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. PenetratorGod
    Sep 1, 2023
    5
    I tried to play it recently but it's a very old game now. It may have been one of the most successful games of its time, but it's impossible to play now. Graphics may be dated, but the story in the single player campaign was pretty bad.
  2. Dco326
    Apr 14, 2023
    6
    Im talking about campaing only. Bila je ajde kud i kamo okej ajde XD Ali prica, kraj i kampanja su bila sve gore i gore XD Ocajni pisci kampanje definitivno :D
  3. Kilio
    Jan 4, 2023
    7
    Honestly, I don't care what the single player looks and plays like.
    Playing the multiplayer is truly amazing. This game has such a unique atmosphere, game play, graphics,
  4. Soullex
    Nov 30, 2022
    7
    Gayet iyi, çok başarılı....................................................
  5. Demon2017
    Jun 18, 2022
    7
    Игра была невероятным прорывом в своё время, но сама компания коротковата и скучна, а мультиплеер меня никогда особо не привлекал.
  6. Jackie_Jackson
    May 26, 2022
    5
    Прошёл и забыл и потом забыл и прошёл а в мультик так и не поиграл прости хосспаде
  7. vova22379
    Dec 18, 2021
    6
    ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
  8. ChampionofDeaTH
    Oct 25, 2021
    6
    обычный шутан с техникой , мы с кериком отрубились но не так много потому что игра в целом на пару часов
  9. tufekciero
    Mar 12, 2021
    7
    GÜMÜŞ zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
  10. ThereWolves
    Mar 11, 2021
    7
    10 years later, Battlefield 3 still holds up tremendously well. There aren't as many active servers, but there's still just enough to enjoy the core game modes and maps. It's still a pretty impressive game graphically and in its scale. The only downsides now are that the servers aren't quite as active as they used to be, and game progression takes a lot of grinding.
  11. MetaSucks
    Jan 24, 2021
    6
    (Disclaimer: This review is Singleplayer only)

    While Battlefield 3 may be to this day a fun shooter with a somewhat aged but still responsive and intriguing gun play, It is in my opinion overall not the best choice anymore, when it comes to Singleplayer shooters. The story, while not super important, is somewhat simple and nothing to set focus on, but considering that most games like    (Disclaimer: This review is Singleplayer only)

    While Battlefield 3 may be to this day a fun shooter with a somewhat aged but still responsive and intriguing gun play, It is in my opinion overall not the best choice anymore, when it comes to Singleplayer shooters. The story, while not super important, is somewhat simple and nothing to set focus on, but considering that most games like Battlefield and Call of duty have a higher focus on gameplay, rather than story telling, it is admittedly nothing I would judge the game on too harshly. I just wish to mention that point, since there will be lots of people who seek to play a fun shooter, with a focus grabing story. Beyond that as already mentioned the gun play is solid and works well enough despite feeling somewhat aged, but the overall game feels too easy, making you focus less on actually utilizing the gun play or to try to play as tactical as possible, but rather makes you want to just run through the game, while spraying aimlessly towards the enemy, because you can. This may sound as a weird critique at first, but having played this game on hard difficulty and still having no problem whatsoever, makes this game not feel like you are in constant danger, having to play as tactical as possible, or else you will be in trouble, but rather it makes you feel like you are in a nerf battle. Also worth mentioning are the bugs. While there may not be any game breaking bugs in there, they are certainly still noticeable and in some cases even quite annoying. Less noticeable bugs would be your allies standing inside objects or even straight up running in and out of walls, but those that are more annoying are when you get stuck inside an ally, or try to run down the stairs, but get stuck on nothing, or you have to interact with a character, but he won't respond, so you have to die in order to go back to last checkpoint in order to finally progress. Worst bug of them all though was one, where my whole game at one point randomly set it's difficulty to normal, which may not be a problem, if it weren't for the fact that in order to change difficulty back you have to replay a mission or rather in my case, replay the whole game. I looked up the bug btw and I found out, that I am indeed not the only one that had to deal with this bug and those that did already had to deal with it back in 2011, when the game came out, making this somewhat inexcusable to be still in the game. When it comes to graphics though, I do have to admit that it does indeed holds up to this day quite well. Yes it does look aged in some parts and you can sometimes see, that this game is almost 10 years old, but overall it certainly does look great and certainly will still look great in the future, though I believe that a game does not need to have the best or rather most realistic looks possible in order to be enjoyable. The sound design though, while the background sound is ok and serves it's purpose, the gun sound definitely does hold up fantastic to this day and makes gun play feel a whole lot more satisfying. Overall conclusion, do I think I would recommend this game? It depends on what you are looking for. If you are looking for a shooter with really good story telling, play something like half life,
    Metro, Bioshock or. If you are looking for a shooter that demands you to actually play tactical, then play Metal Gear solid V, Halo or Battlefield bad company 2, or if you want a game with a super satisfying gun play, then play doom or wolfenstein. But if you do seek a fun Battlefield exoerience or just wish to play a laid back shooter, then yes Battlefield 3 would still be a good choice. Despite me speaking mostly negative about this game, beyond that I could recommend this game a lot more based on the mulitplayer, since it does have a very solid and enjoyable multiplayer mode, but since I prefer to just review the game based on singleplayer, because I have not played multiplayer during my session, I will just say that it is definitely still one of the better multiplayer shooters out there. Thus I will conclude my review with a 6/10 for the Singleplayer mode. (Multiplayer mode would be an 8.5 or 9/10).    … Expand
  12. DeathKillerNOR
    Jan 9, 2021
    7
    {GamePlay: World/Level Design, Driving/Combat, Game Theme/Mechanics,}
    8/10 - Great.
    {Narrative: Dialogue, Cutscene, Voice Acting} 8/10 - Great. {Visuals: Graphics, Animations, Motion Capture} 6/10 – Average. {Technical: Bugs, Performance} 4/10 - Bad. {Story: Plot/Ending, Character Development} 8/10 - Great. {Replayability: Replayability (Alternate Endings, Secrets,    {GamePlay: World/Level Design, Driving/Combat, Game Theme/Mechanics,}
    8/10 - Great.

    {Narrative: Dialogue, Cutscene, Voice Acting}
    8/10 - Great.

    {Visuals: Graphics, Animations, Motion Capture}
    6/10 – Average.

    {Technical: Bugs, Performance}
    4/10 - Bad.

    {Story: Plot/Ending, Character Development}
    8/10 - Great.

    {Replayability: Replayability (Alternate Endings, Secrets, etc)}
    ☑ 10/10 - Good.
    ☐ 5/10 - Bad.

    [The Level Design is great, The Combat is how you would expect from an FPS.

    The Narratives are good, The Cutscene is well made and the voice acting is fantastic.

    The Visuals are great for a 2011 game, I would say it's still a decent game to play in 2021.
    The animations are alright, but motion capture is slightly bad, especially facial capture.

    Encountered a lot of Bugs during my PlayThrough, from T-bone animations to unclickable NPC when i was supposed to climb over walls. And also had multiple full-on game crashes.

    The story is still great, it's not like its changes in the past 9 years.]

    The single-player part of the game isn't that replayable, you will get the same outcome every time.
    I couldn't find a match in Co-Op, and on Multiplayer everyone is basically in a vehicle all the time.
    But yes, the replayability is good, you can theoretically spend hours upon hours in this game, but if it will be enjoyable, that i don't know.

    "7/10 – Good
    Playing a Good game is time well spent. Could it be better? Absolutely.
    Maybe it lacks ambition, or is too repetitive,"
    ~DeathKillerNOR~

    ⚠️ IN MY OPINION ⚠️    … Expand
  13. Mazma
    Dec 25, 2020
    7
    Comparto tecnico impressionante, trama fiacca ma giocabile. Multiplayer tra i migliori della saga, ancora oggi!
  14. Awanka
    Nov 24, 2020
    5
    I just finished this today in 2020, and I'm only rating the single-player experience, and it's the essence of "meh" mediocrity. The gameplay can be frustratingly clunky sometimes, and the story is by-the-numbers. There's more variety than most FPS games here, as you can play gunner in a plane or tank, but those experiences are actually kind of dull, albeit realistic.
  15. shostakn
    Oct 16, 2020
    7
    Summary: As bullets whiz by, walls crumble, and explosions throw you to the ground, the battlefield feels more alive and interactive than ever before. In Battlefield 3, players step into the role of the elite U.S. Marines where they will experience heart-pounding single player missions and competitive multiplayer actions ranging across diverse locations from around the globe includingSummary: As bullets whiz by, walls crumble, and explosions throw you to the ground, the battlefield feels more alive and interactive than ever before. In Battlefield 3, players step into the role of the elite U.S. Marines where they will experience heart-pounding single player missions and competitive multiplayer actions ranging across diverse locations from around the globe including Europe, Middle-East and North America… Expand
  16. Alex_Stone
    Jul 8, 2020
    7
    В принципе, за 10 лет игра потеряла свой вкус. Перестрелки однообразны, враги не слишком-то умны. В моменты, когда стрельбу пытаются разнообразить, весь геймплей заключается буквально в нажатии двух кнопок (миссия на самолете и танке), что не играет на руку интересности. Киношные моменты не особенно впечатлили в 2к20. Сюжет, являясь вишенкой на торте показался немного скомканным к концуВ принципе, за 10 лет игра потеряла свой вкус. Перестрелки однообразны, враги не слишком-то умны. В моменты, когда стрельбу пытаются разнообразить, весь геймплей заключается буквально в нажатии двух кнопок (миссия на самолете и танке), что не играет на руку интересности. Киношные моменты не особенно впечатлили в 2к20. Сюжет, являясь вишенкой на торте показался немного скомканным к концу (предполагаю вмешательство издателя), и не слишком интересным, плохо прописанные персонажи и их химией. Не дожали, короче. Графически выглядит хорошо, если обновить текстуры на 4к, то игра будет смотреться лучше некоторых новинок. Встретились пару багов, связанные с совместимостью с современными системами, что не украсило картину. Ностальгия игру не спасла. Конечно, все эти претензии относятся к 2020 году, что не мешает игре оставаться одной из лучших 2011, где все эти моменты не замечались, а все достоинства работали на все 100%.… Expand
  17. Kotofon
    Jun 6, 2020
    6
    Оценка только за кампанию
    Наслаждайтесь полной свободой и сражайтесь в напряженных боях Battlefield 3 так, как вам хочется. Исследуйте девять масштабных многопользовательских карт, используйте богатый арсенал техники, оружия и устройств, чтобы повысить накал боя. Каждая секунда сражения приближает вас к новым доступным предметам.    Оценка только за кампанию
    Наслаждайтесь полной свободой и сражайтесь в напряженных боях Battlefield 3 так, как вам хочется. Исследуйте девять масштабных многопользовательских карт, используйте богатый арсенал техники, оружия и устройств, чтобы повысить накал боя. Каждая секунда сражения приближает вас к новым доступным предметам.
  18. r03vg
    Apr 17, 2020
    7
    В отличие от современных Battlefield здесь есть вполне себе цельный сюжет. К тому же есть отличный мультиплеер с кучей карт с огромной тактической свободой.
  19. zNeverSleeping
    Jun 23, 2019
    7
    - Graficos: 8
    - Jogabilidade: 8
    - Historia: 5
    - Direção: 5
    - Trilha Sonora: 7
    - Densempenho (RTX 2060 + Ryzen 1600): 9

    Comentario: A jogabilidade é muito boa, os graficos são lindos até hoje e ele é muito bem otimizado.
  20. Yelov
    Jul 22, 2018
    7
    Really liked most of the maps, graphics were good for it's time, shooting mechanics are satisfying. Fun game, but grenade spam can be really annoying, suffers from infamous lens flares and blue color grade, and suppression is extremely annoying.
  21. dabyd1304
    Jan 12, 2017
    5
    *Análisis de la campaña individual.
    No tiene mucho misterio. Es otro shooter bélico moderno del montón. Con una trama de las mas flojas de todas pero algunos episodios medianamente bien construidos. Entretenido para un par de tardes pero sin que nadie espere nada que sorprenda por su calidad.
  22. muzmuz
    Jul 3, 2016
    7
    One of the most realistic shooters ever published in the history of gaming. Most gameplay elements resemble the usual Call of Duty-style game mechanics, but Battlefield 3 stands on another ground.
  23. runner
    Nov 8, 2015
    6
    Unlike most FPS players, I have the strange habit of not paying much attention to multiplayer, but just playing the single player campaign. And therefore my review is mainly about it.

    Battlefield 3 is very well received and very well baked product (mostly), and the campaign is (as expected) not breathtakingly good, but is actually above decent and passes many others I've tried withing    Unlike most FPS players, I have the strange habit of not paying much attention to multiplayer, but just playing the single player campaign. And therefore my review is mainly about it.

    Battlefield 3 is very well received and very well baked product (mostly), and the campaign is (as expected) not breathtakingly good, but is actually above decent and passes many others I've tried withing the COD-BF-MOH-and alikes-family.

    Best feature in the game which is worth mentioning first is the graphics, which are truly amazing and actually ARE breathtaking, even on low graphics setting which I had to play with (which would lead me to an issue with BF3 later on). I really enjoyed wandering the various battlefields throughout the levels of the game, watching the very fine details and environment.

    Story is alright, nothing too good, nothing too bad, it surrounds various characters which is cool and is an excuse for trying to vary your same old banal FPS gameplay with some (rather weak) aircraft mission, and also some tank driving and stealth missions (which, on the contrary, I greatly enjoyed).

    You'll find that the campaign always tries to be cinematic, and it is, I personally enjoyed these efforts but I believe that it also comes at expense of the gameplay, when at many occasions throughout the game you'll just find yourself simply running around, following your squad-mates and witnessing some dramatic pre-scripted explosions or other noisydamaging events.

    Again, I actually liked the cinematic feeling, but am not sure the hardcore players would find it very enjoyable.

    Multiplayer seems good enough, if it only was my thing.. But it isn't. Anyway it's very active until this very day and there are many servers to join, beware that you'd usually need PunkBuster to play multiplayer and that can currently be a nightmare on Windows 10 (from my experience).

    And now for the (not very minor) complaints about the game which made me drop the grade to 6:
    First and worst, some issue with sound stuttering caused on dual core processors. After researching around I figured out the issue is not so uncommon, and the only solution is to let BF3 use ONLY ONE processor unit. WHAT THE HELL, EA? That terribly reduced the game performance and made me drop the graphics to the lowest settings possible, or else the game wouldn't be playable at all for me.
    Rather Annoying.

    Second, which I guess is quiet common among FPS, but I'll still indicate it. The maps gives you the illusion of very large areas, and as I already mentioned, the magnificent graphics of BF3 just made me want to explore the maps some more than what the scripted events of the campaign let me.
    Alas, there's nothing to explore, whenever you find the time to do so (and at many times you won't) you'd find that the maps are actually not as big as you may feel, and when there are some corners to turn and some untaken roads to venture, they are very empty and insignificant.
    I guess that explorations is really not the main attraction in such game as BF3, but I think it could be great with such amazing graphics to add some collectibles and let the players do some searching around, if he wishes to.

    One last thing, the difficulty seemed unbalanced at times, as on NORMAL difficulty, I've faced some sections which felt insanely difficult. At least for me.
    Don't get me wrong, I do like challenges. But I picked NORMAL for a reason, I still want the game to flow, and not replaying the same portion for over 15 times of dying over and over.

    I guess that BF3 deserves more than a 6, but based on these experience, this magnificent looking game which I'll probably never ever play again would have to do with a 6.    … Expand
  24. ugura
    Sep 22, 2015
    7
    good game nice, graphic have potencial with bad company 2 go and buy it, this is good ea game game. yes ea its not more good, but thx dice from your work on bf3 but your fails bf4
  25. Expospeed
    Dec 7, 2014
    6
    BF3 is a mediocre game. My breakdown is as follows:

    1. Graphics: 8/10 - excellent, even on low-end rigs
    2. Gameplay: 7/10 - great controls and satisfying experience with good sound effects. In campaign, excessive lighting occasionally affects gameplay.
    3. Story: 2/10 - not interesting or engaging at all
    4. Multiplayer: 7/10 - competitive and fun

    Overall, an average game.
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. altruista
    Dec 8, 2013
    5
    http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/battlefield-3/user-reviews

    Few years ago I used to play BF1942 a lot. I really enjoyed it. Yesterday I decided to try BF3 because of nostalgia and I wanted to play some FPS with nice graphics. But this game is utter rubbish. Totally unbalanced, sky is full of planes and helicopters, tanks are camping on my spawn, vehicles are overpowered,    http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/battlefield-3/user-reviews

    Few years ago I used to play BF1942 a lot. I really enjoyed it.

    Yesterday I decided to try BF3 because of nostalgia and I wanted to

    play some FPS with nice graphics. But this game is utter rubbish.

    Totally unbalanced, sky is full of planes and helicopters, tanks are

    camping on my spawn, vehicles are overpowered, screen is full of blue

    and orange icons, after few minutes of play building are destroyed so

    infantry can't hide. Because of IMBA vehicles people don't go anywhere

    by foot, they wait on spawn for jets, tanks etc. EA this game so

    much I can't believe it. Unplayable rubbish. Oh and I almost forgot you

    need to play and play to unlock weapons (or pay). And singleplayer is

    basically CoD with all scriptness I hate. While playing single you

    can't do a thing, you can't jump of the roof, you can't go whenever you

    like, you must exactly follow the script makes singleplayer so

    pointless and boring. But hey, graphics are great.

    tl;dr; singleplayer is heavily scripted copy of CoD, multiplayer is

    unbalanced rubbish. Graphics are great.    … Expand
  34. NerdyJack
    Nov 15, 2013
    7
    Could easily be a 9 but the web plugin stuff sucks! Don't get me wrong I like this game, so much, this game is so fun that I played it for 300 hours already. However, it also gave me a lot of headache. I spent I don't know, maybe more than 10 hours fixing it from time to time. I really miss the good old days in BC2 where the server filter is in game, and I like the graphics style in BC2Could easily be a 9 but the web plugin stuff sucks! Don't get me wrong I like this game, so much, this game is so fun that I played it for 300 hours already. However, it also gave me a lot of headache. I spent I don't know, maybe more than 10 hours fixing it from time to time. I really miss the good old days in BC2 where the server filter is in game, and I like the graphics style in BC2 better (The graphics in BF3 is amazing, but I don't like its muddy style)...… Expand
  35. 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
  36. 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.
  37. 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
  38. SplatMan_DK
    Aug 22, 2013
    5
    Not being a multiplayer buff I played the Campaign only. I found the story pleasant, but the extremely linear gameplay boring beyond belief. Step slightly off the script and you die. Some scenes are like playing Dragons Lair; click this key, followed by this key, followed by this mouse button. Miss one and you die (and get to watch the introducing cinematic all over again). I will not beNot being a multiplayer buff I played the Campaign only. I found the story pleasant, but the extremely linear gameplay boring beyond belief. Step slightly off the script and you die. Some scenes are like playing Dragons Lair; click this key, followed by this key, followed by this mouse button. Miss one and you die (and get to watch the introducing cinematic all over again). I will not be buying the 4th edition. I am sure someone will cut the cinematics together and put them on youtube so I can watch the story. And hey, if I want to play Dragons Lair i can always buy THAT game instead?… Expand
  39. 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
  40. Dizrawr
    Jul 28, 2013
    7
    This game is fun, and to follow that up I will be truthful, the multiplayer is fun, and no more than that.
    The story was extremely lackluster and kind of silly, the co op was short, pointless, but on harder difficulties it is challenging. The multiplayer on PC is amazing, 32 on 32 on massive maps fighting over flags, intel, or just slaughtering the other team, it's balanced, entertaining,    This game is fun, and to follow that up I will be truthful, the multiplayer is fun, and no more than that.
    The story was extremely lackluster and kind of silly, the co op was short, pointless, but on harder difficulties it is challenging. The multiplayer on PC is amazing, 32 on 32 on massive maps fighting over flags, intel, or just slaughtering the other team, it's balanced, entertaining, and worth a play for anyone new to the battlefield series, The multiplayer alone deserves an 8 or a 9, but the singleplayer and the co op kind of bring it down.    … Expand
  41. 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
  42. xxdiyxx2
    Jul 3, 2013
    7
    A single company is secondary and uninteresting, but the multiplayer is just super. Graphics 9/10. Animation 10/10. The story of 4/10. Multiplayer 9/10.
  43. TheMzingReview
    Jun 17, 2013
    7
    Great visual and sound assets. Campaign is boring and very linear. I would have preferred they kept the Bad Company story. They also reduced a lot of the destruction from BFBC2 which is very disappointing. This game could be greater, but now it isn't as fun anymore.
  44. Comp_Enth
    Jun 17, 2013
    6
    A terrifically balanced game in general. However I do find that it's too easy to hack and thus contains way too many hackers, including subtle ones. It does tend to be a bit glitchy with newer updates etc. (I still can't access the crossbow) and I've noticed that public games tend to use only a few of the maps which gets kind of dull after a while.
  45. lach1223
    Jun 14, 2013
    7
    BF3 is a pretty good game although it is not without its flaws. The campaign for the most part is quite bland and to be honest most of the maps for multiplayer are weak. In my opinion, only Caspian Border, Operation Firestorm and Kharg island are true battlefield maps. The others generally involve ridiculous corridor fighting which is not the essence of what a Battlefield game is meant toBF3 is a pretty good game although it is not without its flaws. The campaign for the most part is quite bland and to be honest most of the maps for multiplayer are weak. In my opinion, only Caspian Border, Operation Firestorm and Kharg island are true battlefield maps. The others generally involve ridiculous corridor fighting which is not the essence of what a Battlefield game is meant to be and rather a take off COD. Gameplaywise the game is quite solid with many vehicles and weapons. The flaws I mentioned prevent the game from soaring.… Expand
  46. HiddenName
    May 10, 2013
    6
    It's hard to express opinions. I like Battlefield 3 but its not old BF. Small maps i think designed for console 24players/rush gametype. Great graphics, good optimalization so dual core players can play. But yee better fun i got from BC2. Game use engine Frostbite, but destruction is weaker than BC2. Lots of DLC it's good, but no free maps..
    7 or 6 dilemma.. Sorry only 6. DICE try again.
  47. Sub-Human
    May 7, 2013
    7
    Great multiplayer. Great visuals. Great sound effects. Unfortunately, team playing is non-existent, and the options for such are not provided. A step-down from Battlefield 2 in that regard.
  48. 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
  49. 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
  50. monkeyspunk
    Apr 3, 2013
    7
    This game could have been so much better I was going to give it a lesser marks because I think BF3 isn't what I was truly hoping for. But saying that its still one of the best wargames out at the moment and looks beautiful.
    But Battlefield games in the past were known for being a big beautiful Multi player game with large conquest maps, a good adequate selection of weapons and they were    This game could have been so much better I was going to give it a lesser marks because I think BF3 isn't what I was truly hoping for. But saying that its still one of the best wargames out at the moment and looks beautiful.
    But Battlefield games in the past were known for being a big beautiful Multi player game with large conquest maps, a good adequate selection of weapons and they were slowly building teamwork etc into the series... But Battlefield now is no different to other games except bigger and with vehicles, the single player is alright but I never buy BF games for single player so for me its a waste of time which should have been spent on the multi player. Its gone all stats, attachments and unlock crazy, singleplayer, millions of game modes etc etc on and on.. just does my head in and kills my enjoyment. Plus things like being killed when you have just got cover or ran out of view then you suddenly die I could go on and on but i cant be assed.. it could have been so much better.    … Expand
  51. Mannerheim93
    Feb 18, 2013
    5
    First I want to say that I will almost only talk about the multiplayer here as that is what this game is all about. The single player campaign is not as bad as many said it would be, it's just that it feels like a whole other game compared to the online action. The six co-op missions are also a bonus and they are especially fun to play if you use a headset to talk to your friend you areFirst I want to say that I will almost only talk about the multiplayer here as that is what this game is all about. The single player campaign is not as bad as many said it would be, it's just that it feels like a whole other game compared to the online action. The six co-op missions are also a bonus and they are especially fun to play if you use a headset to talk to your friend you are playing with.

    Now then for the multiplayer. Battlefield 3 is one of the best looking games and one of the best games when it comes to audio I've ever played. It has 9 great maps, a lot of weapons and other things you can customize. But there the good things ends. This game would be awesome if it wasn't for the balance issues that Dice don't fix because they will introduce Battlefield 4, which comes out next fall, as "the new and more balanced battlefield experience ever". I mentioned there are a lot of weapons, which is true, but among them are some weapons that are ridiculously overpowered. Another thing that makes the big maps unbalanced are the jets and attack helicopters; both deals an insane amount of damage and especially the jets are almost impossible to destroy as the flares (which of course hinders a locked-on missile from hitting you) have a very short reload time and as the stingers (at-launcher which locks onto air targets) have a very short range and it takes several seconds to get a lock-on to a jet. The only good things to destroy a jet with is another jet or AA-guns (which missiles have a very short range and each team only gets 1 at a time).

    This game would be great if Dice (the makers of the game) wouldn't have sold their souls to EA. EA has proven that they are only in for the money in every recent games they have been involved in, including this one. BF3 balance issues could easily be fixed by Dice within minutes but I am 100% sure that EA stops them from doing that because they want more money from BF4. Battlefield 3 Premium is not either worth it's money, 5 bad dlcs is what you get (EA/Dice promised 5 DLCs, they said nothing about their quality.

    Battlefield 3 is a very expensive Beta to Battlefield 4. Unfortunately there are not any better shooter games either on the market so all we who wants a war game or a shooter have to rely on this (CoD is seriously not even near this even if this isn't a good game).

    Let us all hope that a new company would introduce a game that reminds of BF3, but that hasn't EA behind it and that concentrates on the players and not on the money. Graphics: 9
    Audio: 8
    Maps: 8
    Weapons: 2
    Vehicles: 3
    Single player: 7
    Co-op: 7
    Game play: 4
    Overall experience after 300+ hours: 5    … Expand
  52. WhiteReaper
    Feb 16, 2013
    6
    I have been playing BF games since BF1942 was out and, although this game seems to be everyone's favourite shooter, I really can't bring myself to like it. Oh, of course, being a BF fan I preordered the limited edition.
    After the first 8 hours (which, to be honest, I enjoyed a lot) I started noticing that this game plays like a CoD with vehicles and big maps. To confirm my thoughts, all I    I have been playing BF games since BF1942 was out and, although this game seems to be everyone's favourite shooter, I really can't bring myself to like it. Oh, of course, being a BF fan I preordered the limited edition.
    After the first 8 hours (which, to be honest, I enjoyed a lot) I started noticing that this game plays like a CoD with vehicles and big maps. To confirm my thoughts, all I saw around were idiots "trolling", campers sitting in a corner and people successfully running and shooting around the map like it was some sort of run-and-gun game. Ok, the previous BF's weren't realistic games but this one feels A LOT different and more on the "casual" side. It's not a fast shooter, it's not a realistic shooter and it's not a tactical shooter, to me it feels like a generic in-between I can't bring myself to like; although I'd really want to, I just find it boring. I also don't like the Premium system which is very unfair to people who pre-ordered the Limited Edition and also to subscribers themselves, since the content of the DLCs has been changed in these last months. I have to admit the graphics are amazing. The SP is quite bad but, in my opinion, this game should be judged for its MP. I'd give it a 6.5/10.    … Expand
  53. strav
    Feb 13, 2013
    6
    ***This is a review of the solo campaign, it may not apply to the multiplayer mode. I don't feel like saying much about this game except that this is perhaps the most linear and restrained solo campaign I've played in the last few years. In each mission, it feels like you could sit back and let your buddies do all the work and the objectives would be accomplished all the same. There also***This is a review of the solo campaign, it may not apply to the multiplayer mode. I don't feel like saying much about this game except that this is perhaps the most linear and restrained solo campaign I've played in the last few years. In each mission, it feels like you could sit back and let your buddies do all the work and the objectives would be accomplished all the same. There also are numerous missions where you're in "control" of some vehicle (tank, plane) and there again it's as hard as clicking a few places. Sure the graphics of the Dice engine are something but there is way too much post-processing effects and it makes the whole thing disturbing. If you want a good FPS experience, try Far-Cry 3 or Black Mesa. They're perhaps not as visually compelling but hell they deliver a better experience.… Expand
  54. 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
  55. 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.......
  56. 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
  57. Invader-Nik
    Dec 11, 2012
    7
    This game is amazing, amazing graphics and to me the single player is good. I don't play bigshoot FPS games like COD. This is pretty much my first ever FPS game that is popular. Multiplayer is absolutely epic, teamwork is the key to winning, unlike the COD series where people don't even bother working together. However there are a few annoying issues. I have a NVIDA GTX 560 Ti and uponThis game is amazing, amazing graphics and to me the single player is good. I don't play bigshoot FPS games like COD. This is pretty much my first ever FPS game that is popular. Multiplayer is absolutely epic, teamwork is the key to winning, unlike the COD series where people don't even bother working together. However there are a few annoying issues. I have a NVIDA GTX 560 Ti and upon running this game it crashes my PC. I have to use a program called MSI Afterburner to downclock my PC to make it run perfectly. This can be a pain since I don't have admin rights and the program requires it. Another is Origin. I don't mind it, since I only have two games on it (BF3 and Mass Effect 3) but in terms, it is a piece of sh*t. It's slow, annoying and is not as smooth as Steam is, plus all the games are overpriced. If it was put on Steam, this would be a fantastic game. But while it's on Origin i'm giving it a 7… Expand
  58. dprkforum
    Dec 10, 2012
    5
    I will say first and foremost the graphics are very pretty. Beyond that, it is a decent multi-player game. The single-player is very bad, and the story line is even worse. It was helpful for learning the basics, but that is about it. It played more like a cheesy action movie than a game with fancy shooting gallery fill-in's. If you like multi-player war games, you will like Battlefield 3.I will say first and foremost the graphics are very pretty. Beyond that, it is a decent multi-player game. The single-player is very bad, and the story line is even worse. It was helpful for learning the basics, but that is about it. It played more like a cheesy action movie than a game with fancy shooting gallery fill-in's. If you like multi-player war games, you will like Battlefield 3. Otherwise, do not waste your time or money. Oh, and one more thing - the DRM is very annoying, and is worse (yes WORSE) than Diablo III's.… Expand
  59. StickNik
    Dec 9, 2012
    7
    The multiplayer from what I played at the end of the beta was above par, but I still found it a bore. If you want a massive online war shooter, play PlanetSide 2 free, standalone or on Steam, thankfully not having Origin or anything as terrible as battle-log. A good looking shooter, worth a try if the strong blue filter, battle-log, and Origin don't bother you greatly
  60. AseriousReview
    Nov 14, 2012
    5
    before you rage about the score i will tell you something.

    A. This Game suffers alot with the fact that it has a completely stupid, cliché and extremely irritating. B. Co-op mode seems rushed, but is fun to a certan point, but hey. BF3 Fanboys does not care about the campaign and the lack of depth in the game and major bugs. Their Highlight is Multiplayer! Multiplayer is    before you rage about the score i will tell you something.

    A. This Game suffers alot with the fact that it has a completely stupid, cliché and extremely irritating.

    B. Co-op mode seems rushed, but is fun to a certan point, but hey. BF3 Fanboys does not care about the campaign and the lack of depth in the game and major bugs.

    Their Highlight is Multiplayer!

    Multiplayer is good to a point that this game can get a 8/10. For the first 2 weeks.....
    until you find that you cannot even join a game with your friends without constantly getting in separate teams, but it can be fixed. You can change team and squad in BF3.

    But the fact that the weapons are extremely unbalanced is okay... until i get blasted in the head constantly by the USAS explosive rounds, but it only happens in the small maps, SMALL MAPS. Which is the biggest mistake DICE ever made. The small maps are irritating and stupid way to bring COD fans to this franchise.
    It does not WORK with the mechanics and slow movements of the Soldier you are in BF3.
    While the big maps is epic and rewarding, the small maps suffers really much.

    But the fact that this game costed 5.99    … Expand
  61. evry1isacritic
    Nov 12, 2012
    6
    I pre-ordered this game after spending 500 hrs playing bad company 2 on the PC. After seeing the previews I really had high hopes for this game. Unfortunately, EA once again pumped up a buggy piece of crap on day 1. There were so many bugs in there that made the game unplayable for the first month. Also, there were so many day 1 AIMBOTS around (probably some DICE employee leaked outI pre-ordered this game after spending 500 hrs playing bad company 2 on the PC. After seeing the previews I really had high hopes for this game. Unfortunately, EA once again pumped up a buggy piece of crap on day 1. There were so many bugs in there that made the game unplayable for the first month. Also, there were so many day 1 AIMBOTS around (probably some DICE employee leaked out the network code) that did not make the game fun at all.

    Granted, most of these bugs were fixed, but not until the game's price dropped by half. I am never going to pay full price for EA games anymore to be their beta tester.    … Expand
  62. 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
  63. kane148
    Oct 27, 2012
    5
    I've heard that the multiplayer on this game is good, and so I was more generous than I would otherwise be. But the fact is that this game also features a single player campaign which was just terrible. I made myself stick with it for a couple of hours, but it was mostly tedious and boring. The story seemed very cliche and the voice acting was bad. There were plenty of interestingI've heard that the multiplayer on this game is good, and so I was more generous than I would otherwise be. But the fact is that this game also features a single player campaign which was just terrible. I made myself stick with it for a couple of hours, but it was mostly tedious and boring. The story seemed very cliche and the voice acting was bad. There were plenty of interesting gameplay ideas present, but they were virtually all failures in the execution. A game that manages to make flying a jet fighter boring is really in trouble, and that is exactly what BF3 does.… Expand
  64. 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
  65. Mouse
    Sep 25, 2012
    7
    The campaign was a missed opportunity to tell a poignant/choice-driven/realistic story, the epic graphics are ruined by crappy lens flare (to hide what few mistakes/shortcuts they had to take), weapon selection is a bland soup of point-and-click, Frostbite 2 is revolutionary but monopolized by EA, premium and DLCs by EA serve to support Marx's arguments (and EA's finances),The campaign was a missed opportunity to tell a poignant/choice-driven/realistic story, the epic graphics are ruined by crappy lens flare (to hide what few mistakes/shortcuts they had to take), weapon selection is a bland soup of point-and-click, Frostbite 2 is revolutionary but monopolized by EA, premium and DLCs by EA serve to support Marx's arguments (and EA's finances), Battlelog is a **** Facebook wannabe, and Origin is a pathetic attempt to compete with STEAM.
    But STILL better than Call of Duty (yes, I have to mention it) and most games being released anymore. Gameplay is smooth with small innovation (the parkour), vehicles run excellent and have well-balanced combat, personalization is fun but not overdone, and balancing features are decent (scope reflection).
    Honestly, it's worth the money to get the game vanilla, and only get the DLCs you see you'll like. DON'T GET PREMIUM. But if you're looking for a truly great place to spend your money, find a way to donate to the Black Mesa Team (legally impossible, since it's a mod). EA has become the evil empire of gaming, and is going to strangle us dry.    … Expand
  66. von_Werra
    Sep 25, 2012
    7
    En términos generales, es un juego que ofrece poco más que su predecesor con referencia a argumento o guión. Supone un avance de destaque la calidad visual en ciertos episodios como la misión abordo del Hornet aunque muchas texturas resultan genéricas y de poca calidad. Recomiendo este juego para los amantes de los juegos de disparos que sóloEn términos generales, es un juego que ofrece poco más que su predecesor con referencia a argumento o guión. Supone un avance de destaque la calidad visual en ciertos episodios como la misión abordo del Hornet aunque muchas texturas resultan genéricas y de poca calidad. Recomiendo este juego para los amantes de los juegos de disparos que sólo buscan eso, disparar y poco más.… Expand
  67. drachehexe
    Sep 23, 2012
    5
    This reviews only the single player element, multiplay will be added in later.The best thing this game has going for it is the visuals, which are impressive. However I think they get too carried away with trying to be too photo-realistic. The camera has a constant layer of dirt spots, I guess you're supposed to be wearing goggles? Also, the lens-flare from lights is way overpowering.This reviews only the single player element, multiplay will be added in later.The best thing this game has going for it is the visuals, which are impressive. However I think they get too carried away with trying to be too photo-realistic. The camera has a constant layer of dirt spots, I guess you're supposed to be wearing goggles? Also, the lens-flare from lights is way overpowering. Trying to see anything in this game can be a challenge. The single player campaign is really boring and unoriginal. They could have eliminated it completely and knocked 20 bucks off the price. There are quick time events that add absolutely nothing interesting or valid to the game play, the story is weak, the characters are unlikeable...even the main character you play comes off as an ass you wish would just kill himself. Some gameplay elements make you want to ask "WTF was that there?" Also, other elements don't make sense. Using night vision on a tank in the middle of a bright clear day, not having night vision goggles when running around in the dark. The designers also insist you play the game on their terms leaving you no choice in equipment load-out basically being forced into whatever gear the character you "leap" into has. The levels are linear to a fault leaving no room to pick and choose strategies. You spend most of the time following someone else around and doing what they tell you to do. You almost feel like you're playing a rail shooter (and some instance you are) having no control over anything. side from all that the front end for the game is one of the worst. Double-click on the game icon doesn't start the game, it takes you to you Battlefield 3 webpage with you your stats, their advertising, and links to start up you game. If you're hard core on having to see all the crap this page offers have at it, if not, there is no way around it. I can only hope to god multi-player isn't as mind numbingly ignorant as the single player campaign.… Expand
  68. psychotic
    Aug 31, 2012
    6
    if there was 6.5 then thats what it deserves premium queue cutting bull **** i dont want that crap in a game god can this year get any worse no stalker 2,sequels look like cod , ok im getting off topic but the game play is good few improvements are needed maybe they will fix it in MoH WF but idk the multiplayer is top notch single is good ive seen better the graphics are almost as good asif there was 6.5 then thats what it deserves premium queue cutting bull **** i dont want that crap in a game god can this year get any worse no stalker 2,sequels look like cod , ok im getting off topic but the game play is good few improvements are needed maybe they will fix it in MoH WF but idk the multiplayer is top notch single is good ive seen better the graphics are almost as good as crysis very well rounded game but if i where to recommend anything i would say wait till warfighter… Expand
  69. SwoopTrust
    Aug 31, 2012
    6
    Single player is mostly unmemorable. Multi player is great to a certain extent. Graphics are pretty good, but the glare and the overall "blue n' orange" tint of all the game kinda ruins the experience a bit.
  70. 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
  71. Someguy151015
    Aug 23, 2012
    6
    I was a COD fan, but then I played MW3 and hated it and now I will never buy COD games ever again. I played this and it was a little better. Not the best game, but certainly not the worst(*cough MW3).
  72. 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
  73. 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
  74. 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
  75. 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
  76. DeGreZet
    Jun 23, 2012
    7
    http://forum.cdaction.pl/index.php?autocom=blog&blogid=2556&showentry=36612
  77. 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
  78. mikey42782
    May 28, 2012
    7
    battlefield bad company..an awesome franchise..i was a little upset that battlefield 3 got rid of the the squad from the first two, but it is what it is. i was excited for the game.
    I purposely got it on xbox so i would not have to deal with the horroshow that is origin..origin sucks..i do not care what you say, origin sucks..
    so i purchased it for pc. i decided **** it, ill be open    battlefield bad company..an awesome franchise..i was a little upset that battlefield 3 got rid of the the squad from the first two, but it is what it is. i was excited for the game.
    I purposely got it on xbox so i would not have to deal with the horroshow that is origin..origin sucks..i do not care what you say, origin sucks..
    so i purchased it for pc. i decided **** it, ill be open minded, im usually better at pc shooters than on xbox..
    so i installed it..come to find out? origin and battlefield seem to want to totally monopolize your PC.
    the game is run in get this ready...get it..A ****ING WEB BROWSER, which constantly gives me script errors..i cant even play single player without loading stupid origin, and running off the web page..a web page for a game can you believe that ****
    thats the biggest gripe for me honestly...the game play is good..the animations, the graphics, great..maybe the recoils a little rough on the weapons because my kill death ratio is garbage but thats neither here nor their..the single player feels kinda short..but it is what it is..can't do anything about it now..CAVEAT EMPTOUR-let the buyer beware..and i shoulda bewared it a little bit more..it would have gotten at least an 9..but the web browser killed it    … Expand
  79. 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
  80. xMin
    May 22, 2012
    6
    BF3 would be better if it hadn't got Single player !
  81. 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
  82. 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
  83. 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
  84. NerV-0-sol
    May 5, 2012
    7
    Game gives much fun and looks really good, but I think BF2 was better in terms of strategy, team play, responsibility of the players, and there was traditional game menu (launching through a web browser is really irritating).
  85. heAd3r
    Apr 22, 2012
    6
    Im a big fan of battlefield since battlefield 2 also played this for over 4 years without a break, so i was looking forward for battlefield 3 for a long time, but as I first got the beta and later the game i was first excited but after after 3 or 4 weeks I was sure it's just not what it could have been, sadly it's just a new mainstream title, don't get me wrong it is still a greatIm a big fan of battlefield since battlefield 2 also played this for over 4 years without a break, so i was looking forward for battlefield 3 for a long time, but as I first got the beta and later the game i was first excited but after after 3 or 4 weeks I was sure it's just not what it could have been, sadly it's just a new mainstream title, don't get me wrong it is still a great multiplayer experience but not a real battlefield!… Expand
  86. 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.
  87. metalmechanic
    Apr 13, 2012
    5
    Battlefield 3 is what I would call a functional shooter if it was called something else I would probably rate at a solid 6. The fact that it is part of the Battlefield franchise and was built up to be a return to its roots is where most of the problems stem from. First lets look at what the game from outside the Battlefield universe. It comes out the great with very nice looking graphics.Battlefield 3 is what I would call a functional shooter if it was called something else I would probably rate at a solid 6. The fact that it is part of the Battlefield franchise and was built up to be a return to its roots is where most of the problems stem from. First lets look at what the game from outside the Battlefield universe. It comes out the great with very nice looking graphics. Although lots of things seem to be way overdone, such as the almost mirror surface of the aircraft carriers. Why are they so shiny? The sun is overwhelmingly bright at times. Other than some bad art direction the game has some very good graphics. Destruction, I've always been kind of torn between how much there should be in a multi-player experience. To much breaks the flow of the maps and to little can be very limiting. The base maps have it just about right. Some obstacles can be removed while mostly keeping the flow of the map as it was intended. The level design on over half the maps make it very clear that this was a multi platform launch, and that they have very different player numbers. All the city maps are extremely over crowded at 64 players, and the larger air maps seemingly have all the flags clustered in the center of the the playable area. This tells me that the hype during the development cycle built as PC first only went as far as the engine and did not effect level design very much. The games biggest downfall though is its net code. How such a high profile game can have such poor hit detection is laughable. Depending on your ping and that of the player shooting at you, a person can find them self dying up to a few seconds after reaching cover. Players often register kills before they fire a shot from your view. Players might also find that after being revived there gun will have almost a full magazine despite the fact that on their end they unloaded over half a clip into the opposing player. This is without a doubt one of the more frustrating things about the game.

    Now if we step back into the Battlefield universe, we find a whole new list of problems mostly coming from empty promises from the marketing department. The claim of largest maps we have ever created: False. The claim that they waited making a true squeal to BF2 until the could do it right and do the original justice:False. That the game play in general would be much more like BF2 than BC2: False. Let me start by saying just how poor the flight model is in this game. After stating they would be much like Battlefield 2 and not just the hover craft of the Bad Company series. I was very disappointed to find that the choppers still cannot do flips or rolls, and even worse the jets can do a back flip but for some reason cannot do a front flip. Jets become disabled at half health and must be landed to be repaired, a mechanic that simply leads to everyone bailing as soon as they start to get hit. Bringing unlocks to the vehicle side was another huge mistake. Players should not be forced to unlock basic equipment. Inexperienced players should not be further handicapped against veteran pilots. Flares and Air to Air missiles should be standard equipment. Same goes for smoke and coaxial machine guns for tanks and Smoke and Guided missile for APC's. Vehicles as a whole feel as if they are an after thought. No maps feature every vehicle type. Air maps exclude APC's with the standard cannon and instead just simply have the AA variant. Now lets quickly hit on Back to Karkand Expansion. This is a fine example of new mechanics breaking the flow of old map design. Take Sharqi Peninsula for example. By the end of the battle the area around the surveillance area has been reduced to a open field. Snipers have rode their MAV's to roof tops that are other wise unreachable turning the open area a instant killzone for any poor soul dumb enough to try and venture across to the next flag. Gulf of Oman was reduced to a fight over the large construction area for snipers and Laser spammers. Karkand itself flows much slower than before due to the fact that areas to camp in have increased by an astronomical amount due to all the building being open on multiple levels, add to that the previously mentioned MAV riding snipers and its not even the same map as before. They also excluded the Factory flag for some reason. The map that holds the most true to its old form is Wake island. A formula that is hard to get wrong. Although for some time it was reduced to Laser/javaline tag on the pilots. With the infantry getting revenge for years of abuse from the pilots of BF2. In closing as the word count is running low. Battlefield 3 as a whole is a shell of what it could have been, with the game feeling rushed and unfinished. The poor netcode and flaws in map design over shadow some very nice graphics and Amazing sound. If you are hardcore fan of the classic Battlefield titles 1942-2142 steer clear of this game. Its but a shadow of the series former glory. Thanks EA!    … Expand
  88. 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
  89. wood431
    Mar 29, 2012
    6
    Disappointment. Mediocre. These are two words that respresent the entire game. I have played the Battlefield series since 2005, and the game that this is meant to be a sequel to. Where do I start? I upgraded my PC expecting a fairly similar game (I thought Bad Company mechanics stayed in Bad Company), and have been consistently disappointed by both the execution and post-release attitudeDisappointment. Mediocre. These are two words that respresent the entire game. I have played the Battlefield series since 2005, and the game that this is meant to be a sequel to. Where do I start? I upgraded my PC expecting a fairly similar game (I thought Bad Company mechanics stayed in Bad Company), and have been consistently disappointed by both the execution and post-release attitude of the dev team. The singleplayer is generic and pointless, but this is Battlefield. So, once you navigate battlelog (no gripes) and past the 720p loading screens (lazy console port) you get to the game. The UI is simply pasted from console. The gameplay is also generic (low TTK, awful client-side hit detection) and the vehicles feel like an addition, rather than the core of the game. The maps are large, but the flags are cluttered (Operation Firestorm). The small meatgrinder maps are a clear example of the type of console audience EA are trying to appeal to. I have playerd 140 hours online to reach this conclusion, and I am by no means a bad player. These are simple truths. In addition, it has taken the dev team 6 months (ish) to patch the game to what it should have been at release (and STILL not implementing VOIP) and they have alienated their core community. Lazy, rushed and disappointed. Another franchise ruined by the cash-cow FPS genre. The rating of 6 is generous.… Expand
  90. DarkRiver
    Mar 20, 2012
    5
    I'm no gaming expert but I know instinctively when a game feels like a chore than engaging experience.

    I did not bother playing the single-player because this is not even what this game is about right? Bad Company 2 was the first Battlefield game I owned - I've played games that were tactical like ARMA and played arcade games like COD so I know what works and what doesn't. Let's just put    I'm no gaming expert but I know instinctively when a game feels like a chore than engaging experience.

    I did not bother playing the single-player because this is not even what this game is about right?
    Bad Company 2 was the first Battlefield game I owned - I've played games that were tactical like ARMA and played arcade games like COD so I know what works and what doesn't.

    Let's just put it this way. I played Bad Company 2 for 2 years solid - every day every game was fun even if you lost. Intense matches resulted from players using a combination of helping their fellow team mates and scrumming against the other side. I played Battlefield 3 for 2 weeks and put it away. This game is a **** boring flashy piece of **** Oh I have played it with the updates alright - didn't make a hellaovadifference.

    I would have to first say is - Seriously what is the **** up with the "Paid Reviews". Majority are all 90% - Did they even **** play the damn game!!? - this is BULL**** this game is not fun.

    The delicate balance of Tactical and Arcade (Fun) has been sorely lost on the developers of this game.

    You can not be tactical in this game because getting from one place to another without being seen is not easy. Prone command gets used to be more annoying than tactical. Squad mates don't stay together for some reason and i don't think it has to do with being in different cities from another. Rush is now pointless - the game is so disadvantages based on the TERRIBLE MAP DESIGN that the defense has a huge advantage. Pistols don't do anything unless your using the G17 (a OP automatic pistol that only kills because it fires 20 bullets in 4 seconds). Every new weapon makes no difference and gives you no advantage in different scenarios. They destroyed the awesomeness of the AN-94. Jets do what? Nothing - the Laser bombs suck because you can't see the enemy planes when your in those modes to be able to defend yourself so apart from having fun destroying planes you are completely useless to 95% of your team who are on the ground.

    The Graphics are nothing special - but more annoyingly I can't even run this game on all High settings with my Radeon 6950 ($400NZ Video Card) and a Six Core CPU. Lag lag and more lag. And more bull****. of course. but anyways graphic glitches include throwing grenades which "look rediculous" when you throw them. When you drop a med kit its a **** hassle to watch because it's not "smooth". It's got some rickity look to it - I don't know but it looks **** annoying to me. BC2 dropping a med kit it would bounce and move around - but it looked and felt good to do it. Not to mention...oh christ I can't believe I have to explain this but....it's now March of 2012 and they STILL HAVEN'T FIXED THE **** PARACHUTE BUTTON. YEP 6 months later. Seriously - don't even bother to jump off a 2 story building or jump out of heli at 10m because it just "won't" open.

    Sound Design is horrible. Seriously this game may sound "realistic" but as a Sound Engineer myself "Realistic" means leaving every frequency flat no matter if it sounds **** Doesn't work here. Gun sounds have no body and the super high frequency's pierce my ears and make me want to vomit. But wait, You can't change the volume of the FX individually can you because the Audio menu has only "Volume and Speaker Type" - Christ... *Clap Clap* Dice.

    And what the hell is up with the "Setting". Seriously are DICE completely insensitive about the international community. The Iraq and Afghanistan Wars were started almost 10 years ago. What they had no other ideas other than to make ANOTHER game situated in the Middle East? I mean come on. Iran? Geez DICE you really want to piss a "certain" people off don't you. I know this isn't a big deal but seriously Kids and Young adults aren't going to learn anything by placing a game in a Country that two super powers in different regions threaten to attack on a weekly basis. Anyways

    This game sucks. Seriously. I'm playing BC2 again because I realized that realism does not make fun especially when *you* as a player can make NO impact on a game at all. Skill does not matter in this game. Nope. Might as well crawl everywhere because Running just makes you target practice for the other snipers 500m away.

    This game has no soul - it's all FLASH no BANG!

    Waiting for Bad Company 3 or Battlefield 2143    … Expand
  91. Fede-lasse
    Mar 11, 2012
    5
    It's fun, but it has flaws. For instance: levels, ranked servers, no custom hosting, no voice chat, badly placed chat box, and almost unhearable voice commands. Levels and ranked servers make sure that once you reach the top levels, the game likely starts to become boring, and ranked servers mean that all servers are rented and hosted for some sort of payment. If you want to (legally) hostIt's fun, but it has flaws. For instance: levels, ranked servers, no custom hosting, no voice chat, badly placed chat box, and almost unhearable voice commands. Levels and ranked servers make sure that once you reach the top levels, the game likely starts to become boring, and ranked servers mean that all servers are rented and hosted for some sort of payment. If you want to (legally) host a small server (for free) with just your friends, you're screwed. No voice chat and nearly invisible text chat means almost no communication at all in the game. So the game all in all is a strangers-game. You don't know the people you join, and communicating with them is impossible. There are no bots to balance out the servers, either. Even if there were, I can imagine they'd be pretty **** like the ones in RO2.

    I'll note BF3 for its very good graphics and nice dynamic sound range, however, and the thus far okay-working matchmaking.    … Expand
  92. QuiterRaga
    Mar 8, 2012
    7
    Decent game.Not as good as everyone claims though.You currently have a tton of fanboys on boths sides of these war FPS games that need to cry out on metacritic beacuse of a dislike for a certain franchise instead of rating the game on how they see fit.
  93. 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
  94. 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
  95. 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
  96. ZootMan
    Mar 3, 2012
    5
    Note: This is only a review for the single player offering......so with that said, it's uh...a BIT rough. And by a bit rough I mean offensively bad scripted sections that will be instant death for any non-psychic player. Bad Company 2 was so good, that I had hopes for this narrative arc. I absolutely loved a few set pieces, including the excellent dog fighting section. The game looksNote: This is only a review for the single player offering......so with that said, it's uh...a BIT rough. And by a bit rough I mean offensively bad scripted sections that will be instant death for any non-psychic player. Bad Company 2 was so good, that I had hopes for this narrative arc. I absolutely loved a few set pieces, including the excellent dog fighting section. The game looks amazing, runs very well considering the visual fidelity and...it's quite sad because none of it matters when you take a dump all over it.… Expand
  97. Psyentist
    Mar 3, 2012
    5
    What a neat CoD Mod! now to get back to BC2...

    But seriously... what did they do to my beloved Battlefield. Campaign is a linear, confusing snooze fest. "who am i killing all these soldiers for?" i ask myself.. " wait, how did we get into this attack chopper?" is the next question.. then followed by hmmm "ok im going to do some laundry or something"... I later return to try some    What a neat CoD Mod! now to get back to BC2...

    But seriously... what did they do to my beloved Battlefield. Campaign is a linear, confusing snooze fest. "who am i killing all these soldiers for?" i ask myself.. " wait, how did we get into this attack chopper?" is the next question.. then followed by hmmm "ok im going to do some laundry or something"... I later return to try some Multiplayer. 64 person server.. sweet! I stand around watching my teammates base-raping and mortar spamming the enemies spawn point.. wtf.. BORING...

    Where the hell are my unlocks? what am i working towards? I am overcome by a desire to go work on my next gold star with my M-14 Mod 0 on some HC Conquest in BC2.

    I just dropped 60 bucks on this and I'm already bored? Needs more focus on UNLOCKS, TEAM INTERACTIONS, INTERACTIVE CAMPAIGN.

    Less focus on trying to be someone else's game.. Come on guys.. seriously..    … Expand
  98. ReBootEd
    Feb 29, 2012
    6
    A vast improvement over the previous train-wreck Battlefield 2, still is plagued with bugs and now suffers from a severe case of next-gen, DLC and eye-burning graphics which would be fantastic otherwise.
  99. Flastie
    Feb 21, 2012
    6
    I dont know,why is everybody happy about this game, but for me its mediocre shooter. Yes its fun and MP is great, but its borring sometimes. But its definitely better than CODMW3. At least devs punched graphic and details to the top and its definitely one of the best graphic of 2011. Not as MW3 with its "pre-Jesus" graphic engine. Also i dont like the story where every bad guys came fromI dont know,why is everybody happy about this game, but for me its mediocre shooter. Yes its fun and MP is great, but its borring sometimes. But its definitely better than CODMW3. At least devs punched graphic and details to the top and its definitely one of the best graphic of 2011. Not as MW3 with its "pre-Jesus" graphic engine. Also i dont like the story where every bad guys came from Russia or middle east. Especialy in those times where all hate, warcrimes and evils comming from USA and Israel. But this is the problem of all those "Modern warfare" games.… Expand
  100. Not_Casual
    Feb 16, 2012
    7
    Overall very well done. It's only a few critical aspects that cripple this game. Such as the inability to practice in aircraft without having to hinder your team as you learn. The massive glare off of EVERYTHING is simply painful and Intolerable. II also find the class change menu to be scientifically designed to be difficult to use. also just doesn't feel right. Bad Company 2 wasOverall very well done. It's only a few critical aspects that cripple this game. Such as the inability to practice in aircraft without having to hinder your team as you learn. The massive glare off of EVERYTHING is simply painful and Intolerable. II also find the class change menu to be scientifically designed to be difficult to use. also just doesn't feel right. Bad Company 2 was defiantly better, faster, and much more fun.… 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 »