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
  31. QuiterRaga
    Mar 8, 2012
    7
    Decent game.Not as good as everyone claims though.You currently have a tton of fanboys on boths sides of these war FPS games that need to cry out on metacritic beacuse of a dislike for a certain franchise instead of rating the game on how they see fit.
  32. Str4toFortr3ss
    Nov 7, 2011
    7
    This game is the best multiplayer FPS that I've played so far. The environment is beautiful, the sound effects are amazing, there are a lot of weapons, and really good maps. The physics are also really impressive.
    But there are issues with the running of this game... "BF3.exe stopped working" after 15-20 minutes and that's ruining the game experience... not just for me, for many people...    This game is the best multiplayer FPS that I've played so far. The environment is beautiful, the sound effects are amazing, there are a lot of weapons, and really good maps. The physics are also really impressive.
    But there are issues with the running of this game... "BF3.exe stopped working" after 15-20 minutes and that's ruining the game experience... not just for me, for many people...
    So I think it could be perfect if these bugs would be solved. I hope they will fix these issues.    … Expand
  33. AndreyE
    Nov 8, 2011
    7
    7. Because it lacks such a basic feature as in-game ping, that makes game laggy. Every new patch brings new glitches. But still it's the best game up-to-date. You won't be able to play anything else after you encounter it. It needs a lot of work. But still it will be the best out there for a year for sure. Only GTA5 can make players disappear for a while.
  34. tropolek
    Nov 9, 2011
    6
    well just bought CODMW3 coz liking both games but Im very disappointed but BF3 sucks as well ,they have to fix all **** asap,cant play ,I got a gtx 580 and a new driver but game looks awful,crashing very often,bloody origin doesnt work properly.WTF,Dice.fix it bastards.
  35. dkhartigan
    Mar 15, 2012
    3
    If you've played Battlefield 2 and/or 2142, and not just the Bad Company spinoff series, you will be dissapointed with the way the franchise is headed with Battlefield 3.
    The game is by no means made for the fanbase that helped DICE get big as a company, rather it has become a generic shooter without any teamplay features or depth.
    Singleplayer: ------------- The singleplayer campaign    If you've played Battlefield 2 and/or 2142, and not just the Bad Company spinoff series, you will be dissapointed with the way the franchise is headed with Battlefield 3.
    The game is by no means made for the fanbase that helped DICE get big as a company, rather it has become a generic shooter without any teamplay features or depth.


    Singleplayer:
    -------------

    The singleplayer campaign is one big ripoff of all earlier CoD campaigns, and even so it's lacking immersion.
    It's simply too linear and too restricted in it's gameplay, and you'll find yourself being a spectator while the game plays itself before you. At some point you'll complete an entire mission just by pressing space...

    I found the difficulty to scale alright, although the AI seemed quite clumsy, a fact that DICE has tried to correct by giving them aimbot. - They'll basically oneshot you from across the map with shotguns...


    Co-op:
    ------

    Is fun during the first playthrough, but get bland very quickly, as there is very few missions, and the ones that you get are very little creative, not to mention the fact that you'll have to grind them in order to unlock some weapons. - All in all this gamemode seems unfinished and should probably not have been in the game at all, coop can by no means be compared to the "specops" of CoD.



    Multiplayer:
    ------------

    This is where DICE/EA really went wrong, in my oppinion.
    Instead of taking the features that made the Battlefield series great, they've thrown 80% of the features out of the window and simplyfied the rest to uselessness. I'll list a few of the things that made the game fail, as far as I'm concerned:

    - Only way to play the game is to start it through Origin, EA's alternative to Steam, no biggie you might think, but you'll actually have to allow said program to scan not only the game folder, but your entire computer for who knows what reason. Also if you want to get the game listed in Steam, you'd end up having to start Steam which would then start Origin, which again would start Battlelog and only then you'd be able to start the game, that is if both Origin and Battlelog decides to work that is.

    - With the Commander position out of the game, only the Squadleader would able to organise the team, but all that the role is given is giant bullseye on it's back; tools for giving orders and even a useable map are nonexistant in the game.

    - The game of course has vehicles, but they have been weakened to the extent that they are now little more than a quick "killstreak", and no longer an important tool that might help a team win.

    - The game is all about the fast paced closequarter action, and this would be fine had they finally gotten the hang of getting hit recognition to work, but alas this works as bad as in all earlier installments. - No VO-IP and an unfinished Commo-rose makes it next to impossible to communicate with your team, at least to the extent of making a tactical difference.

    - If you plan on playing with buddies you're in tough luck, as it is next to impossible to get all on the same team, let alone in the same squad.


    As mentioned the battlefield series is no longer for people who wants a casual war simulator, but is now more and more becoming a generic CoD clone. A fact that becomes more apparent with each DLC. If you're part of the Call of Duty fanbase this game is actually made for you, and as such you could very well consider this game, though in my oppinion youd probably still be better off with CoD, as they simply are better at what they do. And this pains me very much, the fact that had DICE continued to improve on the features that made them great, they could probably have made the best shooter of all time, but instead they decided to go for the casual crowd, and through them some easy money. The result of this is at best a mediocre game, that attempts too much but accomplishes too little.    … Expand
  36. MasterT
    Nov 8, 2011
    7
    I'm not seeing that much of an improvement over the previous Battlefield Bad Company 2 and I have to say that I haven't had the chance to notice the supposedly big changes regarding the buildings destruction. The reason why I think I didn't see these is because they all appear in the solo campaign and I'm not gonna waste my time playing a 5 hour campaign that I felt was very disrespectfulI'm not seeing that much of an improvement over the previous Battlefield Bad Company 2 and I have to say that I haven't had the chance to notice the supposedly big changes regarding the buildings destruction. The reason why I think I didn't see these is because they all appear in the solo campaign and I'm not gonna waste my time playing a 5 hour campaign that I felt was very disrespectful of EA to put in. I mean what the hell if you wanna claim that the solo campaign is gonna be improved don't put in a 5 hour joke. Seriously the story sucks. Thankfully the multiplayer makes up for it, I gave it a 7, but it would be 10 for multiplayer and 4 for the singleplayer. The graphics do look very nice and I'm glad there isnt as much knifing as there was in BC 2. Overall you'll enjoy the multiplayer mode, but don't bother buying it otherwise. 32vs32 games rock!… Expand
  37. TheYeIIowDucK
    Nov 9, 2011
    6
    Overall, to put it in short, Battlefield 3 is a well-done and well-polished game. Its multiplayer is a very solid experience, and for the most part it is the better of the two major FPS releases this year (Battlefield 3 and, obviously, Modern Warfare 3) in the long term.

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

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

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

    In short: Multiplayer's good, singleplayer's bad, entire game is rather stale.    … Expand
  38. metaphase
    Nov 10, 2011
    8
    I think this game deserves an 8, and I shall go into why I think this. The first thing is, they didn't just copy/paste BC2 in every way bar the levels, and try sell it as a new game. This alone should get it 5 points, as it's main competitor in the FPS market does just that; so striving to be different and create innovation in the way of a new gaming engine defines it higher up the ladderI think this game deserves an 8, and I shall go into why I think this. The first thing is, they didn't just copy/paste BC2 in every way bar the levels, and try sell it as a new game. This alone should get it 5 points, as it's main competitor in the FPS market does just that; so striving to be different and create innovation in the way of a new gaming engine defines it higher up the ladder than its main competitor by default.

    Now I know this game has never been sold on its singleplayer component, and you can tell this whilst playing the restricted single player that comes with the game. It feels like the designers threw it in there to satisfy those who would complain if it wasn't there, not to win awards with amazing single player story arc design or plot progression. Sure it has big set-pieces ala CoD and amazing vistas and beautiful graphics, but its things like the extremely un-needed quicktime sequences thrown in at every corner that really made me cringe whilst playing the campaign. I bought this knowing it was multiplayer based beforehand, and bought it as a multiplayer game, but all the same, this is a reason why I can't give it a 10, it's not quite the perfect package... quite.

    The core part of the package then... the multiplayer. With an unlock system close to the BF's of old, with a few extras thrown in, the unlock system will keep you playing for hours more than you intended too. No stupid kill-streak bonuses here, just hard work to get fair rewards. With unlocks for each type of vehicle, weapon and class there is plenty to unlock, along with the visual additions gained (new camo etc) by the core account levelling process that slowly levels up by collating all points gained as you play - there really is a lot of stuff here to add to the already awesome multiplayer experience.

    The battlefields range from the hugely wide open area of "Caspian Border" to the confined train station setting within "Metro", each level adds something different and requires different approaches from a tactical standpoint, making each game you play guaranteed to be different. The vehicles add the feel of warfare across all maps that have them, and can be extremely deadly in the right hands.

    That's the thing with this game, nothing really feels unfair or unbalanced. Sure if you're getting owned by an attack helicopter, jump in an AA gun and go blow him/her out of the sky, or get working on flying your own Helicopter to better him/her. At first you may fail, but after a bit of work you will be the one people will be clambering into AA's to take down, or grabbing anti tank gear to take you out due to the immense destruction you are causing. And the good thing is, when you do get taken out, it's normally because you missed something or didn't react quick enough, not because some dude was in an AC130 dominating you with no chance to respond. With the different game modes like Conquest, Rush, Team Deathmatch and Squad Rush the multiplayer really is a big beast to bite into, and has something for every fps player. Along with the fun, but short, co-op, this game really is worth the price its asking for.

    If it only wasn't for Origin I may have given it a 9...    … Expand
  39. y3ivan
    Nov 10, 2011
    7
    Its a multiplayer game with bonus of singleplayer addon campaign. SP looks like its a 4 months job, lots of clipping/ragdoll issues, non destructible environments, and a cut and paste story from most Modern war games and movies to date. Some mission in SP like F15 bombing runs and tank combat breaks the dull moments of a 3 hrs long campaign. MP plays like BF2 with MOH addon, a new shinyIts a multiplayer game with bonus of singleplayer addon campaign. SP looks like its a 4 months job, lots of clipping/ragdoll issues, non destructible environments, and a cut and paste story from most Modern war games and movies to date. Some mission in SP like F15 bombing runs and tank combat breaks the dull moments of a 3 hrs long campaign. MP plays like BF2 with MOH addon, a new shiny graphics engine. In addition, a broken Squad management and GUI and a non existent commander system and a sloppy 'parkour' movement. Also Destruction is scaled way back to 30% not to what DICE promised of 70% and some maps barely have any destructible environments and some feels its been rushed out with bad design. Quality of the maps vary from open battlefield and the best "caspian border" to the worst "Grand Bazaar" COD like funnel chokepoints. With a slightly more realistic bullet dmg and health system and ablitiy to prone, thus benefit campers whos looking for cheap kills and spawn killing to boost their K/D ratio. DICE did try to innovate new idea to freshen up FPS genre but somehow backfired, "who need flashbang grenades when theres 1000w flashlight". Bullets dynamics in the otherhand have been refined and that is the only thing which kept me interested.
    If you love BFBC2 tight firefight, great teamwork and Epic destructible environment, you will skip this game unless you have friends playing to prevent you from rage quit. If you hate BF2, you will hate this too.    … Expand
  40. TECSmith
    Nov 10, 2011
    7
    Having collected all releases within ths series I was understandably hyped to get my teeth into this title!
    However, after being invited to take part in the alpha testing, and then gaining early access to the beta trial a few weeks prior to the official game release, I felt slightly let down and (frankly) disheartened by some of the desicions that were made in the creation of this    Having collected all releases within ths series I was understandably hyped to get my teeth into this title!
    However, after being invited to take part in the alpha testing, and then gaining early access to the beta trial a few weeks prior to the official game release, I felt slightly let down and (frankly) disheartened by some of the desicions that were made in the creation of this (supposed) follow on from 'Battlefield 2'...

    The single-player story mode is really poorly told, and the cutscene after cutscene button mash stupidness leaves you feeling a bit robbed -- I want those few hours back you stole from me EA/DICE !!!
    To be fair, the game engine is beautiful. But it is far from complete! This game had so much potential for an epic storyline, but alas, it just wanted to be a multi-player shooter really...

    Leading on to multi-player, I am still frustrated (along with others within battlelog) at some glaringly obvious problems and niggles that were shipped on the official release prior to many of the community giving expressed opinions that they should be addressed.

    All in all, this game just feels like it was rushed to market to release before MW3 so to try and attempt to steal customers from Activision. Which, I might add, I am in no way saying is either right or wrong. That's a whole different 'review'!    … Expand
  41. HiddenName
    May 10, 2013
    6
    It's hard to express opinions. I like Battlefield 3 but its not old BF. Small maps i think designed for console 24players/rush gametype. Great graphics, good optimalization so dual core players can play. But yee better fun i got from BC2. Game use engine Frostbite, but destruction is weaker than BC2. Lots of DLC it's good, but no free maps..
    7 or 6 dilemma.. Sorry only 6. DICE try again.
  42. MajorTom
    Nov 10, 2011
    8
    Pretty good game.
    The graphics are amazing and the environments are beautiful. (I love the destruction engine)
    The campaign is pretty cliched but it's still pretty fun.
    Multiplayer is good but even after a couple server upgrades it's hard find a open game and there is a lot of lagging.
  43. soqueroeu
    Nov 12, 2011
    8
    ENG: Single player very short. Sthey hould sell both modes separately. I bought a 6-hour single player for $ 59?

    PT BR: Single player muito curto. Deveriam vender separadamente ambos os modos. Comprei um single player de 6 horas por 59 dólares??
  44. Invader-Nik
    Dec 11, 2012
    7
    This game is amazing, amazing graphics and to me the single player is good. I don't play bigshoot FPS games like COD. This is pretty much my first ever FPS game that is popular. Multiplayer is absolutely epic, teamwork is the key to winning, unlike the COD series where people don't even bother working together. However there are a few annoying issues. I have a NVIDA GTX 560 Ti and uponThis game is amazing, amazing graphics and to me the single player is good. I don't play bigshoot FPS games like COD. This is pretty much my first ever FPS game that is popular. Multiplayer is absolutely epic, teamwork is the key to winning, unlike the COD series where people don't even bother working together. However there are a few annoying issues. I have a NVIDA GTX 560 Ti and upon running this game it crashes my PC. I have to use a program called MSI Afterburner to downclock my PC to make it run perfectly. This can be a pain since I don't have admin rights and the program requires it. Another is Origin. I don't mind it, since I only have two games on it (BF3 and Mass Effect 3) but in terms, it is a piece of sh*t. It's slow, annoying and is not as smooth as Steam is, plus all the games are overpriced. If it was put on Steam, this would be a fantastic game. But while it's on Origin i'm giving it a 7… Expand
  45. LucidChaos
    Nov 12, 2011
    7
    I Really enjoyed the single player, the sound was fantastic, I felt myself getting scared for the character. Short game though, and tried to play it a second time and was fantastically bored. I also hated the story line, it was the same thing i have seen as every FPS. Further more the game often forced me to stop playing in mange through prompt based action sequences. Walk through, aI Really enjoyed the single player, the sound was fantastic, I felt myself getting scared for the character. Short game though, and tried to play it a second time and was fantastically bored. I also hated the story line, it was the same thing i have seen as every FPS. Further more the game often forced me to stop playing in mange through prompt based action sequences. Walk through, a door Action sequence !oh no a guy! , (game asks you to hit e) you hit him, fight him, trip fight him again and (now the game asks you to hit space) you punch him in the face and the fight goes on for a while asking you for more input once in a while, You can skip these, and they made me feel like I wasn't playing the game anymore. Multi player was underwhelming, and tedious gave it 2-3 hours of my life. I have plaid the single player once and gotten all this games worth out of it. I give it a 7 to support the new graphics engine and the great sound, but I also asked for my money back.… Expand
  46. Verdan
    Apr 9, 2012
    4
    I played this game trought in singleplayer. I also tested out Multiplayer. Let´s go over basics. This game has awesome graphics and overall layout over. It´s pure eye candy and lovely in that. Why such low rating? Well singleplayer started out amazing...Sick start that caught attention...Sadly that´s it. Another "terrorists has the nuke" game. II played this game trought in singleplayer. I also tested out Multiplayer. Let´s go over basics. This game has awesome graphics and overall layout over. It´s pure eye candy and lovely in that. Why such low rating? Well singleplayer started out amazing...Sick start that caught attention...Sadly that´s it. Another "terrorists has the nuke" game. I choose normal difficulty and most of the time i got myself killed. Quess that is the reality of war, you are stupid and die...It was boring. Overall campaing left me bored and i quited it couple of times before finishing. Like bad company 2, most of it just repeated itself over and over. Multiplayer wise game is awesome, sadly i dont enjoy that type of gameplay. It´s awesome, but not for me. Was some solid action for couple of hours, but that´s it.… Expand
  47. LittleTomTit
    Nov 14, 2011
    6
    I was really looking forward to this (I loved BF BC2 thought it was awesome), the graphics are great but found this single player game short and very glitchy what I am really dissapointed about is the fact that they have removed the colourblind option, I can't say how pi55ed I was at this after buying this twice on Pre-order once on the xbox360 and once for PC only to dicover it was nextI was really looking forward to this (I loved BF BC2 thought it was awesome), the graphics are great but found this single player game short and very glitchy what I am really dissapointed about is the fact that they have removed the colourblind option, I can't say how pi55ed I was at this after buying this twice on Pre-order once on the xbox360 and once for PC only to dicover it was next to unplayable for me as I could not distinguish between team and enemies.
    If the developers seemed a bit more eager to fix this I would have rated it much higher. Everyone else seems to be enjoying it, lets hope they fix it for the 1 in 10 coloublind players out there!    … Expand
  48. SimonOverlord
    Nov 14, 2011
    7
    Very super horrible Single Player design, some none sense plot, some boring moment, THAT'S ALL FINE. What I can't accept is the miserable saving point design: if you died at certain part, you simply have to run through all those COOL FIRST IMPRESSION cut scenes again, and again, and again. Drives people crazy especially in HARD difficulty. Anyway, SP, is an Epic fail, and ruin my day.Very super horrible Single Player design, some none sense plot, some boring moment, THAT'S ALL FINE. What I can't accept is the miserable saving point design: if you died at certain part, you simply have to run through all those COOL FIRST IMPRESSION cut scenes again, and again, and again. Drives people crazy especially in HARD difficulty. Anyway, SP, is an Epic fail, and ruin my day.

    What truly saved this game is MP, of course, not surprised. After five years of waiting this is how it should be done, and for that it got a 7. But for the SP part, which only count 3 in the total score, BF3 simply doesn't know what is the right way to make a great SP.    … Expand
  49. COZZFRENZY
    Nov 14, 2011
    8
    Although BF3 is nothing innovative whatsoever, it still manages to breath a breathe of fresh air in a copy cat genre. With it's beautiful graphics and realistic sounds it is clear that this is no copy and paste Quake 3 engine game, like its competition (Call of Duty). What makes Battlefield so special is it's vehicles, flying jets (will be a pain at first) is very fun. Driving humvees isAlthough BF3 is nothing innovative whatsoever, it still manages to breath a breathe of fresh air in a copy cat genre. With it's beautiful graphics and realistic sounds it is clear that this is no copy and paste Quake 3 engine game, like its competition (Call of Duty). What makes Battlefield so special is it's vehicles, flying jets (will be a pain at first) is very fun. Driving humvees is as fun as ever. Skydiving off a cliff made multiplayer map will be something i remember for a long time.… Expand
  50. 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
  51. Highwind_Hiatus
    Nov 14, 2011
    6
    The game looks beautiful, the environment is astonishing, the sound is intensifying and things seem to be on a good track. But the gameplay doesn't stick out as much as the predecessors did. Maybe recycling the same style isn't the best approach? We've all seen how **** Modern warfare 3 is. I guess the best part of this game is C4 shenanigans and knife killing.
  52. smisek
    Nov 21, 2011
    7
    Love the graphics and sounds.. BF3 = great MP----X---- MW3 = great storyline and characters. So please stop comparing these two games they are totally different games. RIP Sandman, Soap, Ghost, Yuri
  53. stinkipete
    Nov 21, 2011
    6
    Ok, so BF3 has been out for awhile and I wanted to throw in my 2 cents. The graphics and gameplay are amazing and everything we all expected. Flying, driving and the reactive environment. Even the level ups seems decent, however, all the props stop there. The use of Origin seems a waste of time and often frustrates me trying to find an open server. Some of the weapons and equipmentOk, so BF3 has been out for awhile and I wanted to throw in my 2 cents. The graphics and gameplay are amazing and everything we all expected. Flying, driving and the reactive environment. Even the level ups seems decent, however, all the props stop there. The use of Origin seems a waste of time and often frustrates me trying to find an open server. Some of the weapons and equipment are completely overpowered such as the IRNV scope. The constant disconnects in game losing your score (constantly is an understatement). And finally the insane number of blatant cheaters who are not stopped by PB. Kinda of a shame. I would save your money for Call of Duty. BF3 is definitely a disappointment.… Expand
  54. bigbramble
    Nov 21, 2011
    4
    Where are the bots? Where is the 4+player coop?

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

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

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

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

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

    This makes this game the most frustrating currently in existence.    … Expand
  55. 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.
  56. rufflon
    Nov 25, 2011
    8
    This game looks and sounds absolutely amazing! The level of detail can be frustrating sometimes when you are trying too shoot a sniper and the sun gets in your eyes,
    I really wish though that there was a close quarters "commando" mode to give a similar experience to COD (not that I don't enjoy the squad based action).
    Single player was rather dull though, I still haven't finished it    This game looks and sounds absolutely amazing! The level of detail can be frustrating sometimes when you are trying too shoot a sniper and the sun gets in your eyes,
    I really wish though that there was a close quarters "commando" mode to give a similar experience to COD (not that I don't enjoy the squad based action).
    Single player was rather dull though, I still haven't finished it (mostly because it keeps deleting my saved game files!) but so far it just feels like a MW clone. They really could have done a lot with the story, and make one that stands out from the crowd but went with copying.
    Overall I love this game but wish they had put a bit more effort into it.    … Expand
  57. ShowbizFTW
    Nov 25, 2011
    7
    As much as like this game, I'm going to say this, the game is overrated
    First, the SP is god awful; Generic storyline, lack of FB 2.0, and quick time event, oh yes quick time events. Hell the short co-op is better than it.
    Second, the MP turning into to EA's CoD; It was good at the beginning, but now is camp-ops all over again, but maps are good, all but CB god I hate that map. And I love    As much as like this game, I'm going to say this, the game is overrated
    First, the SP is god awful; Generic storyline, lack of FB 2.0, and quick time event, oh yes quick time events. Hell the short co-op is better than it.
    Second, the MP turning into to EA's CoD; It was good at the beginning, but now is camp-ops all over again, but maps are good, all but CB god I hate that map. And I love jets.
    Over all its overrated but I like it. Oh yea, It's still better than MW3, so get this game, NOW!    … Expand
  58. 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
  59. Mouse
    Sep 25, 2012
    7
    The campaign was a missed opportunity to tell a poignant/choice-driven/realistic story, the epic graphics are ruined by crappy lens flare (to hide what few mistakes/shortcuts they had to take), weapon selection is a bland soup of point-and-click, Frostbite 2 is revolutionary but monopolized by EA, premium and DLCs by EA serve to support Marx's arguments (and EA's finances),The campaign was a missed opportunity to tell a poignant/choice-driven/realistic story, the epic graphics are ruined by crappy lens flare (to hide what few mistakes/shortcuts they had to take), weapon selection is a bland soup of point-and-click, Frostbite 2 is revolutionary but monopolized by EA, premium and DLCs by EA serve to support Marx's arguments (and EA's finances), Battlelog is a **** Facebook wannabe, and Origin is a pathetic attempt to compete with STEAM.
    But STILL better than Call of Duty (yes, I have to mention it) and most games being released anymore. Gameplay is smooth with small innovation (the parkour), vehicles run excellent and have well-balanced combat, personalization is fun but not overdone, and balancing features are decent (scope reflection).
    Honestly, it's worth the money to get the game vanilla, and only get the DLCs you see you'll like. DON'T GET PREMIUM. But if you're looking for a truly great place to spend your money, find a way to donate to the Black Mesa Team (legally impossible, since it's a mod). EA has become the evil empire of gaming, and is going to strangle us dry.    … Expand
  60. Sephet
    Apr 12, 2017
    2
    Rushed, plagued with glitches, bad hit detection and balance issues, never meant to be fixed, just another disposable title that died after one year so that stupid people could purchase their next low-quality overrated game.
  61. Not_Casual
    Feb 16, 2012
    7
    Overall very well done. It's only a few critical aspects that cripple this game. Such as the inability to practice in aircraft without having to hinder your team as you learn. The massive glare off of EVERYTHING is simply painful and Intolerable. II also find the class change menu to be scientifically designed to be difficult to use. also just doesn't feel right. Bad Company 2 wasOverall very well done. It's only a few critical aspects that cripple this game. Such as the inability to practice in aircraft without having to hinder your team as you learn. The massive glare off of EVERYTHING is simply painful and Intolerable. II also find the class change menu to be scientifically designed to be difficult to use. also just doesn't feel right. Bad Company 2 was defiantly better, faster, and much more fun.… Expand
  62. Sub-Human
    May 7, 2013
    7
    Great multiplayer. Great visuals. Great sound effects. Unfortunately, team playing is non-existent, and the options for such are not provided. A step-down from Battlefield 2 in that regard.
  63. psychotic
    Aug 31, 2012
    6
    if there was 6.5 then thats what it deserves premium queue cutting bull **** i dont want that crap in a game god can this year get any worse no stalker 2,sequels look like cod , ok im getting off topic but the game play is good few improvements are needed maybe they will fix it in MoH WF but idk the multiplayer is top notch single is good ive seen better the graphics are almost as good asif there was 6.5 then thats what it deserves premium queue cutting bull **** i dont want that crap in a game god can this year get any worse no stalker 2,sequels look like cod , ok im getting off topic but the game play is good few improvements are needed maybe they will fix it in MoH WF but idk the multiplayer is top notch single is good ive seen better the graphics are almost as good as crysis very well rounded game but if i where to recommend anything i would say wait till warfighter… Expand
  64. 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
  65. ReBootEd
    Feb 29, 2012
    6
    A vast improvement over the previous train-wreck Battlefield 2, still is plagued with bugs and now suffers from a severe case of next-gen, DLC and eye-burning graphics which would be fantastic otherwise.
  66. 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
  67. 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
  68. 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
  69. Reaper11186
    Mar 20, 2012
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This game bothers me so bad! I am one of the most die-hard fans of modern war games out there but this game was just a major disappointment... I think the lowest point is the part where you are forced to take part in an air assault that begins with a 15 minute uninterruptable cutscene where you are forced to perform mundane manuevers. This is then followed with a level that is unexciting and annoying at the same time. Really you mean I can't control the plane? Just fire flares when I'm shot at and try in vain to shoot other planes down even though I can't aim at them. Stupid! The ground combat is fun and I think the portion involving tanks is great, until they have you get out of the tank to do someone else's job. This is just dumb because in real life a tanker would not get out to blow up mines while the rest of the army stays safely behind him. I know this is supposed to be a heroic story but come on....

    I know that the multiplayer is where this game is supposed to shine but it just doesn't do it for me. I am annoyed that they still use a health bar that doesn't regenerate. I understand the need to be different but that sure seems like an outdated way to do things. Especially for a top of the line game like Battlefield. There are not enough people out there with team spirit to allow me to believe that when I"m hurt a medic is going to come along and heal me. I played this game for like 3 days and don't think I was once healed by a medic when I was close to death. I found that it was just easier to run off and die and just try to respawn closer to the objective. Played the campaign once and played the online for like 3 days. Now the game is on a shelf collecting dust and it will stay there for a long long time.    … Expand
  70. wood431
    Mar 29, 2012
    6
    Disappointment. Mediocre. These are two words that respresent the entire game. I have played the Battlefield series since 2005, and the game that this is meant to be a sequel to. Where do I start? I upgraded my PC expecting a fairly similar game (I thought Bad Company mechanics stayed in Bad Company), and have been consistently disappointed by both the execution and post-release attitudeDisappointment. Mediocre. These are two words that respresent the entire game. I have played the Battlefield series since 2005, and the game that this is meant to be a sequel to. Where do I start? I upgraded my PC expecting a fairly similar game (I thought Bad Company mechanics stayed in Bad Company), and have been consistently disappointed by both the execution and post-release attitude of the dev team. The singleplayer is generic and pointless, but this is Battlefield. So, once you navigate battlelog (no gripes) and past the 720p loading screens (lazy console port) you get to the game. The UI is simply pasted from console. The gameplay is also generic (low TTK, awful client-side hit detection) and the vehicles feel like an addition, rather than the core of the game. The maps are large, but the flags are cluttered (Operation Firestorm). The small meatgrinder maps are a clear example of the type of console audience EA are trying to appeal to. I have playerd 140 hours online to reach this conclusion, and I am by no means a bad player. These are simple truths. In addition, it has taken the dev team 6 months (ish) to patch the game to what it should have been at release (and STILL not implementing VOIP) and they have alienated their core community. Lazy, rushed and disappointed. Another franchise ruined by the cash-cow FPS genre. The rating of 6 is generous.… Expand
  71. 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
  72. Eclipsers
    Apr 15, 2012
    2
    Downgraded Battlefield 2. This game was to be continued where Battlefield 2 ended. However, this game was truly great in the alpha. There was no blue layer, it was more yellow/brownish saturation which everyone loved, but DICE thought it was a good idea to make it more consolized than it already is.
    The suppression was balanced and most of the guns were close in terms of balance. Now when    Downgraded Battlefield 2. This game was to be continued where Battlefield 2 ended. However, this game was truly great in the alpha. There was no blue layer, it was more yellow/brownish saturation which everyone loved, but DICE thought it was a good idea to make it more consolized than it already is.
    The suppression was balanced and most of the guns were close in terms of balance. Now when this new patch released, the entire game went to a horrible direction. It makes no sense whatsoever to introduce bullet spread during suppression.

    To Summarize: DICE really went to hell.    … Expand
  73. Ebayers
    Apr 15, 2012
    8
    A good game with a pointless singleplayer (the battlefield series is really multiplayer content only). Little reason to stick at it however as maps become repetative. Only reason not 10/10 is that I think vehical play could be better, more on a par with battlefield 2. Attack choppers are suppost to be OP which is why nearly every millitary in the world uses them, in battlefield 3 they areA good game with a pointless singleplayer (the battlefield series is really multiplayer content only). Little reason to stick at it however as maps become repetative. Only reason not 10/10 is that I think vehical play could be better, more on a par with battlefield 2. Attack choppers are suppost to be OP which is why nearly every millitary in the world uses them, in battlefield 3 they are strangly crap. The vehical unlocks system means that all vehicals only become good after several hours of play which is a bit pointless.… Expand
  74. heAd3r
    Apr 22, 2012
    6
    Im a big fan of battlefield since battlefield 2 also played this for over 4 years without a break, so i was looking forward for battlefield 3 for a long time, but as I first got the beta and later the game i was first excited but after after 3 or 4 weeks I was sure it's just not what it could have been, sadly it's just a new mainstream title, don't get me wrong it is still a greatIm a big fan of battlefield since battlefield 2 also played this for over 4 years without a break, so i was looking forward for battlefield 3 for a long time, but as I first got the beta and later the game i was first excited but after after 3 or 4 weeks I was sure it's just not what it could have been, sadly it's just a new mainstream title, don't get me wrong it is still a great multiplayer experience but not a real battlefield!… Expand
  75. NerV-0-sol
    May 5, 2012
    7
    Game gives much fun and looks really good, but I think BF2 was better in terms of strategy, team play, responsibility of the players, and there was traditional game menu (launching through a web browser is really irritating).
  76. GayRoberto
    Jul 19, 2013
    8
    The mechanics of the game work very well, except for the few bugs that persist with vehicles. However, these are relatively small and they do not break the game. The graphics are top-notch even from 2011. My experience with other players will not be a major factor, but there seems to be no reward for working or coordinating with the rest of your team. Team balance is nonexistent andThe mechanics of the game work very well, except for the few bugs that persist with vehicles. However, these are relatively small and they do not break the game. The graphics are top-notch even from 2011. My experience with other players will not be a major factor, but there seems to be no reward for working or coordinating with the rest of your team. Team balance is nonexistent and operates off of there being a >1 player difference in team numbers. The vehicle unlock system will always put newer drivers and pilots at a major disadvantage when it comes down to both skill and fancy gadgets. Dice also seems to also have an issue with weapon balancing, some have been completely obliterated to the point where there is no point in using them at all.… Expand
  77. ALii3N
    Aug 6, 2013
    8
    Never played single player (as that's not the point of these games) so I can't comment on that, but the game is still amazing. Features beautiful graphics, fun, exciting gameplay, and a great sound system. Obviously there are some horrible weapon balances that have yet to be fixed, and a mediocre range of hackers, but it only occasionally detracts the game's replayability and overall, greatness.
  78. 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
  79. Someguy151015
    Aug 23, 2012
    6
    I was a COD fan, but then I played MW3 and hated it and now I will never buy COD games ever again. I played this and it was a little better. Not the best game, but certainly not the worst(*cough MW3).
  80. von_Werra
    Sep 25, 2012
    7
    En términos generales, es un juego que ofrece poco más que su predecesor con referencia a argumento o guión. Supone un avance de destaque la calidad visual en ciertos episodios como la misión abordo del Hornet aunque muchas texturas resultan genéricas y de poca calidad. Recomiendo este juego para los amantes de los juegos de disparos que sóloEn términos generales, es un juego que ofrece poco más que su predecesor con referencia a argumento o guión. Supone un avance de destaque la calidad visual en ciertos episodios como la misión abordo del Hornet aunque muchas texturas resultan genéricas y de poca calidad. Recomiendo este juego para los amantes de los juegos de disparos que sólo buscan eso, disparar y poco más.… Expand
  81. Expospeed
    Dec 7, 2014
    6
    BF3 is a mediocre game. My breakdown is as follows:

    1. Graphics: 8/10 - excellent, even on low-end rigs
    2. Gameplay: 7/10 - great controls and satisfying experience with good sound effects. In campaign, excessive lighting occasionally affects gameplay.
    3. Story: 2/10 - not interesting or engaging at all
    4. Multiplayer: 7/10 - competitive and fun

    Overall, an average game.
  82. Remlap
    Oct 2, 2012
    4
    Battlefield 3 was supposed to be the
    game of the century. It was supposed to bring
    with it the best graphics and the best story of any first person shooter in recent history, but it didn't. Electronic Art's Digital Illusions CE (EA- DICE) has long led the sector in realism, drawing you into the war, evoking emotions previously reserved for games scripted almost as much as movies. In    Battlefield 3 was supposed to be the
    game of the century. It was supposed to bring
    with it the best graphics and the best story of
    any first person shooter in recent history, but it
    didn't. Electronic Art's Digital Illusions CE (EA-
    DICE) has long led the sector in realism, drawing you into the war, evoking emotions previously reserved for games scripted almost as much as movies. In Battlefield 3's campaign mode, however, the gameplay is slow, predictable and doesn't make you feel as though you are making a difference. The multiplayer game is sculpted so carefully that it would be concievable to forget that it was pre-made at all.
    The multiplayer game is incredibly chaotic, often trancending the constraints of a traditional video game, with small actions radically changing the simulated world and rendering some strategies and equipment useless, while simultaneously granting opportunities people using others. Many items in the maps are destructible, so a well placed RPG can destroy almost any sniper nest, an accutate pistol shot can destroy a helicopter, and a exellently piloted helicopter can take on a small army. Boats, Planes, Anti-Aircraft Guns, Helicopters, Tanks, JAVELIN missiles, and hundreds of guns are ready for use, a well put together social interface (BattleLog) allow for infinite combinations, and the scoring system favors teamwork over kamikaze raids.
    Battlefield 3 brings with it many annoyances, and thousands of quirks. The beautiful graphics and chaotic multiplayer almost outweigh the lack of a decent campaign mode, but alas this game fits into the category filled with thousands of games made for quick and easy fun, lacking challenge, and full of cliched elements. Battlefield 3 was expected to be the next iteration of the interesting and innovative game-play of the previous Battlefield games, not the repetitive and annoying habits of cheap action books, movies and games. The wow factor of the graphics can almost overcome the problems, but DICE has grown weary of the fight, and has decided that one botched campaign cannot possibly cause them to lose their grip on the gaming battlefield.    … Expand
  83. evry1isacritic
    Nov 12, 2012
    6
    I pre-ordered this game after spending 500 hrs playing bad company 2 on the PC. After seeing the previews I really had high hopes for this game. Unfortunately, EA once again pumped up a buggy piece of crap on day 1. There were so many bugs in there that made the game unplayable for the first month. Also, there were so many day 1 AIMBOTS around (probably some DICE employee leaked outI pre-ordered this game after spending 500 hrs playing bad company 2 on the PC. After seeing the previews I really had high hopes for this game. Unfortunately, EA once again pumped up a buggy piece of crap on day 1. There were so many bugs in there that made the game unplayable for the first month. Also, there were so many day 1 AIMBOTS around (probably some DICE employee leaked out the network code) that did not make the game fun at all.

    Granted, most of these bugs were fixed, but not until the game's price dropped by half. I am never going to pay full price for EA games anymore to be their beta tester.    … Expand
  84. 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
  85. sofgrant
    Dec 5, 2012
    4
    Battlefield 3, for me was a huge waste of time. Sure the graphics were pretty, but the single player was an utter bore and a shadow of a familiar plot line. The plot line reeks of "we couldn't really be bothered". As for the multiplayer, I purchased the Limited Edition and found I could not activate back to Karkland. When I tried to get it activated they never bothered to do anything aboutBattlefield 3, for me was a huge waste of time. Sure the graphics were pretty, but the single player was an utter bore and a shadow of a familiar plot line. The plot line reeks of "we couldn't really be bothered". As for the multiplayer, I purchased the Limited Edition and found I could not activate back to Karkland. When I tried to get it activated they never bothered to do anything about it despite contacting them about the issue. Furthermore, the comments about how great the multiplayer is are a fantasy cooked up in the minds of those craving another battlefield title. Battlefield 1942 was amazing and innovative on release, Battlefield 3 is another same old, same old with the added ability to fly planes and drive tanks. While entertaining at times, I'd hardly call it 'original'. It really was nothing special for me and has further disinterested me in the first person shooters that are spewing out of the publishers these days.… Expand
  86. ReapingRose
    Dec 16, 2012
    8
    I give the game an 8/10 for the effort.
    Though the attempt to make Battlefield appeal to more casual games was brave, it wasn't entirely successful nor was it a terrible failure.
    Though we can't really say that the console versions were great, the game still had a reason to be played, even if preceding titles were superior in aspect. Graphics: Stunning visuals are nice, but it is to    I give the game an 8/10 for the effort.
    Though the attempt to make Battlefield appeal to more casual games was brave, it wasn't entirely successful nor was it a terrible failure.
    Though we can't really say that the console versions were great, the game still had a reason to be played, even if preceding titles were superior in aspect.
    Graphics: Stunning visuals are nice, but it is to mask some of the graphical glitches that you will eventually encounter, but it can be negligible if you want gameplay experience. Gameplay: Not better than Bad Company 2, but still worth a try. The principles of Battlefield is still incorporated for the most part with long range gun engagements, vehicle and aircraft based fighting for a realistic combat environment. Though not entirely realistic, it provides something different from Call of Duty where everything is blatantly arcade. Players require effort for certain fighting distances and or methods and must take some tactical strategy in to mind. You can't just run in and expect to kill 7 enemies all in one go if they all know you're there, (unless you were in a tank, plane or if the players were entirely oblivious to the attacker)
    Replayability: It provides a good amount of replayability, as long as you can enjoy the game modes. Single Player Campaign was far too linear but it's still worth saying that Multiplayer is decent. At least you can call Battlefield more hardcore than Call of Duty, which perceives itself as hardcore when in utter reality it is not.
    Other opinions: Just play the game. If you don't like it, then that's your opinions and views and we have no obligation to change that by our own behalf, though it's always great to consider that this game can be more worth playing than certain other games that can be considered mediocre. Casual gaming is overtaking the market hence why many game companies take action to appeal to them, which is a disappointing truth that many of us may have to accept one day, but sometimes is just good to appreciate what they have given rather than complain about what they don't provide from the older games. Battlefield 3 in its own right deserves a decent score for being an attempt to compete with other contemporary shooters and still provide some sort of competition.    … Expand
  87. OTipsey
    Jan 13, 2013
    4
    I want to like this game, I really do, but there is ONE thing that keeps that from happening: I can not play it on my computer because I use an Intel HD graphics card. It says it can run at around a medium-high setting, but it lags horribly, even with the graphics settings as low as they can be. Sure, most games don't recognize the card, but they still run very well when I adjust theI want to like this game, I really do, but there is ONE thing that keeps that from happening: I can not play it on my computer because I use an Intel HD graphics card. It says it can run at around a medium-high setting, but it lags horribly, even with the graphics settings as low as they can be. Sure, most games don't recognize the card, but they still run very well when I adjust the settings to what the card can do. The last time a game lagged like this it was because of dust getting on the card. You could have a card+processor that can run Total War: Shogun 2, but if it's Intel, you will have 3 FPS on low settings. While looking at the ground.… Expand
  88. DemonicSoul
    May 21, 2015
    8
    Story: You play as Staff Sergeant Henry Blackburn, a member of the U.S. Marine Corps, who is being interrogated by CIA agents due to events that occurred during his time in The Middle East. The goal of the CIA agents are to find out the possible whereabouts of a potential nuke, and you play most of the story in flashbacks. The story expands to feature multiple settings, including: Iran,Story: You play as Staff Sergeant Henry Blackburn, a member of the U.S. Marine Corps, who is being interrogated by CIA agents due to events that occurred during his time in The Middle East. The goal of the CIA agents are to find out the possible whereabouts of a potential nuke, and you play most of the story in flashbacks. The story expands to feature multiple settings, including: Iran, Iraq, Paris, the Azerbaijani border, and New York City. I'll give credit to the unique settings, solid voice acting, and the small amount of tension that stems from the conflict in this story; but this story was BORING. Blackburn, despite talking in the cutscenes, is mute during gameplay, none of the characters are like-able and show little interesting personality, and the story is told out-of-order, making for some confusing moments in the story. In the end, no one plays Battlefield for the story, and for good reason. 4/10

    Gameplay: Gunfights during the campaign are pretty solid due to how the guns feel when you use them. They have recoil and feel realistic. This makes firefights a little more interesting than what they could have been. I'm disappointed though by the lack of destruction in the campaign, plus you don't get to use some of the cool gadgets that much, besides in scripted sequences. The AI is pretty standard affair, but I HATE how if you get to close to them, they panic-knife and instantly kill you. In some of the CQB sections of the game, this can lead to frustration instantly. So all-in-all, the gameplay is nothing memorable. 5/10

    Graphics: Where this game shines is in its graphics department. This game came out in 2011, and it still holds up against some of the recent game releases. The campaign cutscenes look nice, the lighting and textures are all fully-realized and look great, and the destruction effects are cool. My only complaints are that some of the character movements and models don't look impressive, the vehicle collisions could be better, and the blue tint detracts from the quality of the visuals. But outside of that, the visuals are great. 8/10

    Sound: Another high for BF3 are its high-quality sound designs. Every aspect in this game, from gun sounds to vehicle sounds, have excellent sound design. Simply great. 9/10

    Multiplayer: The main part of this review is definitely the MP, and it delivers. To start off, unlike BC2, you only get 4 infantry classes, each with their own exclusive set of weapons. They are: Assault--using assault rifles and healing and reviving teammates on the battlefield; Engineer--repairs friendly vehicles and attacks enemy ones while using carbines; Support--keeps the team going with ammunition while being aggressive to the enemy team with light-machine guns, C4s, and mortars (screw those things!); and Recon--provides tactical assistance to the team by spotting enemies and sniping them. The Assault class is the most popular due to being able to heal himself, but the rest have their own quirks still. There are also an abundance of land, air, and sea vehicles to use on some maps and during some modes, a lengthy ranking system that goes up 145 levels, 9 different maps which compliment the main modes, a solid netcode, and a couple dozen guns and gadgets to use. There're even 6 solid co-op missions with their own storyline and great teamplay mechanics which involve you and your partner controlling an attack chopper together, and several stealth sections where communication is key. Classic game modes like Conquest and Rush also return along with standard Team/Squad Deathmatches, and the great map design makes these modes more enjoyable. There are great things to say about this game, but there are also some bad things to say about it. When it comes to weapon balance, I can't help but get annoyed anytime someone kills me with a semi-auto shotgun. The Saiga 12K, DAO -12, and M1014 often kill pretty quickly, and because you can spam them, you can die pretty quickly from them with the killer not requiring much skill since these are easy-to-use. The Assault class also suffers from some balancing issues with guns like the M16A3, M416, and AEK-971 outperforming other guns in the category. The suppression feature in this game--where if you shoot close to an enemy, their screen gets blurry, allowing you or your teammates to finish that guy off--is WAY TOO STRONG to the point where you almost can't see anything once you're suppressed. The defibrillator, an Assault gadget where you revive teammates with it, is also annoying with medics spamming revives at you even though you keep getting killed as you get up. Combine that with a few other annoying gadgets, and you'll start getting sick of gadgets in general. One final big sin is the progression system where you'll need a few hundred kills to unlock all the attachments for a gun. Despite all these sins though, the MP can still be fun to play. 8/10

    Verdict: At only $20, I'll say this game is definitely worth the price. Buy it.

    Rating: 8/10    … Expand
  89. monkeyspunk
    Apr 3, 2013
    7
    This game could have been so much better I was going to give it a lesser marks because I think BF3 isn't what I was truly hoping for. But saying that its still one of the best wargames out at the moment and looks beautiful.
    But Battlefield games in the past were known for being a big beautiful Multi player game with large conquest maps, a good adequate selection of weapons and they were    This game could have been so much better I was going to give it a lesser marks because I think BF3 isn't what I was truly hoping for. But saying that its still one of the best wargames out at the moment and looks beautiful.
    But Battlefield games in the past were known for being a big beautiful Multi player game with large conquest maps, a good adequate selection of weapons and they were slowly building teamwork etc into the series... But Battlefield now is no different to other games except bigger and with vehicles, the single player is alright but I never buy BF games for single player so for me its a waste of time which should have been spent on the multi player. Its gone all stats, attachments and unlock crazy, singleplayer, millions of game modes etc etc on and on.. just does my head in and kills my enjoyment. Plus things like being killed when you have just got cover or ran out of view then you suddenly die I could go on and on but i cant be assed.. it could have been so much better.    … Expand
  90. RollBread
    Jan 31, 2013
    1
    What"going casual" means: to refocus from enjoying the challenge and competition of a game to unlocking items and gaining [redundant] levels in the form of "ranks"; neither are tangible, but only one brings me back, again and again.

    I don't even know why you'd change a game so, did they think it'd be capable of competing with Call of Duty? Terrible.
  91. strav
    Feb 13, 2013
    6
    ***This is a review of the solo campaign, it may not apply to the multiplayer mode. I don't feel like saying much about this game except that this is perhaps the most linear and restrained solo campaign I've played in the last few years. In each mission, it feels like you could sit back and let your buddies do all the work and the objectives would be accomplished all the same. There also***This is a review of the solo campaign, it may not apply to the multiplayer mode. I don't feel like saying much about this game except that this is perhaps the most linear and restrained solo campaign I've played in the last few years. In each mission, it feels like you could sit back and let your buddies do all the work and the objectives would be accomplished all the same. There also are numerous missions where you're in "control" of some vehicle (tank, plane) and there again it's as hard as clicking a few places. Sure the graphics of the Dice engine are something but there is way too much post-processing effects and it makes the whole thing disturbing. If you want a good FPS experience, try Far-Cry 3 or Black Mesa. They're perhaps not as visually compelling but hell they deliver a better experience.… Expand
  92. WhiteReaper
    Feb 16, 2013
    6
    I have been playing BF games since BF1942 was out and, although this game seems to be everyone's favourite shooter, I really can't bring myself to like it. Oh, of course, being a BF fan I preordered the limited edition.
    After the first 8 hours (which, to be honest, I enjoyed a lot) I started noticing that this game plays like a CoD with vehicles and big maps. To confirm my thoughts, all I    I have been playing BF games since BF1942 was out and, although this game seems to be everyone's favourite shooter, I really can't bring myself to like it. Oh, of course, being a BF fan I preordered the limited edition.
    After the first 8 hours (which, to be honest, I enjoyed a lot) I started noticing that this game plays like a CoD with vehicles and big maps. To confirm my thoughts, all I saw around were idiots "trolling", campers sitting in a corner and people successfully running and shooting around the map like it was some sort of run-and-gun game. Ok, the previous BF's weren't realistic games but this one feels A LOT different and more on the "casual" side. It's not a fast shooter, it's not a realistic shooter and it's not a tactical shooter, to me it feels like a generic in-between I can't bring myself to like; although I'd really want to, I just find it boring. I also don't like the Premium system which is very unfair to people who pre-ordered the Limited Edition and also to subscribers themselves, since the content of the DLCs has been changed in these last months. I have to admit the graphics are amazing. The SP is quite bad but, in my opinion, this game should be judged for its MP. I'd give it a 6.5/10.    … Expand
  93. 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
  94. jangers
    Mar 23, 2013
    8
    I will not judge single mode, because the BF was designed for multiplayer. As the successor bf2 expect a similar game but be disappointed on several mechanisms. This game does not have climate like old battlefields, by the fact that: weapons & accessories are not assigned to individual parties to the conflict and a lot of stupid unlocks. Battlefields on one single army soldiers run inI will not judge single mode, because the BF was designed for multiplayer. As the successor bf2 expect a similar game but be disappointed on several mechanisms. This game does not have climate like old battlefields, by the fact that: weapons & accessories are not assigned to individual parties to the conflict and a lot of stupid unlocks. Battlefields on one single army soldiers run in different uniforms... Maps also not to my liking, No map with possibilty of taking all control point(Instant ticket reset).BF3 is not suitable completely for clan wars. (Unlocks, no support for mods, no time limit,no spectator modeetc....) old conquest mode killed by new game modes from DLCs that divide players (premium). On the plus side audiovisual binding & battlelog. As for 4fun game, BF3 is a good game. The game does not convince me, as very different from its predecessors. For me last good BF is 2142… Expand
  95. glinkot
    Mar 7, 2013
    4
    This game can deliver some great moments particularly in multiplayer. Graphics are fantastic also. The thing that lets it down is the client side collision detection, which makes things a lot more of a lottery than they should be. Ducking behind a wall only to die afterwards just creates a sense of dissatisfaction that is hard to work with.
  96. Spork
    Mar 27, 2013
    1
    Multiplayer is boring and rife with wallhacks and aimbots. Single player is basically a movie you get to participate in occasionally. I got it for free as a bonus for another purchase, so I guess I didn't waste anything but my time. I might play the upcoming BF for free!
  97. NevNav
    May 30, 2013
    8
    As a Battlefield 1942 & 2 veteran i was rly waiting for this game now after around 500 hours of gameplay here are my thoughts
    Positive ><
    - Weapon customization many weapons - Vehicles still quite big role - Awsome sounds graphics - Caspian border epic map - Teamplay - Squad perks soldier clothing - Vehicle perks - Battlelog - destruction Negative ---------------- -    As a Battlefield 1942 & 2 veteran i was rly waiting for this game now after around 500 hours of gameplay here are my thoughts
    Positive ><
    - Weapon customization many weapons
    - Vehicles still quite big role
    - Awsome sounds graphics
    - Caspian border epic map
    - Teamplay
    - Squad perks soldier clothing
    - Vehicle perks
    - Battlelog
    - destruction

    Negative ----------------
    - Supression basicly a mechanic for baddys to get kills they just spray and pray and you get supressed and die
    - Regenerating health & vehicle health Just rly lame takes skill away from the game reason why i play hardcore only )
    - Only 4 man squads
    - No 2 seater jets
    -Only 2 sides no china no mec no Eu USA Vs russia is getting boring)
    - Client side hit req do i need to say more i have died so many times after i have duckd for cover or went behind wall This lowers the score by 1 for me .
    - Sniper scope glint
    - The sun is like it's exploding or the soldiers cant afford sunglasses
    - Most maps suck hard too small maps operation bottleneck )
    - Premium was ok in my book but the amount of stuff that we got in the dlc.s was not 4 maps that mostly suckd hard and barely anything new Was waiting for armored kill like hell but the only 2 maps were good Also no new vehicle except lame artillery that was shi t & some lame tank destroyer .
    Where were new jets new tanks new perks weapon unlocks ?
    - Scout helis having no bullet proof glass
    - Cod audience whining for nerfs and ruining the game
    - Guided missiles on helis jets javelin useless becouse everyone is forced to take smoke on vehicles
    - Maps are too cluster f##k Damavand peak 1 big tunnel of grindfest, metro the cancer of battlefield .
    - OP weapons that wont be balanced m16a3 95 of the players use it yet no nerf )
    - Blue tint
    - Bugs jumping to water from bridge and dieing or jumping from 1 meter and getting bad luck )
    - Vehicle balance between sides Russian AA mobile so inferior compared to usa AA slow & bigger target T90 russian tank is skating on ice Havoc heli is big target and was alot clumsier than AHz.. Su 35 bigger turning circle than F18 .
    - Co op maps were too few and felt abit since only 1 map was with vehicles
    - Campaing was medicore tho BF is multiplayer so doesent bother me so much )
    - Premium changing your knife to a carpet knife
    - No good night maps No good snow maps only 1 map with rain in it .
    - Tanks feel like paper bags 2 engineers will easily blow up tank if you just stay behind some rock since tank has barely any Splash damage should be able to choose between Ap HE shells )
    - World roof height is far too low Jet physics suck hard compared to Bf2 flying for 250 km/h really ?)

    Battlefield could have been a 10/10 for me but these negative things lower its score by 2 atleast maybe im being abit too generous but it's still the best fps there is atleast when comparing it to COD that is basicly rehash for 5 years straight.
    Lets just hope that Dice gets the ball in Bf4 and adds some crucial things server side hit req Remove supression or modify it so it wont add random spread to bullets 2 seat jets bigger & better maps snow maps jungle maps more sides ,etc etc bigger squads.    … Expand
  98. lach1223
    Jun 14, 2013
    7
    BF3 is a pretty good game although it is not without its flaws. The campaign for the most part is quite bland and to be honest most of the maps for multiplayer are weak. In my opinion, only Caspian Border, Operation Firestorm and Kharg island are true battlefield maps. The others generally involve ridiculous corridor fighting which is not the essence of what a Battlefield game is meant toBF3 is a pretty good game although it is not without its flaws. The campaign for the most part is quite bland and to be honest most of the maps for multiplayer are weak. In my opinion, only Caspian Border, Operation Firestorm and Kharg island are true battlefield maps. The others generally involve ridiculous corridor fighting which is not the essence of what a Battlefield game is meant to be and rather a take off COD. Gameplaywise the game is quite solid with many vehicles and weapons. The flaws I mentioned prevent the game from soaring.… Expand
  99. TheMzingReview
    Jun 17, 2013
    7
    Great visual and sound assets. Campaign is boring and very linear. I would have preferred they kept the Bad Company story. They also reduced a lot of the destruction from BFBC2 which is very disappointing. This game could be greater, but now it isn't as fun anymore.
  100. xxdiyxx2
    Jul 3, 2013
    7
    A single company is secondary and uninteresting, but the multiplayer is just super. Graphics 9/10. Animation 10/10. The story of 4/10. Multiplayer 9/10.
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 »