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. LongBowMan
    Nov 14, 2011
    5
    My review will be short... The game itself is actually pretty good, not amazing, certainly doesänt give the thrill of previous BF releases but it compliments the FPS genre nicely give or take a few new release bugs.

    My gripe is with the mandatory installation of Origin. A terribly glitchy program required to play BF3 at all unless you use a hack to get around it which no    My review will be short... The game itself is actually pretty good, not amazing, certainly doesänt give the thrill of previous BF releases but it compliments the FPS genre nicely give or take a few new release bugs.

    My gripe is with the mandatory installation of Origin. A terribly glitchy program required to play BF3 at all unless you use a hack to get around it which no consumer should have to do just to play a dam game that they've spent 40 quid on. Origin's EULA states that it collects data from your pc including post code, IP address, installed software and hardware and a few more things which it reserves the right to share with its "third partys" without our consent as consumers. I do not believe that wanting to play a video game online entitles them to this kind of personal information and on that base alone whilst Origin remains a mandatory component of all future EA releases i will refuse to purchase any products at all from the company whatsoever.

    I may perhaps continue buying products in the future if Origin is removed and a formal apology is sent to the world from EA for all the customers they're losing through this gross display of power hunger.

    Until then EA can shove Origin...    … Expand
  2. computerology
    Nov 14, 2011
    5
    PS3 version. Graphics are excellent. Gameplay is excellent. Campaign is excellent. Multiplayer I rate a 5/10 which is what I base my review on. IMO this is an excellent game in all aspects except multiplayer. EA has done an excellent job but has forgotten the number 1 killer of multiplayer games which makes anyone other than the most addicted of children frustrated and turn the gamePS3 version. Graphics are excellent. Gameplay is excellent. Campaign is excellent. Multiplayer I rate a 5/10 which is what I base my review on. IMO this is an excellent game in all aspects except multiplayer. EA has done an excellent job but has forgotten the number 1 killer of multiplayer games which makes anyone other than the most addicted of children frustrated and turn the game off. While I love the game and the gameplay, the weapons, the graphics, I find the multiplayer mode totally infuriating at times. Here is why.

    The game physics and weapon physics are so totally unrealistic that it is not just annoying, but just plain stupid at times.

    When you are playing a sniper with a 12x scope with upgraded rifle and you are ducked just around a corner in prone position and you take 2 seconds to target someone, then to have them head shot you practically instantly with a sub machine gun from 250 yards, you just know something is wrong with the game physics altogether. This scenario can play itself out over and over and over again in this game, which will drive anyone but the most addicted of children away from multiplayer. Engineers are somewhat the biased best character role in this game because of this physics flaw. Because you can use practically any weapon as a sniper rifle and the engineer comes with a rocket launcher and equipment repair kit, the engineer class totally dominates which is nothing short of rediculous.

    Nowhere in real modern warfare do you hear of the amazing engineer battling it out at the front lines wasting people except in this game.

    The game physics, despite EAs tremendous experience with EA Sports and other first person shooter type games also lack duress or fatigue. So it is no problem for a player to run constantly and target people perfectly for 20 minutes straight. To be honest, games like this make me happy because I play paintball and these games lure people into the sport. They think they can run and shoot and run and shoot with perfect aim and they certainly learn the laws of fatigue and physics on the real field - because they cant hit the broad side of a barn as they are so tired and they have rented some M4 replica gun that shoots fast but is inaccurate as heck.

    In this game the AI in the campaign scenarios even on hard difficulty mask this lack in physics by merely ACTING more realistically. However EA would have done the game far more justice by improving the physics and letting the AI play harder.

    If I had a penny for every time I was sniped by a small sub machine pistol like a SCAR-H at significant range I would be a millionaire. It forces me to just turn off the game in frustration very often.

    If this was several years ago I would have given this same game a review with a 10 rating. However EA has to get their act together when it comes to physics, the PS3 is no longer a new device nor is the genre of first person military campaign shooter.

    I also must say that the controls are truly frustrating, counterintuitive, and you cannot change them. For example the fire button is the R1 button while the R2 button is the knife. This leads you in instinctive mode accidentally pulling out the knife when you are trying to shoot until you get used to it. The controls also reverse all over the place depending on what vehicle and fire mode you are in. For example when in first person mode, R1 is fire, R2 is knife, L1 is zoom and L2 is grenade. Jump in a tank however and then R1 becomes IR smoke, R2 becomes throttle, L2 becomes brake and L1 becomes fire. Switching weapons at least is stable at triangle. When you are in an aircraft the controls also jump all over the place. That granted, the game does do a decent job of telling you what the controls are as the game plays. The control system would be better if the buttons were a bit more intuitive and stable, such as R2 was always fire and L2 was always zoom and maybe when driving make the jump button throttle. I'm sure they did their best but I was playing this game extensively with two very experienced FPS gamers who have been playing FPS games for a combined 25 years and the controls took a ton of getting used to.

    On the audio side the sound in general is fantstic but again in multiplayer they totally dropped the ball. There is no audio setting to shut up the squad communication system. Normally this is fine because most people dont use it but it is not uncommon to have some guy's microphone held on in vox hearing his TV and game sounds or some fool breathing like he's getting it on for the entire round which is very distracting.

    Overall it is a great game, but EA could certainly do a lot better than this when it comes to physics, control setting flexibility, and audio settings and most importantly of all fatigue. You cant run 10 miles then aim like youve been sitting for 10 minutes in prone. MP mode gives inordinate advantage to those with no life.    … Expand
  3. Interdependent
    Nov 14, 2011
    5
    Nothing really improved. To be honest, think of it as another BF2. Don't get me wrong, the trailers and the hype made the game what it is today, but lets all be serious. Top notch graphics? I disagree, taking a deep look at the graphics, the game is just simply using Battlefield Bad Company 2 graphics. Also, the graphics STILL are similar in the beta. The game is simply just BF2 with newNothing really improved. To be honest, think of it as another BF2. Don't get me wrong, the trailers and the hype made the game what it is today, but lets all be serious. Top notch graphics? I disagree, taking a deep look at the graphics, the game is just simply using Battlefield Bad Company 2 graphics. Also, the graphics STILL are similar in the beta. The game is simply just BF2 with new maps and slightly improved graphics.
    Review:
    The Good
    - Destruction
    - Vehicles - Realism to the max.
    - Animations for everything.

    The Bad- Too similar to BFBC2.
    - Patches everytime
    - Cliche scenes and soldiers
    - Little amount of weapons.
    - Graphics are a little too similar to BFBC2
    - Jets and Vehicles
    - Terrible Campaign

    However, don't hesitate to buy the game by this review, but, like many players, if you don't want big maps and less lone-wolf status, don't buy it. If you're a veteran, and played BF2 series, this is the game for you.    … Expand
  4. Cumtastic
    Nov 18, 2011
    5
    Pros: Rape graphics, awesome controls, dedicated servers, jets and destructible buildings. (10 points)
    Cons: No Steam, Origin sucks, Launch Via Web Browser (LOL), large amounts of camping, "made for pc ground up and still not include it on Steam? WTF. Not everything is destructible. "Mw killer"... too bad that didnt happen... and Campaign that could potentially copied a lot from mw1 and    Pros: Rape graphics, awesome controls, dedicated servers, jets and destructible buildings. (10 points)
    Cons: No Steam, Origin sucks, Launch Via Web Browser (LOL), large amounts of camping, "made for pc ground up and still not include it on Steam? WTF. Not everything is destructible. "Mw killer"... too bad that didnt happen... and Campaign that could potentially copied a lot from mw1 and black ops.... (-5 points)    … Expand
  5. Acaerus
    Nov 22, 2011
    5
    They rushed with release to beat MW3 with no thinking about buyers. We have very incomplete game with tons of bugs and inbalances. First patch made it even worse. new bugs for majority of players.
  6. Tristik
    Nov 27, 2011
    5
    Singleplayer isn't much to play. But that's not what BF is about anyway.

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

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

    The only real reason I'm even giving this game a 5 in it's current state is because it is actually quite fun after you unlock a few things and are actually in the game playing. It's too bad DICE tried to re-make the game from the ground up the way they did. They dropped the ball pretty hard on many fronts.    … Expand
  7. Fede-lasse
    Mar 11, 2012
    5
    It's fun, but it has flaws. For instance: levels, ranked servers, no custom hosting, no voice chat, badly placed chat box, and almost unhearable voice commands. Levels and ranked servers make sure that once you reach the top levels, the game likely starts to become boring, and ranked servers mean that all servers are rented and hosted for some sort of payment. If you want to (legally) hostIt's fun, but it has flaws. For instance: levels, ranked servers, no custom hosting, no voice chat, badly placed chat box, and almost unhearable voice commands. Levels and ranked servers make sure that once you reach the top levels, the game likely starts to become boring, and ranked servers mean that all servers are rented and hosted for some sort of payment. If you want to (legally) host a small server (for free) with just your friends, you're screwed. No voice chat and nearly invisible text chat means almost no communication at all in the game. So the game all in all is a strangers-game. You don't know the people you join, and communicating with them is impossible. There are no bots to balance out the servers, either. Even if there were, I can imagine they'd be pretty **** like the ones in RO2.

    I'll note BF3 for its very good graphics and nice dynamic sound range, however, and the thus far okay-working matchmaking.    … Expand
  8. yumdumpster
    Dec 23, 2011
    5
    Poor release ruined the game for me. Upon release of the game I was constantly plagued by crashes blue screens and other problems, so much so that it has really nixed any chances of me ever playing this game again. While I will admit that the game itself it absolutely beautiful, I really have not played more than two hours of this game since i originally bought it.
  9. Faoeoa
    Jan 4, 2012
    5
    What do you get when you get horrible DRM, namely origin, Battlelog, and a terrible matchmaking system, yet fascinating gameplay, and amazing graphics? I say a mixed game, it's a fine FPS, but on PC this is HORRIBLE, bugs really ruined this game, the gameplay is good, but co-op seems like a chore, not fun, matchmaking will pit you against people 3x better than you, if you don't want moreWhat do you get when you get horrible DRM, namely origin, Battlelog, and a terrible matchmaking system, yet fascinating gameplay, and amazing graphics? I say a mixed game, it's a fine FPS, but on PC this is HORRIBLE, bugs really ruined this game, the gameplay is good, but co-op seems like a chore, not fun, matchmaking will pit you against people 3x better than you, if you don't want more DRM crap shoved onto your PC, too bad, Bioware, DICE and more have been forced to put games on Origin.… Expand
  10. TheSHow29
    Jan 20, 2012
    5
    I bought this game looking for a change from CoD. I was excited, i even convinced my brother and two friends to get it so we could play it together. The depth of the game is amazing, tons of awesome unlock-ables. Very realistic feel for weapons and feeling an actual kick when you fire, and their sounds. Beyond these things, i found the interface terrible, me and my 3 friends could make aI bought this game looking for a change from CoD. I was excited, i even convinced my brother and two friends to get it so we could play it together. The depth of the game is amazing, tons of awesome unlock-ables. Very realistic feel for weapons and feeling an actual kick when you fire, and their sounds. Beyond these things, i found the interface terrible, me and my 3 friends could make a squad, but half the time when we entered the game it would drop someone. so we'd try again, then one of us would be on the other team. then after that game we thought ok when we get to lobby we'll leave and enter a new one....oh wait there isnt a lobby, you have to wait until a whole new game starts and loads before you can leave? What about editing your class, you can't do that pregame either unless you back out to main page, i just wanna change one thing, and i don't wanna leave my game to do it. Guess i'll just do it while my friends are hopping in that humvee, oh wait their on the other team again.....good thing we had a fifth, he can stay on my team. Then i distinctly remember literally turning on my system four or five times because i would try to change class and would spawn without a weapon...i could run around and stuff, but couldn't shoot or throw grenades, and didn't see the barrel of a gun. I understand the deathmatch maps are small, but is it intentionally spawning me in gunfire? I mean CoD does this sometimes to but its more like bad timing there, i couldn't help but feel as though the game literally hated me sometimes and would spawn me to die a second later. Either way, i bought MW3 and BF3. I returned BF3. This game had MW3 beat hands down for (graphics/unlock-ables/realism/sound/vehicles), except for things that i just couldn't get past whether they be small or or not. I think i was like level 40 or so, i didn't spend a great deal of time playing the game but i was annoyed by the squad problems and lobby thing the most because i bought the game to play with my friends and brother.… Expand
  11. ZootMan
    Mar 3, 2012
    5
    Note: This is only a review for the single player offering......so with that said, it's uh...a BIT rough. And by a bit rough I mean offensively bad scripted sections that will be instant death for any non-psychic player. Bad Company 2 was so good, that I had hopes for this narrative arc. I absolutely loved a few set pieces, including the excellent dog fighting section. The game looksNote: This is only a review for the single player offering......so with that said, it's uh...a BIT rough. And by a bit rough I mean offensively bad scripted sections that will be instant death for any non-psychic player. Bad Company 2 was so good, that I had hopes for this narrative arc. I absolutely loved a few set pieces, including the excellent dog fighting section. The game looks amazing, runs very well considering the visual fidelity and...it's quite sad because none of it matters when you take a dump all over it.… Expand
  12. dprkforum
    Dec 10, 2012
    5
    I will say first and foremost the graphics are very pretty. Beyond that, it is a decent multi-player game. The single-player is very bad, and the story line is even worse. It was helpful for learning the basics, but that is about it. It played more like a cheesy action movie than a game with fancy shooting gallery fill-in's. If you like multi-player war games, you will like Battlefield 3.I will say first and foremost the graphics are very pretty. Beyond that, it is a decent multi-player game. The single-player is very bad, and the story line is even worse. It was helpful for learning the basics, but that is about it. It played more like a cheesy action movie than a game with fancy shooting gallery fill-in's. If you like multi-player war games, you will like Battlefield 3. Otherwise, do not waste your time or money. Oh, and one more thing - the DRM is very annoying, and is worse (yes WORSE) than Diablo III's.… Expand
  13. Psyentist
    Mar 3, 2012
    5
    What a neat CoD Mod! now to get back to BC2...

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

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

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

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

    Less focus on trying to be someone else's game.. Come on guys.. seriously..    … Expand
  14. 017
    Mar 6, 2012
    5
    This game, despite how great the gameplay actually is, suffers from a lot of issues. A number of which are because DICE doesn't test their own patches and updates thoroughly, as well as the fact that EA rushed their development. Dedicated server stability is an issue to this day, as well as client stability. The game is great, besides the single player, but I, and a lot of other people,This game, despite how great the gameplay actually is, suffers from a lot of issues. A number of which are because DICE doesn't test their own patches and updates thoroughly, as well as the fact that EA rushed their development. Dedicated server stability is an issue to this day, as well as client stability. The game is great, besides the single player, but I, and a lot of other people, don't enjoy playing when there's nearly always a game-crashing bug that's going to appear. I also had my own dedicated server for a bit, and sadly, they made it impossible to get traffic to stay on our servers due to the complete lack of care to ensure the systems were stable when released. (How else does Karkand come out and they include a bug that crashes an entire server, easily?)

    Server and client issues aside, there is also the fact that the single player is a god-awful setup of super-linear COD style "shoot down an alley at infinitely respawning goons" type gameplay. Apparently whoever was in charge of the single player has no idea what battlefield is known for, because anyone with a brain would have made the gameplay the opposite of linear. perhaps if the single player had used the series' strength as a tactical shooter instead of trying to pretend to be call of duty in the single player, it might have been more remarkable. Instead, we got an awful linear, very **** single player. Which is really too bad.    … Expand
  15. DarkRiver
    Mar 20, 2012
    5
    I'm no gaming expert but I know instinctively when a game feels like a chore than engaging experience.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Waiting for Bad Company 3 or Battlefield 2143    … Expand
  16. metalmechanic
    Apr 13, 2012
    5
    Battlefield 3 is what I would call a functional shooter if it was called something else I would probably rate at a solid 6. The fact that it is part of the Battlefield franchise and was built up to be a return to its roots is where most of the problems stem from. First lets look at what the game from outside the Battlefield universe. It comes out the great with very nice looking graphics.Battlefield 3 is what I would call a functional shooter if it was called something else I would probably rate at a solid 6. The fact that it is part of the Battlefield franchise and was built up to be a return to its roots is where most of the problems stem from. First lets look at what the game from outside the Battlefield universe. It comes out the great with very nice looking graphics. Although lots of things seem to be way overdone, such as the almost mirror surface of the aircraft carriers. Why are they so shiny? The sun is overwhelmingly bright at times. Other than some bad art direction the game has some very good graphics. Destruction, I've always been kind of torn between how much there should be in a multi-player experience. To much breaks the flow of the maps and to little can be very limiting. The base maps have it just about right. Some obstacles can be removed while mostly keeping the flow of the map as it was intended. The level design on over half the maps make it very clear that this was a multi platform launch, and that they have very different player numbers. All the city maps are extremely over crowded at 64 players, and the larger air maps seemingly have all the flags clustered in the center of the the playable area. This tells me that the hype during the development cycle built as PC first only went as far as the engine and did not effect level design very much. The games biggest downfall though is its net code. How such a high profile game can have such poor hit detection is laughable. Depending on your ping and that of the player shooting at you, a person can find them self dying up to a few seconds after reaching cover. Players often register kills before they fire a shot from your view. Players might also find that after being revived there gun will have almost a full magazine despite the fact that on their end they unloaded over half a clip into the opposing player. This is without a doubt one of the more frustrating things about the game.

    Now if we step back into the Battlefield universe, we find a whole new list of problems mostly coming from empty promises from the marketing department. The claim of largest maps we have ever created: False. The claim that they waited making a true squeal to BF2 until the could do it right and do the original justice:False. That the game play in general would be much more like BF2 than BC2: False. Let me start by saying just how poor the flight model is in this game. After stating they would be much like Battlefield 2 and not just the hover craft of the Bad Company series. I was very disappointed to find that the choppers still cannot do flips or rolls, and even worse the jets can do a back flip but for some reason cannot do a front flip. Jets become disabled at half health and must be landed to be repaired, a mechanic that simply leads to everyone bailing as soon as they start to get hit. Bringing unlocks to the vehicle side was another huge mistake. Players should not be forced to unlock basic equipment. Inexperienced players should not be further handicapped against veteran pilots. Flares and Air to Air missiles should be standard equipment. Same goes for smoke and coaxial machine guns for tanks and Smoke and Guided missile for APC's. Vehicles as a whole feel as if they are an after thought. No maps feature every vehicle type. Air maps exclude APC's with the standard cannon and instead just simply have the AA variant. Now lets quickly hit on Back to Karkand Expansion. This is a fine example of new mechanics breaking the flow of old map design. Take Sharqi Peninsula for example. By the end of the battle the area around the surveillance area has been reduced to a open field. Snipers have rode their MAV's to roof tops that are other wise unreachable turning the open area a instant killzone for any poor soul dumb enough to try and venture across to the next flag. Gulf of Oman was reduced to a fight over the large construction area for snipers and Laser spammers. Karkand itself flows much slower than before due to the fact that areas to camp in have increased by an astronomical amount due to all the building being open on multiple levels, add to that the previously mentioned MAV riding snipers and its not even the same map as before. They also excluded the Factory flag for some reason. The map that holds the most true to its old form is Wake island. A formula that is hard to get wrong. Although for some time it was reduced to Laser/javaline tag on the pilots. With the infantry getting revenge for years of abuse from the pilots of BF2. In closing as the word count is running low. Battlefield 3 as a whole is a shell of what it could have been, with the game feeling rushed and unfinished. The poor netcode and flaws in map design over shadow some very nice graphics and Amazing sound. If you are hardcore fan of the classic Battlefield titles 1942-2142 steer clear of this game. Its but a shadow of the series former glory. Thanks EA!    … Expand
  17. fukeaintheass
    May 8, 2012
    5
    Couldn't wait to play it as im a massive BF2 fan. But it was a complete let down. The game wasn't even finished prior to release and is the MOST buggy game i've EVER played. Many people bought the game and simply cant play it as it just wont work. To add injury to insult the game gets constant "maintenance", in other words its unplayable for hours at a time. This time affects players inCouldn't wait to play it as im a massive BF2 fan. But it was a complete let down. The game wasn't even finished prior to release and is the MOST buggy game i've EVER played. Many people bought the game and simply cant play it as it just wont work. To add injury to insult the game gets constant "maintenance", in other words its unplayable for hours at a time. This time affects players in Australia and surrounding area's as it is timed to not effect EU and US playtime. While this game is enjoyable to play, the numerous problems have pushed many to vow never to buy EA/DICE products, i cant blame them as the sheer frustration of wanting to play it but not being able to tests your patience. Origin is not worth pissing on even if it was on fire.
    P.S Singleplayer is crap, its all about the multiplayer.    … Expand
  18. wingsoverithaca
    May 20, 2012
    5
    Huge BF fan. But I uninstalled this game a month ago since it wasn't being played. Pros: graphics, vehicles, some improvements on bc2 (revives, MCOM charges have to be disarmed even at 0 tickets)

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

    Cons: HORRIBLE MAP DESIGN, PLAYER DROPOFF, needs more destruction, NETCODE (client-side hit detection), patches break more than fix, battlelog + origin, guns are bland, classes are imbalanced, too many laser designations (needs more AT4), BUGS    … Expand
  19. reFUTCHable
    Jun 10, 2012
    5
    Ok, so this review is late but i believe it needs to be said. Although this is not related to the actual game design, this is part of the game experience. Team stacking and hacking are the only things you'll run into in the multiplayer side of the game. DICE should remove the 'swap team' button as all the so called 'good players' often use that to their advantage and you'll see a largeOk, so this review is late but i believe it needs to be said. Although this is not related to the actual game design, this is part of the game experience. Team stacking and hacking are the only things you'll run into in the multiplayer side of the game. DICE should remove the 'swap team' button as all the so called 'good players' often use that to their advantage and you'll see a large amount of servers with constant baserape. This is just my impression of the game and after 100+ hours of gameplay I took a minor hiatus only to return and find battlefield premium. Now i have no problem with the notion of pay once get all dlcs, but to prioritise queuing for premium members is just a tad unfair to the rest of us. Thank you EA, for reminding me how little regard you have of your customers. I'll be enjoying all the free DLC's ive gotten from the Witcher 2.… Expand
  20. Peanits
    Jul 30, 2012
    5
    I've been playing the Battlefield franchise since BF1942, and this game has ruined everything about Battlefield. The game focuses mostly on graphics, and not the gameplay. Probably the largest problem is the game relies of vehicle based combat if you ever want to get anywhere, or play any map besides Metro. Of course, there's not enough vehicles for everyone. Not to mention that theI've been playing the Battlefield franchise since BF1942, and this game has ruined everything about Battlefield. The game focuses mostly on graphics, and not the gameplay. Probably the largest problem is the game relies of vehicle based combat if you ever want to get anywhere, or play any map besides Metro. Of course, there's not enough vehicles for everyone. Not to mention that the helicopters are outrageously powerful.

    To be completely honest, I have never seen a mainstream game published with so many bugs and flaws. From little issues such as being able to shoot your gun straight ahead and you vault over a railing, to larger problems like broken weapon mechanics that take ages to be fixed.    … Expand
  21. hooner
    Jul 13, 2012
    5
    This is a challenging game, and I really want to like it, but I uninstalled and wont go back. Just my opinion, but some maps are way too big, and others are way to small, some are just horrible (metro and Seine crossing). Unless you are going to play as a team you'll get nailed all the time and worst of all Origin and all the **** software you have to install just killed this for me. EAThis is a challenging game, and I really want to like it, but I uninstalled and wont go back. Just my opinion, but some maps are way too big, and others are way to small, some are just horrible (metro and Seine crossing). Unless you are going to play as a team you'll get nailed all the time and worst of all Origin and all the **** software you have to install just killed this for me. EA are forcing you to let them monitor your internet usage, and then go sell the data for £££.… Expand
  22. kane148
    Oct 27, 2012
    5
    I've heard that the multiplayer on this game is good, and so I was more generous than I would otherwise be. But the fact is that this game also features a single player campaign which was just terrible. I made myself stick with it for a couple of hours, but it was mostly tedious and boring. The story seemed very cliche and the voice acting was bad. There were plenty of interestingI've heard that the multiplayer on this game is good, and so I was more generous than I would otherwise be. But the fact is that this game also features a single player campaign which was just terrible. I made myself stick with it for a couple of hours, but it was mostly tedious and boring. The story seemed very cliche and the voice acting was bad. There were plenty of interesting gameplay ideas present, but they were virtually all failures in the execution. A game that manages to make flying a jet fighter boring is really in trouble, and that is exactly what BF3 does.… Expand
  23. Jon2011
    Jul 29, 2012
    5
    This is not a BF game, but this rating isn't about how good of a sequel it is.
    Gunplay is mediocre at best, suppression ruins the gunplay.
    Vehicles are crippled by disabling at 50%, makes them no fun to use. Health regeneration on vehicles and infantry. Squad perks make ammo almost useless. 3D spotting makes everything easy mode. Gun customization is neat, but overdone. Vehicle    This is not a BF game, but this rating isn't about how good of a sequel it is.
    Gunplay is mediocre at best, suppression ruins the gunplay.
    Vehicles are crippled by disabling at 50%, makes them no fun to use.
    Health regeneration on vehicles and infantry.
    Squad perks make ammo almost useless.
    3D spotting makes everything easy mode.
    Gun customization is neat, but overdone.
    Vehicle perks make the vehicle game even more dull.
    No VOIP for squads to communicate.
    Maps are too small for 64 players. (all maps except Gulf of Oman)
    Origin and battlelog are required to play, no way to launch game through desktop.
    No mod tools.
    Too much emphasis on unlocking stuff, less emphasis on actual fun.
    Great view distance!    … Expand
  24. somethingguy912
    Aug 26, 2012
    5
    I was fortunate enough to get this game as a gift rather than paying for the $60 that this is game is not actually worth. I didn't have to bother with the excuse that is Battlelog or Origin, because I was fortunate enough to use the console versions, which for one of the few times is an improvement from the PC. Initially, I really enjoyed the game, from the balanced guns to the awesomeI was fortunate enough to get this game as a gift rather than paying for the $60 that this is game is not actually worth. I didn't have to bother with the excuse that is Battlelog or Origin, because I was fortunate enough to use the console versions, which for one of the few times is an improvement from the PC. Initially, I really enjoyed the game, from the balanced guns to the awesome destruction physics and how Battlefield 3 really does incorporate team play. But after a while, the game has become almost as infuriating to me as playing Black Ops or MW2. The constant glitches with non-working glitches, the horrible hit detection from the net code, the horrible collision impact between proning halfway between walls and explosions not doing enough or too much damage, and most importantly, how the graphics completely betray your line of sight. I don't get why a "realistic shooter" thinks that "realism" is that every panel, wall and character needs to be sprayed with the colors Brown, Tan, Gray and BLUE! seriously, those are literally the only colors they have in that game! it is literally impossible for me to get my bearings on what I'm looking at, who my teammates are, who my enemies are, or what control points I'm on. The FPS on that game isn't too much of a bother to me as to others, but the blatantly poor SinglePlayer and the not worthwhile Co-Op really does hinder the value of this game. This game doesn't deserve a 0, due to some technical appeal that the game does have, but it doesn't deserve a 10 because it is FAR FROM PERFECT. They had to rush this in, without giving any thought to consumer criticism and only thought of trying to beat MW2 in the economic arms race of "realistic shooters". Battlefield 3 is such a disappointment because, once again, EA overhypes the game and believes in that "minimalist" value that they have been provoking lately. BF3 could've been a more impressive game, with all the chinks smoothened out, with a better promising Origin without your privacy ruined, and with DICE's promise of "all dlc's will be free!", I would rate this game at a 8 out of 10. My last suggestion to you is, DONT BUY BF4. please.… Expand
  25. Hefewy
    Oct 28, 2012
    5
    I have little to praise about this game. The graphics, while not terrible, have some really overdone effects such as the glare filter being not only unrealistic but quite annoying. I don't think the people at Dice know what outside looks like. At the same time, every map seems to consist of just different shades of one color, because that's realistic looking apparently. The destructibleI have little to praise about this game. The graphics, while not terrible, have some really overdone effects such as the glare filter being not only unrealistic but quite annoying. I don't think the people at Dice know what outside looks like. At the same time, every map seems to consist of just different shades of one color, because that's realistic looking apparently. The destructible environments, while not terrible, are inconsistent and there are plenty of times where a chunk of a building will be indestructible yet it looks exactly like a piece that you can destroy. The weapons are made so the ranges on them are terrible even on regular assault rifles, forcing you to get up close and personal with your target. This is probably done to make it seem more intense, to cover up for some lazy gun programming on the developers part. For anti-aircraft launchers, their range is also extremely limited. I assume this is to balance game-play (Because war is known for being balanced), but it only forces you to get right next to the vehicle you are aiming at to hit your target with one of these. I'd like to point out that the missiles in this game, again in what seems to be an attempt to balance the game out, go incredibly slow, and most vehicles can actually outrun your shot even if it is locked onto them. What a genius idea. A vehicle outrunning a missile, because missiles are known for moving slow. Overall, coming from a battlefield fan, this probably wont please fans of the series as all it does is add a shiny coating and make the game look nice, instead of having good game-play. Even the features such as the graphics that people seem to praise a lot are honestly not that great, and while it's not necessarily awful, there are much better online FPS games that you could probably spend your money on. It doesn't do anything new, which wouldn't be bad if it did what it does well, but sadly it seems like an attempt to cash in on the series name. If you want a BF game, stick to one of the classics, and hope that the future ones will be better, though judging by the sales of this, things look grim.… Expand
  26. AseriousReview
    Nov 14, 2012
    5
    before you rage about the score i will tell you something.

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

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

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

    Their Highlight is Multiplayer!

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

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

    But the fact that this game costed 5.99    … Expand
  27. ril3ydx
    Dec 17, 2012
    5
    I used to love BF games, but Dice **** up this game, I can't believe I have almost 950 hours in this game ... supression, hacks, bipod, COD style, small maps, tweaker(still not fixed), PB does not ban any **** support class, op guns, frag-ammo (my god) ... and other ****s
  28. Danny83
    Dec 18, 2012
    5
    another average shooter. sigh..... when are we gonna have a video game revolution. Its just like everything these days, movies, music, its all created for a bunch of kids. very sad. I find myself going back in time and playing old games, you know, when they were actually good.......
  29. Mannerheim93
    Feb 18, 2013
    5
    First I want to say that I will almost only talk about the multiplayer here as that is what this game is all about. The single player campaign is not as bad as many said it would be, it's just that it feels like a whole other game compared to the online action. The six co-op missions are also a bonus and they are especially fun to play if you use a headset to talk to your friend you areFirst I want to say that I will almost only talk about the multiplayer here as that is what this game is all about. The single player campaign is not as bad as many said it would be, it's just that it feels like a whole other game compared to the online action. The six co-op missions are also a bonus and they are especially fun to play if you use a headset to talk to your friend you are playing with.

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

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

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

    Let us all hope that a new company would introduce a game that reminds of BF3, but that hasn't EA behind it and that concentrates on the players and not on the money. Graphics: 9
    Audio: 8
    Maps: 8
    Weapons: 2
    Vehicles: 3
    Single player: 7
    Co-op: 7
    Game play: 4
    Overall experience after 300+ hours: 5    … Expand
  30. captainkane
    Apr 12, 2013
    5
    The Battlefield franchise is trying so hard to differentiate itself from Call of Duty that it takes major missteps. Like every recent shooter, BF3 features a tacked on campaign that is too short. The Frostbite 2 engine is a beast and roars loud on PC’s. A long and feature rich campaign would be the best place to showcase the graphical prowess of the engine and give hardcore PC gamersThe Battlefield franchise is trying so hard to differentiate itself from Call of Duty that it takes major missteps. Like every recent shooter, BF3 features a tacked on campaign that is too short. The Frostbite 2 engine is a beast and roars loud on PC’s. A long and feature rich campaign would be the best place to showcase the graphical prowess of the engine and give hardcore PC gamers bragging rights. Instead, DICE gives us a COD-like campaign that only provides 4-6 hours of play. Yawn… The campaign is just another dull, formulaic, on rails experience. On a positive note, the graphics, voice acting, and gameplay are action movie quality. But this is no reason to forgive the short and forgettable experience. Arguments persist that the multiplayer component suffered because DICE & EA felt compelled to add campaigns to the franchise. That’s an excuse. That was the developer’s opportunity to shine, not blend in. The multiplayer is truly epic. On PC, maps are huge. Once again, we see the power of the Frostbite 2 engine. Destructible environments, debris filled streets, and lingering dust create realism that is unparalleled by other popular shooters. Vehicles add to the chaos as players are constantly sprinting thru alleys to avoid tanks or getting to high ground so they can rocket a helicopter. When I first played this game, I was like WTF!! The experience can be that good. The Battlelog is a controversial element of BF3 because it requires a web browser to access the game. But I like it. The interface is well-designed and makes customization and server selection easy. Since customization is ridiculously deep, the Battlelog is a natural progression of the series. Gunplay is solid, but jerky and insanely fast character movements make aiming difficult. Overall, the multiplayer has a ton to offer, but it falls short in several ways. The most mindboggling aspect of BF3 is the fact that servers are rented by players. That’s right, someone else pays so you can play, baby!! Many of the rented servers are available to us cheapskates for free. This is not inherently bad because it allows freedom not available in other blockbuster shooters. Some servers only offer certain maps and game modes. Others prohibit certain weapons such as rocket launchers. But a significant amount of admins are abusive. Every BF3 player I’ve talked to has had at least one negative experience. I’ve been banned from a server for “excessive use of claymores”. A friend of mine was banned from a server because his K/D was too high (if you call 45/9 too high). I’ve witnessed admins rebalancing teams so they got all the best players. This is unacceptable. Some admins are gracious enough to post the rules. If players break them, they get kicked. But I’ve seen more than one admin breaking his/her own rules. But wait, there’s more! BF3 lacks voice chat. Using headsets to talk with teammates requires third party software. Unfortunately, not all servers utilize the necessary software, so players must search dozens of servers to find one with voice enabled or find their own solution. DICE claims BF3 emphasizes teamwork but omits voice chat. *Scratches head in confusion* Needless to say, the “team” element has suffered. Another annoying aspect of the game is unbalanced spawning. If a player sneaks up behind a sentry’s position, his entire team can spawn off him and easily overtake the opposition. This even happens during firefights. I’ve blasted away at an opponent only to see 3-5 people spawn off him and shoot me. Infuriating is an understatement. It gets worse. Even after selecting “random” spawn points, players regularly spawn into opponents’ sights and are shot immediately. This is especially problematic on smaller maps. Such spawning lends itself to base camping and cheap kills.BF3’s leveling system punishes low ranking players. Players will need to put in absurd amounts of time while performing specific challenges to get decent weapons. I like the large maps, but wandering around for 20 minutes looking for opponents only to be sniped and then respawn 3 miles away gets dull. The Co-op missions were decent, but there a e only a few and they’re extremely short. The biggest flaw of BF3 stems from its targeted audience: the PC market. Matchmaking, gun mechanics, and even map sizes suffer unless gamers play it on PC. The absolutely horrendous recoil, bullet drop, and awkwardly swift, jerky character movements just beg for mouse aiming. Since 70% or more of BF3 players own consoles, this game caters to a declining market. However, BF3 lacks so many necessary ingredients that it must be played on PC to be fully realized, and all at the user’s expense. This truly shows the darker side of game development. Once the wow factor of the Frostbite engine wore off, I realized this is a mediocre shooter comprised of nothing more than large maps and drawn out matches injected with bouts of tedium.… Expand
  31. SplatMan_DK
    Aug 22, 2013
    5
    Not being a multiplayer buff I played the Campaign only. I found the story pleasant, but the extremely linear gameplay boring beyond belief. Step slightly off the script and you die. Some scenes are like playing Dragons Lair; click this key, followed by this key, followed by this mouse button. Miss one and you die (and get to watch the introducing cinematic all over again). I will not beNot being a multiplayer buff I played the Campaign only. I found the story pleasant, but the extremely linear gameplay boring beyond belief. Step slightly off the script and you die. Some scenes are like playing Dragons Lair; click this key, followed by this key, followed by this mouse button. Miss one and you die (and get to watch the introducing cinematic all over again). I will not be buying the 4th edition. I am sure someone will cut the cinematics together and put them on youtube so I can watch the story. And hey, if I want to play Dragons Lair i can always buy THAT game instead?… Expand
  32. PessimisticMan
    Feb 1, 2014
    5
    The strength of this game is based almost only on the multiplayer. The story is not worth remembering.
    PROS:
    +The multiplayer is very well balanced. +Amazingly wide variety of weapon customization. +The maps are pretty good. I'm not a fan of the large maps, but a lot of people are. +You got a lot of say of the track of the game (multiplayer) by just playing. Everyone has the pressure    The strength of this game is based almost only on the multiplayer. The story is not worth remembering.
    PROS:
    +The multiplayer is very well balanced.
    +Amazingly wide variety of weapon customization.
    +The maps are pretty good. I'm not a fan of the large maps, but a lot of people are.
    +You got a lot of say of the track of the game (multiplayer) by just playing. Everyone has the pressure of making or breaking the game.
    +There are glitches. "Isn't that a bad thing?" you may ask. No, because it is hilarious!
    CONS:
    -The story sucks. I don't need to into detail, it's just bad.
    -The multiplayer isn't noob friendly. If you're new to FPS, get a CoD game with bots for practice.
    -The planes and tanks in the multiplayer are more of an annoyance then anything.
    -Web-based game, because EA hates their fans or something.
    -EA
    I don't know. Do like multiplayer? Get it. If you want a game with value, don't.    … Expand
  33. altruista
    Dec 8, 2013
    5
    http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/battlefield-3/user-reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    like, you must exactly follow the script makes singleplayer so

    pointless and boring. But hey, graphics are great.

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

    unbalanced rubbish. Graphics are great.    … Expand
  34. dyspeptic
    Jul 26, 2014
    5
    Last Played: July 2014
    PROS: + Not too hard, your standard shooter bloody goodness
    CONS: - Really stupid AI teammates hinder more often than help - Additional software required for online play (punkbuster) REVIEW: Note that this is only a review of the single player campaign, since you have to allow EA to spy on you to play online. Well, I'll be honest right from the start in saying    Last Played: July 2014
    PROS: + Not too hard, your standard shooter bloody goodness
    CONS: - Really stupid AI teammates hinder more often than help - Additional software required for online play (punkbuster)

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

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

    Sometimes EA offers the game free to hook you into buying the DLC. I'd say it's worth $0, but if you can't get it for this, pass.    … Expand
  35. deception
    Apr 25, 2014
    5
    2 балла за эффекты и более милую скушную одиночную кампанию. Мультиплеер коль его почти все так боготворили ранее чуть отличается от колдовского. Сказать честно мне совершенно не понравилось играть при синюшной цветокоррекции, постоянном смазывании экрана и большом колл-вом постоянно всплывающих спеццэффектов. Это всё эффектно и красиво, но абсолютно мешает разглядеть противника и играть с2 балла за эффекты и более милую скушную одиночную кампанию. Мультиплеер коль его почти все так боготворили ранее чуть отличается от колдовского. Сказать честно мне совершенно не понравилось играть при синюшной цветокоррекции, постоянном смазывании экрана и большом колл-вом постоянно всплывающих спеццэффектов. Это всё эффектно и красиво, но абсолютно мешает разглядеть противника и играть с комфортом вообще. Об изрядном доминировании странностей в виде багов и говорить не стоит. Физика. Баланс. Скушные карты. Бессмысленное времяпровождение за прокачкой. Всё это сводит меня сказать, что об Battlefield 3 слишком много рассказывали хорошего. И ничего интресного там нет. Пустая трата денег.… Expand
  36. dabyd1304
    Jan 12, 2017
    5
    *Análisis de la campaña individual.
    No tiene mucho misterio. Es otro shooter bélico moderno del montón. Con una trama de las mas flojas de todas pero algunos episodios medianamente bien construidos. Entretenido para un par de tardes pero sin que nadie espere nada que sorprenda por su calidad.
  37. Awanka
    Nov 24, 2020
    5
    I just finished this today in 2020, and I'm only rating the single-player experience, and it's the essence of "meh" mediocrity. The gameplay can be frustratingly clunky sometimes, and the story is by-the-numbers. There's more variety than most FPS games here, as you can play gunner in a plane or tank, but those experiences are actually kind of dull, albeit realistic.
  38. Jackie_Jackson
    May 26, 2022
    5
    Прошёл и забыл и потом забыл и прошёл а в мультик так и не поиграл прости хосспаде
  39. PenetratorGod
    Sep 1, 2023
    5
    I tried to play it recently but it's a very old game now. It may have been one of the most successful games of its time, but it's impossible to play now. Graphics may be dated, but the story in the single player campaign was pretty bad.
  40. Fastpoose
    Nov 11, 2011
    4
    I have had this game since release, and have spent easily over 45 hours in forums and tweaking my brand new BEAST of a pc, and I still get a RANDOM CRASH FREEZE every 2-10mins, that needs a HARD reset! When this game is patched and 99% of the bugs are crushed, this will be a 10/10 game. At present it's way to buggy and not yet worth the price of admission, it's a massive disappointmentI have had this game since release, and have spent easily over 45 hours in forums and tweaking my brand new BEAST of a pc, and I still get a RANDOM CRASH FREEZE every 2-10mins, that needs a HARD reset! When this game is patched and 99% of the bugs are crushed, this will be a 10/10 game. At present it's way to buggy and not yet worth the price of admission, it's a massive disappointment to not be able to play this properly on release with an amazing machine (and yes I have updated the drivers thanks EA/DICE...!!… Expand
  41. Bobic
    Nov 8, 2011
    4
    I'm sure that this game was made with the best intentions in mind. The singleplayer looks tight and well made, the multiplayer looks to be the best this year, and the graphics are fantastic. Why, then, did I rate this game so badly? It is, simply, unplayable. Due to bugs still left in the game 2 weeks after release and after beta, the game requires over 2GB vram to be playable at all (thisI'm sure that this game was made with the best intentions in mind. The singleplayer looks tight and well made, the multiplayer looks to be the best this year, and the graphics are fantastic. Why, then, did I rate this game so badly? It is, simply, unplayable. Due to bugs still left in the game 2 weeks after release and after beta, the game requires over 2GB vram to be playable at all (this is not mentioned in the recommended settings, which ask for a paltry 1GB), and without it, the will play smoothly for a few minutes before utilizing all the ram in the computer at once. Leaving a bug in that makes the game unplayable for so long makes me more than a little mad, and so, I am forced to dock more than a few points.… Expand
  42. noobr
    Nov 2, 2011
    4
    Rush maps make bad conquest maps and conquest maps make bad rush maps, sums the game up. There are no real stand out great maps, and the maps designed for other game mods are down right horrible. The destruction and general atmosphere of combat feel like a downgrade from BC2, with bullets to shells not penetrating obstacles that should be trivial and the lighting is just down right ugly.Rush maps make bad conquest maps and conquest maps make bad rush maps, sums the game up. There are no real stand out great maps, and the maps designed for other game mods are down right horrible. The destruction and general atmosphere of combat feel like a downgrade from BC2, with bullets to shells not penetrating obstacles that should be trivial and the lighting is just down right ugly. Infantry combat is well done, vehicles and aircraft are an embarrassment to Dice. All in all a waste of £40.… Expand
  43. darkballz_pl
    Nov 29, 2011
    4
    Game itself is an great looking and typical multiplayer, so don't expect any epic storyline in singleplayer - it's rather lazy tutorial. CoD's influence isn't the worst thing in this game, however it's absolutely not my taste. The annoyance is Battlelog, which makes me run internet browser to log in. What an brilliant idea... Seriously., whats next ? Will we have to run Windows MediaGame itself is an great looking and typical multiplayer, so don't expect any epic storyline in singleplayer - it's rather lazy tutorial. CoD's influence isn't the worst thing in this game, however it's absolutely not my taste. The annoyance is Battlelog, which makes me run internet browser to log in. What an brilliant idea... Seriously., whats next ? Will we have to run Windows Media Player in background to hear the sound and music in game ? Thats why i was so "generous" and gave it 4.… Expand
  44. Powderkeg40
    Oct 26, 2011
    4
    Visually this game is a 10 but the game play is a step backwards. 99% of people buy Battlefield for the multi-player so I won't even bother with the fail that is single player. Commander? Gone
    Squads remain in the game but are limited to 4 players and all the functionality from before is simply gone. Want to play with 1 or multiple other friends, on the same team, in the same squad?    Visually this game is a 10 but the game play is a step backwards. 99% of people buy Battlefield for the multi-player so I won't even bother with the fail that is single player. Commander? Gone
    Squads remain in the game but are limited to 4 players and all the functionality from before is simply gone. Want to play with 1 or multiple other friends, on the same team, in the same squad? Good luck with that. You can't join the squad of your choice. You can't join a friends squad and they can't join you. You must rely on luck to get in the same squad. In its current state BF3 seems to be designed for the MW2 crowd and they lost their identity in the process.
    To top it off you have to launch the game through a 3rd party web browser. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot is that all about?
    BF3 has potential but they need to fix the teamwork features of the game. Every previous battlefield title surpasses BF3 in the team play department.    … Expand
  45. Flowone
    Jan 13, 2012
    4
    I regret buying this game. First off you should know that this game launches on a 3rd party website. A website not a game, a website that keeps track of all your progress. I bought this game, expecting to play a Battlefield game, yeah didn't happen. All you get is a sad singleplayer experience with a completely unfair, unbalance multiplayer. Where 90% you are outmatch simply because theI regret buying this game. First off you should know that this game launches on a 3rd party website. A website not a game, a website that keeps track of all your progress. I bought this game, expecting to play a Battlefield game, yeah didn't happen. All you get is a sad singleplayer experience with a completely unfair, unbalance multiplayer. Where 90% you are outmatch simply because the opposite player has more equipment than you. There is so much customization that it completely destroys balance. Out of all the Battlefield games I've played, no, out of all the FPS multiplayers I've played this has to be the biggest pile of ridiculous I've been on. Where with previous Battlefield games destruction was a staple in the Battlefield diet it's now just a simple appetizer offering barely any destruction. With the ridiculous amount of customization, limited destruction, and huge maps where it would take hours to actually find any action you are left with just the spawn screen due to the incisive problem of camping. You thought it was bad in *insert game* you have no idea how bad it is in this game. You're expected to find someone prone on the ground in a bush on a map the size of Texas and only after you had to run 3 mile to a place just to get killed, sent back to GO, do not collect $200. Some people may argue "Oh you're not playing it right, be patient, don't leave your base", I bought this game for the action element in a First Person Shooter not a First Person Hide and Seek in a bush for 2 hours. Players on other FPS don't nearly camp this hard, not even in Modern Warfare! Save yourself the trouble and DO NOT waste your money on this game! There are plenty other brand new games coming out and if you were thinking about getting rid of Bad Company 2, DON'T!!! Bad Company 2's multiplayer game-play is 100x better than Battlefield 3.… Expand
  46. Falrinth
    Mar 19, 2013
    4
    Looks beautiful, but gameplay is not very well thought trough. It allows teams with squads supported by voice communication and superior unlocks simply steamroll the team with random players. No effective autobalancing, no voice chat for the random team... simply turns them into sheep for slaughter for the sake of several people's fun. Also cheap fun... cause winning against team whoLooks beautiful, but gameplay is not very well thought trough. It allows teams with squads supported by voice communication and superior unlocks simply steamroll the team with random players. No effective autobalancing, no voice chat for the random team... simply turns them into sheep for slaughter for the sake of several people's fun. Also cheap fun... cause winning against team who struggle to do even smallest of cooperation is hardly fun... its as fun as winning tennis match against blindfolded opponent. Also the overnerfs of stuff in this game making it only cosmetic (like the new plane AC130 or something like that... overnerfed main gun is as strong as throwing pebbles from very far on the vertical move on moving targets instead of making the plance a monster above battlefield even if only for a while now and then; or the snipers halogens mounted on scopes). But the poor autobalancing is the main thing that kills the game for any non-hardcore player that is playing with "clan".… Expand
  47. Moonstrider
    Apr 11, 2012
    4
    A game with great potential, but clearly done in a hurry just to be launched before CoD:MW3. To be honest, this is the best shooting experience I've ever had in a computer game, BUT... the game is haunted by bad decisions, bugs/glitches, balance problems and other rushed stuff. Maps are simply horrible; they decided to abandon the huge maps we've seen in previous Battlefield titles, andA game with great potential, but clearly done in a hurry just to be launched before CoD:MW3. To be honest, this is the best shooting experience I've ever had in a computer game, BUT... the game is haunted by bad decisions, bugs/glitches, balance problems and other rushed stuff. Maps are simply horrible; they decided to abandon the huge maps we've seen in previous Battlefield titles, and now we have close-quarters levels with a terrible design, worse than the ones seen in the Call of Duty series (see Operation Metro if you don't believe me). There is no VoIP, destruction is worse than in Bad Company 2, hit detection fails (you get shot even after entering cover), patches are rare and, until now, have only made the game's balance worse, specially for the vehicles, which have been nerfed to oblivion. And, of course, your character will suicide many times for absolutely no reason. I can't tell you to stay away from this game because it is, indeed, a really nice experience (if you have the Back to Karkand expansion, because the original maps are terrible and the next DLCs will take months to be launched), but seeing what Battlefield 3 is, and the huge potential it has, I must say it's a complete fail, and the developers don't seem to care about fixing the game. As for the Singleplayer/Co-op game modes, well... they're just horrible. Campaign is totally linear and the story isn't good at all. Co-op levels are few, short, and you can't communicate with your teammate; yes that's right, there's absolutely no chat system on the Co-op mode, you can't communicate by VoIP, nor by typing.… Expand
  48. AaronAction
    Nov 11, 2011
    4
    Not better than Call of duty at all. In ways the game is a rip off from previous titles like MAG. People are always so quickly to bash COD, but realisticly COD has much more maps, content and fun factor than any BattleField game. Don't waste your money on this game.
  49. Zanadar
    Oct 25, 2011
    4
    Look, I know this is a multiplayer game. I do. I understand that the singleplayer is little more than an extended tutorial. Did an hour of multiplayer and it was really great. But you put the crappy singleplayer in there as well, so I'm damn well going to address it. It sucks. I mean really, the lack of effort is glaring. Let's start with story. Ok, so we all know the story this entireLook, I know this is a multiplayer game. I do. I understand that the singleplayer is little more than an extended tutorial. Did an hour of multiplayer and it was really great. But you put the crappy singleplayer in there as well, so I'm damn well going to address it. It sucks. I mean really, the lack of effort is glaring. Let's start with story. Ok, so we all know the story this entire genre of games has. Story. Singular. The only thing that ever changes is if it's nazis, russians or terrorists. What's even worse is, it's told as a flashback within a retrospective. This method is not avanguard. It's not clever. It's not artistic. It's a bad idea, and it always was. Now, remember how in Bad Company 2 you usually had multiple avenues of approach? You could take the buildings on either side of the street just go for a frontal assault or clear that sawmill in any sequence you wanted, or in the desert mission pick which part to do first? Yeah, Bad Company 2 was linear. But it made an effort to pretend it wasn't. This game? Corridor shooter. I mean quite literally. I tried flanking constantly, every single time I was told "Leaving battlefield" and given a timer. Every time. The game is a sequence of corridors leading to slightly larger shooting galleries in which you're given no option how to approach the situation. You do it exactly in the one place the designer meant you to and that's. Then, enemies. Oh God this part is terrible. The enemies are inexcusable. First of all, all the terrorists are one guy. No, seriously. Every last one of them. The same model. Exactly the same. No difference. In two shooting galleries one after the other I stood crouched next to their spawn point and for a full minute each it went like this: Two identical clones enter. I shoot them both. Reload. Two identical clones enter. Repeat. This for a full minute each time. And most of the game is like this. So yeah, I'm sorry but if you didn't want people to judge this game on the singleplayer you should have stuck with the multiplayer, which is actually really good btw.… Expand
  50. Poerisija
    Oct 30, 2011
    4
    Pretty much disappointed in all the nonsense of tossing silly medikits around, sniper scope glares and brighter-than-sun flashlights. Also, the game is ugly. It's hiding it all behind a mass of light effects and bloom and hdr. Gameplay is nothing to write home about - it's BFBC2.5. Single player sucked balls, that's enough said.
  51. psyph3r
    Oct 30, 2011
    4
    Firstly, let me tell you that this game is awesome. The graphics, animations and sound are top notch.
    The campaign is mediocre but then if you bought BF3 for the SP, there's something wrong with you.
    Now the reason for the low score is that the game is totally unplayable. Sure there are some people who haven't had a single problem , you are the lucky ones and I envy you but there are 10    Firstly, let me tell you that this game is awesome. The graphics, animations and sound are top notch.
    The campaign is mediocre but then if you bought BF3 for the SP, there's something wrong with you.
    Now the reason for the low score is that the game is totally unplayable. Sure there are some people who haven't had a single problem , you are the lucky ones and I envy you but there are 10 more people for 1 of you who are not able to play the game for more than 5 minutes. The game crashes with a stuttering sound after 5 mins into a MP session. The stuttering on this game is unimaginable on certain high end cards as well. When i pay $60 to play a game i don't expect to spend 10 hours finding a solution to a problem running the game. Kudos to DIce and EA for not porting this from the consoles but your ignorance to customer grievances on Battlelog has to be brought to the forefront.
    You had an amazing game in your hands and you messed it up. Stay away from this title , atleast on the PC until these issues are rectified.    … Expand
  52. Cr4zy
    Oct 25, 2011
    4
    What could have been a great game seriously let down by the developers. Multiple issues that were reported from the alpha through the beta by many still exist. With bugs and glitches that were also not present previously. It honestly feels like a half finished game. Things that they should have known people hated from bf:bc2 completely ignored.
    The lack of basic things, no team balance, no    What could have been a great game seriously let down by the developers. Multiple issues that were reported from the alpha through the beta by many still exist. With bugs and glitches that were also not present previously. It honestly feels like a half finished game. Things that they should have known people hated from bf:bc2 completely ignored.
    The lack of basic things, no team balance, no option to select the squad you want. half complete features, for example commorose, missing simple things like requesting ammo or health, but even the options there can't be heard by your team so it is pointless.
    Game isn't built to be a battlefield any more, took too many ideas from cod. Now its suck in the middle doing a worse job then both and nothing better then either.
    That's just the MP, the SP is linear, boring and so heavily scripted, you can't do anything the game doesn't want.
    A hefty patch is the only thing that will fix this, thoroughly underwhelming and a massive disappointment.    … Expand
  53. TheEN4cer
    Oct 25, 2011
    4
    The overall experience with this game is average, it could have been FANTASTIC, if DICE had not copied other shooters in the market, to me this game is just a mix of Bad Company 2, Medal Of Honor, Call Of Dutty and Battlefield 2, all together in a nicer engine, that looks great butt not as great as they made you believe in all those nice trailers...
    The annoying battlelog combined with the    The overall experience with this game is average, it could have been FANTASTIC, if DICE had not copied other shooters in the market, to me this game is just a mix of Bad Company 2, Medal Of Honor, Call Of Dutty and Battlefield 2, all together in a nicer engine, that looks great butt not as great as they made you believe in all those nice trailers...
    The annoying battlelog combined with the unnecessary origin spyware app do not help either.    … Expand
  54. Crismodin
    Oct 25, 2011
    4
    If you were expecting a classic great menu system for the game good luck because there isn't one and the real disappointing thing about BF3 is you are forced to run the game through EA's Origin - Not standalone and not through STEAM - EA really dropped the ball on forcing all of its customers to run this through a beta version of a E-Game hosting service... Not to mention the menu-systemIf you were expecting a classic great menu system for the game good luck because there isn't one and the real disappointing thing about BF3 is you are forced to run the game through EA's Origin - Not standalone and not through STEAM - EA really dropped the ball on forcing all of its customers to run this through a beta version of a E-Game hosting service... Not to mention the menu-system for the game is all based online which makes you feel like you really got ripped off because it looks cheap trust me the only thing nice about it is Battlelog which is kinda cool but it's EA's way of saying here run Origin or Don't play the game.

    This is an OK game as it sits for the time being but yet it deserves a 40% rating due to several issues right now - First being that EA has released a game that has many graphical, gameplay, multiplayer, map, vehicle issues for instance green-flickers and being able to glitch through maps on multiplayer its nowhere near as smooth as it was shown in the previews that im sure everyone has seen. Granted it is a new game but the vehicle issues and the unrealistic nature of Battlefield 3 due to vehicles not producing realistic amounts of destruction and damage really hurt this titles reputation.

    To best describe Battlefield 3 would be a cross between Homefront and Modern Warfare 2 - Homefront being due to the graphical and sketchy gameplay and Modern Warfare 2 due to BF3 trying to cut in on some profits from MW3 which currently sits at a total loss to people who have bought this game (and yes I bought the limited edition BF3). I bought 2x EVGA GTX-580 SC cards specifically for this game and yet the texture draws and polished look this game should have isn't there and not to mention the annoying lag on multiplayer games that are supposedly low-ping.

    It has potential to be an awesome game but as it sits currently I wouldn't invest in it until it at least drops $20-30 or they fix hundreds of bugs and errors. Well that's all I have to say hope you found this somewhat useful.    … Expand
  55. Velsuan
    Oct 30, 2011
    4
    The first thing this game is doing well, it's the multiplayers mode. No doubt about that, that's an incredible experience, a satisfying one, especially in a squad with well known friends! And the good part of the review ends here. The rest of the game is a big letdown compared to Bad Company 2... EA is here to make money, offering a game that improve nothing, as they do with the sportsThe first thing this game is doing well, it's the multiplayers mode. No doubt about that, that's an incredible experience, a satisfying one, especially in a squad with well known friends! And the good part of the review ends here. The rest of the game is a big letdown compared to Bad Company 2... EA is here to make money, offering a game that improve nothing, as they do with the sports franchises. The campaign is a non inspired copy of COD Black Ops, with bad writing and bad acting. As fas as I'm concerned, the Vietnam expansion of the second game on the row was the pinnacle of the BF experience. Don't lose money and time on Battlefield 3, persist with BC2 and/or wait for MW3. BC3 is a frustrating experience.… Expand
  56. basstaverns
    Oct 30, 2011
    4
    What an utterly disappointing campaign. Total rip off of CoD, and after that huge marketing campaign to lead us to believe that it would be awesome. Take the plane mission for example - it looks fantastic, I've got a GTX570 and settings on high+, but the gameplay? Push either 1, 2, 3 or x when told to and that's it. It's like a smartphone app for toddlers. The whole thing is an utterWhat an utterly disappointing campaign. Total rip off of CoD, and after that huge marketing campaign to lead us to believe that it would be awesome. Take the plane mission for example - it looks fantastic, I've got a GTX570 and settings on high+, but the gameplay? Push either 1, 2, 3 or x when told to and that's it. It's like a smartphone app for toddlers. The whole thing is an utter embarrassment for Dice. In the word of Jonny Rotten: "Every get the feeling you've been cheated?"… Expand
  57. TheShooter
    Oct 30, 2011
    4
    I'm really disappointed from Battlefield 3. I'ts too CoD like. The MP is unbalanced, the Game **** up every 10 Minutes, on my High End Gaming Rig btw. The Single-player is too Short, and the AI is stupid. The Gameplay is not BF anymore, its not balanced. Where is the Commander? Where are all the great things from BF2 !? And the Sniper is useless in BF3, because after a time the scope isI'm really disappointed from Battlefield 3. I'ts too CoD like. The MP is unbalanced, the Game **** up every 10 Minutes, on my High End Gaming Rig btw. The Single-player is too Short, and the AI is stupid. The Gameplay is not BF anymore, its not balanced. Where is the Commander? Where are all the great things from BF2 !? And the Sniper is useless in BF3, because after a time the scope is reflecting the Sun to the Enemys, so the Sniper is easy to spot. A Crappy Game..... The CoD Hype has won, and killed BF...… Expand
  58. Lac3dHit
    Oct 30, 2011
    4
    BF3 created so much frustration for me that I just had Origin give me a refund. The online battlelog and server browser is beyond annoying. One simple rule of "keep it simple" was completely ignored to force this new platform on customers. The game itself isn't horrible but in my opinion it's not the best Battle Field. I don't expect a new game to play completely like another version butBF3 created so much frustration for me that I just had Origin give me a refund. The online battlelog and server browser is beyond annoying. One simple rule of "keep it simple" was completely ignored to force this new platform on customers. The game itself isn't horrible but in my opinion it's not the best Battle Field. I don't expect a new game to play completely like another version but the mechanics feel dumbed down and the air vehicles are lackluster. The recon class was changed for the worse, and over all I'm not a fan of a lot of the map designs or load outs. I'm not a Modern Warfare fan boy trying to write a bad review, I just think this game has implemented some very poor choices.… Expand
  59. BigDragon
    Nov 1, 2011
    4
    Battlefield 3 is a gorgeous and smooth multiplayer FPS that is fun to play if you have tons of time to devote to it and have been playing since launch day. I feel sorry for anyone who hasn't started playing yet or who will receive this game as a gift later this year since they are in for an experience equivalent to hazing.

    Battlefield 3 is deliberately abusive to new or below-average    Battlefield 3 is a gorgeous and smooth multiplayer FPS that is fun to play if you have tons of time to devote to it and have been playing since launch day. I feel sorry for anyone who hasn't started playing yet or who will receive this game as a gift later this year since they are in for an experience equivalent to hazing.

    Battlefield 3 is deliberately abusive to new or below-average skill players. Yes, there are weapons to unlock like previous Battlefield games. Unfortunately, DICE has taken a good thing to the extreme this time around. Did you know you can unlock faster firing speed for vehicles, faster reloads for vehicles, better body armor against explosives, faster sprinting, bipods that make your aim steady, and more? If you haven't started playing by now your enemy has all of these advantages. If you haven't started playing yet you don't have these advantages and will be constantly dominated by players who do have these advantages.

    Unfortunately, there is no way to avoid this immediate disadvantage. You must fight through ever-increasingly difficult odds just to try and rank up to the level of your opponents. By the time you get there they will scored so many points against you that the problem of imbalance will persist. This is not a game that features a level playing field. It goes out of its way to make it imbalanced whether you drive a vehicle or hoof it on foot. Even the vehicles have features that must be unlocked. Enjoy being a sitting duck in an armored vehicle as the enemy pelts you with a faster firing speed and missile that you haven't unlocked.

    I could add some commentary about maps in this game. I could add commentary about weapons and vehicles. None of that really matters when the core gameplay mechanics are this badly imbalanced. None of the game's content or performance matters when you join a multiplayer server and find that even your allies sprint right by, demand you let them drive a vehicle because it doesn't have unlockable offensive and defensive capabilities when you drive, or your friends refuse to play on your team because you're too far behind them in terms of unlocks and ranks.

    I cannot advocate for a game in which gives players advantages over each other. Weapon unlocks were a nice way to add diversity to the game. Giving players advantages the same way they unlock new content is absolutely brutal. This is not a game of skill or an objective-based team game -- it is purely about who can unlock the most content the fastest.    … Expand
  60. chasehigh
    Nov 1, 2011
    4
    SP was predictable boring and short. Graphics are great but thats mostly because of the horrible blinding lights. I wish there was a mp unlock for tinted goggles. Also this game is geared for hardcore players and hardcore players only. If your not a seasoned battlefield veteran prepared to get anal raped hardcore. It doesnt matter if you are good a video games you will still get crushedSP was predictable boring and short. Graphics are great but thats mostly because of the horrible blinding lights. I wish there was a mp unlock for tinted goggles. Also this game is geared for hardcore players and hardcore players only. If your not a seasoned battlefield veteran prepared to get anal raped hardcore. It doesnt matter if you are good a video games you will still get crushed into the ground if you haven't been playing the battlefield series. If your a gay casual gamer and like it up the butt than you will surely love the ass rape that is battlefield 3, otherwise I would stay away.… Expand
  61. vicious537
    Nov 1, 2011
    4
    This game is great...when multilayer works. The origin launcher is dumb and web interface is even worse. When I join games it works only about half the time, sometimes i get a illegal operation or it just freezes. They have turned this game into a console first pc second title which is messed up because it started on PC.
  62. slarson
    Nov 2, 2011
    4
    As somebody who played BF1942 for 3 years, then BF2, then BFBC1 and 2, BF3 seems like a step in the reverse direction. The pace seems slow which is unlike a Battlefield game, and besides the pretty graphics BF3 actually seems like it has worse gameplay than BF2. Definitely not what I've been waiting years for. And to think that DICE scrapped subsequent DLCs for BFBC2 to work on BF3.As somebody who played BF1942 for 3 years, then BF2, then BFBC1 and 2, BF3 seems like a step in the reverse direction. The pace seems slow which is unlike a Battlefield game, and besides the pretty graphics BF3 actually seems like it has worse gameplay than BF2. Definitely not what I've been waiting years for. And to think that DICE scrapped subsequent DLCs for BFBC2 to work on BF3. It's a pity, it could have been a great game. That coupled with EA's crappy connectivity client, which makes using Gamespy in the old days a joy compared to what they've presented for 2011, makes the experience very disappointing.

    I guess I'll move to other games and check back in a month or two to see if they've managed to fix the experience at all.    … Expand
  63. Ironkidz
    Nov 5, 2011
    4
    Before anything, let me say... BATTLELOG AND ORIGIN ARE HORRENDOUS!!! I cannot begin to explain how badly I wanted this game to be a blockbuster. How badly I wanted to play it through my Thanksgiving holiday. How badly I wanted to eat up every last bit of its great gameplay and graphics. But seriously, it was like a good looking Medal of Honor remake. I am talking some of the WORST AI andBefore anything, let me say... BATTLELOG AND ORIGIN ARE HORRENDOUS!!! I cannot begin to explain how badly I wanted this game to be a blockbuster. How badly I wanted to play it through my Thanksgiving holiday. How badly I wanted to eat up every last bit of its great gameplay and graphics. But seriously, it was like a good looking Medal of Honor remake. I am talking some of the WORST AI and gameplay in single player to date. If you hated Red River or Medal of Honor, you will equally hate the single player in this game. Just sad. Also, it is buggy, glitched, and very linear. I waited so long for this game, got it asap, and I would just as quickly return it if I could. It breaks my heart.… Expand
  64. bmxjumperc
    Nov 9, 2011
    4
    The singleplayer is unfinished (has a lot of bugs) wait for a year after release hopefully this game will have a patch. I've seen NPCs shooting without the gun geometry in their hands, NPCs walking through metal fences, the worst problem is that your squad NPCs takes cover in the exact perfect place that you need to take cover to progress through the scene and you can't move them (they'reThe singleplayer is unfinished (has a lot of bugs) wait for a year after release hopefully this game will have a patch. I've seen NPCs shooting without the gun geometry in their hands, NPCs walking through metal fences, the worst problem is that your squad NPCs takes cover in the exact perfect place that you need to take cover to progress through the scene and you can't move them (they're pieces of brick video geomotry) even worse whenever they have a path to follow they don't go around you they just push your avatar out of the way, it's the most embarrassing video game story to follow I've ever seen in a game of this generation with all of the spectacular visuals going on around you you can't navigate around your squad and they can't navigate around you. When you see your squad member running right at you then just continue the running animation right in your face as your avatar pushes out of the way you'll know what I mean.

    On the other hand if battlefield war is what you want then the multiplayer is inexplicabaly incredible, the best capture the flag that you can get right on your computer. Nothing like Battlefield: Bad Company 2 it has a completely different flowy feel to it. There's nothing like seeing a squad run across a road you're guarding waiting for cover from your squad knowing they're real people on the other side of the computer and if they see you it's completely unpredictable what any of them might do.    … Expand
  65. BombatPlayer
    Nov 9, 2011
    4
    This game has been rushed and butched. They lowered the treshold for casual player and now it no longer feels like a true BF2 sequel. More like BC3, but worst... A lot of bugs and glitches. Their mouse input code is flawed. This is pretty bad for a FPS. The art direction is really annoying: High contrast everywhere and blue tint. Lack of colours. DICE lied to their customers about manyThis game has been rushed and butched. They lowered the treshold for casual player and now it no longer feels like a true BF2 sequel. More like BC3, but worst... A lot of bugs and glitches. Their mouse input code is flawed. This is pretty bad for a FPS. The art direction is really annoying: High contrast everywhere and blue tint. Lack of colours. DICE lied to their customers about many things. They dont care anymore, they just pretend to care. They made a game to make money by reaching COD community but they lost their roots by doing that. VERY sad... R.I.P. Battlefield series.… Expand
  66. Durazell
    Nov 10, 2011
    4
    Unfortunately EA DICE is not able to deliver all of the many promises made by marketing. From a technical perspective this look like an unfinished game. The singleplayer campaign suffers from basic technical issues where story progression is impossible as certain criteria has not been fulfilled. In multiplayer, that is supposed to be the games one strength, the pervasive technicalUnfortunately EA DICE is not able to deliver all of the many promises made by marketing. From a technical perspective this look like an unfinished game. The singleplayer campaign suffers from basic technical issues where story progression is impossible as certain criteria has not been fulfilled. In multiplayer, that is supposed to be the games one strength, the pervasive technical deficiencies is even more obvious. Mainly clipping is a issue where you can be shoot because from you point of view you are in cover, while you opponent has an unobstructed view for a kill. If you are new to the first person military shooters there are other more balanced games available.… Expand
  67. Huega12
    Nov 10, 2011
    4
    All may be upsets with the fact that the single-player was not up to par with most campaigns in other games but Battlefield has and always will be a multiplayer I recommend this game to everyone, it's the best shooter of the year,graphics, beautiful enviroments, excellent and realistic sound effects. And a really superb, fun, action packed and strategy based gameplay with really goodAll may be upsets with the fact that the single-player was not up to par with most campaigns in other games but Battlefield has and always will be a multiplayer I recommend this game to everyone, it's the best shooter of the year,graphics, beautiful enviroments, excellent and realistic sound effects. And a really superb, fun, action packed and strategy based gameplay with really good single player and co-op modes and just an awesome multiplayer mode with so much freedom of choice and tons of unlockables.
    Grat game    … Expand
  68. Verdan
    Apr 9, 2012
    4
    I played this game trought in singleplayer. I also tested out Multiplayer. Let´s go over basics. This game has awesome graphics and overall layout over. It´s pure eye candy and lovely in that. Why such low rating? Well singleplayer started out amazing...Sick start that caught attention...Sadly that´s it. Another "terrorists has the nuke" game. II played this game trought in singleplayer. I also tested out Multiplayer. Let´s go over basics. This game has awesome graphics and overall layout over. It´s pure eye candy and lovely in that. Why such low rating? Well singleplayer started out amazing...Sick start that caught attention...Sadly that´s it. Another "terrorists has the nuke" game. I choose normal difficulty and most of the time i got myself killed. Quess that is the reality of war, you are stupid and die...It was boring. Overall campaing left me bored and i quited it couple of times before finishing. Like bad company 2, most of it just repeated itself over and over. Multiplayer wise game is awesome, sadly i dont enjoy that type of gameplay. It´s awesome, but not for me. Was some solid action for couple of hours, but that´s it.… Expand
  69. polpolmax
    Nov 15, 2011
    4
    Dissapointing short single player mode , so the graphic i expected better.
    Nice climatic multiplayer mode. I thing the things reach limits are to small.I would like to play longer to ecomplish a target. Very hard to fly jets. Very easy to destroy a tank with bazooka .
    Why soldiers survive hit in chest with dragunow ?
  70. bigbramble
    Nov 21, 2011
    4
    Where are the bots? Where is the 4+player coop?

    I feel I need to write this view as a big group of gamers are being ignored in relation to this game and many other FPS games. COOP gamers that want to play as a team against the computer. I greatly enjoyed playing the other games in the franchise, particularly 1942 and Vietnam as I would play the vs bot modes with my friends for many    Where are the bots? Where is the 4+player coop?

    I feel I need to write this view as a big group of gamers are being ignored in relation to this game and many other FPS games. COOP gamers that want to play as a team against the computer.

    I greatly enjoyed playing the other games in the franchise, particularly 1942 and Vietnam as I would play the vs bot modes with my friends for many hours. This latest version has a pretty dreadful 2 player only coop mode and no bot mode like the other games had. I find this disappointing. I admit I am not the best player in the world, nor the worst but I find the player vs player modes too frustrating on this game and get fed up of being killed without even seeing where the shot came from.

    EA if you want to see what consumer base you are missing out on having as customers, look at world of warcraft for example. It is a game with both player vs computer and player vs player modes. Which is more popular? Player vs computer.

    This is made all the more frustrating by the fact this game looks incredible, sounds incredible, has great vehicles and weapons. Unless I am willing to partake in the steepest learning curve ever and get repeatedly destroyed by some 'uber' 13 year old I am basically unable to take advantage of this.

    This makes this game the most frustrating currently in existence.    … Expand
  71. infinityxgamer
    Nov 22, 2011
    4
    I was really looking foward to this game, but it kinda disappointed me. It is an OK game but apart from the graphics, there wasn't very much that convinced me to keep playing.
  72. guitargeek
    Dec 2, 2011
    4
    I'd like to start saying i wish there was a satisfaction guarantee return policy for this game. I'd definitely use it. Someone in game referred to it as 'a piece of s#!t rolled in glitter'. Pretty harsh, but once you get past how good the game looks, BFBC2 was a much better game. Better maps, mostly better weapons, and sniper class has taken a fall with scope glint, no magnum ammo, and theI'd like to start saying i wish there was a satisfaction guarantee return policy for this game. I'd definitely use it. Someone in game referred to it as 'a piece of s#!t rolled in glitter'. Pretty harsh, but once you get past how good the game looks, BFBC2 was a much better game. Better maps, mostly better weapons, and sniper class has taken a fall with scope glint, no magnum ammo, and the new bullet drop animation can be a nuisance to tell where the bullet is hitting. The game has frequent issues such as 'stopped working' which i've noticed has been an issue for some people since launch, yet all they offer in response is 'google chrome's fault, or x-fire's fault'. Essentially what could have been a great game is still fairly beta quality, presumably due to trying to release before MW3. While this move may have worked for sales of this game, it will hurt long time followers of the battlefield series who, at this point, want nothing more to do with them.… Expand
  73. SilreV
    Dec 3, 2011
    4
    the game started with a lot of potential and I loved it at first. (I solely point my arrows on the multiplayer) everything seemed balanced, I needed to find my place in the chaos.

    but once I found my place in the chaos I found al those little things that bugged me. 1. jets are practically indestructible when there isnt A) a anti air vehicle present B) another good pilot c) a **** load of    the game started with a lot of potential and I loved it at first. (I solely point my arrows on the multiplayer) everything seemed balanced, I needed to find my place in the chaos.

    but once I found my place in the chaos I found al those little things that bugged me. 1. jets are practically indestructible when there isnt A) a anti air vehicle present B) another good pilot c) a **** load of engineers with stingers.
    2. engineers should be nerfed or make all classes engineers. the reason I say this is that they can kill everything. they can equip mines and rockets. there carbines are insane. they are what you say one man army's
    3. recons are raped in this game, I played recon in BC2 and its a difficult class to play I loved the snipes across the map considering the bullet drop and determing the path the player would walk. the mortar was a game turner. what we get now is the soflam only usefull when there is a engineer with a stinger. and is paying attention. and that is the problem with this multiplayer game, they expect it to be teambased combat. but it isnt most of the players are lonewolfs. one can blame the players. I blame the developer for creating a environment which allows this. I am still a fan of minus points. are you being a dickhead and you want to kill a lot of ppl instead of getting to the target you get a penalty. that is what I call realistic. in the army they arent happy with triggerhappy nutsacks.

    last thing I have to say is that the so called destruction in this game is at a minimum, remember in bc2 where you can level almost a whole map.. that isnt in bf3 and that was for me such a let down. if there was lots of destruction in this game I could live with my earlier made points. but the lack of it , I cant play it anymore it gets on my nerves more then I enjoy it. back to BC2 I say.    … Expand
  74. Enormo
    Dec 23, 2011
    4
    First let me say that I'm a huge fan of the Battlefield series. I didn't buy BF3 to stomp it. I'm also not giving up on the game just yet. But there are some gameplay dynamics that really have me frustrated.

    1.) Weapon upgrades make it a frustrating grind for new players. The weapons for new players are so inferior that they don't really stand a chance against the better    First let me say that I'm a huge fan of the Battlefield series. I didn't buy BF3 to stomp it. I'm also not giving up on the game just yet. But there are some gameplay dynamics that really have me frustrated.

    1.) Weapon upgrades make it a frustrating grind for new players. The weapons for new players are so inferior that they don't really stand a chance against the better weaponry/accessories... let alone better weaponry/accessories wielded by someone with 100 hrs more playing time than you. BF2 BC had it right. There should be an incremental jump between default and unlocked weapons... better weapons should help you go from 10 -12 to 12-10. Not 4-14 to 14-4.

    It makes tactics worthless because it takes 2-3 times longer to kill players with better weaponry. So even when you shoot them from the side or back, they have time to turn around and waste you no problem.

    2.) Terrain physics. At first I was all for how it's difficult to see enemy players on the terrain compared to BF2 BC. Seemed way more realistic and tactical. Unfortunately, the ability to hide encourages lots of camping. Players are invisible in shadows and completely disappear in foliage. For a lot of players it means bush league tactics. Maybe this is my video card setup but I don't think so.

    3.) Maps. The maps are super detailed. But the abundance of nooks encourage camping. The unbalanced weapons for new players compounds this like crazy.

    4.) Mini map on hard core. This is also another killer of tactical game play. Why should you be smart about out tactical positioning when you can just look at the minimap and see where opponents pop up? Granted, I have access to the mini map too. I could use it. But I don't want to because it takes me out of the gameplay experience. In the past BFs I liked the fact that I could rank high because I played a smart game. Now the game just feels like a dumbed down run around like a chicken with your head cut off spray fest.

    5.) Net code. I'm tired of shooting others 4 or 5 times and then dying when it seems like they shot me once. Or dying when I'm on the other side of an impenetrable barrier.

    6.) At medium or long distance, BF2 BC rewards controlled bursts of fire. It really made the game play feel tight/smart. BF3 rewards going full auto all the time... especially with the upgraded weaponry where there is little to no recoil. This makes the game (namely HC mode) feel way less tactical. It cheapens it.

    6.) Overall, the gameplay feels out of control compared to BF2 BC. It doesn't feel like a team mounting an attack on another team. Its a bunch of individuals running around on full auto killing other individuals with inferior weaponry. I know BF2 BC had it's flaws, but what it did as a whole was to create a sense of narrative in a battle. You could feel the eb an flow of the battles and because of that it often encouraged players to fight strategically even if they weren't intending to play as a team.

    I would go back to BF2 BC if there new maps released on a semi-regular basis. As it is, the same old maps are growing old. Maybe it's time to pull some old FPS's out of the bin and see what they offer as far as smart tactical game play.    … Expand
  75. Shinigami_UA
    Dec 5, 2011
    4
    Firstly, single player. In one word: BORING. Lots of scenes, fluid movements, lots of talking but it doesn't want you to play any further. Been there, seen it.
    Next, multiplayer. Firstly, the main problem. Client-side hit register. If your enemy hits you on their screen, you die regardless of your actual position on your screen. This, basically, defeats the whole purpose of having    Firstly, single player. In one word: BORING. Lots of scenes, fluid movements, lots of talking but it doesn't want you to play any further. Been there, seen it.
    Next, multiplayer. Firstly, the main problem. Client-side hit register. If your enemy hits you on their screen, you die regardless of your actual position on your screen. This, basically, defeats the whole purpose of having dedicated servers - your ping doesn't matter, if they killed you a while ago but you only saw it now because of THEIR large ping, its your problem. Its the reason I stopped playing COD:MW2 (p2p multiplayer, client-side hit register), its the reason I didn't buy COD:MW3 (same p2p). Its the reason I'm trying to get a refund on BF3 now.
    Other things to mention about MP: huge but empty maps, multi-layered buildings that prevent you from seeing the outside (its too bright), tanks that are nearly indestructible to infantry (3 rockets to kill it in hardcore - you'll just die), planes that have no purpose other than fighting other planes (they can't capture points, can't deliver more than 1 player to a point).
    Hardcore is no longer hardcore. You don't get infinite health, but the minimap is ALWAYS on, minimap spotting lights you up as soon as you fire a gun, killcam (which reveals your position) is almost always shown, sniper scope glare makes it easy to find the sniper no matter how good their cover is. And best of all - the most powerful sniper rifle still doesn't kill with 1 bullet. Even assault rifle HEADSHOT won't kill them with 1 hit. What kind of hardcore mode is this?
    Class balance is simply awful. Medic gets it all: infinite health with medkit, 100 points per revive (same as a kill), grenade launcher (replaces medkit), assault rifles (!). Support now has only light machine guns and... ammo packs! And thats it! As a result support is now least popular class, in many cases there is no one to ask for ammo. Recon is same good old sniper, engineer is same good old rocket launcher guy.
    Weapon balancing is simple: the more you progress, the better the gun. Surely you can hit and even kill with anything, but F2000+IRNV = undefeated. Add ability to put a silenver and 3rd attachment to it and you'll know it simply defeats the purpose of tactical gameplay. You can just rambo it all. In BFBC2 we couldn't rambo 24/7 because best gun was in the hands of support and medkit was in the hands of medic, and you could only find cover when being shot at by a sniper - hard to tell where they were. But at least they didn't kill you with client-side hit register (you could run into cover and it did prevent you from being hit).
    I am amused at people who are able to play this game for 100s of hours. I'm trying to get a refund to buy something else.    … Expand
  76. TheTacoShack
    Dec 6, 2011
    4
    I feel this game was quite a disappointment on many levels... I think you should just stick with Bad Company 2. Might be worth a $20 buy later down the road.
  77. Lionhearted
    Feb 3, 2012
    4
    Awesome game, untrustworthy mechanics.

    I love the realism, options, progression and over all feel of the mechanics and delivery are spot on. I won't play the game again. I don't trust the servers or developers to offer fair gameplay. Hackers, cheaters and severely unbalanced gameplay make this game a fairly self defeating experience. If EA delivered trustable hack proof servers, which    Awesome game, untrustworthy mechanics.

    I love the realism, options, progression and over all feel of the mechanics and delivery are spot on.

    I won't play the game again.

    I don't trust the servers or developers to offer fair gameplay.
    Hackers, cheaters and severely unbalanced gameplay make this game a fairly self defeating experience.

    If EA delivered trustable hack proof servers, which they never will.

    I could definitely be coaxed back to playing.    … Expand
  78. LoadedWeapon
    Feb 16, 2012
    4
    I'm sad by this game, huge battlefield 2 fan, and reading the glow, I get the feeling allot of people have not played BF2. The graphics are great. the single player is scripted CoD stuffs. and multiplayer is basic. and here is the issue I have, Battlefield 2 MP was GREAT, and Battlefield 1942 MP was GREAT! Where's commander mode? or being spec opps putting sack charges on enemyI'm sad by this game, huge battlefield 2 fan, and reading the glow, I get the feeling allot of people have not played BF2. The graphics are great. the single player is scripted CoD stuffs. and multiplayer is basic. and here is the issue I have, Battlefield 2 MP was GREAT, and Battlefield 1942 MP was GREAT! Where's commander mode? or being spec opps putting sack charges on enemy artilaryand sacoms etc. I won't even go into the awesomeness of driving aircraft carriers in 1942, will DICE ever be able to return to those days? looking like a strong no. I hope one day someone will bring a proper battlefield to those of us that started with the franchise. perhaps a mod?… Expand
  79. Jraptor
    May 19, 2012
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. It is always saddening when a game over-hypes itself. Not only will it be impossible to live up to the expectations, but the workforce will also have to try to create this "perfect" game. This is exactly the life style of Battlefield 3. Between the flame wars they started with Activision, and EA quickly becoming more and more greedy, the idea of a perfect game was much more fantasy than reality. Now, with that said: the gameplay is mildly solid, the maps are fairly good, and the weapons are far more diverse than ever. However, the game's multiplayer itself is not at all solid. The game boasts several animation glitches, very poor servers, and the same amount of overpowered weapons as the Call of Duty series. In addition, the destructibility of the maps are nowhere near the usual amount for a Battlefield game. Bad co. 2, the prequel if you do not know, had the ability to obliterate entire buildings with explosives, crush walls with tanks, and destroy several walls with vehicle guns. In this game, all buildings will remain standing magically. While I can understand this from some perspectives, this adds more problems then it solves. Campers are now a problem in Battlefield, the battlefield becomes stoic and unchanging, and hiding from vehicles is easily possible. Now, when it comes to story, as interestingly told as it is, it's still the same thing as every single modern game just rehashed and labeled "Battlefield 3." Here it is: Soldier goes to some war-torn place, gets evacuated, enemies steal a nuke, there's a betrayal, one nuke goes off, other is sent to NYC, you chase it, defeat the person who stole it, and walk away as the only survivor... The end. See? The same story as almost every single FPS game. It gets boring.

    While the game is fun for a while, on PC, that is, it gets boring, stoic, and less than fun. Unless the price goes down immensely soon, or it comes to steam, I would highly not recommend it.    … Expand
  80. anonlike
    Jul 7, 2012
    4
    This is a perfect example of a good franchise made casual. I was a big fan of the battlefield series. starting from battlefield 1942. It is clear EA has a tight grip on DICE. A month after release I might had given this a 8/10. Fanboyism makes blind. But after a while I started realizing they have made the franchise utter sh*t by simplifying the game they obviously attracted a new userThis is a perfect example of a good franchise made casual. I was a big fan of the battlefield series. starting from battlefield 1942. It is clear EA has a tight grip on DICE. A month after release I might had given this a 8/10. Fanboyism makes blind. But after a while I started realizing they have made the franchise utter sh*t by simplifying the game they obviously attracted a new user base. and by that I mean a bunch of casual COD kiddies. This doesn't Make anything better. I DICE even still had some of it's PC fanbase after battlefield: Bad Company. they have certainly lost it now. Also with EA's glorious DLC plan they have certainly stept in COD's footsteps. $15 for a couple of maps. With BC2 vietnam DLC they actually gave us a whole new experience. But the (upcomming) DLC's from BF3 are just ridiculous... It could have been in the original game. But no the allmighty EA had decided otherwise. DICE has literally sold their soul to EA. Lastly the Premium. as if the franchise hadn't copied enough of COD allready, EA wanted their own "Elite" service. It contains all the DLC that's going to be available, Ok that's pretty nice. But then they also have queue jumping. premiums get priority in queues over non premiums. So many knives in our backs, I can't keep track of it. I've literally waited a half hour in a queue to get on my favorite server because I got pushed back the whole time by premiums. This is just so mean to everybody who bought the game. And wait there is more! double xp weeks!! (have I said casual allready?) . everything that Battlefield once was, is now lost. the franchise might have 2 more succesfull titles with their new fanbase. But then it's over. EA will throw DICE in the garbage bin, just like they did with Pandemic.… Expand
  81. Back2Real
    Oct 27, 2013
    4
    If you enjoy playing with 63 snipers per game, you should buy this game.

    Snipers are extremely overpowered, and no one plays anything else than sniper.
  82. Remlap
    Oct 2, 2012
    4
    Battlefield 3 was supposed to be the
    game of the century. It was supposed to bring
    with it the best graphics and the best story of any first person shooter in recent history, but it didn't. Electronic Art's Digital Illusions CE (EA- DICE) has long led the sector in realism, drawing you into the war, evoking emotions previously reserved for games scripted almost as much as movies. In    Battlefield 3 was supposed to be the
    game of the century. It was supposed to bring
    with it the best graphics and the best story of
    any first person shooter in recent history, but it
    didn't. Electronic Art's Digital Illusions CE (EA-
    DICE) has long led the sector in realism, drawing you into the war, evoking emotions previously reserved for games scripted almost as much as movies. In Battlefield 3's campaign mode, however, the gameplay is slow, predictable and doesn't make you feel as though you are making a difference. The multiplayer game is sculpted so carefully that it would be concievable to forget that it was pre-made at all.
    The multiplayer game is incredibly chaotic, often trancending the constraints of a traditional video game, with small actions radically changing the simulated world and rendering some strategies and equipment useless, while simultaneously granting opportunities people using others. Many items in the maps are destructible, so a well placed RPG can destroy almost any sniper nest, an accutate pistol shot can destroy a helicopter, and a exellently piloted helicopter can take on a small army. Boats, Planes, Anti-Aircraft Guns, Helicopters, Tanks, JAVELIN missiles, and hundreds of guns are ready for use, a well put together social interface (BattleLog) allow for infinite combinations, and the scoring system favors teamwork over kamikaze raids.
    Battlefield 3 brings with it many annoyances, and thousands of quirks. The beautiful graphics and chaotic multiplayer almost outweigh the lack of a decent campaign mode, but alas this game fits into the category filled with thousands of games made for quick and easy fun, lacking challenge, and full of cliched elements. Battlefield 3 was expected to be the next iteration of the interesting and innovative game-play of the previous Battlefield games, not the repetitive and annoying habits of cheap action books, movies and games. The wow factor of the graphics can almost overcome the problems, but DICE has grown weary of the fight, and has decided that one botched campaign cannot possibly cause them to lose their grip on the gaming battlefield.    … Expand
  83. sofgrant
    Dec 5, 2012
    4
    Battlefield 3, for me was a huge waste of time. Sure the graphics were pretty, but the single player was an utter bore and a shadow of a familiar plot line. The plot line reeks of "we couldn't really be bothered". As for the multiplayer, I purchased the Limited Edition and found I could not activate back to Karkland. When I tried to get it activated they never bothered to do anything aboutBattlefield 3, for me was a huge waste of time. Sure the graphics were pretty, but the single player was an utter bore and a shadow of a familiar plot line. The plot line reeks of "we couldn't really be bothered". As for the multiplayer, I purchased the Limited Edition and found I could not activate back to Karkland. When I tried to get it activated they never bothered to do anything about it despite contacting them about the issue. Furthermore, the comments about how great the multiplayer is are a fantasy cooked up in the minds of those craving another battlefield title. Battlefield 1942 was amazing and innovative on release, Battlefield 3 is another same old, same old with the added ability to fly planes and drive tanks. While entertaining at times, I'd hardly call it 'original'. It really was nothing special for me and has further disinterested me in the first person shooters that are spewing out of the publishers these days.… Expand
  84. Marsu1
    Dec 17, 2012
    4
    I preordered this game hoping to get teamwork. It felt balanced to me and I played this happily with my friends. Then DICE started patching this game and it has gotten worse ever since. They claim that they fix stuff that they dont fix. Sometimes Í fall from 2 meters and die, other times I can jump from the third story and survive. Then they did the complete overhaul making everyI preordered this game hoping to get teamwork. It felt balanced to me and I played this happily with my friends. Then DICE started patching this game and it has gotten worse ever since. They claim that they fix stuff that they dont fix. Sometimes Í fall from 2 meters and die, other times I can jump from the third story and survive. Then they did the complete overhaul making every weapon behave differently than I had gotten used to. The release of Premium made me quit playing all together after playing about 400 hours. DICE screwed me over by telling me it was developed for the PC first, even though it was not. It does not have ingame VOIP, no dedicated servers, and no moddability. Last I heard they where going to release a patch to remove the blue tint, but they canceled it. If the game would have been developed for the PC it would have been the best BF to date, and I would probably still play it.… Expand
  85. OTipsey
    Jan 13, 2013
    4
    I want to like this game, I really do, but there is ONE thing that keeps that from happening: I can not play it on my computer because I use an Intel HD graphics card. It says it can run at around a medium-high setting, but it lags horribly, even with the graphics settings as low as they can be. Sure, most games don't recognize the card, but they still run very well when I adjust theI want to like this game, I really do, but there is ONE thing that keeps that from happening: I can not play it on my computer because I use an Intel HD graphics card. It says it can run at around a medium-high setting, but it lags horribly, even with the graphics settings as low as they can be. Sure, most games don't recognize the card, but they still run very well when I adjust the settings to what the card can do. The last time a game lagged like this it was because of dust getting on the card. You could have a card+processor that can run Total War: Shogun 2, but if it's Intel, you will have 3 FPS on low settings. While looking at the ground.… Expand
  86. BlimeyOmega
    Feb 16, 2013
    4
    Great graphics. However, this game isn't as great as its the earlier battlefield series. The game was changed many ways to attract COD players. Teamwork is missing. Simply a huge letdown for battllefield fans.
  87. glinkot
    Mar 7, 2013
    4
    This game can deliver some great moments particularly in multiplayer. Graphics are fantastic also. The thing that lets it down is the client side collision detection, which makes things a lot more of a lottery than they should be. Ducking behind a wall only to die afterwards just creates a sense of dissatisfaction that is hard to work with.
  88. Ndi
    May 6, 2013
    4
    When I first picked up BF3, I was pretty amazed. Dynamic campaign, starts off strong, with a few linear stuff to show off, the throws you into jet, tank, on foot, plenty of weapons, and with a decent framerate. Wow, I thought, where have you been all my life?

    But then it started to show how much they really put into it. It's a bad port. Controls revert to defaults mid game, in    When I first picked up BF3, I was pretty amazed. Dynamic campaign, starts off strong, with a few linear stuff to show off, the throws you into jet, tank, on foot, plenty of weapons, and with a decent framerate. Wow, I thought, where have you been all my life?

    But then it started to show how much they really put into it. It's a bad port. Controls revert to defaults mid game, in cutscenes, in quick time events. I HATE quick events. HATE!!! When I mapped my keys to arrows, right shift, right control and mouse and you ask me to quickly press "E", I am going to miss it. Again. And again, And again.

    Here's the thing. If you make me mash the keyboard in anger, you are not a fun game. Period. I don't care you threw in a SP just to make a dent. If you wouldn't have, I would never have picked it up. I want single player to see the game, then, if all is right, I go on multiplayer. And SP is a disappointment. Unfinished story, annoying characters, tons of names, what is this? I died 4 times in the story. Who am I? Why am I fighting? Am I Miller? Jim? Bob? Jim-Bob? I'm Jim-Bob, aren't I? Dear God, I'm Jim-Bob.

    The Russian guy said to shoot the other guy and all I thought was "Ok. Who's he?" Then other people start screaming. "Go left". Who are they? Seriously, I need a notepad to keep up. Also, they give bad advice. I died doing what they said. Also, what is this "left mission area" stuff? You sent me to flank and the side of the road is off-limits? What am I, 7 again? I'm not allowed to the end of the driveway?

    By the last mission, I died 3 times. In the last mission, I died maybe 20 times. Poor scripting, poor controls, someone simply could not be bothered to finish it.

    And I don't agree that you are a multiplayer game so I should eat the SP and shut up. You used that as a selling point and now it sucks. If you serve me a nice steak with moldy potatoes, I'm sending it back. I don't care the steak is the selling point.

    I guess multiplayer is OK,which is why it gets a "barely" score. 8 for the MP, 5 for the SP, and a big fat zero for not taking the time to make sure CONTROLS WORK in a game.

    Seriously, game has been out a year and a half. I STILL have to go to the forums to find a way to pass a 4 hour campaign. Can anything be any more of a middle finger to me giving you my money?    … Expand
  89. Sam3336
    Sep 30, 2016
    4
    Battlefield 3 campaign doesn't compare to battlefield 4 campaign, The multiplayer may be good but....
    I found the campaign just plain boring, the story was poor and the weapons are no way near as good as battlefield 4.
    The optimization is fantastic and graphics are supreme for its days!
    I only recommend this for the pvp not campaign
  90. kndr
    May 23, 2021
    4
    Nice destruction physics and big open areas. There is also blue filter which somehow fits the game.

    But other than those it is meh.
  91. Suprizer
    Apr 22, 2023
    4
    really sadly this game shows its age... Back when first releised this might be great but now near unplayable everything is better at 4. Story was nice tho had some great moments.
  92. Demandmore
    Nov 4, 2011
    3
    Battlefield Bad Company 2 was a better game in every respect, that's all you need to know, how can you take such a big step backwards? It's even buggier than BC 2, one can only wonder if it was Dice or EA who's responsible for making this game a mess. The game industry is taking everything that's bad about Hollywood and incorporating it.
  93. Ian277
    May 17, 2012
    3
    I Played it and enjoyed it for a while. the patches made it difficult to master and now it has gotten to the point where the patches have made the game... suck. i know it sounds dumb but it seems wall glitches and all sorts of fun things plague the game since the patches. it is basically a glorified MW3. i dont like COD either. it use to be fun and rewarded good players but i cant doI Played it and enjoyed it for a while. the patches made it difficult to master and now it has gotten to the point where the patches have made the game... suck. i know it sounds dumb but it seems wall glitches and all sorts of fun things plague the game since the patches. it is basically a glorified MW3. i dont like COD either. it use to be fun and rewarded good players but i cant do anything. some guns are awfully OPand stupid. the game is very unrealistic as well. i dont care if you can blow things up it is not realistic. now many light machine guns and assault rifles can out shoot a sniper at great distance so sniping is **** dumb to do. I cant get anywhere with people with light machine guns shooting through walls if i am moving. so i dont play anymore. **** THIS GAME. it was fun but still i hate it now.… Expand
  94. GottFaust
    Oct 25, 2011
    3
    Let me preface this by saying that the multiplayer (which is why people buy battlefield games) is amazing. It's better in every way than it's predecessors. The graphics are phenomenal and it runs quite well on a modern PC. The controls are tight, responsive, and make sense. Granted the singleplayer leaves a lot to be desired but, then again, this is a battlefield game. You have to expectLet me preface this by saying that the multiplayer (which is why people buy battlefield games) is amazing. It's better in every way than it's predecessors. The graphics are phenomenal and it runs quite well on a modern PC. The controls are tight, responsive, and make sense. Granted the singleplayer leaves a lot to be desired but, then again, this is a battlefield game. You have to expect sub-par single-player experiences in battlefield games. Why did I give this game a 3 after praising it so highly? Origin. Origin is probably the worst idea to ever come out of the cesspool of bad ideas called EA. It's laggy. It's buggy. It's slow. It crashes more than RAGE did on an ATI card at launch. It's in no way, shape, or form user friendly. It records and sends entirely too much personal information to EA. Worst of all: all EA games released on the PC from this point will only be available on this utter pile of garbage. Sorry DICE, you've lost a long time customer by agreeing to use this sorry excuse for an "online platform."… Expand
  95. Avoh
    Nov 5, 2011
    3
    The Good: Gun Customization, Vehicles, Graphics, Soldier Camo, Individual/Squad Perks, Suppression System (decreases your accuracy/vision when being shot at), Squad System (minor bugs in it)

    The Bad: Hit Detection (major game breaker, no fix yet), Weapon balancing (example: assault rifles beat sniper rifles), Random Game Crashes (no fix yet), Destruction System is decent, but not fully    The Good: Gun Customization, Vehicles, Graphics, Soldier Camo, Individual/Squad Perks, Suppression System (decreases your accuracy/vision when being shot at), Squad System (minor bugs in it)

    The Bad: Hit Detection (major game breaker, no fix yet), Weapon balancing (example: assault rifles beat sniper rifles), Random Game Crashes (no fix yet), Destruction System is decent, but not fully implemented yet (wtf, beta part 2?), Map redesigning required (alot of "meat grinder" areas on maps), bad community, user-interface needs a redesign, Vehicle Perk/Unlock rebalance, Server stability needs improvement, more co-op missions needed (only 6 right now)    … Expand
  96. Kordesh
    Oct 29, 2011
    3
    What could have been an otherwise great FPS has been utterly marred by the road to its release and the marketing wrapper that it has been smothered with. The game itself looks/sounds fantastic and is fun, if not a bit samey (though the single player may as well not have been there as its more of a movie/tutorial than anything). That being said, what users were forced to endure because ofWhat could have been an otherwise great FPS has been utterly marred by the road to its release and the marketing wrapper that it has been smothered with. The game itself looks/sounds fantastic and is fun, if not a bit samey (though the single player may as well not have been there as its more of a movie/tutorial than anything). That being said, what users were forced to endure because of EA's bullheadedness is unacceptable. Between the privacy concerns and the the fact that EA has decided to use their publisher clout to strongarm their failed and rebranded EA Store into relevancy by forcing it on everyone by making big name titles like this require it, is just short of a direct attack on the sensibilities of the gaming community. I only wish the gaming community was united enough to send a message to these people and let them know this is not competition, this is leveraging power to remove choice, and that between removing our options and not having the decency to ask us to opt in, rather opting to invade our privacy, this whole scenario has been egregiously NOT OK.… Expand
  97. Emiraly
    Oct 26, 2011
    3
    The game's single-player is more linear, glitcher and worse than any CoD game, which is saying ALOT. Being a hardcore fan of BF2, BF2142, and BFP4F, I found the multi-player extremely unsatisfying with less UI features than 5-6 year old videogames, EA Origin, missing classes, really mediocre MoH 2010 gunplay, and glitched vehicle combat. I uninstalled it after 10 hours in Open Beta and theThe game's single-player is more linear, glitcher and worse than any CoD game, which is saying ALOT. Being a hardcore fan of BF2, BF2142, and BFP4F, I found the multi-player extremely unsatisfying with less UI features than 5-6 year old videogames, EA Origin, missing classes, really mediocre MoH 2010 gunplay, and glitched vehicle combat. I uninstalled it after 10 hours in Open Beta and the full game is just as disappointing. [[[Whats sad is EA forced reviewers not to release negative reviews until after the game's release week.]]]… Expand
  98. holodoc
    Sep 15, 2013
    3
    Making a lengthy comment about what exactly sucks in this game would be a pure waste of time so I will make it short. Battlefield 3 is all about visuals and forgetting the most important thing in an FPS game netcode and hit detection. Sure, other online FPS games have their share of problems when it comes to hit detection but never in my twenty five years of gaming have I seen such poorMaking a lengthy comment about what exactly sucks in this game would be a pure waste of time so I will make it short. Battlefield 3 is all about visuals and forgetting the most important thing in an FPS game netcode and hit detection. Sure, other online FPS games have their share of problems when it comes to hit detection but never in my twenty five years of gaming have I seen such poor implementation of it. You will get one-shotted by a shotgun from 100+ meters away which is a huge stretch even for buck ammo and loose a chest to chest fire fight with an MG against a 9mm gun. You will also experience sudden deaths even a second or two after you've reached safe cover because the client-side hit detection system does a poor job of synchronizing what happens on both players sides the one that is shooting and the one that takes cover. How can anyone expect to play a fast action game like an FPS when what I am seeing is not what the other guy sees?

    If it wasn't for this huge problem Battlefield 3 would probably get a score around 8/10 or even 9/10 but when you screw up such an important thing like hit detection in a game that is primarily meant to be played in multiplayer... Well.. 3/10 for me.    … Expand
  99. vochaisl
    Oct 29, 2011
    3
    The 3 points go to the amazing singleplayer and multiplayer combined with stunning graphics. The -7 points go to EA's invasive Origin where it scans, mines absolutely every data possible.

    NO, EA, this is not how you **** with the gamers!
  100. Phyber
    Oct 25, 2011
    3
    great graphics but its NOT what i excepted from a FROSTBITE 2 engine. single player is failure all the way. in my opinion game was developed too fast to fit just before next call of duty...
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 »