So after a few weeks of picking more niche titles, it seems like it’s time to come back with a big hitter, and they don’t get much bigger than EA’s Battlefield 3. The amount of exposure and advertising the game was given last year was absolutely incredible, outweighing pretty much every other title. The big release finally came after months of hype in October, and we actually got to see what all the earthquakes in the trailers were about.
Personally I felt the game’s single player started well, but when it turned to the early night-time section I got frustrated and then bored. Ultimately I gave up and haven’t returned to the title since. Fortunately, Alex is a bit more patient than I and managed to finish the single player for our review.
We’ll get to the multiplayer in a moment, but whilst Alex found a number of issues with the game, in particular the fact that it can’t stick to its own rules, he was pleased to call the campaign “surprisingly good”. Rating the single player at 7/10 he had this to say about the game in conclusion:
You can’t blame DICE and EA for the direction Battlefield 3 has taken. There’s a decent game here, but it’s nothing – beyond the special effects and presentation – that we’ve not played before. The AI might be smart and your squad at least can fire for themselves, but when it’s the same thing each time, ad verbatim, you can’t help but wish for something a little bit more freeform, dynamic and tactical rather than a roller coaster ride through the Middle East.
Switching gears to the multiplayer now, it was Matt who looked at that aspect of the game. Whilst I’m not all that interested in the multiplayer content of most games, although I’m not above a bit of Gears of War co-op, it certainly seems to have come to the forefront of many console titles this generation. Many of the complaints with the game’s multiplayer were technical, talking about server issues and alike. Hopefully you can tell us to what extent these have now been resolved, but for now here’s a quick extract from what Matt had to say:
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.
With all of that said, it’s time to ask you for your opinions of the game. Did you think EA’s gamble in putting so much into the title paid off, or does it fail in comparison to its peers? Did DICE manage to pull off a technical tour-de-force, or did it not leave up to the high expectations it had? Even if it was technically impressive, was the gameplay lacking? Of course maybe you just think the game is without fault, and you can’t get enough of it.
Wherever you fall on the scale of opinions it’s time to make your voice heard. All you need to do to take part is drop a comment below with you opinon. Remember that your comment needs to include a final verdict of the game on the Buy It, Bargain Bin It, Rent It or Avoid It scale. Just select one of those four categories and make sure you include it somewhere in your comment.
Finally, you need to make sure you have your comment in by Sunday afternoon, as at that point I’ll have started to write Monday’s verdict post.
F022Y
I bought both BF3 and MW3 in the attempt to replace my beloved MAG, I suppose because BF3 is more like MAG than MW3 I wasn’t surprised that MW3 was part exchanged 2 months later. From my point of view I would say Buy it but I much prefer a tactical game that BF3 offers instead of the run and gun which I experienced in MW3.
Grey_Ghost13
Thought the single player was a piss poor attempt at a game, stolen ideas, poor story, crap AI and scripting, terrible easy deaths, just horrible! Multiplayer on the other hand was brilliant if your into the more tactical slower paced online FPS games. but unfortunetly the single player campaign got me so frustrated it’s and AVOID IT, from me.
mrfodder
Love the multiplayer (in fact must get back to it). Great maps, give some intense battles and it looks beautiful. The single player was a bit meh! Especially where it tells you to grab the machine gun on the overpass. Go for the gun and your dead. Stay down low and survive. This is a game for the multiplayer so overall a BUY!
Forrest_01
Ok, well i suppose i had better put my two pence worth in (be rude not to i suppose) – Unfortunately, i am unable to comment on the singleplayer portion of the game as i simply still have not played it! However, this is more of a testament to the multiplayer as it is only that i think of when i look to Battlefield… I have eyes for nothing else! In fact, I actually only see the Singleplayer as nothing more than a token add on.
Basically, I played the multiplayer of this at eurogamer (once) & was hooked from that point. I don’t know what it was at that point, but playing Operation Metro along with others who hadn’t even seen the game before was a truly amazing experience, as we found little hidey holes, routes to take off of the beaten path, experimented with weapons outside of our class etc. I was suitably hyped following that.
Battlefield 3 became my first ever pre-order after that (& is still my only pre-order to date).
The classes are all nicely rounded & once you find the class that works best for you & your ‘weapon of choice’ (cue fatboy slim), things really start to click into place. Personally, i have never encountered any of the issues with hit detection or lag that a handful of people mention & the guns have never felt like they weren’t doing what they were supposed to. In fact, it’s probably the most accurate multiplayer i have personally played.
The destruction is an awesome element too, as you don’t get a guy holed up in a building who is entirely safe from your gunfire.
Then you have the vehicles (which are great but do take some practice) & the varied game modes & there is literally just too much to say here.
I play it week after week in the meet i run & i have to say that it never gets boring. Which is saying something considering i am usually a playthrough/platinum a game & then trade it kinda guy… The wife even plays a bit!
My recommendation is simple – If you love games that are more about the team than your K/D, get this. If you are at the other end of the scale however, you may be better off sticking with CoD, as this game isn’t too well suited to the selfish lone wolf approach (although this is fine in spurts).
I’ll just end it here with the statement that nothing is better than a team full of TSAers taking on the world BF style. :)
Buy it (i would still pay full price for it today).
MICKY17
Not going to bother voicing my opinions on SP as most of the comments so far echo my sentiments. MP though is by far the best experience I’ve ever had online. Admittedly there are a couple of niggles with hit detection, but the variety in each game is superb. Depending on your class, every match is different to the last, even if you play the same maps. That’s what I love about BF3, the choice you get. It is possible to play as the lone wolf and run everywhere with shotguns/assault rifles trying to do it all yourself, but it’s much more enjoyable working as a team to take MCOM’s in Rush or holding flags in Conquest.
Overall I would say BUY IT, BUY IT, BUY IT!!!!
wonkey-willy
does anyone still play this?
ive gone back to bad company 2
far superior imho…
yogdog
Plenty of us, and plenty of people online (I never find an empty server on any map).
I prefer BC2 (but only just) but due to the servers being near empty I rarely play it now. BF3 gets my playtime.
david24
hundreds of thousands are playing it at anyone time, and on the couple of occasions I’ve go back to bfbc2 for a change of pace I’ve struggled to get into a server that isn’t empty.
david24
best i got in over 3 hours was a 4v4 i think.
Jag
I’m a big fan of the Bad Company series but was very excited when the next “proper” Battlefield was announced. I spent ages with the beta and I knew the multiplayer would be great (despite the early inevitable bugs).
I am a big fan of singleplayer campaigns so I was intrigued to see what they were going to bring especially with the supposed amazingness of Frostbite 2.0.
I know most people will talk about the multiplayer and that is the strongest part of the game, but I want to talk about singleplayer.
When I actually got the game I thought the story was a very very mixed bag. It suffers from a lack of coherency and sometimes feels very disjointed.
Some levels are spectacular, especially the Paris level and the one near the end when the game just opens out. However, these levels are over way too quickly and there aren’t enough of them.
There are also two horrible early sections, one of which Kris mentions above and the other just before the building collapses on you, which drove me crazy.
For multiplayer fans, this is a Buy It.
For singleplayer fans, this is a Bargain Bin It.
rht992
On my first play through I enjoyed the extremely gritty combat of the single player. For me it was a realistic Killzone 3 without the silly story. Sadly the story BF3 gave me was something not worth paying the slightest bit of attention to. An 80’s “Oh no Russians” action affair with a healthy dosage of defeating terrorism. Despite this I had fun playing the single player. There were great locations, varying missions and intense gun play. But once it was all over I never went back once. It was all about the multilayer.
BF3 is the absolute king pin of FPS multilayer. No matter which game you join in whichever mode you choose the maps are huge, unpredictable and dangerous. Thousands of ways to kill or be killed with the trade mark vehicular warfare. A match can be won or lost in seconds and never before playing an online game have I felt such a team feeling. Its a godsend. Online with team play, few annoying teens, plenty of options, great maps, great modes and intense action that is always fun.
rht992
oh! Buy It for the online
yogdog
The single player and co op was a bit lacking (although both were enjoyable to a degree) but they were was never the reason I bought the game.
Bad Company 2 was my first (console, had a small go on PC once) Battlefield game and it took me a few hours to get used to it, but once I was I got hooked veryyy quickly. I ended up ploughing 48 hours into the game and had an amazing time playing online: made some really good friends on it. BF3 is my first ‘proper’ Battlefield game and although I don’t think it’s rates as highly as BC2 (only just though!) just for the multiplayer, the game is worth a purchase. I play an hour every day at least lately, it’s addictive to squad up with friends and go to a warzone where your squad can make all the difference.
A definite buy it from me, if you enjoy the mp on FPS’s.
david24
i thought you put 480 hours into bfbc2?
yogdog
Yeah, it was 480, my bad! Don’t think it’s even possible (without boosting) to get to rank 50 in 48 hours…
Forrest_01
Sounds like a challenge mate. :)
yogdog
Trust me: I was one of the quickest (in terms of playtime) to get to rank 50 and it took me 200 hours :P
cnutard
Having started into the BF franchise at BF2 and owning every subsequent installment (apart from 2042, or whatever it was) I was extremely hyped for this game, and it did not disappoint.
I’ve only finished the single player in the last month as I saved it for internet/PSN downtime, because, as I’ve stated in numourous other comments, BF is all about the multiplayer for me.
I did enjoy the campaign, finally getting away from those BC spoons, but it’s pretty much the same as any other linear single player fps; cutscene, shoot your way to the objective, complete objective, repeat until game completion… Yawn.
What really drags me into the multiplayer is the knowledge that no round is ever the same. Yes this is true for all multiplayer really, but not on the grand scale that BF does things. The fact I can choose a class for whatever mood I’m in can change your viewpoint of each map drastically. Then add on to that the choice of vehicles. Do I want to control the skies and spot enemies from above? Do I want to steamroll in a tank? Or plain and simple, do I want to ferry my squad from one objective to another in a jeep?
The thing you have to remember is that it’s a team game. It is possible to get a random squad to work together, but with a group of friends it’s even better as you tend to know your role as part of your squad. It’s also possible to work without a squad, you just have to remember there is an objective at the heart of it all and hope the rest of your team arn’t thinking along the same lines of soloing it.
I’ve never played a better fps, with my love for the game being the map sizes, vehciles and the squad function.
My only disappointment? That I don’t have a PC for those epic 64 player battles and superior graphics.
Buy it! Now!