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. 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
  2. east_stand
    Mar 27, 2012
    0
    Untill you bring us back the previous way to play the game is COMPLETELY useless!!! Guys don't let you be blackmailed by the game dev. Simply because the wake-up one day and thought:"Oh, lets make some more money, from the gamers!!!" Great game, ruined by its creators!!! TRAGIC!!!
  3. GlugGlugHic
    Nov 13, 2011
    2
    I had a lot of high hopes and did fall into the wave of hype. Now that I own the game and have played it since release, I feel that I've been taken for a ride. It may look a little better than BFBC2, but it really is the same game. Yes there are different maps and I can see my boots when I jump over a fence....but..... The single player campaign is terrible and very very very short.I had a lot of high hopes and did fall into the wave of hype. Now that I own the game and have played it since release, I feel that I've been taken for a ride. It may look a little better than BFBC2, but it really is the same game. Yes there are different maps and I can see my boots when I jump over a fence....but..... The single player campaign is terrible and very very very short. The only thing that made it feel longer was the stupid keystrokes to get through certain maps (hit space, then left mouse botton). Man I miss the old BF days when you had the enemy AI drones running around. Multiplayer is larger, but that is it. The interface is awful, looks and feels disjointed from the game. Since there are so many other posts about gliches and poor release quality, I'm not going there. Overall, diappointed.… Expand
  4. allday
    Nov 19, 2011
    1
    Given the state of this game, now I understand why BF3 released a Beta before the BF3 or MW3 release. BF3 is loaded with bugs, to include serious video issues; I cannot play using SLI. Very demanding game as hardware is concerned. Spawn camping makes multiplayer unplayable. I just wasted 60 bucks for this garbage that looks great!
  5. StraightEdge
    Nov 20, 2011
    0
    I'm a big fan on Battlefield but both Bad Companys and this abomination are not worthy enough to wear the name Battlefield. Everyone who voted 10 have obviously never played real FPS games.
  6. jokerz1979
    Mar 27, 2012
    0
    This should have been the best FPS ever. Single player is average, but I only bought this game for the multiplayer. And at first it met expectations, plenty of unlockables the steep learning curve I love it gives a real sense of satisfaction, rare in games today. HOWEVER this game was far from finished before release and full of bugs. Where to start issues range from niggly-not being ableThis should have been the best FPS ever. Single player is average, but I only bought this game for the multiplayer. And at first it met expectations, plenty of unlockables the steep learning curve I love it gives a real sense of satisfaction, rare in games today. HOWEVER this game was far from finished before release and full of bugs. Where to start issues range from niggly-not being able to join a online game as a squad with friends, crashes plenty too, Annoying-lag and hit detection.. To damn RAGING the game became unplayable due to glitching - spawning WITHOUT a gun. This is the worst experience of gaming in my life. I am not alone, the battlelog forums are crammed with complaints and can only advise not to touch this game. Shame. one word review-BROKEN I personally feel DICE have taken a big dump on their customers heads and an apology/explanation is long over due.… Expand
  7. wr2
    Nov 5, 2011
    0
    The game's SP campaign clearly represents the rare case when you hate your comrades more than your enemies. Oh, wait, you hate not your comrades, you hate the stupid programmers who scripted them to become unstoppable bulldozers pushing you out of cover and right under enemy gunfire. Seeing a good firing position behind a reliable cover? Wait, don't rush to it yet, there is a very goodThe game's SP campaign clearly represents the rare case when you hate your comrades more than your enemies. Oh, wait, you hate not your comrades, you hate the stupid programmers who scripted them to become unstoppable bulldozers pushing you out of cover and right under enemy gunfire. Seeing a good firing position behind a reliable cover? Wait, don't rush to it yet, there is a very good chance that bot scripting guy saw it too. Because, you know, his bots are more valuable than your stupid character, and he hadn't bothered to think about your natural moves, so you will be squeezed out indefinitely. The real problem is quite simple: there is no advanced AI for NPCs. Or, rather, there is no AI at all. Bots from both sides follow predestined routes, kill each other at predestined times, your actions don't affect anything at all, and playing at hard difficulty means that in tight spots you have to memorize bots' moves, then carefully maneuver among them. If you break the script somehow, say, by staying behind your squad, you will eventually find out that enemy stops moving. They are out of scripted moves and have no idea what to do next. I know this is a multiplayer game, all right. But what's the point of adding a single player campaign if its only accomplishment is total frustration among gamers?… Expand
  8. nitai007
    Nov 2, 2013
    0
    best multiplayer to date!!! its a fantastic game that after playing 160 hours, doesnt get old. the multiplayer is just so awesome!!!! there are tons of vehicles, weapons and accessories. the maps are awesome and mostly have great design. there are few places were the design feels a bit flawed but overall its great and every map feels unique. in its launch the game had a lot of stabilitybest multiplayer to date!!! its a fantastic game that after playing 160 hours, doesnt get old. the multiplayer is just so awesome!!!! there are tons of vehicles, weapons and accessories. the maps are awesome and mostly have great design. there are few places were the design feels a bit flawed but overall its great and every map feels unique. in its launch the game had a lot of stability issues but it s ok now. the netcode (some kind of code in the game) isnt so good. for instance you can get shot even if you got into cover or the game wont do your reload even if you just saw the animation. this moments arent so bad, but in my opinion thats what holds this game back. the game is also a bit glitchy (though they patch it a lot. the multiplayer also has these amazing epic scenes that you get from playing (theyre name is battlefield moments). theyre not artificial and thyre really awesome and epic.
    the campaign is good, though pretty linear. the story is told in flashback (i dont really like this and isnt really special but its good enough to keep you in it. the missions are cool, even if near the end they can get a bit repetetive (the way shooters tend to do). the game is also beautiful, and one of the best looking games i have ever seen both in multiplayer and singleplayer). the games textures and effects are amazing, and they the game to a new level. there are also 6 co op missions, which are pretty fun.
    overall an extremely good game and one of my favorites. it has the best multiplayer to date!! the campaighn is also pretty good, if you want a multiplayer game buy this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!    … Expand
  9. Kreebog
    Oct 28, 2011
    6
    Frustrated. Campaign mode is utter crap and there appears to be no local server mode at all, no way to enjoy private games with friends without renting a server, and no way to allow people to practice, explore, or learn how to fly the helicopter and jet. Online multiplayer is fun, though always a mad scramble for vehicles. Otherwise, it's really not much different than other genre titles.
  10. Guka87
    Nov 16, 2011
    0
    Battlefied 3 - is a pathetic parody of Call Of Duty. The plot is identical to the campaign in Call Of Duty: Black Ops, special operations copied from Modern Warfare 2. The only plus is the multiplayer, but it's full of bugs and flaws. EA and Dice have to work and work.
  11. greanthai420
    Mar 6, 2013
    0
    Should be renamed to call of field bad company 3.
    Plays nothing like the pre- bad company battlefields.
    Trying too hard to make itself look serious by attracting casual audience from call of duty.
  12. hornerh2o
    Nov 8, 2011
    0
    Really. Boring. Gameplay. Takes forever just to find a guy to shoot. no, this game is TERRIBLE. At least call of duty is better than this crap. fast and nice gameplay, and MW3 got rated better than this crappy thing. hahaha,
  13. iNemo
    Nov 5, 2011
    0
    Callofdutyfield: Bad Company. Dumbed down in every respect. CoD style gameplay (CoD is a bad word for any serious pc gamer, and deservedly). Might be considered a successor for Bad Company but certainly not for bf2. Hardcore mode feels like easy/normal.
    Singleplayer total joke.
    Killing of medic class worst idea ever. Now everyone has either medpack or paddles. They boast they promote    Callofdutyfield: Bad Company. Dumbed down in every respect. CoD style gameplay (CoD is a bad word for any serious pc gamer, and deservedly). Might be considered a successor for Bad Company but certainly not for bf2. Hardcore mode feels like easy/normal.
    Singleplayer total joke.
    Killing of medic class worst idea ever. Now everyone has either medpack or paddles. They boast they promote teamplay by killing off medic class, the only dedicated team player???!!!!??
    Destruction worse than bc2. Building collapse still heavily scripted and debris is not persistent or interactive. Can't destroy a fcking chair with tank shoot.
    Jets fly at speeds you never know if pilot isn't doing a free fall kamikaze suicide run.
    Sound is realistic. So realistic it hurts the game. Explosions sound a lot worse than bc2 and most guns sound similar or downright same.

    ...and many many many more flaws...

    I cannot see this game be played for more than 2 years from now. Compare that to bf2 which is still actively played today (6 years after release). Mark my words in 2 years time there's bf4, and then 5,6,7,8,9.....lack of mod tools is meant to deny the community to prolong the lifespan of this game by correcting fundamental flaws so that EA can dish out new battlefield every 1/2 years (CoD). The excuse they made for not releasing the mod tools is a total insult....I could go on like that forever. Not touching any other EA game, only through torrents.    … Expand
  14. CarlosEmir
    Nov 12, 2011
    0
    general assessment: the graph of the game is simply fantastic and the sound is just as good.
    The interesting thing about this "revolution" is that it pushes the next game to another level and that is good for us players. Regarding the sound, I just remember another game that made â
  15. iAGR
    Nov 16, 2011
    3
    Realism just doesn't seem to work for a game. It ruins all the fun, which is why I chose MW3 over BF3. MW3 is fun and fast-paced, and you'll play it a lot longer than you think. As for Battlefield 3, there's nothing to unlock. Basically the game remains on the same level from start to end. You start to feel frustrated along the game, because it feels like you're stuck and you're notRealism just doesn't seem to work for a game. It ruins all the fun, which is why I chose MW3 over BF3. MW3 is fun and fast-paced, and you'll play it a lot longer than you think. As for Battlefield 3, there's nothing to unlock. Basically the game remains on the same level from start to end. You start to feel frustrated along the game, because it feels like you're stuck and you're not reaching anything. You're not being rewarded. No titles, no emblems, nothing. It's boring.… Expand
  16. DaGleese
    Mar 18, 2012
    0
    Everything that Kislen said +1, apart from i think after this event i WILL be boycotting EA and DICE games, this was their last chance to redeem themselves.

    The netcode is absolutely terrible, and i class the game as unplayably broken. The game is now 6 months old since official release, and still in this poor state. I would employ anybody reading this who also suffers form this    Everything that Kislen said +1, apart from i think after this event i WILL be boycotting EA and DICE games, this was their last chance to redeem themselves.

    The netcode is absolutely terrible, and i class the game as unplayably broken. The game is now 6 months old since official release, and still in this poor state.

    I would employ anybody reading this who also suffers form this appalling netcode issue to write their own zero-score review... who knows it may actually push DICE to fix the damn client side hitreg.

    Unfortunatly as it stands the game has very favourable reviews, and i was suckered into believeing them on here, as i understand it, not everybody is suffering from the netcode issues, but enough people are for it to warrant some serious attention from DICE.

    But i know from playing for the last 2 months that even if the netcode is fixed, the game is still very boring at heart, it looks good, but thats about it, once you know the maps and have unlocked about 3 guns with each class, you have seen it all really.

    If i were to write a list of things that need to change in this game to make it worth even a $20 price tag it would look like this: LIST OF THINGS THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE; EVERYTHING! Origin client sucks... battlelog sucks..... glitchy hoping over walls not working 50% of time sucks..... getting stuck joging on the spot because a slightly large pebble is at your feet sucks..... glitchy knife not working 50% of time sucks..... really horrible gun recoil sucks....... overpowered vehicles sucks...... unfair net play due to high pingers gaining an advantage sucks...... downgrade in environment destructibility from BC2 sucks...... bland weapon unlocks sucks..... repetitively bland unlocks sucks....... unlocks just suck anyway...... mouse lag in jets sucks..... 99% of players being campers sucks...... no sniper cap sucks.... suppression sucks...... All the things mentioned are issues you will experience all the time in every single server you play on... The game is just bad... Avoid it if you still can, and if you bought it and are having any of the issues, don't forget to rate it negatively, and help warn others unfortunate enough to even be contemplating purchasing this CON of a game.

    The 'game' gets a zero from me, and i usually believe that no game in the world deserves 0 points, however this is an exception for me, because of the false promises that EA and DICE fed the pc community; (the very people that funded their earlier games, and put them where they are today)
    EA announced that the pc version would recieve special attention vs it's console counter parts, that was complete BS! yeah, we get 64 player servers..... that's all... and it's a shame we can't even enjoy those 64 player matches with such bad netcode..... The truth is that EA are just a money hungry corporation, and really don't care about your experience in their games, they have my money now for bf3.. and they don't give a damn about my (or any other customer's) problems, i would give this game a minus figure if i could, and for the experience i've had playing this POS, I don't think i'd even play it if i was getting paid to.... it's just not worth risking my mental health    … Expand
  17. sandpenguin
    Nov 8, 2011
    0
    Played this sorry excuse of a game for a while yesterday. The funny thing is I had yet to realize this was the exact same game I've been playing for two years. New multiplayer modes? Yeah, there are a bunch, none of them interesting tough. How about the singleplayer? Same washed up Michael Bay on steroids you would expect from a game nowadays. Where are the good old days where goodPlayed this sorry excuse of a game for a while yesterday. The funny thing is I had yet to realize this was the exact same game I've been playing for two years. New multiplayer modes? Yeah, there are a bunch, none of them interesting tough. How about the singleplayer? Same washed up Michael Bay on steroids you would expect from a game nowadays. Where are the good old days where good gameplay was defined by skill, and not the ridiculous amount of over the top killstreak rewards and perks someone can have? This game, no, this franchise is scarred and beyond repair... A waste of my money.… Expand
  18. MrAlcatraz
    Nov 18, 2013
    0
    Nothing of this game is good. The story is written so poorly, with a cut scene every five minutes. This game is filled with Quick Time events, and even if you fail the quick time event your buddy will come and save you. The game is so easy, I died only once, due to unfair enemies just to make the game seem harder. The voice acting is poor. I feel like I am playing a dumbed down version ofNothing of this game is good. The story is written so poorly, with a cut scene every five minutes. This game is filled with Quick Time events, and even if you fail the quick time event your buddy will come and save you. The game is so easy, I died only once, due to unfair enemies just to make the game seem harder. The voice acting is poor. I feel like I am playing a dumbed down version of Call of Duty Modern Warfare, yeah, I said it! The story is the same as all First Person hand Holders, bad people kill people so we have to kill them. I feel as if I am controlling a robot, this game feels like I am incapable of doing anything myself and has to hold my hand. This game is so short, it is sad. I could spend more time in the first level of Deus Ex than playing this entire game. They pad this just to make it longer. AI characters have to follow you everywhere, treating you like a child! They have to open doors for you! The enemy AI is even worse, walking into your gun fire.
    There is a mission that makes you think you are going to fly a jet, but it is just on rails shooter! Not a good one either. I got so board after five seconds of this piece of crap! I am so offended by this game, why did I spend money on? I want to destroy this game.
    I feel like my computer is about to shoot itself for me just playing this game.
    The shooting just sucks, there is no power to the weapons. All of the weapons are the same, they all fire the same, take the same time to reload, the same amount of ammo to kill an enemy. They all sound as if a cat is sneezing.
    There is regenerating health, are you a star fish x10000 or something?
    Your AI partners are so incapable of killing anyone, I don't even want them there! All they are doing there is just to further the story.
    This game has none of the wakey over-the-top stuff from Call of Duty. Most of the time in this game you are ducked behind cover because the enemy AI shoot a never ending stream of bullets at you. Not that it matters because you are a starfish x10000.
    I feel this game is a step back in human evolution. Yeah the reverse of the Theory of Evolution.

    I know a bunch of fan boys will say "Oh this game is for the multiplayer that is what it is the multiplayer is good it is good play the multiplayer it is good"
    BULL CRAP!
    I played the multiplayer, it sucks. It is the normal multiplayer of this generation of First Person Hand Holders. You start with a load out. One thing I can say is load outs suck! Play Half Life's multiplayer where you have to pick up weapons on the map, and if you die you start with a pistol. Load outs make it so you don't have to look around the map. It also gives higher level players an advantage over others because the have better equipment. The whole leveling system sucks anyway I wish games would take it out. They should take a Que from Halo which had a good multiplayer (For this gen)with no load outs!
    It is the same thing over and over, you die, respawn, you kill someone, die, respawn, die, respawn, you kill someone, die, respawn, kill someone, die, respawn, die, respawn, die.

    I think this game should be renamed 3"    … Expand
  19. grieves
    Nov 8, 2011
    0
    Bland. Single player is just bleh boring and stale; left a bad taste in my mouth. Moving from that into the multiplayer it's just the same as Battlefield 2. Literally nothing new is included in this game that isn't in BF2 or BFBC2. If you've played those games don't buy this one.
  20. Deific
    Nov 14, 2011
    8
    I'll start by getting the SP out of the way. It's a very mediocre, although aesthetically stunning, experience. The story is average, plagued by awful in-game cut-scenes and QTE that are obviously there to appeal to the console crowd although I doubt they enjoy them either, which results in tedious replays through small sections because the event caught you off guard. If I were lead designI'll start by getting the SP out of the way. It's a very mediocre, although aesthetically stunning, experience. The story is average, plagued by awful in-game cut-scenes and QTE that are obviously there to appeal to the console crowd although I doubt they enjoy them either, which results in tedious replays through small sections because the event caught you off guard. If I were lead design and somebody suggested QTE I would fire them on the spot, because they in no way enhance any gaming experience and are simply lazy attempts at getting the gamer to feel like they are interacting - which they obviously wanted to do here because so much of the damn thing is on rails that you don't even really feel like your SP experience has started. When you do get into some on-foot firefights it's simply a matter of enemies popping out every few seconds, kill them, move up, repeat and provides little satisfaction. When it comes to difficulty, you can forget trying to do it on 'hard', unless you want a very drawn out campaign that sees you replaying missions because of poor design rather than lack of skill, with enemies having aimbot skills and the game often telling you to run out into the open to pick up a weapon, follow an ally or get to a location, where the open results in instant death. The plot is fairly cliched although the acting is very good, and the visuals are the best in a game to date, however they can't save the rest of the single player campaign from being very 'meh'. Now for the multiplayer; it can be exciting, fast paced and feel polished. On the other hand it can also be an infuriating, frustrating and tedious experience. The hitboxes are poor, the netcode is a joke and weapon damage feels so inconsistant at times you could be forgiven for thinking you were playing halo with enemies taking 6-7-8 rounds. You could change to hardcore but then the inevitable rocket spam becomes even worse, camping becomes standard, and you're punished for pushing the objective. The spawn system is also dire with you spawning in front of enemies, enemies spawning behind you, or spawning in line of enemy fire, and this can happen several times in a row. In fact I would say the majority of my deaths in this game are down to enemies spawning either directly behind me, or in an area that I cleared only seconds ago. Maps are cramped for 64 players and switching to 32 player matches gives a more tactical game but then the maps feel empty and unlike a battlefield game, so the sweet spot is probably about 48 but at the end of the day it's that 64 player experience that players want and on maps that are suited to it. There are some weapons and gadgets that leave you questioning the devs logic at including them such as the IRNV scope which feels like a hack and every player will no doubt be using after another month or so, the mortar which sees players sitting in their base with unlimited mortar shells for entire rounds firing on choke points, and engineers that can somehow cram 10 rpg rounds up their anus (this is the only place I can think they must be hiding them). Vehicle combat works very well, although air vehicles can be tricky to control at first, once you get used to them a good pilot can dominate land and air which some players object to, but I think is fine considering how easily a few players co-ordinating an attack can easily take down aircraft. Some maps are fantastic whilst others are poor with chokepoints and rocket spam being the tactic of the day. Players will quickly decide on which maps they like/dislike, however I've found most players tend to agree on which are good and bad. The classes all have a reasonably balanced degree of usefulness, recons perhaps less so unless in an organised squad/team. You will find yourself raging at times when other players incompetence/disregard for teamwork raises its head (which is often), driving off leaving you on-foot running behind their vehicle trying to get in (and other similar situations such as not repairing/reviving/dropping kits), but this is a problem with players and not the game. The sound is fantastic, whether it's weapons, vehicles or explosions, it really is top notch and adds to the immersion both in SP and MP, so cudos to DICE there. Despite its flaws it is enjoyable overall and although it doesn't feel like it will have the longevity of other classic shooters, it should still provide a good multiplayer fps experience for a fair amount of time. Hopfully the back to karkand release should ensure that… Expand
  21. DrCola
    Nov 19, 2011
    6
    Look guys, origin is not that bad, considering the same is with steam and so many other secret aspects of life (thats a different topic) so im going to give this a fair unbias review, battlefield used to be the best FPS ever, but they absorbed the console market into their bloodstream, and the result of this merge is battlefield 3, or as me and a few friends call it, field of duty. It isLook guys, origin is not that bad, considering the same is with steam and so many other secret aspects of life (thats a different topic) so im going to give this a fair unbias review, battlefield used to be the best FPS ever, but they absorbed the console market into their bloodstream, and the result of this merge is battlefield 3, or as me and a few friends call it, field of duty. It is sad to see how another game has caught COD aids. Everything seems to be more linear, direct, less strategy, squad combat sucks, I wanted them to bring the commander back from BF2, (battlefield 2 was probablly the best multiplayer FPS ever) or somthing along the lines of chain of command. Who's idea was it to give the assault class a med kit? Its still playable, but it does not deserve what its getting, make no mistake however, this is a quadrillion times better than call of duty BS (call of duty is pretty bad, but the two games are hard to compare) In short, dont buy BF3, buy an earlier battlefield. Dont you all miss when games had their own orchestrated music and polish to them?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gylo7Ak6z3Y    … Expand
  22. Dankin
    Feb 17, 2012
    2
    the singleplayer have good graphics and gameplay.
    but the multiypalyer are just awful with full bugs and feel like World War 2 combat.
    vehicles and tanks not gives realism feeling and the physics are very not real...
    totally spend of 50 bucks
  23. mikey42782
    May 28, 2012
    7
    battlefield bad company..an awesome franchise..i was a little upset that battlefield 3 got rid of the the squad from the first two, but it is what it is. i was excited for the game.
    I purposely got it on xbox so i would not have to deal with the horroshow that is origin..origin sucks..i do not care what you say, origin sucks..
    so i purchased it for pc. i decided **** it, ill be open    battlefield bad company..an awesome franchise..i was a little upset that battlefield 3 got rid of the the squad from the first two, but it is what it is. i was excited for the game.
    I purposely got it on xbox so i would not have to deal with the horroshow that is origin..origin sucks..i do not care what you say, origin sucks..
    so i purchased it for pc. i decided **** it, ill be open minded, im usually better at pc shooters than on xbox..
    so i installed it..come to find out? origin and battlefield seem to want to totally monopolize your PC.
    the game is run in get this ready...get it..A ****ING WEB BROWSER, which constantly gives me script errors..i cant even play single player without loading stupid origin, and running off the web page..a web page for a game can you believe that ****
    thats the biggest gripe for me honestly...the game play is good..the animations, the graphics, great..maybe the recoils a little rough on the weapons because my kill death ratio is garbage but thats neither here nor their..the single player feels kinda short..but it is what it is..can't do anything about it now..CAVEAT EMPTOUR-let the buyer beware..and i shoulda bewared it a little bit more..it would have gotten at least an 9..but the web browser killed it    … Expand
  24. Flastie
    Feb 21, 2012
    6
    I dont know,why is everybody happy about this game, but for me its mediocre shooter. Yes its fun and MP is great, but its borring sometimes. But its definitely better than CODMW3. At least devs punched graphic and details to the top and its definitely one of the best graphic of 2011. Not as MW3 with its "pre-Jesus" graphic engine. Also i dont like the story where every bad guys came fromI dont know,why is everybody happy about this game, but for me its mediocre shooter. Yes its fun and MP is great, but its borring sometimes. But its definitely better than CODMW3. At least devs punched graphic and details to the top and its definitely one of the best graphic of 2011. Not as MW3 with its "pre-Jesus" graphic engine. Also i dont like the story where every bad guys came from Russia or middle east. Especialy in those times where all hate, warcrimes and evils comming from USA and Israel. But this is the problem of all those "Modern warfare" games.… Expand
  25. StickNik
    Dec 9, 2012
    7
    The multiplayer from what I played at the end of the beta was above par, but I still found it a bore. If you want a massive online war shooter, play PlanetSide 2 free, standalone or on Steam, thankfully not having Origin or anything as terrible as battle-log. A good looking shooter, worth a try if the strong blue filter, battle-log, and Origin don't bother you greatly
  26. umadzbro
    Nov 8, 2011
    6
    My FPS timeline Day of Defeat>Wolfenstein>Enemy Territory>Battlefield 2>Call of Duty 4> World At War> Bad Company 2> Battlefield 3>back to BC2. I'm merely doing this so you can get an understanding of the type of FPS gamer i am. Battlefield 3 is a good game, it is definitively almost great. The graphics are slightly better than Bad Company 2, There seems to be unscripted destruction. TheMy FPS timeline Day of Defeat>Wolfenstein>Enemy Territory>Battlefield 2>Call of Duty 4> World At War> Bad Company 2> Battlefield 3>back to BC2. I'm merely doing this so you can get an understanding of the type of FPS gamer i am. Battlefield 3 is a good game, it is definitively almost great. The graphics are slightly better than Bad Company 2, There seems to be unscripted destruction. The sound is great, and i thought single player was decent. Now what Battlefield 3 is not? it is not deserving of the Battlefield 3 name. The game is blatantly consolized, the maps are small and made for 24 players. Most maps are just long corridors with choke points in the middle. Gameplay resorts to an endless rocket spam, with a lot of corner camping. The few maps that are actually open (2 of them) are just to small for 64 players. All the capture points are clustered together, why even have 4 or more points if you're going to put them all within 50 meters of each other? The game gives the impression that it should be tactical and slightly slow paced. But it's not it's a straight rip of Call of Duty, the game feels nerfed, arcadey, and "plastic" with client side hit detection. And that's another thing that ruins the game client side hit detection is absolutely horrible. You will frequently get into firefights where you put 15 or more bullets into someone only to have them literally one shot you. The game is rife with cheaters, i could not find a pub server without at least one of them. Punkbuster is a laughing joke to any cheat site, it always will be. Battlelog is pretty bugged, you will click to join a server only for the game to crash, or freeze then crash or just give you a random error. It was pretty frequent. Having to run your web browser and Origin is just a waste of 200mb of your ram. It is really not needed and these features should be in the game, not outside it.

    I played the game for about 15 hours over a few days. I finally got sick of the things described above and got a full refund from EA. (bought from Origin.) I would possibly buy the game again in the future at a discounted price ($30). I wanted a true Battlefield 2 successor and instead i got a poorly made Bad Company 3/Modern Warfare 2 console port.    … Expand
  27. drachehexe
    Sep 23, 2012
    5
    This reviews only the single player element, multiplay will be added in later.The best thing this game has going for it is the visuals, which are impressive. However I think they get too carried away with trying to be too photo-realistic. The camera has a constant layer of dirt spots, I guess you're supposed to be wearing goggles? Also, the lens-flare from lights is way overpowering.This reviews only the single player element, multiplay will be added in later.The best thing this game has going for it is the visuals, which are impressive. However I think they get too carried away with trying to be too photo-realistic. The camera has a constant layer of dirt spots, I guess you're supposed to be wearing goggles? Also, the lens-flare from lights is way overpowering. Trying to see anything in this game can be a challenge. The single player campaign is really boring and unoriginal. They could have eliminated it completely and knocked 20 bucks off the price. There are quick time events that add absolutely nothing interesting or valid to the game play, the story is weak, the characters are unlikeable...even the main character you play comes off as an ass you wish would just kill himself. Some gameplay elements make you want to ask "WTF was that there?" Also, other elements don't make sense. Using night vision on a tank in the middle of a bright clear day, not having night vision goggles when running around in the dark. The designers also insist you play the game on their terms leaving you no choice in equipment load-out basically being forced into whatever gear the character you "leap" into has. The levels are linear to a fault leaving no room to pick and choose strategies. You spend most of the time following someone else around and doing what they tell you to do. You almost feel like you're playing a rail shooter (and some instance you are) having no control over anything. side from all that the front end for the game is one of the worst. Double-click on the game icon doesn't start the game, it takes you to you Battlefield 3 webpage with you your stats, their advertising, and links to start up you game. If you're hard core on having to see all the crap this page offers have at it, if not, there is no way around it. I can only hope to god multi-player isn't as mind numbingly ignorant as the single player campaign.… Expand
  28. mamendex
    Nov 12, 2011
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Focusing on the competition against COD, they forgot about what BF is about. There is no need to team play anymore. All classes are complete and don't need each other. Game is unbalanced and arcade comparing to the other games of the series.… Expand
  29. 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
  30. Blackhamer
    Nov 16, 2011
    6
    I am unsatisfied with this game. I haven't played the campaign so if u're single player kind of guy don't even bother reading it. I also want to say that I'm not a CoD fanboy, over the years I've played both BF series and CoD series. Last year for example Battlefield won the epic battle with Black Ops (barely imo).
    This year...I haven't bought CoD yet (gonna get it tommorow) but I'm pretty    I am unsatisfied with this game. I haven't played the campaign so if u're single player kind of guy don't even bother reading it. I also want to say that I'm not a CoD fanboy, over the years I've played both BF series and CoD series. Last year for example Battlefield won the epic battle with Black Ops (barely imo).
    This year...I haven't bought CoD yet (gonna get it tommorow) but I'm pretty sure CoD will crush Battlefield 3 (it's only my subjective opinion).
    Graphics are really good, physics too but where is this revolution that trailers promised us? Oh there isn't any, it's just improved BC 2. Shame on you EA. But still I think the look of this game is in fact it's strongest point.
    Next audio, BF 3 lack any good music but everybody propably listen to their own music while playing. Guns,explosions and other sounds are very realistic.
    Now lets get to the point of my review, the things I hate about this new BF.
    The gameplay. ALL THE TIME YOU ARE EXPERIENCING BACK SHOTS, SPAWN KILLS, THERE ARE STUPID MORTARS THAT KEEP SPAMMING YOU FORCING YOU TO GO BACK SHOOTING. Yeah I know the game tries to be realistic but here's my theory: There is a line of realism in shooters that can't be crossed. You can make guns powerfull killing you in 2 hits, you can make it all very realistic but you won't change one thing. In real combat people feel fear. They won't go berserking at a group of enemies hoping to get a frag or two and then die, they won't leave their teammates to try go backshooting behind the enemy line. But in BF 3 you respawn in few seconds so it's all risky but worth a try. This game is no exception, but in BC 2 this problem wasn't so big. Here there is no front line or anything like this, you can die from a headshot from the back any second. That's very very dumb and spoling the fun.
    Next thing is improving your soldier's gear. WHat the **** Seriously, you can't choose your upgrades. You just play for hours to unlock them to every single weapon, and when u unlock new one you have to use unmodified one and keep dying. This is really retarted. I don't recommend this game to anyone, unless you are more about graphics. And one more thing, it's said that BF 3 is all about startegy and team play. Well there is none, it's just chaos and everybody doing as they please. The in-game quick voice chat as well as normal chat are completly broken and nearly impossible to use, there is no voice chat (with mics). I don't know why it's so ****ed up but it's imho worse than BC 2. Buy CoD. Thank you.    … Expand
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 »