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. colonelpepper
    Dec 12, 2011
    0
    cannot be patched unless you use EA. Also, this is a port to the PC rather than a true build... I don't game on the PC to get the poor quality of a console. FAIL
  2. Cyberz
    Oct 30, 2011
    7
    It's a great game but it needs some fixes!!
    In few patches it will be 9-10 !
  3. soundalot
    Nov 9, 2011
    2
    This game is a complete let down, the graphics took a back seat, the multiplayer is laggy and clunky,and the story mode is a rip off from black ops. Don't believe the reviews and save your money, rent it and experience it for yourself. Not to mention the servers suck, i hope EA gets their act together next time.
  4. kolaborr
    Nov 10, 2011
    10
    great gamegreat gamegreat gameg
    at gamegreat gamegreat gamegreat gamegreat gamegreat game great gamegreat gamegreat game

    great gamegreat gamegreat gamegreat gamegreat gamegreat game
  5. osoichan
    Nov 12, 2011
    6
    The gameplay is awesome same as graphics but game crashes a lot. I get disconected in almost all games and my stats just fade away. I feel like playing buggy beta ver. I get pissed cause of this crashes.
  6. Bela9a
    Jul 11, 2013
    9
    I think this is the best FPS on the market right now. It just looks amazing. MP is fun and enjoyable. SP is the weak spot of the game because of it is too linear and easy like for me when I got the fps right I just could shoot the AI far too easy and I am really bad at shooters. I take the last review of the game back because of my experience and think that they did a good job to deliver aI think this is the best FPS on the market right now. It just looks amazing. MP is fun and enjoyable. SP is the weak spot of the game because of it is too linear and easy like for me when I got the fps right I just could shoot the AI far too easy and I am really bad at shooters. I take the last review of the game back because of my experience and think that they did a good job to deliver a good game.… Expand
  7. tolucafreak
    Nov 13, 2011
    1
    Great graphics although the constant frame issues, the pathetic unfinished multiplayer, the **** that is Origin and Battlelog give the game a terrible experience. To be honest gameplay can be fun but man seeing everyone run to a damn vehicle is pure stupidity. Then there are constant server issues. You know you pulled out so many Alphas and Betas and could have fixed this. Not trying to beGreat graphics although the constant frame issues, the pathetic unfinished multiplayer, the **** that is Origin and Battlelog give the game a terrible experience. To be honest gameplay can be fun but man seeing everyone run to a damn vehicle is pure stupidity. Then there are constant server issues. You know you pulled out so many Alphas and Betas and could have fixed this. Not trying to be a hater but makes me feel like they focused more on the Frostbite 2 engine then anything else.… Expand
  8. Elvis_Lynx
    Nov 15, 2011
    0
    LOL!!!! EA bought critics and hired people for bad user's reviews for CoD MW3. BF3 has Bug on Bug, not finished and still raw, but it have so "Wonderful" reviews. It's so obviously, that EA just use black piar for their money makig machine, parasite on franchise.
  9. bonyjose
    Nov 19, 2011
    8
    just remember this.."graphics not madeup a game...it's the gameplay and smooth playing that matters....very disappointing game....expected much from this game and disapponited me so much.......
  10. 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.
  11. RageQuitEA
    Dec 9, 2011
    2
    Battlefield 3, despite all its flaws, is a pretty neat game. The online play looks like fun, the weapons look like they would be great, and the scenery looks like it would be fun to hide in. I say looks like, because since the release date I've only been able to play for at most 2 or 3 rounds at a time...constantly plagued by CTD's, Lag, Rubber Banding on some servers and disappearingBattlefield 3, despite all its flaws, is a pretty neat game. The online play looks like fun, the weapons look like they would be great, and the scenery looks like it would be fun to hide in. I say looks like, because since the release date I've only been able to play for at most 2 or 3 rounds at a time...constantly plagued by CTD's, Lag, Rubber Banding on some servers and disappearing textures. My rig is below recommended but far above minimum. It seems that DICE, defying all logic, has released two client side patches which nerf/buff certain weapons in game, but have introduced a host of new issues with game stability - the game will freeze within a few minutes of entering a server, and then hard lock my system.

    Origin, EA's Steam like service if fine - I really don't care about running it...what bothers me is the restrictive access that EA gives you when it comes to your ownership of the game. You are forced to tie your game account to your origin account, which binds your email to both accounts. Your game is launched through Battlelog, EA's web browser based server system and social network. Here's where the fun really begins.

    Battlelog is, as far as I can tell, the most bloated piece of software ever created. The server browser in a webpage model is utter lunacy. You need to have Origin running, to launch the browser which launches the game. Not too mention that if you should be in breach of EA's TOS on their Battlelog forum, welcome to the banhammer. Swearing or any other minor infraction will get you an unexpected 72 hour forum ban WHICH ALSO MEANS YOU CANNOT ACCESS ANY OF YOUR PAID GAMES FROM EA! In some cases, users have been reporting permanent bans for no reason, other than comments posted on Battlelog. Permanent bans mean YOU LOSE ALL YOUR PURCHASED EA GAMES!

    This for me is the most distracting problem with the game. Please be warned before purchasing Battlefield 3, your EA games can be at risk if you choose to visit their forums and break the rules. In conclusion, wait until this game is in the bargain bin. There are better companies to support with your hard earned cash, and better games which don't have the glaring technical problems that BF3 has.    … Expand
  12. Avoryx
    Dec 13, 2011
    3
    This game is pretty, and has good sound.
    when you are in a squad of your friends it can be really fun online.
    The problems is the games story mode is really subpar. When you are alone online the multiplayer feels cold and isolating. Other then everyone running around the world feels lifeless. It feels like you are in a cold computer render world, instead of feeling like you are in a    This game is pretty, and has good sound.
    when you are in a squad of your friends it can be really fun online.
    The problems is the games story mode is really subpar.
    When you are alone online the multiplayer feels cold and isolating.
    Other then everyone running around the world feels lifeless.
    It feels like you are in a cold computer render world, instead of feeling like you are in a real world.
    The environments don't feel like places people ever functioned in.
    If you love online shooters, don't care about the story, and have a lot of friends online all the time to play with it can be great.
    But that is a HUGE "if"...    … Expand
  13. 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
  14. los_majklos
    Nov 11, 2012
    0
    Hello, my first time to rate a game I didnt play, because I refuse to buy it. Battlefield is my favourite title and I played the BF2BC like 490 hours... So I was a pretty big fan, but then when the EA started it's massive media massage I lost the interest completely. There were two messages: 1. Battlefield 3 is flat-out superior to COD - which speaks about some very serious complex outHello, my first time to rate a game I didnt play, because I refuse to buy it. Battlefield is my favourite title and I played the BF2BC like 490 hours... So I was a pretty big fan, but then when the EA started it's massive media massage I lost the interest completely. There were two messages: 1. Battlefield 3 is flat-out superior to COD - which speaks about some very serious complex out there in EA studios. 2. It's the best game and you have to own it. Personally, I don't believe that the best people are those, who say they are best. BF got raped massively, and the result is unbelievably expensive game, which no one of my first-person shooter friends actually plays. It's not on steam. So sure about themselves. Damn EA.

    It was just the dummiest most stupid kind of mass marketing I've ever seen. And behind it a game full of bugs, half-finished at the release, for astounding 50 euros... C'mon, you can't be serious.    … Expand
  15. whitespider999
    Feb 16, 2012
    8
    This game has an average singleplayer campaign. It's good. It's pretty. It's nothing more than that. Do not purchase this for it's singleplayer. I do reccomend you play it, it's enjoyable enough. However as a singleplayer game alone it's a 6. However, this game is all about the online mode. And that is fantastic, however still not perfect. The problem I have with online is it's lack ofThis game has an average singleplayer campaign. It's good. It's pretty. It's nothing more than that. Do not purchase this for it's singleplayer. I do reccomend you play it, it's enjoyable enough. However as a singleplayer game alone it's a 6. However, this game is all about the online mode. And that is fantastic, however still not perfect. The problem I have with online is it's lack of evolution. A lot of things have been successfully tweaked, and it's been given more of a stat friendly modern day layering. However the core game has not been truly evolved. In this specific case, I don't mind that much. The deeper physics, mindblowing visuals, and immersion of a battlefield - are all higher than they have ever been. Combine that with longterm play viability due to an incredibly rewarding rewards system - and it's a harmony worth it's entry price and then some. Reccomended. I'd like to see battlefield evolve more however.… Expand
  16. bone333
    May 8, 2012
    2
    I feel somewhat like a cry baby, but this is the third EA game I bought in the last month and they ALL SUCK! This crashes regularly on my 3.16 GB Intel Duo w/ 4 GB ram and dual Nvidia Gforce 9800 GT. When it doesn't crash the single player campaign leaves you trapped in a hallway with no doors to open. It starts out great, don't get me wrong, but the crashing and bugs make the singleI feel somewhat like a cry baby, but this is the third EA game I bought in the last month and they ALL SUCK! This crashes regularly on my 3.16 GB Intel Duo w/ 4 GB ram and dual Nvidia Gforce 9800 GT. When it doesn't crash the single player campaign leaves you trapped in a hallway with no doors to open. It starts out great, don't get me wrong, but the crashing and bugs make the single player a class A turd. Friendlys drop dead for no reason. The sound cuts in and out. Save points are poorly designed. The person in charge of QA should be eviscerated. I'm done with EA. When is Valve coming out with something new?… Expand
  17. Ritchie
    Feb 15, 2012
    1
    Graphics are great, sound fx are great. But the game have a lot of bugs and crash all the time. It is hard to find a good server with people playing and the battlelog system sucks. I paid 50% of the price and still dont worth the money.
    EA and DICE made a good scam with this game.
  18. MonkofMajere
    Jun 21, 2012
    10
    There aren't many games that have been made to date that I believe deserve a perfect score, but Battlefield 3 is one of them. Unlike most First Person Shooters that are released nowadays, BF3 manages to be unique and fun to play. The class system, the most prominent feature of the older Battlefield games comes back, but with an amount of customization never seen before. The single playerThere aren't many games that have been made to date that I believe deserve a perfect score, but Battlefield 3 is one of them. Unlike most First Person Shooters that are released nowadays, BF3 manages to be unique and fun to play. The class system, the most prominent feature of the older Battlefield games comes back, but with an amount of customization never seen before. The single player of the game is fun, but it's definitely apparent (and anyone who knows anything about the primary Battlefield series to know that this is true) that the focus was on designing the games multiplayer. In addition to the single player, the added co-op is enjoyable as well, giving a useful distraction from the multiplayer when needed. All in all, this is by far the best FPS that has been released in several years and a breath of fresh air when compared to other recent FPS releases.… Expand
  19. MrElve
    Nov 11, 2011
    8
    Brilliant game. Brilliant graphics. Brilliant soundtrack. The ONLY thing which seriously lets this game down is it's multiplayer. It can still be very very buggy and battlelog can sometimes be completely unfunctional. Other than that, Great game!
  20. DeGreZet
    Jun 23, 2012
    7
    http://forum.cdaction.pl/index.php?autocom=blog&blogid=2556&showentry=36612
  21. 410MaXiMuS
    May 10, 2012
    10
    Battlefield vet here... been around since Battlefield 1942 and have played every single Battlefield since then, including the Bad Company series. Battlefield 3 is is simply amazing, 10 / 10. The fact that this game has 587 negative reviews is no surprise though.... this is a thinking mans shooter. This is not a run-n-gun cooridor shooter like COD. This game throws you into massiveBattlefield vet here... been around since Battlefield 1942 and have played every single Battlefield since then, including the Bad Company series. Battlefield 3 is is simply amazing, 10 / 10. The fact that this game has 587 negative reviews is no surprise though.... this is a thinking mans shooter. This is not a run-n-gun cooridor shooter like COD. This game throws you into massive environments and leaves it up to you to decide how to help your team win. You have to move from cover to cover and you have to work with your team.… Expand
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. Wellbag
    May 16, 2012
    3
    Battlefield games used to be about using your skills, the vehicles and the environment to play a strategic way to finish of a round so that your team will get the victory. Now with Battlefield 3 that is thrown in the dumpster. Now Battlefield is about as strategic as a fish bowl animation. Bought the game at launch and it took almost 2 week before the game was playable during to the factBattlefield games used to be about using your skills, the vehicles and the environment to play a strategic way to finish of a round so that your team will get the victory. Now with Battlefield 3 that is thrown in the dumpster. Now Battlefield is about as strategic as a fish bowl animation. Bought the game at launch and it took almost 2 week before the game was playable during to the fact that you must have a online connection to play the game, Even the singleplayer mode yes. The multiplayer is almost Modern Warfareish with bigger maps and not that fun to play actually. +Graphics
    +Audio


    -No commander mode
    -Server issues from hell
    -No strategic gameplay elements
    -Horrible game balance between vehicles and infantery, yes it's more real but less fun because it takes a billion rockets to blow up a tank.
    -No battlerecorder even thou it's announced
    -Non interesting singleplayer.    … Expand
  25. shadowoflight
    Dec 1, 2011
    6
    1st of all, fanboys: don't hate.

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

    COD and BF are 2 different games.

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

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

    Anyway.

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

    The music sucks, but the sound effects were great.

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

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

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

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

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

    All in all not worth the money if you're looking for a single player adventure. I really can't speak for the multiplayer community though.    … Expand
  27. tandex
    Dec 11, 2011
    6
    The campaign is simply frustrating to play, since it runs on rails most of the time. The quick time events were innovative 12 years ago in Shenmue, but in BF3 the first person view and lack of control is just disorienting and a waste of time. It's not possible to think your way through any situation, you just have to follow the tracks. The story from start to finish was not engaging.The campaign is simply frustrating to play, since it runs on rails most of the time. The quick time events were innovative 12 years ago in Shenmue, but in BF3 the first person view and lack of control is just disorienting and a waste of time. It's not possible to think your way through any situation, you just have to follow the tracks. The story from start to finish was not engaging.
    Multiplayer can be addictive, the mechanics haven't changed much since BF2. The gameplay is polished and looks and sounds fantastic. Some of the first maps are a bit too closed in, as I was expecting to play on the full map size. A gamepad works well for airborne vehicles. You'll want to have a book when you're loading up the multiplayer, since the server browser takes a few minutes to actually load into a game. Don't pay full price for the game, but wait for a good sale instead. You'll need a broadband connection to download the 4GB patches that have come out recently.    … Expand
  28. meediocre
    Oct 1, 2013
    8
    The single-player is a great cinematic on-rails experience, but utterly forgettable and lacks any depth, challenge or fun. If you see it as more of a tech demo and trainer for the multi-player then you can award a degree of sympathy. So then, multi-player is where the real action is going down, and wow it sounds and looks awesome. Tactically engaging and perilous. The maps are huge whichThe single-player is a great cinematic on-rails experience, but utterly forgettable and lacks any depth, challenge or fun. If you see it as more of a tech demo and trainer for the multi-player then you can award a degree of sympathy. So then, multi-player is where the real action is going down, and wow it sounds and looks awesome. Tactically engaging and perilous. The maps are huge which fantastic for scale, but sometimes you will find yourself roaming around looking for people to shoot. You can pick up a helicopter or jet if you're lucky but good luck trying to control those things from ending up embedded in the terrain, and on fire. Work as a group, squad or team is lots of fun and there can be some genuinely intense fire-fights and tense situations. Sometimes though it's just too much and some of the maps have bottlenecks where everyone convenes upon. Would like to see some AI Bots as an option, so that some of us can get some multi-player practice and get to learn the maps, and a death-cam where you can actually see who shot or killed you would be nice. All told, this is solid and addictive FPS online game. Call of who?… Expand
  29. 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.
  30. 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
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 »