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. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. Soullex
    Nov 30, 2022
    7
    Gayet iyi, çok başarılı....................................................
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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.
  16. Mazma
    Dec 25, 2020
    7
    Comparto tecnico impressionante, trama fiacca ma giocabile. Multiplayer tra i migliori della saga, ancora oggi!
  17. tufekciero
    Mar 12, 2021
    7
    GÜMÜŞ zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
  18. 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,
  19. gas
    Feb 12, 2012
    6
    Im not talking about single player as ofc its just some kind of mini tutorial and nothing more, and its not a problem, Battlefield is multiplayer for me.
    The game looks amazing and its overall what we were waiting for, but there is a real issue with the netcode, sadly no dev nowadays seems to understand that in a fps is more important the satisfaction of hitting ppl then the supa graphic    Im not talking about single player as ofc its just some kind of mini tutorial and nothing more, and its not a problem, Battlefield is multiplayer for me.
    The game looks amazing and its overall what we were waiting for, but there is a real issue with the netcode, sadly no dev nowadays seems to understand that in a fps is more important the satisfaction of hitting ppl then the supa graphic effects.
    Ofc in fast peace FPS games its normal sometimes some minor lag/netcode issue, but in BF2 this issue was a lot less present.
    Basically it ends to be a bit random when you engage an enemy directly, who is gonna die, and also can happen to see the enemy with 100% hp even if on screen you see you are hitting more then once.
    It can happen to shot 20 bullets into an enemy face and end killed one shot.
    As i just said those issues cant be totally absent from an fps, but they should be rare while in this BF3 they are basically the normal gameplay.
    This BF3 seems to me nearly the same as BFBC2 as netcode /latency normalization, but defo its a lot worse then BF2, where hitting someone was actually doing effective dmg 95% of times perfectly.    … Expand
  20. Berzerker556
    Nov 6, 2011
    6
    The game overall is fun, multiplayer is Ok. Lots of graphical issues for me, verts being misshapen and so on. From time to time the game loads in and all of the character models are stuck in default rigging pose (t-pose). Lots of issues with the single player campaign getting suck in a loop with some of the video as well as the AI being able to see through the destructible objects.The game overall is fun, multiplayer is Ok. Lots of graphical issues for me, verts being misshapen and so on. From time to time the game loads in and all of the character models are stuck in default rigging pose (t-pose). Lots of issues with the single player campaign getting suck in a loop with some of the video as well as the AI being able to see through the destructible objects. Speaking of destructibles, a lot of them fall apart when a scene loads. Overall, a typical EA game, lots of hype and a failure to deliver a bug free game. Granted, all games have bugs, but in the 60 AAA game space the bug count for BF3 is unacceptable. Performance on my machine is about 40fps @ ultra settings. Most of the time except to the above mentioned exploding verts, blocky, fractured shadows, and random, blocky pixelation on some of the textures. There is also a tendency for frame hopping and stuttering when running. Origin is a toll pain in the ass. I hate it. I am actually on the verge of returning the game just so i don't have to deal with origin to play it. It is horrible. EA needs to go back to steam.

    In the end, I should have gotten BF3 on xbox so I could trade it in for CODMW3 in a few days.    … Expand
  21. Moses89
    Nov 11, 2011
    6
    Eh. Graphics are nice if you can run it... Otherwise the multiplayer is a pass for me. Its the same thing Dice is known for, crappy realism. Practically all of the guns feel like airsoft. (fake and pointless) Helicopters are slower than glaciers (well it almost feels that slow) and jets, which are back, feel slower than glaciers it seems like a jet should feel like its going 500mph not 50mph.
  22. DrCola
    Nov 19, 2011
    6
    Look guys, origin is not that bad, considering the same is with steam and so many other secret aspects of life (thats a different topic) so im going to give this a fair unbias review, battlefield used to be the best FPS ever, but they absorbed the console market into their bloodstream, and the result of this merge is battlefield 3, or as me and a few friends call it, field of duty. It isLook guys, origin is not that bad, considering the same is with steam and so many other secret aspects of life (thats a different topic) so im going to give this a fair unbias review, battlefield used to be the best FPS ever, but they absorbed the console market into their bloodstream, and the result of this merge is battlefield 3, or as me and a few friends call it, field of duty. It is sad to see how another game has caught COD aids. Everything seems to be more linear, direct, less strategy, squad combat sucks, I wanted them to bring the commander back from BF2, (battlefield 2 was probablly the best multiplayer FPS ever) or somthing along the lines of chain of command. Who's idea was it to give the assault class a med kit? Its still playable, but it does not deserve what its getting, make no mistake however, this is a quadrillion times better than call of duty BS (call of duty is pretty bad, but the two games are hard to compare) In short, dont buy BF3, buy an earlier battlefield. Dont you all miss when games had their own orchestrated music and polish to them?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gylo7Ak6z3Y    … Expand
  23. Dougeye-Master
    Oct 28, 2011
    6
    I would normally give BF3 a nine or even a ten, if it was solely the responsibility of DICE he producers but i am marking the whole product down because of EA's implementation of origin 3rd party software and online launch options. I already use digital distributers like steam so im not totally against it but i still believe that when i buy a piece of media i then have the right to useI would normally give BF3 a nine or even a ten, if it was solely the responsibility of DICE he producers but i am marking the whole product down because of EA's implementation of origin 3rd party software and online launch options. I already use digital distributers like steam so im not totally against it but i still believe that when i buy a piece of media i then have the right to use that media (legally) when and were i choose. If the internet in my area is down temporarily and i want to play the single player campaign then that is what i want. Unfortunatly for me this has over shadowed what for me has so far been a realy good game! and that coming from someone who would choose rpgs and strateggy over fpx most days of the week. I just wish distributers would go back to the "here is your game key on the manual, type it in once then play the game".… Expand
  24. Jack91
    Dec 13, 2011
    6
    Do not think of the game as Battlefield 3 and instead think of it like Bad Company 3 with a new engine. If you have played Battlefield from the outset 1942, BF2 for example you would of seen the franchise going downhill and trying to compare with the likes of COD when in fact they should of been concentrating on making it unique. It has silly spawn points, the patches that 'balance' theDo not think of the game as Battlefield 3 and instead think of it like Bad Company 3 with a new engine. If you have played Battlefield from the outset 1942, BF2 for example you would of seen the franchise going downhill and trying to compare with the likes of COD when in fact they should of been concentrating on making it unique. It has silly spawn points, the patches that 'balance' the game are ridiculous. I say that because I can hit a helicopter with a stinger like 3 times and it just shrugs it off. It's just furiating to play, people are more concerned with KD ratios and kills, as opposed to team based play. Ruined the franchise in my opinion, too much emphasis on trying to beat COD when it should be in it's own league as there isn't a comparison.… Expand
  25. 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.
  26. Stormcrow666
    Oct 25, 2011
    6
    An average shooter with some good graphics. Very linear and static. It does steal a lot from the COD franchise. There are alot of problems with the mp version and the sp version is very linear and quite average in comparison to other great fps(Crysis1). Too much shine and not enough substance.
  27. 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
  28. umadzbro
    Nov 8, 2011
    6
    My FPS timeline Day of Defeat>Wolfenstein>Enemy Territory>Battlefield 2>Call of Duty 4> World At War> Bad Company 2> Battlefield 3>back to BC2. I'm merely doing this so you can get an understanding of the type of FPS gamer i am. Battlefield 3 is a good game, it is definitively almost great. The graphics are slightly better than Bad Company 2, There seems to be unscripted destruction. TheMy FPS timeline Day of Defeat>Wolfenstein>Enemy Territory>Battlefield 2>Call of Duty 4> World At War> Bad Company 2> Battlefield 3>back to BC2. I'm merely doing this so you can get an understanding of the type of FPS gamer i am. Battlefield 3 is a good game, it is definitively almost great. The graphics are slightly better than Bad Company 2, There seems to be unscripted destruction. The sound is great, and i thought single player was decent. Now what Battlefield 3 is not? it is not deserving of the Battlefield 3 name. The game is blatantly consolized, the maps are small and made for 24 players. Most maps are just long corridors with choke points in the middle. Gameplay resorts to an endless rocket spam, with a lot of corner camping. The few maps that are actually open (2 of them) are just to small for 64 players. All the capture points are clustered together, why even have 4 or more points if you're going to put them all within 50 meters of each other? The game gives the impression that it should be tactical and slightly slow paced. But it's not it's a straight rip of Call of Duty, the game feels nerfed, arcadey, and "plastic" with client side hit detection. And that's another thing that ruins the game client side hit detection is absolutely horrible. You will frequently get into firefights where you put 15 or more bullets into someone only to have them literally one shot you. The game is rife with cheaters, i could not find a pub server without at least one of them. Punkbuster is a laughing joke to any cheat site, it always will be. Battlelog is pretty bugged, you will click to join a server only for the game to crash, or freeze then crash or just give you a random error. It was pretty frequent. Having to run your web browser and Origin is just a waste of 200mb of your ram. It is really not needed and these features should be in the game, not outside it.

    I played the game for about 15 hours over a few days. I finally got sick of the things described above and got a full refund from EA. (bought from Origin.) I would possibly buy the game again in the future at a discounted price ($30). I wanted a true Battlefield 2 successor and instead i got a poorly made Bad Company 3/Modern Warfare 2 console port.    … Expand
  29. Tkwz
    Oct 31, 2011
    6
    This game is great and would deserve at least 8/10, most likely 9/10. So why 6/10? Because this game is UNFINISHED, plenty of bugs from beta are still in final version and the ONLY reason for this is... they wanted to get a pre-CoD premiere. Well screw you, maybe we get bugged games all the time right now, but that doesn't mean it's what WE the gamers want. We want to buy game, a comp toThis game is great and would deserve at least 8/10, most likely 9/10. So why 6/10? Because this game is UNFINISHED, plenty of bugs from beta are still in final version and the ONLY reason for this is... they wanted to get a pre-CoD premiere. Well screw you, maybe we get bugged games all the time right now, but that doesn't mean it's what WE the gamers want. We want to buy game, a comp to it's spec and play it and have fun, not tu realise we need to wait for patch for who knows how long. So 6/10, learn something for the future.… Expand
  30. Hiei987
    Nov 2, 2011
    6
    Battlefield 3 is little more than a slight expanded Bad Company 2 and is a great example of EA's greed destroying this amazing series. Battlefield games on PC have been known for their massive maps, high end graphics and perfect balance between realism and fun. Battlefield 2 was the pinnacle of this series and it is amazing how little Dice have done to progress from it. Battlefield 3 isn'tBattlefield 3 is little more than a slight expanded Bad Company 2 and is a great example of EA's greed destroying this amazing series. Battlefield games on PC have been known for their massive maps, high end graphics and perfect balance between realism and fun. Battlefield 2 was the pinnacle of this series and it is amazing how little Dice have done to progress from it. Battlefield 3 isn't much more than a console port, they simply allowed servers to have up to 64 players since PCs could handle this even 8 years ago. There are now many more weapon choices, yet most of them are highly similar and are only there to make you waste hours unlocking all the accessories. The only real progress this game has made in the series is graphics, which is natural. The game is still as fun as the older Battlefield games, but for its lack of expanding its size to match the modern computers its not getting more than a 6. Battlefield series is now going down to be the same crap as modern warfare, pointless remakes and DLCs as if this is an RPG. Prepare for endless console ports...… Expand
  31. Chapy
    Nov 5, 2011
    6
    I have a confession to make, seriously. The day BF3 was released I came on here and posted my user review as a 10. Here's the thing, after you play 20+ hours of BF3, it's simply a lie to yourself if you rate it a perfect 10. BF3 has many patches to go before it (hopefully) approaches perfection. I joined the BF series with BF2, a **** masterpiece. I'm still a huge BF3 fan and will stillI have a confession to make, seriously. The day BF3 was released I came on here and posted my user review as a 10. Here's the thing, after you play 20+ hours of BF3, it's simply a lie to yourself if you rate it a perfect 10. BF3 has many patches to go before it (hopefully) approaches perfection. I joined the BF series with BF2, a **** masterpiece. I'm still a huge BF3 fan and will still play because even with its faults, the moments of brilliance are not easily matched by any other competitive FPS. But the faults are (seriously now) SOME-OF-THE-MOST-INFURIATING-FUN-KILLING-EXPERIENCE-RUINING faults I've ever witnessed. You must understand the degree of game experience ruined by several very specific design flaws and bugs. 1) Dying behind cover. This happens. In fact it happens every time you're capable of experiencing it, which is when you're running into cover. I don't mean cardboard box cover here boys and girls, I mean you've rounded a concrete building, you've jumped over a cement barrier, you've dodged into an alleyway, yet you take fire and DIE 5 to 10 feet behind impenetrable cover. This anomaly has nothing at all to do with cover, it has to do with BF3â… Expand
  32. Blackhamer
    Nov 16, 2011
    6
    I am unsatisfied with this game. I haven't played the campaign so if u're single player kind of guy don't even bother reading it. I also want to say that I'm not a CoD fanboy, over the years I've played both BF series and CoD series. Last year for example Battlefield won the epic battle with Black Ops (barely imo).
    This year...I haven't bought CoD yet (gonna get it tommorow) but I'm pretty    I am unsatisfied with this game. I haven't played the campaign so if u're single player kind of guy don't even bother reading it. I also want to say that I'm not a CoD fanboy, over the years I've played both BF series and CoD series. Last year for example Battlefield won the epic battle with Black Ops (barely imo).
    This year...I haven't bought CoD yet (gonna get it tommorow) but I'm pretty sure CoD will crush Battlefield 3 (it's only my subjective opinion).
    Graphics are really good, physics too but where is this revolution that trailers promised us? Oh there isn't any, it's just improved BC 2. Shame on you EA. But still I think the look of this game is in fact it's strongest point.
    Next audio, BF 3 lack any good music but everybody propably listen to their own music while playing. Guns,explosions and other sounds are very realistic.
    Now lets get to the point of my review, the things I hate about this new BF.
    The gameplay. ALL THE TIME YOU ARE EXPERIENCING BACK SHOTS, SPAWN KILLS, THERE ARE STUPID MORTARS THAT KEEP SPAMMING YOU FORCING YOU TO GO BACK SHOOTING. Yeah I know the game tries to be realistic but here's my theory: There is a line of realism in shooters that can't be crossed. You can make guns powerfull killing you in 2 hits, you can make it all very realistic but you won't change one thing. In real combat people feel fear. They won't go berserking at a group of enemies hoping to get a frag or two and then die, they won't leave their teammates to try go backshooting behind the enemy line. But in BF 3 you respawn in few seconds so it's all risky but worth a try. This game is no exception, but in BC 2 this problem wasn't so big. Here there is no front line or anything like this, you can die from a headshot from the back any second. That's very very dumb and spoling the fun.
    Next thing is improving your soldier's gear. WHat the **** Seriously, you can't choose your upgrades. You just play for hours to unlock them to every single weapon, and when u unlock new one you have to use unmodified one and keep dying. This is really retarted. I don't recommend this game to anyone, unless you are more about graphics. And one more thing, it's said that BF 3 is all about startegy and team play. Well there is none, it's just chaos and everybody doing as they please. The in-game quick voice chat as well as normal chat are completly broken and nearly impossible to use, there is no voice chat (with mics). I don't know why it's so ****ed up but it's imho worse than BC 2. Buy CoD. Thank you.    … Expand
  33. 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
  34. Dustysis
    Oct 28, 2011
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Battlefield 3 not best game of the year. This so good first person action from DICE. Battlefield 3 very good multiplayer shooter. Coop not bad, and single so cool and boring. So strange, you agree?… Expand
  35. 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
  36. EkimGib
    Oct 25, 2011
    6
    I thought I would like this game when I bought it about 4 hours ago. With all the hype and videos around the game I thought I might at least have some kind of fun playing the game. Sadly I was absolutely wrong. I haven't even had this game for even half of a half a day and I already listed it on Ebay. I bought it for PS3 so maybe PC may differ but the PS3 version is just plain ugly. II thought I would like this game when I bought it about 4 hours ago. With all the hype and videos around the game I thought I might at least have some kind of fun playing the game. Sadly I was absolutely wrong. I haven't even had this game for even half of a half a day and I already listed it on Ebay. I bought it for PS3 so maybe PC may differ but the PS3 version is just plain ugly. I assumed that the game wouldn't look quite like the trailer but the presentation just killed my interest. I've been shooting at russians/terrorists in just about every shooter in the last 10 years, I didn't need to do it again. I tried the multiplayer but even that couldn't hold me very long. I played about 2-3 matches before I realized it was not much better than the beta. I'm no CoD fanboy but I do have to say at least I had fun playing it, this game not so much. Not that I will be buying MW3 anytime soon. I'm boycotting this genre, and buying all my games used from now on. Biggest waste of $60 I could think of.… Expand
  37. Kreebog
    Oct 28, 2011
    6
    Frustrated. Campaign mode is utter crap and there appears to be no local server mode at all, no way to enjoy private games with friends without renting a server, and no way to allow people to practice, explore, or learn how to fly the helicopter and jet. Online multiplayer is fun, though always a mad scramble for vehicles. Otherwise, it's really not much different than other genre titles.
  38. Russell101
    Oct 31, 2011
    6
    This is my first time reviewing a game, and I decided to do so because of mediocre experience with BF3. I've had great experiences with the BF series specifically 2142 and BF Bad Company 2. Both great games that sucked hours of my time. must agree that BF3 is the by the best looking game in the BF series, but I'm very disappointed in the game menu interface (i.e. multiplayer, campaignThis is my first time reviewing a game, and I decided to do so because of mediocre experience with BF3. I've had great experiences with the BF series specifically 2142 and BF Bad Company 2. Both great games that sucked hours of my time. must agree that BF3 is the by the best looking game in the BF series, but I'm very disappointed in the game menu interface (i.e. multiplayer, campaign selection), and single player campaign. More importantly I'm very disappointed about being forced to download a bloated client (origin) to run MY game. I don't care if EA wants to use it as social media service. Quite frankly, I do not regularly use the mainstream social media sites (except reddit). If i understood that I needed to use Origin and install a web plug-in. I wouldn't have bought the game. For the following user experience please note that I own a brand new Alienware Area-51 rig, with i7 and Crossfire enabled on twin 6870s. To start BF3 you click on the BF3 icon, then you wait about 30 seconds to a minute until Origin starts, again you wait another minute, finally firefox starts. At this point to play multiplayer, you need to set or reset your server filter depending on what type of game you want to play (i.e. rush or conquest). Once you have your filter in place, you need to select your server. You'll probably go through 5 or 6 until you find an available server. Now you can join a game and the game starts loading, so prepare to wait another minute or two. Finally you're in the game and hopefully you're not changing maps, because you'll need to wait a few more minutes. Now you in the game, and you'll get to experience some pretty good game play.

    I thought the game play was good if you were a soldier. You could sprint as much as needed, the shooting and rifles we're fun as hell. You could run, dive jump and move quick to cover. I didn't enjoy being a sniper as I thought their wasn't as many good snipe points as BC2 or 2142. That was really disappointing to me as I love being a sniper. As for the vehicles, they sure as hell look pretty. However, I felt that the vehicles we're non-responsive, and the damage they did was poor in comparison to Bad Company 2. As a game play note, make sure you have your controls down when you try flying a jet.

    Overall an average game, and because of the Origin experience I'm getting nervous about play SWTOR. I'm not going to ask for my money back, but I hope they improve it dramatically. I'd much sooner have a native client to run the game.    … Expand
  39. whitephos
    Nov 5, 2011
    6
    Wow. What a let down. After all the hype and the hope, it can't hold a candle to BF2. I say BF2 and NOT BFBC2. Some seem to think Bad Company is BF1, Bad Company 2 is BF2, and BF3 is just BFBC3. To the latter, they're correct. Scoring: Points are rated above average (7) If the game improved on the average, it'll gain points, if it falls behind the average, it loses points.Wow. What a let down. After all the hype and the hope, it can't hold a candle to BF2. I say BF2 and NOT BFBC2. Some seem to think Bad Company is BF1, Bad Company 2 is BF2, and BF3 is just BFBC3. To the latter, they're correct. Scoring: Points are rated above average (7) If the game improved on the average, it'll gain points, if it falls behind the average, it loses points.

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

    Final Score --> 6

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

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

    Advice for DICE. Take BF2, give it BF3 graphics and BF3 sound, and you'll have a guaranteed winner. You dropped the ball this time, but everyone gets a Danzig 5/mulligan I suppose. But really, I blame it all on EA, so keep on doing what you do... as long as it's without EA.    … Expand
  40. hemolysis
    Nov 5, 2011
    6
    Battlefield 3 can be a fun game when it works. To play BF3, you'll need to install Origin. Origin is completely useless unless you want to play EA games. What raises concerns is that Origin scans your PC for information. In laymans terms, it's both a game launcher/EA store but also a form of spyware. In both the visual and sound department, BF3 soars. I haven't played a game thatBattlefield 3 can be a fun game when it works. To play BF3, you'll need to install Origin. Origin is completely useless unless you want to play EA games. What raises concerns is that Origin scans your PC for information. In laymans terms, it's both a game launcher/EA store but also a form of spyware. In both the visual and sound department, BF3 soars. I haven't played a game that sounds are looks as good as BF3 to date. The sounds that guns and explosions make add to the immersion and bring the game to life. Sometimes though, it can be difficult to locate the source of a sound. This can create a problem because situational awareness is key to win in BF3. Despite the cutting edge visuals and great sound, the gameplay in BF3 is poorly executed. The game is riddled with bugs and game mechanics that have made me scratch my head a bit. For instance, while playing on hardcore servers if a teammate kills you the kill counts against your K/D. Most, if not all, the servers I've played on had sever lag. Rubberbanding was suppose to be fixed in the latest server patch but in my personal experience the problem became more pronounced. Hit detection hasn't been fixed either. During the beta this was a concern raised by the community and apparently ignored by DICE. Battlelog has replaced the standard ingame server browser. It's a nice idea but poorly executed as well. Whenever I attempt to join a server BF3.exe will force close every other time I attempt to connect. This requires me to make two attempts to connect to a game. It can become frustrating when the server I'm trying to connect to is full. Most of the weapons in BF3 feel very similar. Rather than have multiple weapons with different strengths and weaknesses, DICE pretty much made them all nearly identical. In fact, weapon statistics are no where to be found other than a brief description of each weapon. Some of these descriptions are accurate while others are not. The various multiplayer maps have their strengths and weakness. Most of the close quarter maps are non-linear while some are linear. The linear maps aren't as fun to play but are more tolerable since spawn points are bearable. The non-linear maps have players of either team spawning in random locations. This leads to spawning near opponents or having opponents spawn right behind you. Many issues were fixed from the beta but many weren't. RPGs sometimes make the "shot" sound but actually never launch the missile. It's obvious bugs like this that make the game seem rushed and why this game could have easily scored a 9 or 10 for me but I can't overlook the carelessness of DICE. This game, as it stands now, is nothing more than a 6.… Expand
  41. tropolek
    Nov 9, 2011
    6
    well just bought CODMW3 coz liking both games but Im very disappointed but BF3 sucks as well ,they have to fix all **** asap,cant play ,I got a gtx 580 and a new driver but game looks awful,crashing very often,bloody origin doesnt work properly.WTF,Dice.fix it bastards.
  42. TheYeIIowDucK
    Nov 9, 2011
    6
    Overall, to put it in short, Battlefield 3 is a well-done and well-polished game. Its multiplayer is a very solid experience, and for the most part it is the better of the two major FPS releases this year (Battlefield 3 and, obviously, Modern Warfare 3) in the long term.

    Its singleplayer, on the other hand, is a great example of the modern rail shooter: The player is forced into a certain    Overall, to put it in short, Battlefield 3 is a well-done and well-polished game. Its multiplayer is a very solid experience, and for the most part it is the better of the two major FPS releases this year (Battlefield 3 and, obviously, Modern Warfare 3) in the long term.

    Its singleplayer, on the other hand, is a great example of the modern rail shooter: The player is forced into a certain sequence of scripted events hand-crafted by the development studio while running from one scripted event to the next to little to no free choice in where you go, when you get there and what do you do once you're there.

    On top of that, as polished the game is, it doesn't introduce anything new to the gaming world. Not a single element of its gameplay, both singleplayer and multiplayer, wasn't seen in any other video game. In fact, I suspect that if it wasn't for the hype and brandname, Battlefield 3 would have been labeled as "generic" and "bland".

    In short: Multiplayer's good, singleplayer's bad, entire game is rather stale.    … Expand
  43. 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.
  44. ThePHOXman
    Nov 22, 2011
    6
    In my opinion, this is NOT a true Battlefield sequel to Battlefield 2. This game should be called Bad Company 3. It feels more like a Bad Company game because of the lack of diversity in the classes, the 4 man squads still, no commander support, only communicating through typing and not being able to use a microphone, etc. I still enjoy Battlefield 2 more than this game. And that is aIn my opinion, this is NOT a true Battlefield sequel to Battlefield 2. This game should be called Bad Company 3. It feels more like a Bad Company game because of the lack of diversity in the classes, the 4 man squads still, no commander support, only communicating through typing and not being able to use a microphone, etc. I still enjoy Battlefield 2 more than this game. And that is a shame and a disappointment. Games these days are catching the COD disease, the disease that KILLS the good things from their older games to make it feel more like COD. It's a good game....for about 10 hours...Then it just gets repetitive and then eventually, just plain boring.… Expand
  45. osoichan
    Nov 12, 2011
    6
    The gameplay is awesome same as graphics but game crashes a lot. I get disconected in almost all games and my stats just fade away. I feel like playing buggy beta ver. I get pissed cause of this crashes.
  46. LittleTomTit
    Nov 14, 2011
    6
    I was really looking forward to this (I loved BF BC2 thought it was awesome), the graphics are great but found this single player game short and very glitchy what I am really dissapointed about is the fact that they have removed the colourblind option, I can't say how pi55ed I was at this after buying this twice on Pre-order once on the xbox360 and once for PC only to dicover it was nextI was really looking forward to this (I loved BF BC2 thought it was awesome), the graphics are great but found this single player game short and very glitchy what I am really dissapointed about is the fact that they have removed the colourblind option, I can't say how pi55ed I was at this after buying this twice on Pre-order once on the xbox360 and once for PC only to dicover it was next to unplayable for me as I could not distinguish between team and enemies.
    If the developers seemed a bit more eager to fix this I would have rated it much higher. Everyone else seems to be enjoying it, lets hope they fix it for the 1 in 10 coloublind players out there!    … Expand
  47. Highwind_Hiatus
    Nov 14, 2011
    6
    The game looks beautiful, the environment is astonishing, the sound is intensifying and things seem to be on a good track. But the gameplay doesn't stick out as much as the predecessors did. Maybe recycling the same style isn't the best approach? We've all seen how **** Modern warfare 3 is. I guess the best part of this game is C4 shenanigans and knife killing.
  48. Awesomesawce89
    Nov 16, 2011
    6
    As a gamer, I was very much looking forward to this game and picked it up on day one. After seeing the awesome trailers, I was pumped for a game that gets away from the "arcade-like" shooters of cod and more into a realistic type battleground with teamwork and strategy. The graphics looked amazing in the trailers and this was pretty much the only game I have been looking forward to allAs a gamer, I was very much looking forward to this game and picked it up on day one. After seeing the awesome trailers, I was pumped for a game that gets away from the "arcade-like" shooters of cod and more into a realistic type battleground with teamwork and strategy. The graphics looked amazing in the trailers and this was pretty much the only game I have been looking forward to all year.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In conclusion, the game is amazing. Get it to run right on your rig and you should love it. There isn't a better looking, better playing game out there. Everything else sucks. Origin, browser loads, stability, chat box, no in game voice chat, etc. Wait a while, then get it.    … Expand
  49. stinkipete
    Nov 21, 2011
    6
    Ok, so BF3 has been out for awhile and I wanted to throw in my 2 cents. The graphics and gameplay are amazing and everything we all expected. Flying, driving and the reactive environment. Even the level ups seems decent, however, all the props stop there. The use of Origin seems a waste of time and often frustrates me trying to find an open server. Some of the weapons and equipmentOk, so BF3 has been out for awhile and I wanted to throw in my 2 cents. The graphics and gameplay are amazing and everything we all expected. Flying, driving and the reactive environment. Even the level ups seems decent, however, all the props stop there. The use of Origin seems a waste of time and often frustrates me trying to find an open server. Some of the weapons and equipment are completely overpowered such as the IRNV scope. The constant disconnects in game losing your score (constantly is an understatement). And finally the insane number of blatant cheaters who are not stopped by PB. Kinda of a shame. I would save your money for Call of Duty. BF3 is definitely a disappointment.… Expand
  50. Jadzwing
    Nov 26, 2011
    6
    Excellent realistic gun sounds, very good, realistic graphic, destruction, and thats end of good things in the game. Singleplayer is trying very hard tell story very similar to Modern Warfare series! There's like in CoD "difficult choice" and "big end with killing super bad character". I like end's like this, but why similiar end is in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Call of Duty 6: ModernExcellent realistic gun sounds, very good, realistic graphic, destruction, and thats end of good things in the game. Singleplayer is trying very hard tell story very similar to Modern Warfare series! There's like in CoD "difficult choice" and "big end with killing super bad character". I like end's like this, but why similiar end is in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Call of Duty 6: Modern Warfare 2 and Call of Duty 8: Modern Warfare 3?
    Multiplayer is very good, destruction is amazing, and showing a real war. Sounds are great too but there's break with them, there's a lot of bugs... Nice 6 for very bad single, and bugged multi.    … Expand
  51. shadowoflight
    Dec 1, 2011
    6
    1st of all, fanboys: don't hate.

    COD and BF are 2 different games. One is a intense tactical shooter, the other's an intense strategic shooter. It's like fans of hatchbacks and coupes fighting over which car is the best. Come on man, grow up, they are great for different people. Anyway. Graphic wise, I had issue with the facial expressions of the humans though. They were very detailed    1st of all, fanboys: don't hate.

    COD and BF are 2 different games.

    One is a intense tactical shooter, the other's an intense strategic shooter.

    It's like fans of hatchbacks and coupes fighting over which car is the best. Come on man, grow up, they are great for different people.

    Anyway.

    Graphic wise, I had issue with the facial expressions of the humans though. They were very detailed dolls. It's a small disappointment considering the amount of effort put into making realistic motion and such, but you're not staring at faces most of the time in BF3 eh? Apart from the slightly laggish rendering that's pronouced when looking around quickly, the environments and vehicles were fantastic, as expected.

    The music sucks, but the sound effects were great.

    The campaign was rubbish. After all their marketing and insecure justifications, it's just a wannabe COD campaign. The story was...o-k...but it was poorly narrated. Honestly, Bad Company had much better campaigns. Heck, even the rubbish thrown out by Treyarch's better. Just.

    Multiplayer is where is shines. As expected from the BF series, maps can be huge and when playing with the right group of people, expect epic battles and intense tit-for-tat movement of objectives. However, compared to COD multiplayer, the learning curve is higher and the pace is much slower, so, unfortunately, fantastic game though it is, it'll very unlikely surpass COD as one of the hottest multiplayer franchises.    … Expand
  52. moholdt
    Dec 3, 2011
    6
    I'm new to the series and bought this game pre-release because it looked really good. And I was right. The visuals was amazing. I did not however realize that this was primarely a multiplayer game.

    Now, I don't think it's fair to downrate a game too much because of my expectations. I'm not a big fan of multiplayer. It's a world unknown to me habitated by invincible players too good for me    I'm new to the series and bought this game pre-release because it looked really good. And I was right. The visuals was amazing. I did not however realize that this was primarely a multiplayer game.

    Now, I don't think it's fair to downrate a game too much because of my expectations. I'm not a big fan of multiplayer. It's a world unknown to me habitated by invincible players too good for me to enjoy it. I don't really have the time, nor do I want to improve. So I'm more of a single player, story-mode player.

    The single player was short, uninspiring and like any other cliché. It's like the writers have some sort of story generator with just a few factors like: "Russian" "Middle East" "Conspiracy" "Explosions" "American hero" etc. It's boring and a perspective we've all seen too much of in movies and games. I don't honestly think that this is what players want. Now, imagine this beautifully developed game with a solid single player story mode. A story mode that had the same magnitude as, let's say, Skyrim or Fallout. Where you develop your character. Explore cities, "dungeons" etc. Sounds like a roleplaying game but it really doesn't have to be.

    All in all not worth the money if you're looking for a single player adventure. I really can't speak for the multiplayer community though.    … Expand
  53. tandex
    Dec 11, 2011
    6
    The campaign is simply frustrating to play, since it runs on rails most of the time. The quick time events were innovative 12 years ago in Shenmue, but in BF3 the first person view and lack of control is just disorienting and a waste of time. It's not possible to think your way through any situation, you just have to follow the tracks. The story from start to finish was not engaging.The campaign is simply frustrating to play, since it runs on rails most of the time. The quick time events were innovative 12 years ago in Shenmue, but in BF3 the first person view and lack of control is just disorienting and a waste of time. It's not possible to think your way through any situation, you just have to follow the tracks. The story from start to finish was not engaging.
    Multiplayer can be addictive, the mechanics haven't changed much since BF2. The gameplay is polished and looks and sounds fantastic. Some of the first maps are a bit too closed in, as I was expecting to play on the full map size. A gamepad works well for airborne vehicles. You'll want to have a book when you're loading up the multiplayer, since the server browser takes a few minutes to actually load into a game. Don't pay full price for the game, but wait for a good sale instead. You'll need a broadband connection to download the 4GB patches that have come out recently.    … Expand
  54. ristlin
    Jan 6, 2012
    6
    In a perfect world, this game is great. Unfortunately, this isn't a perfect world and this game hasn't been able to keep with the imperfections, which has led to many, many headaches that interrupt what could have been a great ride. BF3 is a roller coaster that is the best ride in the park on a good day, but always seems to be broken when you want to get on. From failing to start to someIn a perfect world, this game is great. Unfortunately, this isn't a perfect world and this game hasn't been able to keep with the imperfections, which has led to many, many headaches that interrupt what could have been a great ride. BF3 is a roller coaster that is the best ride in the park on a good day, but always seems to be broken when you want to get on. From failing to start to some jerk ruining the experience for everyone, just trying to get in to have fun is a chore that often puts off many players. If you have a shiny new rig, you are less likely to run into the technical errors that others are facing, and consequently, probably have no issue running the punkbuster. In a perfect world, this game would be perfect. Too bad it isn't.… Expand
  55. namDa65
    Feb 5, 2012
    6
    Inferior to BF2 in many ways. The singleplayer campaign is simply terrible, and the co-op campaign takes an hour max on normal. Simply annoying. The game is fun for a couple hours in multiplayer, but then you realize much of the map isn't very destructible. The graphics are beautiful, which is the only reason I rate this game a 6. I got this game for free from a friend, if I paid 60$ forInferior to BF2 in many ways. The singleplayer campaign is simply terrible, and the co-op campaign takes an hour max on normal. Simply annoying. The game is fun for a couple hours in multiplayer, but then you realize much of the map isn't very destructible. The graphics are beautiful, which is the only reason I rate this game a 6. I got this game for free from a friend, if I paid 60$ for it I would be pissed.… Expand
  56. anderson211
    Jan 29, 2012
    6
    I love everything about how this game should play. Masterful multiplayer, perfect for the 4 of us friends to enjoy together, fantastic maps/weapons/vehicles, and the best graphics to date in gaming. If I could play it all day long with friends, I probably would. But I can't. Punkbuster took me out of BF3 all this week after a known security flaw was finally abused. The awful OriginI love everything about how this game should play. Masterful multiplayer, perfect for the 4 of us friends to enjoy together, fantastic maps/weapons/vehicles, and the best graphics to date in gaming. If I could play it all day long with friends, I probably would. But I can't. Punkbuster took me out of BF3 all this week after a known security flaw was finally abused. The awful Origin web-based Steam-wannabe launching platform boots me from whatever server I'm in about once per hour. The game freezes and crashes about once per two hours, separate from Origin. The amount of deaths sustained in any 4 hour marathon play session from bugs, glitches, and most notably from hackers requires constant effort to find an enjoyable server. Nothing from EA, Dice, or punkbuster has removed the massive amount of cheating on PC play. Just look at the leaderboards Origin gives you. None are legit.

    This game was going to be absolutely huge upon release. Everyone knew that. EA was going to make a fortune on this game no matter what, and their preference to take extra net income over spending a few million bucks to make this game work is very obvious. Steam anti cheat has worked properly for many years, as has their delivery system and platform. EA elected not to use that system this time around, obviously to make even more money. The cash grab that is Origin is fine, if it works properly!!! It doesn't. At all. When the gaming community hands you a billion dollars of our money, we shouldn't have to deal with such issues. We should all be talking about balancing issues, new items, new maps, how to further improve such a great release, but the only thing the BF3 forum produces is complaints of stability, complaints about hacking, complaints about bugs, etc. We are far beyond the initial release kinks that every massive selling game will endure. EA's traditional business model of spamming out a game with a higher number behind the title to make more money on the franchise continues, and I won't be suckered into buying another unless I read how stable and flawless the game is 3-6 months after release.    … Expand
  57. 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
  58. 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.
  59. 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
  60. 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
  61. 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
  62. 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
  63. xMin
    May 22, 2012
    6
    BF3 would be better if it hadn't got Single player !
  64. 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).
  65. 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.
  66. 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
  67. 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
  68. 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
  69. 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
  70. 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
  71. 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
  72. 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.
  73. 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
  74. 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
  75. 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
  76. 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
  77. 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.
  78. vova22379
    Dec 18, 2021
    6
    ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
  79. 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
  80. 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.
  81. Ranmauzo
    Oct 25, 2011
    5
    Terrible, inexcusable single-player. Crappy multiplayer netcode. Another proof that FPS games are considered an excuse for mediocrity because terrible CoD kiddies will pay for it no matter how crappy. All these 10 ratings might as well be ignored, the single player is so terrible every review should be brought down at least 4 points.
  82. C4K3
    Dec 13, 2011
    5
    Gameplay is severely lacking. Instead of the feeling of huge maps in battlefield 2, it's as if they've tried to combine BF2 with CoD, which has just failed quite spectacularly. Battlefield isn't suppose to give fast-paced action, it's suppose to give the feeling of a large battlefield, where you spend time trying to get to that perfect spot. Where you hide from the tank/helicopter goingGameplay is severely lacking. Instead of the feeling of huge maps in battlefield 2, it's as if they've tried to combine BF2 with CoD, which has just failed quite spectacularly. Battlefield isn't suppose to give fast-paced action, it's suppose to give the feeling of a large battlefield, where you spend time trying to get to that perfect spot. Where you hide from the tank/helicopter going past you. Where you can snipe somebody from far away. This game gives absolutely nothing of this. Then there are all the balance and spawnkilling issues, but it would take too long to get into them.

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

    Then there are all the problems with EA, I've found ea support to be not only slow and unhelpful, but that they'll also directly lie to you about billing (yes, I've been billed twice on my single copy of BF3, and despite contacting support about this for the first time BEFORE the game was released, I have yet to receive any sort of refund at all) Of course this doesn't say anything about the actual game, it just shows that EA doesn't care about it's customers.    … Expand
  83. Sliggs
    Oct 29, 2011
    5
    Right, I've played every battlefield game since Bad Company 1. I'm a huge fan, its the only game where I feel like I am actually in a battlefield, it was intense, tactical, and I love how you have to work as a team. it was also simple it had everything it need to make it good. So far Battlefield 3 is a mess in my opinion. I get spawn killed at least 5 times every game, lasers torchlightsRight, I've played every battlefield game since Bad Company 1. I'm a huge fan, its the only game where I feel like I am actually in a battlefield, it was intense, tactical, and I love how you have to work as a team. it was also simple it had everything it need to make it good. So far Battlefield 3 is a mess in my opinion. I get spawn killed at least 5 times every game, lasers torchlights are a joke my own team cause me more hardship when they use these than the enemy! There is no need for them. I dislike how much it takes to take down certain vehicles. It should take one tank shell to blow up a jeep.Not three. I always felt such satisfation taking out a jeep from across the map with a tank. Completely absent here, Prone was a bad idea, so many campers its ridiculous. When people go prone it looks like a dead body sometimes, its way over used. Bad company 2 had an easy to man loadout set up. Its just plain awkard and confusing here. I could talk all day about why I'm dissapointed with this game. They made the same mistake the call of duty franchise made, they are trying to do too much **** that isnt needed and just opens more ways for people to be cheap and ruin the game for everyone else. I hope something happens that changes my opinion of this. Maybe its just because its a new game and im not used to it yet I dont really know. So far though, im not impressed.… Expand
  84. czerro
    Oct 30, 2011
    5
    I give this game a 5 with the caveat that it is NOT something you want to play. I do want to congratulate DICE for a beautiful engine and a very streamlined experience. Shoddy SP is a non-issue for me. Hasn't every SP experience in these wargames been uninspired, redundant, retarded, and boring? The real issue is clumsy and irritating Origin. Qualms about the odd 'everything and theI give this game a 5 with the caveat that it is NOT something you want to play. I do want to congratulate DICE for a beautiful engine and a very streamlined experience. Shoddy SP is a non-issue for me. Hasn't every SP experience in these wargames been uninspired, redundant, retarded, and boring? The real issue is clumsy and irritating Origin. Qualms about the odd 'everything and the kitchen sink' (non)privacy act in the Terms and Conditions aside, it gets in the way of the game. I dunno why DICE agreed to the Origin integration. Why is it even necessary? It isn't...on any level. What does it add to the game? Nothing...absolutely nothing. What does it promise in the future? EA's ability to target market you with precision...and possibly whatever else they would like to do with this information per their terms and conditions. Essentially BF3 is a vehicle for EA's pointless, Origin system, which is not so much a digital distribution platform for ease of the user base but an information gathering and marketing tool to make EA's life easier.

    I don't think Origin is dangerous...I just think it's pointless and useless and irritating.
    I don't think BF3 is bad...it just isn't anything new...and it's crippled by the above pointless system.    … Expand
  85. Sandwich_Lord
    Nov 25, 2011
    5
    Horrifically weak. The majority of the maps just suck, the campaign just feels like a tech demo for Frostbite 2, and to top it all off the PC version is a god awful mess of bugs, both minor and crippling, balance issues in both guns and maps, and its simply not fun. It took them a month to release a patch. It fixed some things, but it made crashes and other crippling issues worse. Wait aHorrifically weak. The majority of the maps just suck, the campaign just feels like a tech demo for Frostbite 2, and to top it all off the PC version is a god awful mess of bugs, both minor and crippling, balance issues in both guns and maps, and its simply not fun. It took them a month to release a patch. It fixed some things, but it made crashes and other crippling issues worse. Wait a year for them to fix this crap.… Expand
  86. tyler89
    Oct 26, 2011
    5
    To begin, I am a fan of both Cal of Duty: MW and a fan of BF, so my viewpoint is non-partisan on my review. Personally, BF3 was something I truly expected a lot more out of when I played the game through yesterday; I was not really impressed. The campaign seemed short, the dialogue medicore (although Homefront's story sucked way, way more), and there were some glitches that made theTo begin, I am a fan of both Cal of Duty: MW and a fan of BF, so my viewpoint is non-partisan on my review. Personally, BF3 was something I truly expected a lot more out of when I played the game through yesterday; I was not really impressed. The campaign seemed short, the dialogue medicore (although Homefront's story sucked way, way more), and there were some glitches that made the experience less than thrilling. For example, one glitch I found was that I had to destroy an enemy helicopter with troops running into it at some airbase. I kept calling in my Warthog to destroy the target, aiming precisely where they were, but the game would not execute the kill. I ended up having to restart to a previous checkpoint, just so that I could try at it again. On the second run, I managed to kill the targets in question and moved on through the game. In the multi-player aspect of the game, I thought it was better than Battlefield 2, in some respects. The gameplay was more fluent, the controls seemed easier to work with, yet the maps I played on, such as Caspian Border, are way, way too big, even with 30 + players. I found myself alone for minutes at a time guarding some outpost before I would even see an enemy try to attack me. I appreciate the idea of having bigger maps, but not at the expense of not having continuing gameplay against other players. Does Battlefield 3 have good aspects to it, definitely. Do I think it is as bad as some other previous FPS I have played, such as Homefront, no. Yet, the story leaves something to be desired... an emotional connection, the multi-player feature seems pretty good, but map layouts are a big handicap, and subtle glitches made this game seem like it should have been in the works for some time more. That's just my honest opinion. I know the MW fanboys will scream with joy, and BF fanboys are going to have a blood vessel pop, but as I said previously, I am non-partisan to either game.… Expand
  87. Travie
    Oct 25, 2011
    5
    First off, I have to say that the multiplayer is actually quite good in many ways, and many of the beta bugs were fixed. Now, for the bad... many weren't. Sometimes animations don't load properly and you will see some members of your team just hang there floating from point A to point B, other times after you land a kill the enemy will just stay there in ready position. I only encounteredFirst off, I have to say that the multiplayer is actually quite good in many ways, and many of the beta bugs were fixed. Now, for the bad... many weren't. Sometimes animations don't load properly and you will see some members of your team just hang there floating from point A to point B, other times after you land a kill the enemy will just stay there in ready position. I only encountered those bugs maybe twice each in 3 hours of gameplay, but it was still quite annoying. Then I have to mention the singleplayer. It was candidly... awful. QTEs every few minutes of gameplay, enemies spawned in two at a time from spawn points that were clearly in view, voice acting that was sub par. I know most people don't play Battlefield for the singleplayer, but every single other Battlefield game had a GREAT singleplayer experience attached, making it all the more disappointing.

    Lastly Origin. Any game that forces you to use third party software for all gameplay immediately gets a a negative mark, but Origin is one of the worst offenders that I've seen. It collects personal information about your hard drive and what games you have installs, what you play, and how long you play it. In systems like steam this is a non-issue, because steam doesn't collect and use this information, but EA does not have that moral hangup. If not for Origin this would be a solid 7/10, if not for the bad singleplayer 8.5/10.    … Expand
  88. 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
  89. 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
  90. Skiller
    Nov 11, 2011
    5
    It's a decent game, but i wonder how much the press got payed for those reviews ;). I guess that 100 million budget included 50 millions just as bribes and "attentions" for the press.
  91. RaycxellTorres
    Nov 11, 2011
    5
    The game is mediocre,above average at best.
    The story is so generic,i think CoD has more originality than this crap,and to add insult to injury it only takes about 4-5 hours....Are developers being lazy on purpose just because they know their game will sell?
    Now the multiplayer is a whole other story,this mode is just fun as hell,the vehicles control well,the guns feel like they have some    The game is mediocre,above average at best.
    The story is so generic,i think CoD has more originality than this crap,and to add insult to injury it only takes about 4-5 hours....Are developers being lazy on purpose just because they know their game will sell?
    Now the multiplayer is a whole other story,this mode is just fun as hell,the vehicles control well,the guns feel like they have some weight to it and is overall a fun experience...on PC,if you're playing on consoles everything is downgraded.
    The sound is excellent and the graphics look great on PC while consoles look kinda meh.But i do hate that they changed the great music from the previous games to this crappy radio like sounds.
    If the game dropped it's price to i'd say $30 on PC,sure go ahead and go straight to the multiplayer .Same goes for consoles,but i'd wait till it's about $20 or less.    … Expand
  92. Lowzar
    Oct 28, 2011
    5
    A pretty average shooter by all accounts. Origin is just ridiculous, as is battlelog.
    Singleplay is short and pointless.
    Wait till it hits the bargain bin, I wish I did.
  93. Astro_Zombie
    Oct 25, 2011
    5
    I joined metacritic solely for the purpose of writing this review and hopefully saving some people the frustration EA has caused me. I've been a long time battlefield fan and couldn't wait for this game to hit store shelves. Critics seem to rave about it and people who are wowed over by pretty visuals seem to love it. I on the other hand have had more frustrations with this game andI joined metacritic solely for the purpose of writing this review and hopefully saving some people the frustration EA has caused me. I've been a long time battlefield fan and couldn't wait for this game to hit store shelves. Critics seem to rave about it and people who are wowed over by pretty visuals seem to love it. I on the other hand have had more frustrations with this game and EA's piss pore attempt at an online distribution site than I think I have ever had in all my time PC gaming. The game crashes, battlelog is an absolute joke right now, errors left and right, and glitches out the ass. Not to mention the swarm of hackers already flooding the servers. As of right now I have played maybe 20 minutes of the game and could honestly care less about it. Maybe EA will fix these problems (which were also present in the beta, funny absolutely none of it was addressed upon release). As of right now though I have had no fun with BF3. But hey, they got my money like they wanted and the game looks great on my PC so I guess thats a plus.

    Personally, I'm going right back to BC2 and plan on leaving this in the dust until EA does something about Origin and the many bugs plaguing this game right now. Maybe a good game in the future but I wish I would have passed for now.    … Expand
  94. Rytle
    Oct 29, 2011
    5
    The game has potential to be fantastic, however the single-player is god-awful, boring. Just as it starts to pick up, it ends. The Campaign should have been left out entirely and the resources wasted on it should have gone into the multiplayer. Many of the bugs from the Beta have been fixed, but there are still a plethora that have not been. There is no in game voice chat, random serverThe game has potential to be fantastic, however the single-player is god-awful, boring. Just as it starts to pick up, it ends. The Campaign should have been left out entirely and the resources wasted on it should have gone into the multiplayer. Many of the bugs from the Beta have been fixed, but there are still a plethora that have not been. There is no in game voice chat, random server disconnects happen every few matches causing you to lose your points. Battlelog does not work nearly as well as it should. And, on top of a plethora of other problems there is no joystick support, making the already weak aircraft worthless. The basics are there but at present the game still seems like it should still be in beta.… Expand
  95. ogower
    Oct 30, 2011
    5
    As a fan of the series since Battlefield 1942 and someone who after Bad Company 2 can never go back to a place without destructible terrain I was excited. I had seen the adverts, watched the movies and read the previews and was looking forward to more destruction, more realism etc etc. What I got instead was something that reminded me of Frontlines: Fuel of War in look and character andAs a fan of the series since Battlefield 1942 and someone who after Bad Company 2 can never go back to a place without destructible terrain I was excited. I had seen the adverts, watched the movies and read the previews and was looking forward to more destruction, more realism etc etc. What I got instead was something that reminded me of Frontlines: Fuel of War in look and character and something that sent me back to Battlefield: Vietnam in terms of my satisfaction. In multiplayer, this looks pretty good in places but it feels laggy, it looks and plays arcadey and it does not live up to its promise in its current form. It is not (and on reflection was not intended as) a sequel to Bad Company 2, which is what I personally wanted but it also does not feel like BF2. It feels lighter, less substantial, less grown up almost. It is disappointing...particularly given the lack of destruction compared to BFBC2.

    In single player the campaign is okay if unfulfilling, with make-work tasks, plots like half the recent FPS' out there, dull mass enemies that remind me of DF: Black Hawk Down and one of the most bizarre design decisions I have seen in a long time. Someone thought that I would enjoy mashing the space bar or mashing E and the left mouse button to stimulate some events instead of using..erm..skill. Its like playing Dragon's Lair, mashing the button and watching Dirk act out some event over which you have barely any control. Weird..

    Overall I am disappointed. If you want more BF2 you might feel that although this looks good it is still a bit light, a bit arcadey and insubstantial. If you want more BC2 then wait for Bad Company 3 (if it is on the cards).    … Expand
  96. Foxer
    Nov 1, 2011
    5
    Whatever potential this game had for being a revolutionary multilayer experience was lost when it Battlelog was integrated into the game. You have to change your settings in-game and you have to exit the program in order to change servers. There's no LAN, no in-game VOIP, no Commo Rose, no in-game server browser and it uses Punkbuster. Whenever I try to play multiplayer I feel like I'mWhatever potential this game had for being a revolutionary multilayer experience was lost when it Battlelog was integrated into the game. You have to change your settings in-game and you have to exit the program in order to change servers. There's no LAN, no in-game VOIP, no Commo Rose, no in-game server browser and it uses Punkbuster. Whenever I try to play multiplayer I feel like I'm playing some kinda mediocre F2P game from some **** company like Nexon instead of a developer as prestigious as DICE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    If you're looking for a unique shooter experience, you won't find it here. This game is just another crappy, dull, boring, repetitive, uninspired military shooter with nothing more to it's name than it's shiny graphics and bull**** destruction engine. It just doesn't live up to Bad Company 2. Sorry.    … Expand
  97. Freki
    Nov 4, 2011
    5
    I could spend this space writing about how great the game looks, how well it sounds, how fun it can be and all that - and I probable should as that is usually what people want to hear in a review be they gamers, publishers or developers..
    But quite honestly what I feel like writing about is all the frustration I'm left with after having finished the campaign... A game is not supposed to    I could spend this space writing about how great the game looks, how well it sounds, how fun it can be and all that - and I probable should as that is usually what people want to hear in a review be they gamers, publishers or developers..
    But quite honestly what I feel like writing about is all the frustration I'm left with after having finished the campaign... A game is not supposed to ship in such a state - you are not supposed to have a browser window open to find solutions to the game breaking bugs, you are no supposed to give up playing the multiplayer game because you can't play for more than a few minutes before it crashes..

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

    Anywhoo, when it works it looks and plays awesomely - so do pick it up, just do yourself a favor and wait until the first couple patches are out as it will save you a lot of frustration..    … Expand
  98. MadCoyoteJoe
    Nov 10, 2011
    5
    My buddy bought this game played it online for like a week with him it had some ok cool things like vehicles which are fun but gets kinda boring. The maps are usually to big lots of campers, which i guess is how war would be but when you play a smaller map and still the other team is all snipers in the woods and you cannot find anybody else come on really. If you wanna play like that itsMy buddy bought this game played it online for like a week with him it had some ok cool things like vehicles which are fun but gets kinda boring. The maps are usually to big lots of campers, which i guess is how war would be but when you play a smaller map and still the other team is all snipers in the woods and you cannot find anybody else come on really. If you wanna play like that its fine not for me though. I did like the building destruction was pretty awesome. If some one was in a building you could take the walls down around them. So only a couple cool things and the rest was just boring.… Expand
  99. Teng
    Nov 10, 2011
    5
    The PC-Version is just awful. Installing Origin, and then a browser that supports the origin plugin, then the origin plugin and then you can start the game through the browser. I really don't understand why i can't just the the game. The Game itself is superb. But aslong a they sticking on this Origin-/Browser-Stuff I just ignore it.
  100. 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
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 »