, because missiles are known for moving slow. Overall, coming from a battlefield fan, this probably wont please fans of the series as all it does is add a shiny coating and make the game look nice, instead of having good game-play. Even the features such as the graphics that people seem to praise a lot are honestly not that great, and while it's not necessarily awful, there are much better online FPS games that you could probably spend your money on. It doesn't do anything new, which wouldn't be bad if it did what it does well, but sadly it seems like an attempt to cash in on the series name. If you want a BF game, stick to one of the classics, and hope that the future ones will be better, though judging by the sales of this, things look grim.… Expand
  40. saltychipmunk
    Nov 10, 2011
    7
    I say this right now, the campaign is completely forgettable , its the standard call of duty formulaic affair complete with rail shooting out the bum. The multiplayer on the other hand excellence mired by some bad design choices and of course bugs.
    If you go into this game wanting to play the 64 man or even the 32 man servers , know that you will die alot . to the point where every    I say this right now, the campaign is completely forgettable , its the standard call of duty formulaic affair complete with rail shooting out the bum. The multiplayer on the other hand excellence mired by some bad design choices and of course bugs.
    If you go into this game wanting to play the 64 man or even the 32 man servers , know that you will die alot . to the point where every other death is either a aircraft bombing you or a player spawn killing you and the teammate you spawned on . The maps are console maps pure and simple , not a damn one of them save for the really really big ones are playable with anything more than 24.

    There is also some balance issues. A few gadgets will have players frustration at new levels , namely the cheap flashlights that blind players in broad daylight, the mortars that can be used in protected zones and have infinite range and AA tanks that beat battle tanks.

    there is also rubber banding , both in bullets and in players. So be warned like all dice games this one launched with some very rough edges    … Expand
  41. Dashery
    Nov 5, 2011
    7
    On the game itself, I can barely comment because it was barely playable for long periods of time. The recommendations for it are not what they say they are. I know, I do not own the most powerful computer in the world, but I surpassed the minimum limits and still, on low, this game lagged like crazy. From what I was able to play, it's a solid shooter any fans of the genre or justOn the game itself, I can barely comment because it was barely playable for long periods of time. The recommendations for it are not what they say they are. I know, I do not own the most powerful computer in the world, but I surpassed the minimum limits and still, on low, this game lagged like crazy. From what I was able to play, it's a solid shooter any fans of the genre or just Battlefield in general ought to pick up. DICE and EA really impress with their wide assortment of vehicles, my favorite being the AC-10 Warthog, a very cool plane in a very cool game. In my opinion, the transitions from vehicle to infantry makes this game supperior to other Modern shooters, such as CoD.… Expand
  42. Nightmare69
    Nov 16, 2011
    7
    Nothing special, it's just another generic military shooter with shiny graphics.I'm not saying it's bad, heck no the game's MP is good but the problem is then it does nothing new at all it's just BF2 with better graphics and more idiot friendly gameplay (No commander,easier air vehicle controlls and lonewolfs don't get punished at all ). If you're still playing BF2,vietnam,2142 or 1942Nothing special, it's just another generic military shooter with shiny graphics.I'm not saying it's bad, heck no the game's MP is good but the problem is then it does nothing new at all it's just BF2 with better graphics and more idiot friendly gameplay (No commander,easier air vehicle controlls and lonewolfs don't get punished at all ). If you're still playing BF2,vietnam,2142 or 1942 stick to those games since BF3 really doesn't offer anything new or innovative at all. I only recomend you to buy BF3 if you never played any BF game or only played the terrible consolized BC series.… Expand
  43. dobserver
    Nov 8, 2011
    7
    This game should have two ratings: one for it's multiplayer and one for it's single player. Seeing that I'm not allowed to do that, I'm forced to give an average of the two. The single player portion of this game is pathetic. The story is linear, the character models were very non-unique, and it was clear that they tried to implement some of the cinematography story-telling that was inThis game should have two ratings: one for it's multiplayer and one for it's single player. Seeing that I'm not allowed to do that, I'm forced to give an average of the two. The single player portion of this game is pathetic. The story is linear, the character models were very non-unique, and it was clear that they tried to implement some of the cinematography story-telling that was in MW2, but they don't do it nearly as well. There were some levels that were good in BF3 - featuring the use of vehicles and introducing some of the vehicles that you'd be using in multiplayer, but the story itself just wasn't very good. (Score: 6) The multiplayer game itself is very fun. The graphics are amazing and the levels were adequate. It uses the same formula as BC2...which is that it requires you to use teamwork to win. However, it isn't without its problems. The spawn points on the map are retarded, in that the game spawns you in the dumbest possible spot - even though you get to pick the spawn location/area. A lot of the times I died right after spawning because the game would put me in the most open area possible. The multiplayer game itself is fine, but the platform used to connect to games is retarded. Connecting through something that looks like a regular webpage (through Origin) is tedious. Origin is glitchy and caused my game to crash multiple times both in game and in the process of joining games. The auto join doesn't work very well either. I hope they fix this over time. EA really should have went with Steam on this one...

    Overall Multiplayer Score: 8/10 (Would have been 9 without Origin)    … Expand
  44. CL1CKS
    Nov 9, 2011
    7
    I am going to have to give this a 7. I hate that game developers no longer listen to their customers and make horrid decisions they should know off the bat are wrong. No in game server browser for instance. 90% of the community said NO and they said "ehhh too bad." I think my #1 complaint in this game is the client side hit detection. there is simply no excuse for this what so ever. TheI am going to have to give this a 7. I hate that game developers no longer listen to their customers and make horrid decisions they should know off the bat are wrong. No in game server browser for instance. 90% of the community said NO and they said "ehhh too bad." I think my #1 complaint in this game is the client side hit detection. there is simply no excuse for this what so ever. The numerous glitches still existing have the entire community pissed off as well of course and well it just wasn't finished. After BETA feedback they should have realized they needed to push the game back and do a giant overhaul. Everything they tried to "add" from BF2 were somewhat decent ideas in theory but in the end they all failed. Sure it looks cool to jump over objects but half the time it doesn't work. They wanted to switch up the equipment of classes and made engineer the only class that makes sense. They wanted to give LMGs bipods and suppression so now they generally fail because suppression doesn't give you stats like most people want. Sniper rifles were OP in BC2? Oh I heard it was LMGs in BC2. Everyone is going to whine about something but with piss poor hit detection and horrid hit boxes there was 0 reason to expect a sniper to get a headshot every time no matter how skilled. Oh and air battles, yes the air vehicles. It just warception. A battle within a battle. When I'm on the ground I can ignore choppers and jets but when I am in a jet I can forget about shooting anything on the ground. More destructibility? No, maybe prettier but not more. Its perfectly defined. I take out the same chunk of wall every time if I can even take it out. I can blow this up and this up but not this car or fence? I don't see why developers won't just take game mechanics that work. Change maps and update graphics and destructibility and release it. Why change so many stupid things? I love the game and am having fun. But I don't see myself dumping a year into it. Once I hit max level I am pretty sure I will be done with it. I have no faith in the FPS franchise anymore ever to release a solid game again.… Expand
  45. Sonuchi
    Nov 10, 2011
    7
    The game takes graphics to the next level and I honestly feel like I'm literally in the middle of a battlefield. Single player is quite interesting with how they bring the story to life with the concepts of this game and multiplayer is where it's at. Unfortunately, some things are hindering, such as the battlelog setup, the difficulty of using voice chat, and some glitches/hiccups in theThe game takes graphics to the next level and I honestly feel like I'm literally in the middle of a battlefield. Single player is quite interesting with how they bring the story to life with the concepts of this game and multiplayer is where it's at. Unfortunately, some things are hindering, such as the battlelog setup, the difficulty of using voice chat, and some glitches/hiccups in the game. in one of the rounds, I remember being spawned in a "dumpster" (half open...looks like a bug metal shelf/tray) and I went prone to protect myself from enemy fire. Suddenly, I was squeezed through the wall of the dumpster like it took a dump and I was visible to the enemy, suddenly dying when I should have been protected. Also, you can't blame the game for this, but stupid online team members who shine their flashlights and lasers in your face are hella annoying. On the bright side of that, going blind by a laser in a video game shows how much work they put into the game. Small things like that brings more tactics....if you're shining it towards the enemy....

    Other than those small issues, which will eventually be smoothed out with patches and flat iron, the multiplayer is where it's at and does a swell job at it. Just find a good group of trusting friends and you'll enjoy this game a lot.    … Expand
  46. ayeballkid
    May 24, 2012
    5
    This game would be a 9 in my book but EA has resold the servers and you can no longer play on official servers running a dedicated game mode (rush) on all maps...super frustrating. Tons of hackers, amazing graphics, brilliant concept, great level design, great sound, play the game 100 different ways, did I mention the terrible back end and awful customer service, thanks EA for ruiningThis game would be a 9 in my book but EA has resold the servers and you can no longer play on official servers running a dedicated game mode (rush) on all maps...super frustrating. Tons of hackers, amazing graphics, brilliant concept, great level design, great sound, play the game 100 different ways, did I mention the terrible back end and awful customer service, thanks EA for ruining Dice's beautiful project.… Expand
  47. Decemuladores
    Nov 20, 2011
    7
    The new Battlefield from EA Dice is just another prototype of generic shooter with high jumping graphics, excellent sounds effects and OST, Great gameplay with and incredible multiplayer mode but deficient IA, unforgettable story mode and so expensive to enjoy in maximum settings.
  48. fukeaintheass
    May 8, 2012
    5
    Couldn't wait to play it as im a massive BF2 fan. But it was a complete let down. The game wasn't even finished prior to release and is the MOST buggy game i've EVER played. Many people bought the game and simply cant play it as it just wont work. To add injury to insult the game gets constant "maintenance", in other words its unplayable for hours at a time. This time affects players inCouldn't wait to play it as im a massive BF2 fan. But it was a complete let down. The game wasn't even finished prior to release and is the MOST buggy game i've EVER played. Many people bought the game and simply cant play it as it just wont work. To add injury to insult the game gets constant "maintenance", in other words its unplayable for hours at a time. This time affects players in Australia and surrounding area's as it is timed to not effect EU and US playtime. While this game is enjoyable to play, the numerous problems have pushed many to vow never to buy EA/DICE products, i cant blame them as the sheer frustration of wanting to play it but not being able to tests your patience. Origin is not worth pissing on even if it was on fire.
    P.S Singleplayer is crap, its all about the multiplayer.    … Expand
  49. wingsoverithaca
    May 20, 2012
    5
    Huge BF fan. But I uninstalled this game a month ago since it wasn't being played. Pros: graphics, vehicles, some improvements on bc2 (revives, MCOM charges have to be disarmed even at 0 tickets)

    Cons: HORRIBLE MAP DESIGN, PLAYER DROPOFF, needs more destruction, NETCODE (client-side hit detection), patches break more than fix, battlelog + origin, guns are bland, classes are imbalanced,    Huge BF fan. But I uninstalled this game a month ago since it wasn't being played. Pros: graphics, vehicles, some improvements on bc2 (revives, MCOM charges have to be disarmed even at 0 tickets)

    Cons: HORRIBLE MAP DESIGN, PLAYER DROPOFF, needs more destruction, NETCODE (client-side hit detection), patches break more than fix, battlelog + origin, guns are bland, classes are imbalanced, too many laser designations (needs more AT4), BUGS    … Expand
  50. DesireMercy
    Jan 16, 2014
    7
    Battlefield 3 takes many steps in the right direction. Suppression, customizations, return of prone, 64 player maps, and a bunch of additional modes. However, DICE loses some points by making practically all of these additional game modes "premium" content (meaning you have to pay another $30 bucks to unlock them).

    DICE demonstrates once again they know how to make games with huge    Battlefield 3 takes many steps in the right direction. Suppression, customizations, return of prone, 64 player maps, and a bunch of additional modes. However, DICE loses some points by making practically all of these additional game modes "premium" content (meaning you have to pay another $30 bucks to unlock them).

    DICE demonstrates once again they know how to make games with huge learning curves. Only the most persistent (or masochistic) will make it beyond a few games. Death comes far too quickly and often from nowhere. Vehicles are too few and too powerful. Experienced pilots can effectively lockdown an entire 64 player map with just two jets.

    Complaints aside, the game can be a lot of fun. Though it makes me long for the simpler days of Battlefield 2 or even 1942.    … Expand
  51. somethingguy912
    Aug 26, 2012
    5
    I was fortunate enough to get this game as a gift rather than paying for the $60 that this is game is not actually worth. I didn't have to bother with the excuse that is Battlelog or Origin, because I was fortunate enough to use the console versions, which for one of the few times is an improvement from the PC. Initially, I really enjoyed the game, from the balanced guns to the awesomeI was fortunate enough to get this game as a gift rather than paying for the $60 that this is game is not actually worth. I didn't have to bother with the excuse that is Battlelog or Origin, because I was fortunate enough to use the console versions, which for one of the few times is an improvement from the PC. Initially, I really enjoyed the game, from the balanced guns to the awesome destruction physics and how Battlefield 3 really does incorporate team play. But after a while, the game has become almost as infuriating to me as playing Black Ops or MW2. The constant glitches with non-working glitches, the horrible hit detection from the net code, the horrible collision impact between proning halfway between walls and explosions not doing enough or too much damage, and most importantly, how the graphics completely betray your line of sight. I don't get why a "realistic shooter" thinks that "realism" is that every panel, wall and character needs to be sprayed with the colors Brown, Tan, Gray and BLUE! seriously, those are literally the only colors they have in that game! it is literally impossible for me to get my bearings on what I'm looking at, who my teammates are, who my enemies are, or what control points I'm on. The FPS on that game isn't too much of a bother to me as to others, but the blatantly poor SinglePlayer and the not worthwhile Co-Op really does hinder the value of this game. This game doesn't deserve a 0, due to some technical appeal that the game does have, but it doesn't deserve a 10 because it is FAR FROM PERFECT. They had to rush this in, without giving any thought to consumer criticism and only thought of trying to beat MW2 in the economic arms race of "realistic shooters". Battlefield 3 is such a disappointment because, once again, EA overhypes the game and believes in that "minimalist" value that they have been provoking lately. BF3 could've been a more impressive game, with all the chinks smoothened out, with a better promising Origin without your privacy ruined, and with DICE's promise of "all dlc's will be free!", I would rate this game at a 8 out of 10. My last suggestion to you is, DONT BUY BF4. please.… Expand
  52. Danny83
    Dec 18, 2012
    5
    another average shooter. sigh..... when are we gonna have a video game revolution. Its just like everything these days, movies, music, its all created for a bunch of kids. very sad. I find myself going back in time and playing old games, you know, when they were actually good.......
  53. Jackunpack
    Sep 2, 2013
    6
    I so wish that this was better!
    Let me get this out of the way: BFBC2 is one of the best FPS I've ever played. It changed everything about the genre for the better. Destructible terrain, fantastic visuals and sound effects. Tight controls and satisfying weapons.
    Battlefield 3 keeps a lot of it but also screws some things up. Massively. First and foremost, the campaign sucks. Truly. You    I so wish that this was better!
    Let me get this out of the way: BFBC2 is one of the best FPS I've ever played. It changed everything about the genre for the better. Destructible terrain, fantastic visuals and sound effects. Tight controls and satisfying weapons.
    Battlefield 3 keeps a lot of it but also screws some things up. Massively.
    First and foremost, the campaign sucks. Truly. You know they don't care any more when they start ripping of the story of Call of Duty games. Really, that's like a gourmet restaurant taking tips from MacDonald's. The gameplay isn't enjoyable without other players since the AI is dumber than my hat. There is no co-op feature and the whole thing is just a mess.
    But Battlefield is all about the multiplayer, right? BC2 was, I know that for a fact. The problem is that BC2 had a great campaign as well. There were interesting characters with good dialogue and it wasn't just set piece after set piece holding together a paper-thin plot.
    Anyway, that's enough rambling; how is the actual multiplayer? To answer my own question: it's solid. Not amazing but not terrible either. The weapons feel very powerful and are satisfying to use. There are some blatant balance issues but they can be overlooked. The biggest problem is the original set of maps. They are large, sure, but they were not actually that well designed (most of them, that is) and they actually had to bring in Strike at Karkand (still a masterpiece of map-design) to mix things up. The most pressing issue is that the maps usually don't support more than one playstyle. Some maps are impossible to play without a Sniper and some are so cramped and tight that that isn't even an option. A large map isn't any good if you don't use it to its fullest. The destructible terrain is still impressive but not used as much as you would want and probably not even as much as in BC2.
    And the final problem is Origin. This was not taken into account when I was considering the game's score. Origin is an absolutely awful program. I don't even have a problem with the fact that it's always online but it doesn't work. At all. I really haven't been able to play the game for months because Origin doesn't let me start it. I've contacted EA and they haven't been able to solve the issue. This is unacceptable and if this is the case in BF4 then I will never buy a game from EA ever again.    … Expand
  54. kolpo
    Apr 15, 2013
    6
    I love all previous battlefield games on PC but this is simply not the same game. The one thing I did the most in previous battlefield games was playing the game against bots, either myself or with other people. This I enjoyed a lot. But battlefield 3 has except a short and average campaign only pvp play and nothing else. I simply don't enjoy that type of play, whatever it is in a FPS, aI love all previous battlefield games on PC but this is simply not the same game. The one thing I did the most in previous battlefield games was playing the game against bots, either myself or with other people. This I enjoyed a lot. But battlefield 3 has except a short and average campaign only pvp play and nothing else. I simply don't enjoy that type of play, whatever it is in a FPS, a MMORPG or an action RPG.

    Battlefield 3 has many things that could work very well if they had bots, the character progression would work fantastic with real single player gaming, the more difficult assignments would be ideal when you start to become better then the best bots(or just try them against weaker bots) all expansions would be interesting for coop/single player gamers rather then just the PVP niche, but one decision ruined it all; not including tradition battlefield bot matches in battlefield 3.

    Whatever battlefield 4 shall be a good game shall for me and many other people depend mainly on 1 thing: Shall it have bot matches?    … Expand
  55. BryanPan25
    Jul 24, 2013
    7
    Definitely a cool game. Not such a great single player experience, but it is definitely worth the money if you are playing online. I like the weapons they use in the game so i purchased a few game replicas: http://www.airsplat.com/battlefield-3.htm
  56. Subject-R88
    Sep 8, 2013
    7
    This is my first Battlefield, and I'm quite impressed with the multiplayer. I love levelling up, love the graphics. I stay alive a lot longer than in Reach... Very addicting and fun.

    The single player campaign is too much in rails for my likes.
  57. fateappointed
    Feb 3, 2014
    7
    Story: 7 out of 10, Graphics: 10 out of 10, Fun: 7 out of 10, Controls: 7 out of 10, Ease to Learn: 7 out of 10, Length: 8 out of 10, Re-play: 3 out of 10, Value: 7 out of 10

    Just didn't draw me in for some reason (story? controls? clanky?). I loved Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare much more than this game. Played the CoD4: Modern Warfare game on the Playstation 3 and enjoyed using the    Story: 7 out of 10, Graphics: 10 out of 10, Fun: 7 out of 10, Controls: 7 out of 10, Ease to Learn: 7 out of 10, Length: 8 out of 10, Re-play: 3 out of 10, Value: 7 out of 10

    Just didn't draw me in for some reason (story? controls? clanky?). I loved Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare much more than this game. Played the CoD4: Modern Warfare game on the Playstation 3 and enjoyed using the PS3 controller more than the mouse/keyboard for Battlefield 3; this may be the difference in my enjoyment.    … Expand
  58. Chruebert
    Jan 1, 2014
    7
    As we know this is a classic of the online multiplayer shooters and many people played it, before Battlefield 4 lowered the numbers of players using part 3. It wouldn't be a rating if i wouldn't rate both, the single and multiplayer but i feel very disapointed in the campaing mode. With a few hours of gameplay it's long enough to be not only a tutorial but it just feels like a corridor youAs we know this is a classic of the online multiplayer shooters and many people played it, before Battlefield 4 lowered the numbers of players using part 3. It wouldn't be a rating if i wouldn't rate both, the single and multiplayer but i feel very disapointed in the campaing mode. With a few hours of gameplay it's long enough to be not only a tutorial but it just feels like a corridor you have to pass through the way the designers wanted it to be. I so pissed when i have to play Blackburn and so happy for every moment i can play as Dima., caused by the better levels with him. Sometimes when you could easily dodge the crappy quicktime events the game won't let you e.g. kill your opponent on the spot. How difficult can real story telling be...
    The Multiplayer saves the day but it seems to be hard for newbies to compete with worser weapons and no attachments. There is no need for that stuff if you look back to to original 1942 where you actaully had 4 loadouts and nothing more it was real fun. Well not everyone has the money for the shortcut bundle which must be enormous waste....

    Singleplayer pro:
    + nice AI that also uses knives if you forget one of them and just walk to close
    + A story that has something like a interesting idea and is told by interuptable movies
    + Different tasks with different vehicles
    + Dimas Levels give you freedom of your strategy
    + Graphics are nice and most times the levels look good
    + Chars seem to be alive with all sorts of conversation going on
    cons.:
    - Quicktime events everywhere. I felt like constantly beeing a fool by this and having no choice (even if i got a good gun in my hand...) but tapping into the trap. some of them are really pissing off since fist fights can't be a matter of splitseconds and i actually play a shooter and not a adventure.
    - The Drama of losses pisses me really off... We are at war people die there of both fractions i don't feel like needing to cry for a single guy.
    - Normally I have varoius ways to win over a situation but best way ends in an endless game... there are endless enemies if i outflank them and make headshots from the side, than if i take a seat behind the HMG and spray bullets like stupid with no aim.
    - Corridor shooter: sometimes i have the choice of a 10*10m battlefield even if i see 100 meters. Otherwise we leave the battlefield. There is hardly a choice where to go or even how to kill the enemy.
    - Most stupid tasks ever... Hey driver why don't you run in a suicide mission across the battlefield, there is a 30man troop with no b***** to do it? Why do i need to wait until my vehicle falls apart before i may use my weapons?
    Some Characters seem so damned stupid in the story, that you feel like you wanna crash something heavy on their head. Like they aren't using brains according their information status, but that's needed in a way to keep goin on.

    Multiplayer:
    pros:
    + very realistic mechanics
    + revive, medipacks and spawn points aren't here to make it realistic but fun to play and balanced
    + some unlocks make you interested in continuing leveling
    + you can have tanks, jeeps, etc. and it's nicely implemented
    + aircrafts and their easy control management
    + many large and interesting maps
    + good balancing calss is changeable with dead chars
    + not much of cheaters
    + many different modes
    + mostly destructable environment
    + respawn is not automatic and i can change my equipment
    cons:
    - sometimes stil bugs like you get stuck somehwere where you have acually no obstacle
    - crappy webinterface that let's you start the game new for every match
    - too much of unlockables that you need s****loads of time to get them
    - too expensive before the release of part 4 (50€ stil) that prevented more full servers now the user base is shrinking and now the unlocks for 18€
    - pay to win with unlocks and extra stuff for premium; extensions should be more according maps
    - aircrafts dominate too much on the map since flying might be too easy.

    Over all it seems to be stil a good alternative to Battlefield 4, which is reported to have many issues after the release. Even if the numbers of players are going down in favor for other games...    … Expand
  59. dyspeptic
    Jul 26, 2014
    5
    Last Played: July 2014
    PROS: + Not too hard, your standard shooter bloody goodness
    CONS: - Really stupid AI teammates hinder more often than help - Additional software required for online play (punkbuster) REVIEW: Note that this is only a review of the single player campaign, since you have to allow EA to spy on you to play online. Well, I'll be honest right from the start in saying    Last Played: July 2014
    PROS: + Not too hard, your standard shooter bloody goodness
    CONS: - Really stupid AI teammates hinder more often than help - Additional software required for online play (punkbuster)

    REVIEW: Note that this is only a review of the single player campaign, since you have to allow EA to spy on you to play online. Well, I'll be honest right from the start in saying that shooters aren't my favorite genre. That being said, sometimes there is no substitute for gunning down really stupid AI in a relatively easy game-which is what this is. No health bar, lots of ammo and extremely stupid AI who will run across killing fields because they don't want to sit still for more than 5sec. Still, if you stand out in the open it won't take much to kill you on Normal mode - though running and gunning with a shotgun is surprisingly effective when you consider how important cover is otherwise.

    Cons include extremely frustrating moments when a scripted AI teammate shoves you into heavy fire to get to their pre-recorded post-I wanted to shoot those idiots more than once-especially since their only function seems to be to draw enemy fire-they will engage enemies nearly indefinitely without killing them unless you do so yourself. Furthermore, in order to play online you have to give EA explicit permission to access your computer via their "punkbuster" software. This is supposed to prevent cheating, which is a noble goal, but it's as invasive as a full rectal exam just to go to the public pool-yeah it will help prevent disease, but you wouldn't see me lining up to have somebody stick their arm up in my business just so I can splash around with the dorky preteens.

    Sometimes EA offers the game free to hook you into buying the DLC. I'd say it's worth $0, but if you can't get it for this, pass.    … Expand
  60. deception
    Apr 25, 2014
    5
    2 балла за эффекты и более милую скушную одиночную кампанию. Мультиплеер коль его почти все так боготворили ранее чуть отличается от колдовского. Сказать честно мне совершенно не понравилось играть при синюшной цветокоррекции, постоянном смазывании экрана и большом колл-вом постоянно всплывающих спеццэффектов. Это всё эффектно и красиво, но абсолютно мешает разглядеть противника и играть с2 балла за эффекты и более милую скушную одиночную кампанию. Мультиплеер коль его почти все так боготворили ранее чуть отличается от колдовского. Сказать честно мне совершенно не понравилось играть при синюшной цветокоррекции, постоянном смазывании экрана и большом колл-вом постоянно всплывающих спеццэффектов. Это всё эффектно и красиво, но абсолютно мешает разглядеть противника и играть с комфортом вообще. Об изрядном доминировании странностей в виде багов и говорить не стоит. Физика. Баланс. Скушные карты. Бессмысленное времяпровождение за прокачкой. Всё это сводит меня сказать, что об Battlefield 3 слишком много рассказывали хорошего. И ничего интресного там нет. Пустая трата денег.… Expand
  61. gebagia
    Aug 14, 2014
    6
    Even though it is a classical shooter game, i liked it a lot. I liked enemy's AI and it was as hard as i want. Graphics are still awesome, the story line is really good(i loved the ending) even if it is completely linear you know from the start that this is this kind of game. EA is master of making action titles like BF3, i am not yet on BF 4 but i am planning on the near future and i amEven though it is a classical shooter game, i liked it a lot. I liked enemy's AI and it was as hard as i want. Graphics are still awesome, the story line is really good(i loved the ending) even if it is completely linear you know from the start that this is this kind of game. EA is master of making action titles like BF3, i am not yet on BF 4 but i am planning on the near future and i am waiting like crazy for the Mirror's Edge 2.

    What i "hate" about EA right now is the origin setup. I really dislike the thing that when i want to play a game i have to start it from Origin first, then go to the link in the internet browser and from there push the play button and after this the game will start. Come on you made the easiest thing in the world to be the most difficult, you are EA find a solution for this system it is disfunctional non-iser friendly at all.

    For this reason i am giving a 6 out of 10, with the hope someday EA will decide to fix the "start problem"    … Expand
  62. Tristik
    Nov 27, 2011
    5
    Singleplayer isn't much to play. But that's not what BF is about anyway.

    Multiplayer is actually pretty decent, gameplay wise, once you get in a game. However, everything surrounding the gameplay is what drags the game down. -Battlelog is a decent idea, but it is not streamlined well enough for them to have used it this early. -Unlock progression is frustrating and many feel 'required'    Singleplayer isn't much to play. But that's not what BF is about anyway.

    Multiplayer is actually pretty decent, gameplay wise, once you get in a game. However, everything surrounding the gameplay is what drags the game down. -Battlelog is a decent idea, but it is not streamlined well enough for them to have used it this early.
    -Unlock progression is frustrating and many feel 'required' in most situations.
    -Many, many users have technical issues running the game (I am not one of them)
    -Squading and maps are poorly implemented and lacking basic features.

    The only real reason I'm even giving this game a 5 in it's current state is because it is actually quite fun after you unlock a few things and are actually in the game playing. It's too bad DICE tried to re-make the game from the ground up the way they did. They dropped the ball pretty hard on many fronts.    … Expand
  63. Jack91
    Dec 13, 2011
    6
    Do not think of the game as Battlefield 3 and instead think of it like Bad Company 3 with a new engine. If you have played Battlefield from the outset 1942, BF2 for example you would of seen the franchise going downhill and trying to compare with the likes of COD when in fact they should of been concentrating on making it unique. It has silly spawn points, the patches that 'balance' theDo not think of the game as Battlefield 3 and instead think of it like Bad Company 3 with a new engine. If you have played Battlefield from the outset 1942, BF2 for example you would of seen the franchise going downhill and trying to compare with the likes of COD when in fact they should of been concentrating on making it unique. It has silly spawn points, the patches that 'balance' the game are ridiculous. I say that because I can hit a helicopter with a stinger like 3 times and it just shrugs it off. It's just furiating to play, people are more concerned with KD ratios and kills, as opposed to team based play. Ruined the franchise in my opinion, too much emphasis on trying to beat COD when it should be in it's own league as there isn't a comparison.… Expand
  64. Teng
    Nov 10, 2011
    5
    The PC-Version is just awful. Installing Origin, and then a browser that supports the origin plugin, then the origin plugin and then you can start the game through the browser. I really don't understand why i can't just the the game. The Game itself is superb. But aslong a they sticking on this Origin-/Browser-Stuff I just ignore it.
  65. Skiller
    Nov 11, 2011
    5
    It's a decent game, but i wonder how much the press got payed for those reviews ;). I guess that 100 million budget included 50 millions just as bribes and "attentions" for the press.
  66. mynameisbone
    Oct 26, 2011
    7
    I recommend this game if you are a FPS fans. Singleplayer are truly amazing, graphics are impressive and sound are outrageous. The battle scenery are truly atmospheric with tonnes of chunks and debris and explosion up to the sky. Even though it singleplayer campaign suffer from bugs but its not really affect the game experience. I play game for fun so story wise I'm not really into judgingI recommend this game if you are a FPS fans. Singleplayer are truly amazing, graphics are impressive and sound are outrageous. The battle scenery are truly atmospheric with tonnes of chunks and debris and explosion up to the sky. Even though it singleplayer campaign suffer from bugs but its not really affect the game experience. I play game for fun so story wise I'm not really into judging it. Overall its an outstanding game experience i ever played. The multiplayer I'm not tested yet.… Expand
  67. Flash_Over
    Oct 27, 2011
    7
    I haft to say I like this game. It is fun even though it has many annoying problems. The singleplayer is ridiculously linear. At least the bad company games had a better story and more likable characters. Then enemy AI is either really stupid, until they actually target you then its 'aim bot on the player and forget the other soldiers' and will all shoot at you through smoke, bushes ectI haft to say I like this game. It is fun even though it has many annoying problems. The singleplayer is ridiculously linear. At least the bad company games had a better story and more likable characters. Then enemy AI is either really stupid, until they actually target you then its 'aim bot on the player and forget the other soldiers' and will all shoot at you through smoke, bushes ect with 100% accuracy. One thing about this game thats really irritating is the SUPER blinding lights. Like was Sgt.Blackburn or my character born in a cave an raised by bats? Being blinded by a street light is ridiculous and little tactical flashlights are brighter then the sun during broad day light. If you aren't a vampire I'm sure you can agree lights are not that bright. LOL Plus, are you looking for a in-game UI and menu? Sike, no you HAFT to use Origin which is a bad copy of Valves Steam, on-top of that you haft to join your games, yes even single player through a WEB BROWSER. So one day if your internet dies and you want to play single player? Sorry. Your S.O.L. I wouldn't gripe so much, but is this what EA considers a $60 product? It feels like 40 bucks to me. The single player was finished in about 6 hours, so its very short. I hate how all new titles are $60 bucks now, what jack ass came up with this?… Expand
  68. Foxer
    Nov 1, 2011
    5
    Whatever potential this game had for being a revolutionary multilayer experience was lost when it Battlelog was integrated into the game. You have to change your settings in-game and you have to exit the program in order to change servers. There's no LAN, no in-game VOIP, no Commo Rose, no in-game server browser and it uses Punkbuster. Whenever I try to play multiplayer I feel like I'mWhatever potential this game had for being a revolutionary multilayer experience was lost when it Battlelog was integrated into the game. You have to change your settings in-game and you have to exit the program in order to change servers. There's no LAN, no in-game VOIP, no Commo Rose, no in-game server browser and it uses Punkbuster. Whenever I try to play multiplayer I feel like I'm playing some kinda mediocre F2P game from some **** company like Nexon instead of a developer as prestigious as DICE.

    Though the gameplay can be fun, it's just ruined by the worst online platform ever conceived. (No, seriously. **** Origin.)

    So, the multilayer is a flop, but it should have a good singleplayer to make up for the terrible server browsers, right? Well, it doesn't. It looks pretty when you watch someone else play it, but playing it for yourself is a totally different story. The reason BC2 was so great is because it felt like a sandbox game instead of the typical on-rails minecart-bound shooter that everyone's grown so bored of. Now, I knew that DICE was going to make BF3 less Sandboxy, but I never expected them to make a shooter even more linear than Call of Duty. In fact, one of the missions in the campaign puts you in the **** of a fighter jet. Now, you think you'd be able to fly this **** but you can't. You sit in the co-pilot seat and shoot other planes while your partner does the flying for you.

    The gameplay can be fun at times, but most of the time this game just gave me a headache. And I was constantly bothered by how much plot material they stole from Black Ops. I mean, come on. A soldier having flashbacks while being interrogated by a pair of government agents who accuse him of conspiring with a Russian special operative, all the while America is on the brink of armageddon? Does this ring a bell?

    And you know what, the pieces of storyline that they didn't steal from BlOps are dull as all hell. This game's storyline's one of the the most boring and unsubstantial things I've ever had to sit through in my whole life.

    There is no need for the stupid quicktime sequences either. I counted, you push two buttons per scene on average. You might as well just take them out of the game, because all they did was make me laugh at such a meager attempt to create an interactive cutscene.

    All in all, this game feels rushed, and nowhere is it more evident than in the glitches. Sometimes bodies turn weightless and float in midair, there's severe clipping issues and though I'm not reviewing the console versions, it's safe to say that I've played them too, and the graphics are **** Like, worse than BC2. I don't really know how that's possible.

    If you're looking for a unique shooter experience, you won't find it here. This game is just another crappy, dull, boring, repetitive, uninspired military shooter with nothing more to it's name than it's shiny graphics and bull**** destruction engine. It just doesn't live up to Bad Company 2. Sorry.    … Expand
  69. Sandwich_Lord
    Nov 25, 2011
    5
    Horrifically weak. The majority of the maps just suck, the campaign just feels like a tech demo for Frostbite 2, and to top it all off the PC version is a god awful mess of bugs, both minor and crippling, balance issues in both guns and maps, and its simply not fun. It took them a month to release a patch. It fixed some things, but it made crashes and other crippling issues worse. Wait aHorrifically weak. The majority of the maps just suck, the campaign just feels like a tech demo for Frostbite 2, and to top it all off the PC version is a god awful mess of bugs, both minor and crippling, balance issues in both guns and maps, and its simply not fun. It took them a month to release a patch. It fixed some things, but it made crashes and other crippling issues worse. Wait a year for them to fix this crap.… Expand
  70. cassus
    Oct 30, 2011
    7
    First of all, I don't care about the single player, at all. Buying BF for the single player is like buying an MMO for the tutorial. - After having played Multiplayer (both beta, and now about 25 hours of the release version, only conquest) I've concluded that this is Battlefield Bad Company 2.5. If you liked bad company, you'll like this. If you didn't like Bad Company 2, stay away. It'sFirst of all, I don't care about the single player, at all. Buying BF for the single player is like buying an MMO for the tutorial. - After having played Multiplayer (both beta, and now about 25 hours of the release version, only conquest) I've concluded that this is Battlefield Bad Company 2.5. If you liked bad company, you'll like this. If you didn't like Bad Company 2, stay away. It's basically the exact same game with a few new weapons and gadgets, and larger conquest maps and better graphics. Oh, and a crappier way of launching the game. Origin isn't as bad as everyone wants it to be, but it really isn't a step forward either. Launching from a web browser does not improve ANYTHING. Alt tabbing in games has always been a shaky deal, and having all your stats outside the game means you either play window mode, or wait until you're done playing to have a look at what's coming up for whatever gun you're using and so forth. After 3 days of playing I am pretty much done with this game... And that is quite ridiculous. Sad part is, only reason I played for this long were the unlockable weapons.. The gameplay is stale as hell.… Expand
  71. bificommander
    Dec 2, 2011
    7
    A pretty good game, but with a few significant flaws. It took me quite some time fiddeling with settings, downloading beta drivers and waiting for patches before I could play versus multiplayer games without crashing to desktop every 5 minutes, but it works now. It still feels like a battlefield game, with a nice blend of the features of Battlefield 2 and Bad Company. Unlocking gadgets andA pretty good game, but with a few significant flaws. It took me quite some time fiddeling with settings, downloading beta drivers and waiting for patches before I could play versus multiplayer games without crashing to desktop every 5 minutes, but it works now. It still feels like a battlefield game, with a nice blend of the features of Battlefield 2 and Bad Company. Unlocking gadgets and weapons is a nice draw, but I do have a problem with how much of a hassle it is to change your kits. It can only be done in-game . You'd think after making us put up with a that pointless webbased interface in battlelog, they'd at least let you use it to customize your loadout, but no. If you die, you get an unskippable view of your killer, before you get 3 seconds to decide where you want to spawn and what your loadout will be. And if you want to change your scope, you need to go through 5 different menus, while the game goes on without you. And in general, Origin and Battlelog are just a pain to deal with compared with the in game server browser from previous games. It adds no value for the player, so I can only assume it's used for EA's sake.


    The coop missions are decent, but there's too few of them, they get pretty predictable, and they really don't make enough use of the fact that the game has a good vehicle system. There's only one coop mission where you get to fly an attack helicopter, and you don't even get to fight other helicopters, just some ground units that pose only a small threat. Why there isn't a mission where one player provides air support in a fighter or scout chopper with miniguns while the other player calls targets and clears indoor areas, or one drives a tank and the other an APC or AA vehicle, or one drives a humvee while the other one takes the machine gun, I don't know. I hope EA makes a few more missions that play to Battlefield's strengths, instead of featuring corridor-shootouts with little more teamplay beyond picking your co-op partner of the ground if he gets shot.. I generally love co-op levels, but here they're just acceptable, when all the tools to make them great are already in the game.


    The singleplayer campaign is worse though. The story is a pitfull rehash of Modern Warfare's, the areas look nice but are all pretty linear, the gunplay is acceptable but nothing special, and again the game does almost nothing with the fact that the game already features many fully simulated and controlable vehicles. The tank levels are about the only ones make a little bit of use of the capabilities of the game. The fighter-jet level is pathetic though. It's just an on-rails section as the copilot, and since you shoot guided missiles it isn't even a fun on-rails section, followed by a less intense ripoff of the gunship level from MW1 where you point at targets on the ground for other planes to shoot. Why they put actual time into programming the controls for this section when they could've let you fly a plane yourself with the same controls as in multiplayer baffles me. In summary, good multiplayer (though not many features previous games didn't already have), nice graphics, poor single player, average co-op, and annoying features (Origin & Battlelog) that are of more value to EA than their customers.    … Expand
  72. Mak54291
    Dec 27, 2011
    7
    I think I'll rather play 2142. This must be because BF3 is a console port. I can't believe how the menu, spawning system and the map suck. The sound is not good either.
  73. namDa65
    Feb 5, 2012
    6
    Inferior to BF2 in many ways. The singleplayer campaign is simply terrible, and the co-op campaign takes an hour max on normal. Simply annoying. The game is fun for a couple hours in multiplayer, but then you realize much of the map isn't very destructible. The graphics are beautiful, which is the only reason I rate this game a 6. I got this game for free from a friend, if I paid 60$ forInferior to BF2 in many ways. The singleplayer campaign is simply terrible, and the co-op campaign takes an hour max on normal. Simply annoying. The game is fun for a couple hours in multiplayer, but then you realize much of the map isn't very destructible. The graphics are beautiful, which is the only reason I rate this game a 6. I got this game for free from a friend, if I paid 60$ for it I would be pissed.… Expand
  74. Awesomesawce89
    Nov 16, 2011
    6
    As a gamer, I was very much looking forward to this game and picked it up on day one. After seeing the awesome trailers, I was pumped for a game that gets away from the "arcade-like" shooters of cod and more into a realistic type battleground with teamwork and strategy. The graphics looked amazing in the trailers and this was pretty much the only game I have been looking forward to allAs a gamer, I was very much looking forward to this game and picked it up on day one. After seeing the awesome trailers, I was pumped for a game that gets away from the "arcade-like" shooters of cod and more into a realistic type battleground with teamwork and strategy. The graphics looked amazing in the trailers and this was pretty much the only game I have been looking forward to all year.

    The game delivered the awesome visuals that it promised and, despite not normally being a "campaign guy", I found myself enjoying the campaign very much (despite the trite "Russians + nukes" plot that is so overplayed these days). The campaign did give a unique twist which I liked with the friendly fire shooting (those that have played it know what I'm talking about) and the Russian teaming up with you. That gave it a really awesome gritty feeling which most fps's don't really exude. The multiplayer is even better. Pretty much any size game (up to 64 players), map, vehicle choice, weapon choice, etc. Besides the annoying teammates that steal the aircraft and instantly crash them, I can't really find many faults with the game play. The game is downright fantastic. The visuals are the best that any video game has ever delivered and blowing up C4 or getting a long range head shot gives a much more satisfying feeling than COD has ever given me. Blowing up walls or buildings to kill those pesky campers is as satisfying as a video game can deliver.

    That's the good part. As far as the game itself goes, it's excellent. The bad part of this game is virtually everything else. I bought this game on day one and only yesterday did I finish ironing out the issues to get it to run stably. I couldn't even get past the "Operation Guillotine" level until then (despite having a brand new ~$2,000 system). This game has been a nightmare to get to run properly and has come with loads of unwanted "extras".

    Origin is basically a useless program that you have to install which does nothing for the gamer (in most circumstances). As far as I can tell, it's an extra program to get in between you and gaming that you have to load each time you want to play. It seems like Dice didn't want to deal with steam so they made a new one called Origin that nobody wanted but they did just so that when they come out with new maps, they can get more money (we'll have to wait and see on this theory as it's too early to tell).

    Then you have to load a browser to play, even if all you're doing is campaign mode. So you have not one, not two but three programs running just to play a single player mission. Origin, browser, bf3. That's a hassle but whatever. Then there are posts going around the internet about Origin collecting your personal information and sending it back to EA. Even that doesn't really bother me as I don't really have anything on this new computer that is worth thinking about.

    By far my biggest complaint about this game is the stability. Laughably horrendous isn't a strong enough term. When I first got it, the campaign froze up on me and crashed the whole thing countless times. There were times when I got to a specific spot on a level and it would crash until after trying it 5 to 10 times, I finally got through. That is until Operation Guillotine came around and I simply couldn't get through.

    It turns out that any (or at least some) graphics cards that were overclocked by the manufacturer would cause all these issues. It took me a month or so to realize that little bit so I turned down the factory overclock and boom, it works. That is, after a motherboard bios flash as well. So here it is, about a month and three weeks later that I can finally play my game, crash free. That is with the graphics card slowed down. Oh and my temps never got above the 60's (degrees C) even while hours of gaming and other multi tasking but still, the game crashes if my clock speeds were set on the stock OC so it is clearly not a system problem but a game one.

    This awesome game was almost completely ruined for me because of all the issues that it came along with. Thankfully I stuck with it and now I have an awesome game but as far as the rating goes, those issues will be costly as they should be. Dice will not have my support on their future endeavors if they keep jerking around the customers (even if their games are awesome).

    Some other (relatively) minor gripes I have are: No native in game voice chat, the text box is annoyingly placed, huge and immovable (major suckyness), the required clock speed reduction for stock oc'd cards, Dice's lack of information about how to get it to run well, and all the things listed above.

    In conclusion, the game is amazing. Get it to run right on your rig and you should love it. There isn't a better looking, better playing game out there. Everything else sucks. Origin, browser loads, stability, chat box, no in game voice chat, etc. Wait a while, then get it.    … Expand
  75. Zzgashi
    Oct 25, 2011
    7
    Amazing graphics, and the best environmental sound I have ever heard. The single player campaign shows off a lot of weapons and has a pretty cool story (though the big plot twist at the end makes no sense). The real meat of any Battlefield game however is the multiplayer, and DICE has had a long time to polish and perfect their formula. The game would be an easy 10/10 if it weren't forAmazing graphics, and the best environmental sound I have ever heard. The single player campaign shows off a lot of weapons and has a pretty cool story (though the big plot twist at the end makes no sense). The real meat of any Battlefield game however is the multiplayer, and DICE has had a long time to polish and perfect their formula. The game would be an easy 10/10 if it weren't for one thing. Battlelog is a website (basically Facebook for guns) that you are forced to go to every time you want to find a game. The server browser is a part of the web page, and it can't detect server Ping. So you just have to pick and guess with your servers (most of the time the lag is unplayable). On top of that the website takes forever to connect, load, and finally launch the actual game.exe which then proceeds to load some more. I felt like I spent more time looking for a playable game than actually playing.… Expand
  76. Sliggs
    Oct 29, 2011
    5
    Right, I've played every battlefield game since Bad Company 1. I'm a huge fan, its the only game where I feel like I am actually in a battlefield, it was intense, tactical, and I love how you have to work as a team. it was also simple it had everything it need to make it good. So far Battlefield 3 is a mess in my opinion. I get spawn killed at least 5 times every game, lasers torchlightsRight, I've played every battlefield game since Bad Company 1. I'm a huge fan, its the only game where I feel like I am actually in a battlefield, it was intense, tactical, and I love how you have to work as a team. it was also simple it had everything it need to make it good. So far Battlefield 3 is a mess in my opinion. I get spawn killed at least 5 times every game, lasers torchlights are a joke my own team cause me more hardship when they use these than the enemy! There is no need for them. I dislike how much it takes to take down certain vehicles. It should take one tank shell to blow up a jeep.Not three. I always felt such satisfation taking out a jeep from across the map with a tank. Completely absent here, Prone was a bad idea, so many campers its ridiculous. When people go prone it looks like a dead body sometimes, its way over used. Bad company 2 had an easy to man loadout set up. Its just plain awkard and confusing here. I could talk all day about why I'm dissapointed with this game. They made the same mistake the call of duty franchise made, they are trying to do too much **** that isnt needed and just opens more ways for people to be cheap and ruin the game for everyone else. I hope something happens that changes my opinion of this. Maybe its just because its a new game and im not used to it yet I dont really know. So far though, im not impressed.… Expand
  77. whitephos
    Nov 5, 2011
    6
    Wow. What a let down. After all the hype and the hope, it can't hold a candle to BF2. I say BF2 and NOT BFBC2. Some seem to think Bad Company is BF1, Bad Company 2 is BF2, and BF3 is just BFBC3. To the latter, they're correct. Scoring: Points are rated above average (7) If the game improved on the average, it'll gain points, if it falls behind the average, it loses points.Wow. What a let down. After all the hype and the hope, it can't hold a candle to BF2. I say BF2 and NOT BFBC2. Some seem to think Bad Company is BF1, Bad Company 2 is BF2, and BF3 is just BFBC3. To the latter, they're correct. Scoring: Points are rated above average (7) If the game improved on the average, it'll gain points, if it falls behind the average, it loses points.

    Sound ------> +3 ------ Excellent. By far the best part of the game.
    Graphics ----> +1 ------ Really Good when on MAX, otherwise average.
    Maps ---------> -1 ----- Poorly designed, lopsided crap.
    Gameplay --> -2 ----- Bad. Bugs, glitches galore. Feels like a beta. BFBC1 & 2 had crappy multiplayer made for console gaming and those who haven't experienced a well balanced gameplay focused game... such as BF2. If you go from BFBC1 or 2 to this, you'll be happy. If you go from BF2 to this, you likely won't. On the bright side, there are some things that are better than BF2. The spotting is simply hitting Q on the enemy now. No more of this holding Q, putting it on the enemy, then releasing it. That was cumbersome. Pace ---------> -1 ------ Strangely a little to quick. Things happen unrealistically fast. Like in CoD Black Ops. Everything seems to happen at x1.5 speed. Helicopters take off too quickly. If you're shot down, you crash quickly. The movements are too sudden. It feels like a crappy churner of a console port.
    Interface ----> -1 ----- Talk about trying to be all sleek and cool and fresh... and totally blowing it. Only being able to play the game with an internet browser window open? Really? Only being able to "search" (poorly) for servers in said browser window? Really? Who's terrible idea was that?

    Final Score --> 6

    Summary: Excellent sound, great graphics, meh maps, bad gameplay, bad interface. Mostly steps backward.

    Unfortunately, GAMEs are about GAMEplay. So, BF3 bombs. I can't believe I'm actually looking forward to the predictable vanilla whatever factor of MW3 (not the multiplayer, it has always sucked). At least they stick stick to what they're good at... I hope.

    Advice for DICE. Take BF2, give it BF3 graphics and BF3 sound, and you'll have a guaranteed winner. You dropped the ball this time, but everyone gets a Danzig 5/mulligan I suppose. But really, I blame it all on EA, so keep on doing what you do... as long as it's without EA.    … Expand
  78. willchristianse
    Oct 26, 2011
    7
    Singleplayer was kind of a letdown, feels like the infrastructure is there but no finesse for diverse enemies or gameplay. Story was confusing and had continuity problems. Where BFBC2 was hilarious and had diverse approaches, this game's singleplayer was full of cliched gameplay mechanics and needed better story delivery and writing. Levels felt very very linear and if you didn't followSingleplayer was kind of a letdown, feels like the infrastructure is there but no finesse for diverse enemies or gameplay. Story was confusing and had continuity problems. Where BFBC2 was hilarious and had diverse approaches, this game's singleplayer was full of cliched gameplay mechanics and needed better story delivery and writing. Levels felt very very linear and if you didn't follow some guessed-at path through the game it breaks, enemies don't spawn, the next action isn't triggered if you don't do something a certain way... just need better design connected with the story. Multiplayer is a 10 out of 10 - absolutely love it and I know its going to get even better with updates in the future.… Expand
  79. anonVas
    Nov 10, 2011
    7
    After playing more of the game I do agree that it is an epic FPS and DICE have done a fantastic job of producing a game capable of giving my rig a run for its money. Astounding graphics and sounds. The BEST lighting effects I have EVER seen in a game. However, there are a few issues that are present in the game that I cannot possibly give this game any higher of a score. Origin is aAfter playing more of the game I do agree that it is an epic FPS and DICE have done a fantastic job of producing a game capable of giving my rig a run for its money. Astounding graphics and sounds. The BEST lighting effects I have EVER seen in a game. However, there are a few issues that are present in the game that I cannot possibly give this game any higher of a score. Origin is a terrible idea, and after just being forced to update it again today I have noticed that the EULA stipulates a legal clause that contractually denies both EA and individuals the right to a class-action suit and trial by a jury (basically removing the power multiple individual's have over it). I do not agree with such a disregard for the civil liberties of consumers and EA is a despicable company. Furthermore having PC users forced to use a web based server browser is idiotic. If I want to alter some hotkeys I need to join a server, spend time adjusting it and then quit. If I want to change servers I need to close Battlefield 3 and then re-open a new instance of it. This is the stupidest thing I have ever seen in the history of gaming. DICE have done a good job with stat tracking, and I am happy for it. The singleplayer is terrible and does not reflect the freedom and scope of the multiplayer at all, it feels (and IS) heavily scripted: i.e. a cinematic-press-spacebar-at-the-right-time. I cannot fathom why DICE implemented a singleplayer at all (oh wait, to compete with MW3). In my opinion if they had of left it out completely and focused on creating a real user interface for us PC gamers I would have rated this one of the better games of 2011. Multiplayer is definitely the best experience I've ever had in an FPS and is FORCES you to work together as a team to do well. The playerbase has gotten quite a bit better since release as it seems they have adjusted well to what BF3 is about (i.e. dissociating it from CoD, which means NOT running out into the open field to get hit by sniper fire and dropping bloody ammo/health packs). DICE tried to entice the competition's market to play their game and it backfired for the most part: this is because MW3 is a DIFFERENT FPS. MW3 is twitch based and individual level reliance, where-as Battlefield 3 relies heavily on STAYING WITH YOUR TEAM. Too many times have I seen CoD players complain about the game being 'too slow' or 'sucking' because they die too much. Well this is because it isn't about sprinting around small corridors killing a whole team by yourself, you must employ tactics and the aid of your team to play the objective. If you want an FPS game that forces you to think about players outside of your own self, and to pay more attention then this is the game for you. If you want run and gun action, with quick respawns and quick kills this is NOT the game for you. In fact, K/D wont get you to the top of the leaderboard. I've topped the leaderboard with K/D's under 1 because I played the objective AND my role. 7/10. If EA weren't scoundrels, DICE worked on an in-game browser and didn't include a SP this game would get a 9 from me. I hope that among the amount of drivel you read here on metacritic, you see this honest review from a person neither loyal to IW or DICE, but to what he likes to play. Please stop posting inflated and deflated review scores if you haven't even played the game because you're ruining the industry for those of us who just love to play the game; this is neither a 0, nor a 10, it is approximately 7- 8.5 in all honesty.… Expand
  80. Cumtastic
    Nov 18, 2011
    5
    Pros: Rape graphics, awesome controls, dedicated servers, jets and destructible buildings. (10 points)
    Cons: No Steam, Origin sucks, Launch Via Web Browser (LOL), large amounts of camping, "made for pc ground up and still not include it on Steam? WTF. Not everything is destructible. "Mw killer"... too bad that didnt happen... and Campaign that could potentially copied a lot from mw1 and    Pros: Rape graphics, awesome controls, dedicated servers, jets and destructible buildings. (10 points)
    Cons: No Steam, Origin sucks, Launch Via Web Browser (LOL), large amounts of camping, "made for pc ground up and still not include it on Steam? WTF. Not everything is destructible. "Mw killer"... too bad that didnt happen... and Campaign that could potentially copied a lot from mw1 and black ops.... (-5 points)    … Expand
  81. czerro
    Oct 30, 2011
    5
    I give this game a 5 with the caveat that it is NOT something you want to play. I do want to congratulate DICE for a beautiful engine and a very streamlined experience. Shoddy SP is a non-issue for me. Hasn't every SP experience in these wargames been uninspired, redundant, retarded, and boring? The real issue is clumsy and irritating Origin. Qualms about the odd 'everything and theI give this game a 5 with the caveat that it is NOT something you want to play. I do want to congratulate DICE for a beautiful engine and a very streamlined experience. Shoddy SP is a non-issue for me. Hasn't every SP experience in these wargames been uninspired, redundant, retarded, and boring? The real issue is clumsy and irritating Origin. Qualms about the odd 'everything and the kitchen sink' (non)privacy act in the Terms and Conditions aside, it gets in the way of the game. I dunno why DICE agreed to the Origin integration. Why is it even necessary? It isn't...on any level. What does it add to the game? Nothing...absolutely nothing. What does it promise in the future? EA's ability to target market you with precision...and possibly whatever else they would like to do with this information per their terms and conditions. Essentially BF3 is a vehicle for EA's pointless, Origin system, which is not so much a digital distribution platform for ease of the user base but an information gathering and marketing tool to make EA's life easier.

    I don't think Origin is dangerous...I just think it's pointless and useless and irritating.
    I don't think BF3 is bad...it just isn't anything new...and it's crippled by the above pointless system.    … Expand
  82. hemolysis
    Nov 5, 2011
    6
    Battlefield 3 can be a fun game when it works. To play BF3, you'll need to install Origin. Origin is completely useless unless you want to play EA games. What raises concerns is that Origin scans your PC for information. In laymans terms, it's both a game launcher/EA store but also a form of spyware. In both the visual and sound department, BF3 soars. I haven't played a game thatBattlefield 3 can be a fun game when it works. To play BF3, you'll need to install Origin. Origin is completely useless unless you want to play EA games. What raises concerns is that Origin scans your PC for information. In laymans terms, it's both a game launcher/EA store but also a form of spyware. In both the visual and sound department, BF3 soars. I haven't played a game that sounds are looks as good as BF3 to date. The sounds that guns and explosions make add to the immersion and bring the game to life. Sometimes though, it can be difficult to locate the source of a sound. This can create a problem because situational awareness is key to win in BF3. Despite the cutting edge visuals and great sound, the gameplay in BF3 is poorly executed. The game is riddled with bugs and game mechanics that have made me scratch my head a bit. For instance, while playing on hardcore servers if a teammate kills you the kill counts against your K/D. Most, if not all, the servers I've played on had sever lag. Rubberbanding was suppose to be fixed in the latest server patch but in my personal experience the problem became more pronounced. Hit detection hasn't been fixed either. During the beta this was a concern raised by the community and apparently ignored by DICE. Battlelog has replaced the standard ingame server browser. It's a nice idea but poorly executed as well. Whenever I attempt to join a server BF3.exe will force close every other time I attempt to connect. This requires me to make two attempts to connect to a game. It can become frustrating when the server I'm trying to connect to is full. Most of the weapons in BF3 feel very similar. Rather than have multiple weapons with different strengths and weaknesses, DICE pretty much made them all nearly identical. In fact, weapon statistics are no where to be found other than a brief description of each weapon. Some of these descriptions are accurate while others are not. The various multiplayer maps have their strengths and weakness. Most of the close quarter maps are non-linear while some are linear. The linear maps aren't as fun to play but are more tolerable since spawn points are bearable. The non-linear maps have players of either team spawning in random locations. This leads to spawning near opponents or having opponents spawn right behind you. Many issues were fixed from the beta but many weren't. RPGs sometimes make the "shot" sound but actually never launch the missile. It's obvious bugs like this that make the game seem rushed and why this game could have easily scored a 9 or 10 for me but I can't overlook the carelessness of DICE. This game, as it stands now, is nothing more than a 6.… Expand
  83. Dougeye-Master
    Oct 28, 2011
    6
    I would normally give BF3 a nine or even a ten, if it was solely the responsibility of DICE he producers but i am marking the whole product down because of EA's implementation of origin 3rd party software and online launch options. I already use digital distributers like steam so im not totally against it but i still believe that when i buy a piece of media i then have the right to useI would normally give BF3 a nine or even a ten, if it was solely the responsibility of DICE he producers but i am marking the whole product down because of EA's implementation of origin 3rd party software and online launch options. I already use digital distributers like steam so im not totally against it but i still believe that when i buy a piece of media i then have the right to use that media (legally) when and were i choose. If the internet in my area is down temporarily and i want to play the single player campaign then that is what i want. Unfortunatly for me this has over shadowed what for me has so far been a realy good game! and that coming from someone who would choose rpgs and strateggy over fpx most days of the week. I just wish distributers would go back to the "here is your game key on the manual, type it in once then play the game".… Expand
  84. Hiei987
    Nov 2, 2011
    6
    Battlefield 3 is little more than a slight expanded Bad Company 2 and is a great example of EA's greed destroying this amazing series. Battlefield games on PC have been known for their massive maps, high end graphics and perfect balance between realism and fun. Battlefield 2 was the pinnacle of this series and it is amazing how little Dice have done to progress from it. Battlefield 3 isn'tBattlefield 3 is little more than a slight expanded Bad Company 2 and is a great example of EA's greed destroying this amazing series. Battlefield games on PC have been known for their massive maps, high end graphics and perfect balance between realism and fun. Battlefield 2 was the pinnacle of this series and it is amazing how little Dice have done to progress from it. Battlefield 3 isn't much more than a console port, they simply allowed servers to have up to 64 players since PCs could handle this even 8 years ago. There are now many more weapon choices, yet most of them are highly similar and are only there to make you waste hours unlocking all the accessories. The only real progress this game has made in the series is graphics, which is natural. The game is still as fun as the older Battlefield games, but for its lack of expanding its size to match the modern computers its not getting more than a 6. Battlefield series is now going down to be the same crap as modern warfare, pointless remakes and DLCs as if this is an RPG. Prepare for endless console ports...… Expand
  85. Rytle
    Oct 29, 2011
    5
    The game has potential to be fantastic, however the single-player is god-awful, boring. Just as it starts to pick up, it ends. The Campaign should have been left out entirely and the resources wasted on it should have gone into the multiplayer. Many of the bugs from the Beta have been fixed, but there are still a plethora that have not been. There is no in game voice chat, random serverThe game has potential to be fantastic, however the single-player is god-awful, boring. Just as it starts to pick up, it ends. The Campaign should have been left out entirely and the resources wasted on it should have gone into the multiplayer. Many of the bugs from the Beta have been fixed, but there are still a plethora that have not been. There is no in game voice chat, random server disconnects happen every few matches causing you to lose your points. Battlelog does not work nearly as well as it should. And, on top of a plethora of other problems there is no joystick support, making the already weak aircraft worthless. The basics are there but at present the game still seems like it should still be in beta.… Expand
  86. IIFloodyII
    Oct 29, 2011
    7
    this game could of been great if it wasn't for the single player letting it down but multiplayer is excellent and enjoyable just highly over rated like all FPS nowadays
  87. TheSHow29
    Jan 20, 2012
    5
    I bought this game looking for a change from CoD. I was excited, i even convinced my brother and two friends to get it so we could play it together. The depth of the game is amazing, tons of awesome unlock-ables. Very realistic feel for weapons and feeling an actual kick when you fire, and their sounds. Beyond these things, i found the interface terrible, me and my 3 friends could make aI bought this game looking for a change from CoD. I was excited, i even convinced my brother and two friends to get it so we could play it together. The depth of the game is amazing, tons of awesome unlock-ables. Very realistic feel for weapons and feeling an actual kick when you fire, and their sounds. Beyond these things, i found the interface terrible, me and my 3 friends could make a squad, but half the time when we entered the game it would drop someone. so we'd try again, then one of us would be on the other team. then after that game we thought ok when we get to lobby we'll leave and enter a new one....oh wait there isnt a lobby, you have to wait until a whole new game starts and loads before you can leave? What about editing your class, you can't do that pregame either unless you back out to main page, i just wanna change one thing, and i don't wanna leave my game to do it. Guess i'll just do it while my friends are hopping in that humvee, oh wait their on the other team again.....good thing we had a fifth, he can stay on my team. Then i distinctly remember literally turning on my system four or five times because i would try to change class and would spawn without a weapon...i could run around and stuff, but couldn't shoot or throw grenades, and didn't see the barrel of a gun. I understand the deathmatch maps are small, but is it intentionally spawning me in gunfire? I mean CoD does this sometimes to but its more like bad timing there, i couldn't help but feel as though the game literally hated me sometimes and would spawn me to die a second later. Either way, i bought MW3 and BF3. I returned BF3. This game had MW3 beat hands down for (graphics/unlock-ables/realism/sound/vehicles), except for things that i just couldn't get past whether they be small or or not. I think i was like level 40 or so, i didn't spend a great deal of time playing the game but i was annoyed by the squad problems and lobby thing the most because i bought the game to play with my friends and brother.… Expand
  88. gas
    Feb 12, 2012
    6
    Im not talking about single player as ofc its just some kind of mini tutorial and nothing more, and its not a problem, Battlefield is multiplayer for me.
    The game looks amazing and its overall what we were waiting for, but there is a real issue with the netcode, sadly no dev nowadays seems to understand that in a fps is more important the satisfaction of hitting ppl then the supa graphic    Im not talking about single player as ofc its just some kind of mini tutorial and nothing more, and its not a problem, Battlefield is multiplayer for me.
    The game looks amazing and its overall what we were waiting for, but there is a real issue with the netcode, sadly no dev nowadays seems to understand that in a fps is more important the satisfaction of hitting ppl then the supa graphic effects.
    Ofc in fast peace FPS games its normal sometimes some minor lag/netcode issue, but in BF2 this issue was a lot less present.
    Basically it ends to be a bit random when you engage an enemy directly, who is gonna die, and also can happen to see the enemy with 100% hp even if on screen you see you are hitting more then once.
    It can happen to shot 20 bullets into an enemy face and end killed one shot.
    As i just said those issues cant be totally absent from an fps, but they should be rare while in this BF3 they are basically the normal gameplay.
    This BF3 seems to me nearly the same as BFBC2 as netcode /latency normalization, but defo its a lot worse then BF2, where hitting someone was actually doing effective dmg 95% of times perfectly.    … Expand
  89. theFunkyMan
    Nov 1, 2011
    7
    I'm sure this is the best multiplayer shooter nowadays, but I expected much more and more serious single content. The story of the campaign was quite boring, the gameplay was dull, and there wasn't any special feature like in Bf Bad Company 2. Not a bad game, but after the large hype I expected much... much better.
  90. OmnipotentGamer
    Aug 5, 2013
    5
    Awful Campaign, Premium Memberships, only 3 or 4 good vanilla maps, having to use battlelog, being able to buy completion for your class, and toned down destruction are all powerful negatives about this game, I would play Bad Company 2 any day over this.

    Pros:
    Guns feel good to shoot
    Jets
    large maps
  91. GoodSirMcBro
    Nov 8, 2011
    7
    Battlefield 3 is the newest battlefield game. The only flaws in this game are: the single player, battlelog, and origin.

    The single player wasn't too bad but it wasn't all that good. It mostly showed off all the weapons and vehicles that are in the game with a typical modern military story. But battlefield has never been about the single player. The idea that I have to open origin and    Battlefield 3 is the newest battlefield game. The only flaws in this game are: the single player, battlelog, and origin.

    The single player wasn't too bad but it wasn't all that good. It mostly showed off all the weapons and vehicles that are in the game with a typical modern military story. But battlefield has never been about the single player.

    The idea that I have to open origin and then my web browser to open the game is stupid. Its mostly just bloating your system with more programs to run to just play a game. There are many rumors that origin is basically spyware. I prove this to be true but I can't disprove it as well. I don't care but if you are one of those paranoid people you might as well stay clear of this game.

    Battlelog is facebook for battlefield You can post updates and track your stats. Something that doesn't really matter but is forced on you.

    The multiplayer is fun. You have a bunch of weapons that can you unlock by getting points from preforming actions. Healing, giving ammo, spotting, repairing, disabling and destroying vehicles, capturing bases, assisting in killing someone, killing someone, and more. You can also unlock upgrades for your guns and vehicles.    … Expand
  92. Redklaw
    Nov 9, 2011
    7
    It's painful to me to give this game a 7 out of 10. It's just so much fun to play. Unfortunately there is so much outside of the game itself that drags it down... The game is buggy, it crashes regularly on every PC I own (6 of them). Battlelog is buggy (there are cloud outages, the server browser is buggy, connecting to a server doesn't always work). Squad / Team based VOIP isn'tIt's painful to me to give this game a 7 out of 10. It's just so much fun to play. Unfortunately there is so much outside of the game itself that drags it down... The game is buggy, it crashes regularly on every PC I own (6 of them). Battlelog is buggy (there are cloud outages, the server browser is buggy, connecting to a server doesn't always work). Squad / Team based VOIP isn't available (there is a system in battlelog, but it's only party chat). No joystick support at launch (wouldn't be an issue if there weren't, you know, jets and stuff). But all bad things aside, the game is beautiful, the single-player isn't great but it's at least worth playing, and the multi-player is astonishingly fun. Just be prepared for all the bad baggage that comes along with it.… Expand
  93. darth3pio
    Nov 20, 2011
    7
    Pros
    - Performance scales well with all levels of hardware
    - Detailed environments - Vehicles - Kit unlocks - The campain is somewhat shaky but enjoyable enough to place it in the pro's box. Cons - Vehicle unlocks, I feel they went overboard with this one, requiring you to unlock basic functionality. - Kit unlocks, while fun, again, I feel they went overboard the same issue as with BC2,    Pros
    - Performance scales well with all levels of hardware
    - Detailed environments
    - Vehicles
    - Kit unlocks
    - The campain is somewhat shaky but enjoyable enough to place it in the pro's box.

    Cons
    - Vehicle unlocks, I feel they went overboard with this one, requiring you to unlock basic functionality.
    - Kit unlocks, while fun, again, I feel they went overboard the same issue as with BC2, defibrilators had to be unlocked, leaving you pretty much useless for the first 3 to 5 hours of the game.
    - Map sizes, while Battlefield 3 has been heralded as having some of the biggest maps in the Battlefield franchise, those biggest of maps only seem to utilise about 10% for play area and boundaries.
    - Gameplay/UI features, calling it a true sequel to Battlefield 2 would be considered false, the foundation that Battlefield 2 built on is just not there in Battlefield 3, it comes closer to a Bad Company sequel if anything. The communications rose that has been implemented is rather sloppy, however certain features are not set in stone, and DICE have hinted at certain additions down the track so this particular con does not weigh into my given score.    … Expand
  94. Bondy
    Nov 10, 2011
    7
    I loved this for it's muliplayer and it's the reason why I've given it an 7.5. Basically the single player is utter crap and does some really stupid things that people from COD were doing 8 years ago. Getting pushed out of cover, getting shot while in cover and most annoying not being able to flank and surprise any of the AI pissed me off tons. However it looks good and tries to bringI loved this for it's muliplayer and it's the reason why I've given it an 7.5. Basically the single player is utter crap and does some really stupid things that people from COD were doing 8 years ago. Getting pushed out of cover, getting shot while in cover and most annoying not being able to flank and surprise any of the AI pissed me off tons. However it looks good and tries to bring something new to the table in sound and graphics which I respect. Where this same shines is in the co-op and online play. There's tons of fun in the massive maps with vehicles, planes and choppers and extra class feels completely different and fun. Simply this, if you want a good story driven single player then BF3 is not for you, however if you want to have fun with in multiplayer I cannot recommend this game enough.… Expand
  95. Holman
    Nov 19, 2011
    7
    ok im not good at English, so don't mind if i make fail spelling
    Very good graphics, sound effects is very amazing as well. the game play is fun due to the destructible environments around you. and the fact that you'll constantly seeing the jet and chopper flying back and fourth above you is very fun to watch (for a while). but i'm still think the game is broken and the combat is indeed    ok im not good at English, so don't mind if i make fail spelling
    Very good graphics, sound effects is very amazing as well. the game play is fun due to the destructible environments around you. and the fact that you'll constantly seeing the jet and chopper flying back and fourth above you is very fun to watch (for a while). but i'm still think the game is broken and the combat is indeed unrealistic.
    Ground combat : TANK: although dice does realize that frontal armour is stronger than the side(or back). they've fail to accurately use the "Slope" feature however. if the tank on the higher ground get hit in the slope-armour part. it's suppose to BOUNCE off. not damage it. and for Christ sake, how is it that people can survive from getting hit by the 12.7mm(50.cal) machine-gun ? one shot would've been enough to make an inches size hole in people body

    INF:the firefight is very intends because you can constantly die any second. there is also many unlockable that will help you such as flashlight, in which both help you see in the dark and blind people with it. or Laser sight where you can fire more accurately, but with a cost of being spotted more easily. the Gun still feel like a pea shooter however, with little to none recoil and extremly unrealistic accuracy. where you can kill people 500 yards away with pistols (can you hand be that steady?)

    AIR:very fun (especially the dogfight) and the introduction of MANPAD sure make chopper whores life miserable. but still enjoyable however(as long as they have IR flare skill equipped).
    the jet combat is very fun, but with limited map and weaponry the fun was limited as well.

    AA: dice did a lot of change on AA weaponry in this game. the the appearance of MANPAD allow the infantry to engage hostile chopper without much need of air support. and the "Mobile" AA add the tactical approach in both conquest and rush mode. while the anti-air missile does exist in the mobile AA. why is the base AA doesn't have one?. im really getting tired of trying to shoot down a fly size jet. at least give us a flak or something. (lol)

    all and all, dice did a great job at the game. the frostbit 2.0 meant that more thing could be blowup. base camping is gone (xD) and you're now given an option to either get back in action or die when being revived. the game isn't perfect but still, good job dice. ;)    … Expand
  96. dirt-diver187
    Nov 20, 2011
    7
    Another great package from the Battlefield series, very deep story line and excellence execution in multiplayer. The only disappointment (BIG one) is that is only takes windows 7 which is really bad as I have to upgrade my Window XP into Win7 which I do not want to do. The bottom line is "All good except the Seven requirement"
  97. Lechero29
    Apr 6, 2012
    6
    Battlefield 3 is just one of those games that although i am okay with people going nuts about it, I just do not understand why. There are definitely some good things about it, such as the fantastic presentation, great sound effects, and a nice multiplayer to boot, but it also has its flaws. For one, the story is utter nonsense, and it just like a tutorial rather than an actual campaign.Battlefield 3 is just one of those games that although i am okay with people going nuts about it, I just do not understand why. There are definitely some good things about it, such as the fantastic presentation, great sound effects, and a nice multiplayer to boot, but it also has its flaws. For one, the story is utter nonsense, and it just like a tutorial rather than an actual campaign. Also, this is a bit nit-picky, but the console versions offer no split-screen, which was very dissapointing for me. All in all, I do not find the game very appealing, but then again, I am not a fan of shooters anyway.… Expand
  98. birdman3
    Sep 29, 2013
    6
    I must admit that I'm reviewing only the single player mode- I haven't played any multiplayer. For a single player FPS, the story is pretty decent- the fact that the story is told from multiple points of view is pretty interesting, even if the story itself is sometimes a bit tough to follow. There's a tank level and a fighter jet level thrown into the mix here for really no good reason-I must admit that I'm reviewing only the single player mode- I haven't played any multiplayer. For a single player FPS, the story is pretty decent- the fact that the story is told from multiple points of view is pretty interesting, even if the story itself is sometimes a bit tough to follow. There's a tank level and a fighter jet level thrown into the mix here for really no good reason- they're painfully easy and feature slower gameplay than the FPS levels. With that said, the game itself is not too short but also not too long- I found myself feeling like I was finished with the game just an hour or so before the game was finished. Overall, I wouldn't highly recommend it, but I wouldn't recommend against it either.… Expand
  99. ril3ydx
    Dec 17, 2012
    5
    I used to love BF games, but Dice **** up this game, I can't believe I have almost 950 hours in this game ... supression, hacks, bipod, COD style, small maps, tweaker(still not fixed), PB does not ban any **** support class, op guns, frag-ammo (my god) ... and other ****s
  100. captainkane
    Apr 12, 2013
    5
    The Battlefield franchise is trying so hard to differentiate itself from Call of Duty that it takes major missteps. Like every recent shooter, BF3 features a tacked on campaign that is too short. The Frostbite 2 engine is a beast and roars loud on PC’s. A long and feature rich campaign would be the best place to showcase the graphical prowess of the engine and give hardcore PC gamersThe Battlefield franchise is trying so hard to differentiate itself from Call of Duty that it takes major missteps. Like every recent shooter, BF3 features a tacked on campaign that is too short. The Frostbite 2 engine is a beast and roars loud on PC’s. A long and feature rich campaign would be the best place to showcase the graphical prowess of the engine and give hardcore PC gamers bragging rights. Instead, DICE gives us a COD-like campaign that only provides 4-6 hours of play. Yawn… The campaign is just another dull, formulaic, on rails experience. On a positive note, the graphics, voice acting, and gameplay are action movie quality. But this is no reason to forgive the short and forgettable experience. Arguments persist that the multiplayer component suffered because DICE & EA felt compelled to add campaigns to the franchise. That’s an excuse. That was the developer’s opportunity to shine, not blend in. The multiplayer is truly epic. On PC, maps are huge. Once again, we see the power of the Frostbite 2 engine. Destructible environments, debris filled streets, and lingering dust create realism that is unparalleled by other popular shooters. Vehicles add to the chaos as players are constantly sprinting thru alleys to avoid tanks or getting to high ground so they can rocket a helicopter. When I first played this game, I was like WTF!! The experience can be that good. The Battlelog is a controversial element of BF3 because it requires a web browser to access the game. But I like it. The interface is well-designed and makes customization and server selection easy. Since customization is ridiculously deep, the Battlelog is a natural progression of the series. Gunplay is solid, but jerky and insanely fast character movements make aiming difficult. Overall, the multiplayer has a ton to offer, but it falls short in several ways. The most mindboggling aspect of BF3 is the fact that servers are rented by players. That’s right, someone else pays so you can play, baby!! Many of the rented servers are available to us cheapskates for free. This is not inherently bad because it allows freedom not available in other blockbuster shooters. Some servers only offer certain maps and game modes. Others prohibit certain weapons such as rocket launchers. But a significant amount of admins are abusive. Every BF3 player I’ve talked to has had at least one negative experience. I’ve been banned from a server for “excessive use of claymores”. A friend of mine was banned from a server because his K/D was too high (if you call 45/9 too high). I’ve witnessed admins rebalancing teams so they got all the best players. This is unacceptable. Some admins are gracious enough to post the rules. If players break them, they get kicked. But I’ve seen more than one admin breaking his/her own rules. But wait, there’s more! BF3 lacks voice chat. Using headsets to talk with teammates requires third party software. Unfortunately, not all servers utilize the necessary software, so players must search dozens of servers to find one with voice enabled or find their own solution. DICE claims BF3 emphasizes teamwork but omits voice chat. *Scratches head in confusion* Needless to say, the “team” element has suffered. Another annoying aspect of the game is unbalanced spawning. If a player sneaks up behind a sentry’s position, his entire team can spawn off him and easily overtake the opposition. This even happens during firefights. I’ve blasted away at an opponent only to see 3-5 people spawn off him and shoot me. Infuriating is an understatement. It gets worse. Even after selecting “random” spawn points, players regularly spawn into opponents’ sights and are shot immediately. This is especially problematic on smaller maps. Such spawning lends itself to base camping and cheap kills.BF3’s leveling system punishes low ranking players. Players will need to put in absurd amounts of time while performing specific challenges to get decent weapons. I like the large maps, but wandering around for 20 minutes looking for opponents only to be sniped and then respawn 3 miles away gets dull. The Co-op missions were decent, but there a e only a few and they’re extremely short. The biggest flaw of BF3 stems from its targeted audience: the PC market. Matchmaking, gun mechanics, and even map sizes suffer unless gamers play it on PC. The absolutely horrendous recoil, bullet drop, and awkwardly swift, jerky character movements just beg for mouse aiming. Since 70% or more of BF3 players own consoles, this game caters to a declining market. However, BF3 lacks so many necessary ingredients that it must be played on PC to be fully realized, and all at the user’s expense. This truly shows the darker side of game development. Once the wow factor of the Frostbite engine wore off, I realized this is a mediocre shooter comprised of nothing more than large maps and drawn out matches injected with bouts of tedium.… Expand
prev
Page:

Awards & Rankings

8
#8 Best PC Game of 2011
6
#6 Most Discussed PC Game of 2011
5
#5 Most Shared PC Game of 2011

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
89

Generally favorable reviews - based on 61 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 60 out of 61
  2. Mixed: 1 out of 61
  3. Negative: 0 out of 61
  1. Computer Games Online RO
    Mar 7, 2012
    86
    It's all a matter of taste, after all. They each provide a certain type of entertainment – when talking about Battlefield 3, it involves a bigger game, more open in its possibilities and more spectacular. But on a longer timeline, less frantic and with fewer Bruce Willis scenes than the mass appeal beast it set itself to dethrone.
    Read full review
  2. LEVEL (Czech Republic)
    Jan 20, 2012
    80
    No, Battlefield 3 is not the best game of today. But good looking – definitely. It also has an absolutely addictive multiplayer. Who needs more? [Dec 2011]
  3. PC PowerPlay
    Dec 4, 2011
    90
    Both a triumphant leap forward and a return to form for the Battlefield series. This is the best multiplayer shooter on PC. [Christmas 2011, p.58]
See all critic reviews »