One of the most talked about rivalries in gaming right now is that of Call of Duty vs. Battlefield. Rightfully so, as DICE has made no bones about going after Call of Duty and its first-person shooter popularity crown. While the comparison seems like an obvious one, we’re not convinced that Call of Duty is the best measuring stick for Battlefield 3. Sure they’re both military shooters but, outside of their genre, these two games set out to achieve very different things, especially on the multiplayer side.
Perhaps a better comparison would be to that of Battlefield 2, a game that a lot of people still consider to be the high mark in multiplayer gaming. Or maybe we should use the most recent Battlefield project, the Bad Company series, a side franchise that has become quite popular amongst the console crowd. So how does Battlefield 3 stack up against its much-loved older brothers?
One of the single greatest things Battlefield 3 has over its most recent console predecessors (and most console multiplayer games) is a server browser. We know server browsers are nothing new to PC games but they’re somewhat rare on consoles. Not only does Battlefield 3 have one, but it’s far and away the best we’ve seen yet. There are tons of sorting options for every game type and mode, you can flag favorite servers for another date, see which servers your friends are playing on, and even see what rank all the players on a particular server are before jumping in. Again, this is old potatoes for PC gamers, but for console players, this is a welcome offering.
[drop]Speaking of game types and modes, there’s a new one that had a lot of players rolling their eyes when DICE announced it, and that’s 12 on 12 Team Deathmatch. Deathmatch isn’t new to the Battlefield series but in the Bad Company franchise, deathmatch was kept strictly to a squad format. Squad deathmatch is still an option but this time there’s also the 24 player variation. This mode plays dramatically faster than every other game type, mostly because of how small the maps are. It ended up being one of our favorite modes to play, because it gives you a CoD-esque sense of speed, while keeping the large-scale battles (minus the vehicles) and varied gameplay you expect from Battlefield.Other available game modes include Battlefield staples, ‘Rush’, and ‘Conquest’, as well as hardcore variations of every game-type, and even a ‘infantry only’ option for the objective based games.
One of the things that make all those game-types so great is that you can play them on every map. Unlike Bad Company 2, Battlefield 3 has a different map variation for every mode in the game. The Rush variants are usually the biggest, and the deathmatch maps are generally only a small, strategically sequestered, fenced-in piece of the full map.
Speaking of the maps, they’re awesome. Every one of them. The game ships with 9 total, and not only are they absolutely massive in the objective games, but it feels like DICE went through each of them, time and time again, combing out exactly where to put choke points, intersections, and objectives. They all feel unique, and some of them even have a distinct draw to them, like the ability to BASE-jump from a helipad and parachute in to the next objective.
To go along with the fantastic map design, the weapons and vehicles are also masterfully crafted and balanced. It’s hard to believe that a game with over 40 primary weapons and 20 vehicles can achieve a very high level of balance, but Battlefield 3 pulls it off. Thanks to the new ‘scope gleam’ and the slightly ‘nerfed’ sniper rifles, snipers can no longer dominate the game 300 yards away from the objectives, as was the case in the Bad Company games.
Regarding the vehicles, all the tanks and land vehicles feel roughly the same as they did in Bad Company 2, but the choppers received a major handling overhaul. They’re still quite useful with the right pilot and gunners, but their impact is kept in check thanks to several changes DICE implemented.
And then there are the jets. To be honest, we were never able to have a significant impact with the jets, nor did any of the other people we played with. Don’t get us wrong, as an infantry soldier, seeing four planes duking it out in mid-air is an awesome sight to behold, but they rarely had an impact on what was happening on the ground.
Perhaps the greatest part about Battlefield 3’s multiplayer is how many things there are to do at any given time. This isn’t always the case when playing a deathmatch mode but in Rush and Conquest, we were never at a loss for secondary tasks. Depending on which of the four classes you choose to play as, you can hand out health, throw out ammo packs, revive teammates, place mines, drop mobile spawn points, spot enemies, and even use unmanned drones to complete a couple of tasks. Of course, that’s all just in an effort to help achieve your primary task of completing main objectives while eliminating the opposing team along the way.
The visuals in multiplayer do take a bit of a hit compared to what you see in the campaign. There’s a little more draw-in and pop-up that will occasionally catch your eye, but even at its worst, it’s a sharp looking game that rarely slows down, even during intense moments when a lot is happening in confined quarters.
It will come as surprise to no one, but the audio effects in Battlefield 3 are downright stunning. The guns sound crisp, the tanks and jets sound intimidating, and there is never a moment when the game’s audio design allows you to fall out of immersion. Also, the subtle music that starts to play when your team is about to win the game is a very nice touch.
Unfortunately, all the glowing praise we’ve offered above about Battlefield 3 doesn’t amount to much if you’re not actually able to get on to a server and play the game. And for a lot people (including us), that’s been a very real problem. Just about every network issue you could dream up occurred for us at one point or another. Connection failures, servers booting everyone out mid-game, random pockets of lag, several lengthy unscheduled maintenance sessions, and sometimes a complete inability to successfully join games with more than one person in a party.
[drop2]It’s a real shame the multiplayer launch has been this rocky because the game itself feels like a finished product, but on many occasions the frustration of not being able to play with friends (or at all) outweighed the fun we had once we were finally in.Another thing we weren’t so fond of was the lack of loadout options for your soldier. You can only customize the U.S. soldier before going in to a game, which is confusing because there are guns that are temporarily exclusive to the Russian side of multiplayer. To set up your Russian soldier’s loadout, you have to do it in-game. Even though you’re given some time to do this before each match starts, it was still a bit odd.
We also weren’t impressed with the stats that are available to view in the game. You can’t see any specific weapon or vehicle stats without using EA’s ‘Battlelog’ on PC or select mobile devices. The Battlelog (when it’s working) is nice enough, but we really felt like we should’ve been able to see a more detailed breakdown of our stats within the game itself.
Although the co-op mode in Battlefield 3 was also sporadically affected by the server issues, there were a few times when we were able to play while waiting for servers to come back up. There are 6 missions total, all of them placing you in a random scenario without any story-related reason to complete the objective. And that’s precisely why co-op was never really anything more than a time killer while waiting to play competitive modes. Without any type of context, it’s just not that much fun to randomly kill waves of opponents while nothing is pushing you to move further. For some, the unlockable multiplayer weapons will be enough to warrant at least some time in this mode, but for us, it was nothing more than a quick distraction before trying once again to get on a multiplayer server.
Pros:
- Many different ways to play each game.
- Amazing sound design.
- Maps are brilliantly constructed.
- Good balance between weapons and vehicles.
- Loads of stuff to unlock.
Cons:
- Terrible connectivity issues.
- Co-op feels tacked on.
- Lack of loadout and stat options.
Once we made it on to a server and in to a properly running game, we found Battlefield 3 to be one of the most intense and enjoyable multiplayer experiences we’ve ever had. Unfortunately, technical issues absolutely devastated the launch of this game and have likely left a very deep scar on the Battlefield community. Any fan of the franchise or modern shooters in general should definitely give Battlefield 3’s multiplayer a shot, but at least for the moment, be prepared to fight through some mean bush to reach the good stuff.
Score: 8/10
You can get our review of Battlefield 3’s single player experience by clicking here.
Reviewed from the Xbox 360 version of the game with the optional texture pack installed.
C_S15
It’s brilliant how quickly people are to have a go at the cons, whereas the pros say it’s one of the best games ever.
I wholeheartedly agree with most of this review, I’ve not had as horrible connection issues as you seemed to have had but I have certainly had them, which is too many times, in my eyes.
Battlelog should definitely be in the game too. I used Elite about 3-4 times during the beta and it was never a fun experience. If I’m on my computer, I want to be on Steam or chatting to friends, being on twitter or playing Solitaire when my internet is down; definitely not checking out my stats while I’m not actually playing my game.
This is why Elite will be better because it has an in-game app that has EVERYTHING on that app IN-GAME for high accessibility, I can see all those stats on the platform I’m actually playing on, which is when it actually matters.
The only place I do disagree with you is the maps. The majority of them are horrible and sum up perfectly why Battlefield has the “Run everywhere, die, run everywhere” stigma. I’ve actually taken to finding a Rush server with Grand Bazaar on it, playing that game and quitting when the next map comes along.
So in my eyes, definitely an 8, I can’t see it being any higher than that and I can’t see this making the bite in CoD’s crown that DICE so claimed it would do, critically or in terms of sales.
Shlomi1995
I absolutely loved BFBC1 and Bad Company 2 – which I still play (I’m around rank 40, and I consider myself a *professional* engineer).
I never played a COD game (except for COD3 on PS2, offline only).
I love FPS games for their Multiplayer portion, since playing in the closed beta of BC1 (my first online multiplayer FPS experience).
Now I’m not sure about whether I should get BF3 or try MW3 for a change. I can only choose one of ’em, since I also plan on getting Batman, UC3, Resistance 3, NBA 2K12 at one point in time.
david24
well if you love bc1/2 you’ll love bf3. personally I’d give it a 10/10 for multiplayer. like i said before its easily the best multiplayer I’ve played to date and considerably better then bc2. to me at least bf3 is in a totally different league to any of the previous cod’s or even battlefield games I’ve played.
if you want to try out cod mw2 is £7.99 @gamestaion online and i can guarantee you it’ll be 95% the same game as mw3
http://www.gamestation.co.uk/gs/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-2-35979
(hopefully the link will work)
C_S15
Guarantee it’ll be 95% the same game? Get your idiocy out of here and stop repeating what you heard somebody else say on the internet. Even the most adamant anti-CoD fanboy can see they’ve changed an awful lot from MW2 and a LOT more than 95%.
david24
oh come on, every new cod game is essentially a map pack with a few balancing tweaks and the odd new gun and perk. theirs nothing being added to mw3 that will change the way the game plays and feels in the slightest. all they do is make a big deal out of a few superficial changes and get their dedicated team of fanboys to do the rest.
C_S15
Yep, more things you heard other people say. They didn’t change anything in how the game plays from BC2 to BF3. Know why? Because both guys know they’re onto a winning formula. It wouldn’t make sense for a game that had a style and control set down to drastically change something that defines the series does it?
Also, strike packages, don’t change how the game plays at all (!)
Maybe I was wrong, there really are more idiotic anti-CoD fans than I could’ve believed.
C_S15
If you really like BC2, there will be similarities, but the gameplay is a lot more open and a lot less directed, which leads to a lot of running around not killing things unless you’re playing on PC where the player count is higher.
If you’re an engineer, you probably like the repairing and shooting rockets at shit parts. So you might not get on too well with CoD as there isn’t that sort of reliance on a good engineer and it’s more down to who can shoot who better.
RFC2007
@david24 remembering through rise tinted glasses or deteriorating eyesite…no. I am of course referring to the PS3 version of BF3 though
Bfbc2 and even Vietnam look much better visually, try going back yourself. What a difference. Also the game feels so much smoother and it makes aiming a lot easier.
BF3 has actually left me very disappointed after all the hype and those awesome trailers we were drip fed.
I just hope there’s gonna be a mega patch to sort this game out.
david24
well i guess were going to have to agree to disagree on that one. to me at least the graphics look insane compared to bc2 the difference for me would be so great that its like playing a ps2 game in comparison. i really don’t know how dice could make the game worse visually with the new lighting engine of frostbite 2 and all the dev time spent on graphics
E8_BALL_
Mortars spoiling it for me, lost count of the matches, where i spent the whole time counteracting mortars, with my own.
No mortar servers needed, or get rid imo.
DJ Judas
The PC version is almost a completely different game to the console versions. My experience with them is not only that the PC iteration is superior but simply a better game for it. The issues that plague the console versions are not there in the PC edition and the actual gameplay somehow seems completely different.
Perhaps it’s down to the players playing, but when a team of people on Kharg Island know exactly what they’re doing, you get that perfect sense of scale. However I’ll admit that this ‘pefection’ only exists with a very lucky team selection. I can’t say I’ve encountered anything like this in the console versions though, perhaps it’s the fewer people but I actually prefer BC2 to BF3 on console whereas BF3 on PC is vastly superior to BC2 on PC – That alone is evidence enough for me that the PC might as well be a different game. It’s like comparing any iteration of CoD to the Wii version, they’re just different.
justboy
Got the game today, but been too busy to play. Going to try and get a quick go online in the morning before hogmanay celebrations take over.