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
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 »