Battlefield 3 Review

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Vrach:

Slycne:
By word count, I actually spent more time talking about multiplayer than I did single player. Perhaps it merely feels like I focus on the singleplayer because I left it for last.

Possibly, but what I mainly meant are two things:
1) Why didn't this get 2 reviews like other games that have two significant components?
2) It's odd to spend that portion of time (even if it's only 50%) talking about the singleplayer when the multiplayer is gonna take up a lot more of both the player's time and interest.

I find that idea strange. Hes reviewing the game, not two different games. If you buy it, you get the SIngleplayer and the Multiplayer, so he spends half the review doing each. Also the "people only play this for MP" is a bit of a cop out. BF games have always had fairly decent SP campaigns, Bad Company 2 for example had a great one SP campaign, this doesn't quite live up to that.

I'm also reminded by Yahtzee, because if this game had had an amazing SP element, all the fans like yourself would be talking abut that, but since it doesn't the inevitable comment of "nobody plays it for that" comes up. If a game puts focus into both elements it needs to make them both of a high standard. Either do one well, or both well, don't skimp on one of them.

dantoddd:

Warforger:

The other reason I dislike modern war shooters is that they're so bland, there's nothing they can bring new to the table other than features in previous games (BF3 suffers this especially), the stories have little possibility to be interesting as well and they tend to be overly-patriotic.

There is so much truth to this. If anyone picks up one of the original CoD or MoH games from the early 2000s you'll see that games like BF3 offer exactly the same experience with updated game engines

Wha...? BF3 might provide an updated experience of the previous iterations of its franchise, but CoD and MoH? When did those ever have vehicular combat, which by and large separates BF from other shooters?

They did the 2-reviews-1-game thing only for MW2, i think.

Personally, i like the campaign. Not finished with it though, but it's fun. And the engine really shines in there, too.

BUT, EA should go directly to hell for launching this game with 24-man only MP. I mean, come on, seriously? Not even 32? The PS3 easily supports 32. Hell, it supports 256.

Mr. Omega:

This review is based on the 360 version of the game.

Cue the PC Master Race calling the review "flawed", the article "pointless" and the reviewer "soulless" (seriously, every time someone mentions BF on consoles, the word "soulless" is guaranteed to show up, without fail.), with at least 2 more insults about anything else in 3...2...1...

Also: Actually having the audacity to mention the single player and using it as a criticism while the game doesn't have a perfect score.
Cue the comments of "Nobody plays this game for the single player, you're just nitpicking!" but put in a far less pleasant way in 5...4...3...2...

But in all seriousness, this was a good review.

Calling them the 'PC Master Race' and condemning people for something that they haven't done yet (you are the second poster), is however the height of maturity.

Raiyan 1.0:

dantoddd:

Warforger:

The other reason I dislike modern war shooters is that they're so bland, there's nothing they can bring new to the table other than features in previous games (BF3 suffers this especially), the stories have little possibility to be interesting as well and they tend to be overly-patriotic.

There is so much truth to this. If anyone picks up one of the original CoD or MoH games from the early 2000s you'll see that games like BF3 offer exactly the same experience with updated game engines

Wha...? BF3 might provide an updated experience of the previous iterations of its franchise, but CoD and MoH? When did those ever have vehicular combat, which by and large separates BF from other shooters?

I was referring to the non-vehicular part. But both series had vehicular combat segments ,especially COD, but they weren't as integral as BF:1942.

NpPro93:
At around 1:20 in the review he says "blowing up walls and killing people behind them never stops losing its appeal"

So the experience of destroying the environment constantly gets less and less interesting? Most be some kind of mathematical function that approaches, but never reaches, 0.

He also has that very same phrase in the written review.
Funny really - you'd think that something like that would have been spotted somewhere down the line.

dantoddd:

Raiyan 1.0:

dantoddd:

There is so much truth to this. If anyone picks up one of the original CoD or MoH games from the early 2000s you'll see that games like BF3 offer exactly the same experience with updated game engines

Wha...? BF3 might provide an updated experience of the previous iterations of its franchise, but CoD and MoH? When did those ever have vehicular combat, which by and large separates BF from other shooters?

I was referring to the non-vehicular part. But both series had vehicular combat segments ,especially COD, but they weren't as integral as BF:1942.

And that's exactly why the franchises are so different - vehicular combat. Vehicles mean larger battle zones and the lack of it creates smaller, tighter levels.CoD and BF scratches very different itches.

(Talking about multiplayer here obviously.)

Doom-Slayer:

I'm also reminded by Yahtzee, because if this game had had an amazing SP element, all the fans like yourself would be talking abut that, but since it doesn't the inevitable comment of "nobody plays it for that" comes up. If a game puts focus into both elements it needs to make them both of a high standard. Either do one well, or both well, don't skimp on one of them.

Ha ha! Well put.

I love the game itself, but it's not that Battlefield 1942 or 2 feeling anymore. And I really hate Origin, they should've made it more like 1942 speaking in interface-terms. I don't want to go to website in my browser just to start a game which is installed on my HDD anyways.

Worr Monger:
That, and the fact that a buddy of mine couldn't get it running for a day because of Origin... Very glad I avoided this one.

The problem "Origin" should have been mentioned more in this review! Because (in short) this thing is basically Spyware, that tells EA what OS, hardware, software, ... you are using and what files you have on your hardrive etc.
This is a "NO BUY" condition for me!

This is a good reason why platform specific reviews should be used...

On the PC version, event the multiplayer has a lot of flaws, and while many can be patched a few are intrinsic to the game.

A player adopting the game now and joining a server would not experience the joys of using various vehicles and infantry combat. The new player would lack the majority of vehicle equipment needed to actually be effective ( silly things like countermeasures, and missles on the jets ), would be put at a significant disadvantage no matter which role the player tried to play in due to the lack of equipment the player must unlock...

... how do you unlock this equipment? By playing in the roles, but for example you cant revive a teammate as the medic assualt until you unlock the defibulators, but as you only have the iron sights to use with your basic assualt rifle you will be outgunned by even a Engineer and his SMG at long range... good luck assualting anything.

The basic equipment on all roles and vehicles puts you at such a substantial disadvantage versus players who have put a lot of hours into the game to unlock the equipment, its frustrating and not fun at all until you somehow manage to grind a few levels out to get some equipment... yes you read that correctly, grind because thats what it is... a grind trying to get the needed number of kills on a basic weapon with iron sights only to unlock some better sights, or equipment.

In short: New players are given a potatoe gun and a plastic knife and need to battle other players who have unlocked much better equipment and out gun and out range the new player, AS WELL as have the advantage of being familiar with the maps and mechanics.

I wonder if BF 4 will make you unlock bullets to go with your gun ?

the damn dirty lens affect annoyed me to no end during that escape sequence! the Rat QTE was comical XD Single player is completely throw away. I was pissed when the only flying sequence in the game was on RAILS! wtf man!

(im pretty sure the SP was outsourced kinda like Deus Ex's boss fights were outsourced.)

This game is the only game i want to play on Multiplayer, and for that they did the Battlefield franchise right!

Hanzo Hattori:
I love the game itself, but it's not that Battlefield 1942 or 2 feeling anymore. And I really hate Origin, they should've made it more like 1942 speaking in interface-terms. I don't want to go to website in my browser just to start a game which is installed on my HDD anyways.

That's Battlelog, not Origin.
Yeah I know, they could've made both products a lot better, but in the end, the game itself is a blast.

Geisterkarle:

Worr Monger:
That, and the fact that a buddy of mine couldn't get it running for a day because of Origin... Very glad I avoided this one.

The problem "Origin" should have been mentioned more in this review! Because (in short) this thing is basically Spyware, that tells EA what OS, hardware, software, ... you are using and what files you have on your hardrive etc.
This is a "NO BUY" condition for me!

This review is based on the 360 version, so there's no Origin involved. Also, Origin makes all the info anonymous upon sending it to EA, so no, they won't know shit about you as an individual.

Warforger:

The other reason I dislike modern war shooters is that they're so bland, there's nothing they can bring new to the table other than features in previous games (BF3 suffers this especially), the stories have little possibility to be interesting as well and they tend to be overly-patriotic. The only way they are revered as "Good" is in the multiplayer, which again favors those who are good at FPS's and laughs at those who aren't.

I think you're being too fatalistic here, to paraphrase the great Jeremy you may not be pro but you can train and then you'll still just be a trained noob but at least you'll be able to beat all the other noobs. Or in less retarded terms practice makes perfect.

In my opinion unless you're a 40+ year old who has difficulty comprehending and navigating 3 dimensional space mapped on to the 2D plane that is your TV/monitor then there's no wall preventing you from enjoying the game. (E.g. My dad can't get past the starting village of Twilight Princess because he can't steer the horse, nor can he walk around in TF2 on an empty server). You just have to like the game enough to still have fun when you're getting dominated.

This especially true for Battlefield in my opinion since it's perfectly viable to get points by healing, repairing, piloting armour and aircraft etc. So essentially if you can't beat the quickscoping 13 year old in reaction times you can go grab a tank and turn him into red mist.

dantoddd:

Warforger:

snip

There is so much truth to this. If anyone picks up one of the original CoD or MoH games from the early 2000s you'll see that games like BF3 offer exactly the same experience with updated game engines

*Fanboy mode activated

You say updated engines like it's nothing at all. Immersion, scale and the scope of player-environment interaction have been given a massive shot in the arm since the days where an inch think piece of plywood would function as cover against an LMG. That all counts for quite a bit in terms of how good the experience can be.

Non-trivial destruction for instance in my opinion should have been as big a game changer as GoW's cover system and I think it would have been if it wasn't so hard to do right. First you need an engine that can support it, then you need level designers to balance maps that will change dynamically as the game progresses.

Finally I ask you this, how much has any other AAA genre diversified in the last decade? For that matter to what degree have non-FPS franchises evolved? To use one of the most anticipated non-FPS games at the moment, it looks to me like I'll have as much fun in Skyrim as I did in Oblivion or Morrowind (i.e. not much). You're still pressing X to stab a guy with a sword and relying on him having less health than you. At least they've progressed from Morrowind where I walked up to some retarded grub thing, started stabbing it and had lots of fun watching it come up with misses over and over again.

The sad point is, if you want revolutionary changes to a genre you'll probably have to look to the indie scene. In my mind the big corporate structures of EA and Activision are only good for refinement of an already good idea.

42:
The only problem i have with the game is Team Deathmatch which isn't enjoyable, Way too many campers

For the record, I hate Battlefield for reasons I'm not going to go into in this post, but surely at this stage in the mili-fps cycle, calling out a shooter for the campers is like calling out a fighting game because people block?

Tin Man:

42:
The only problem i have with the game is Team Deathmatch which isn't enjoyable, Way too many campers

For the record, I hate Battlefield for reasons I'm not going to go into in this post, but surely at this stage in the mili-fps cycle, calling out a shooter for the campers is like calling out a fighting game because people block?

Battlefield is an objective based game. In TDM the objective is to kill more of the opposition then they do of you, so in many ways camping becomes viable but is also set in stark contrast to the general perception of TDM as something that's fast and fluid.

Other game modes require people to get out of their ditch and capture a point or arm/disarm an Mcom station in order to win. Furthermore people expect there to be defenders at those points and Mcoms so they're less inclined to rage about being ambushed by all the "campers".

NLS:

Hanzo Hattori:
I love the game itself, but it's not that Battlefield 1942 or 2 feeling anymore. And I really hate Origin, they should've made it more like 1942 speaking in interface-terms. I don't want to go to website in my browser just to start a game which is installed on my HDD anyways.

That's Battlelog, not Origin.
Yeah I know, they could've made both products a lot better, but in the end, the game itself is a blast.

Oh sorry, my fault! But I think you know what I mean. You're right, the game is great fun but everything around it seems a little unreasonably, why not just make the stat tracking like in Battlefield 2?

Alexnader:

Battlefield is an objective based game. In TDM the objective is to kill more of the opposition then they do of you, so in many ways camping becomes viable but is also set in stark contrast to the general perception of TDM as something that's fast and fluid.

Other game modes require people to get out of their ditch and capture a point or arm/disarm an Mcom station in order to win. Furthermore people expect there to be defenders at those points and Mcoms so they're less inclined to rage about being ambushed by all the "campers".

I think we agree, so I'm reading your post in a positive tone lol. There are always going to be campers in shooters, but in a game like Battlefield its par for the course because the maps are huge, and therefore sniper friendly. Not to mention you die pretty much instantly, so running and gunning is best left to highly experienced players that know the maps like the back of the hands and therefore know all the danger points and how best to run around them. But yeah, I still have no love for BF3.

I'm tempted by MW3, but not for the straight up multiplayer, for spec-ops and survival. Not to mention loads of class customisation.

"The single-player barely holds up"

So... its like Call of Duty with better multiplayer? :P

Still not even touched the single player yet, but Battlefield is probably the only series I ever buy solely for the multiplayer, and after 39 hours of MP madness and more to come, I can safely say that I've definately gotten my 35 worth of entertainment out of it.

Wow. BF3 came out almost two weeks ago. Very, very topical.

BF3 will make you want to break the disc or sell it back for many reasons. Too many Campers, level 50's already who practically have nuclear weapons and slaughter the battle field of players who can't level it quickly because they can't win a game. Tanks have upgrades for higher level players, need i say more? You get shot once in the foot from a level 50's sniper riffle and you fall over after shooting him 4 times with your sniper riffle. I swear i meleed this guy in the back 5 times and the animation didn't activate for the kill.

Helicoptor "hopping" from base to base is the best way to win Conquest on the big maps.

This game literally makes me want to rent Modern Warfare 3 to see if that will be any better when it comes out. I doubt it though. Thank God Skyrim is coming out next Friday!

While I'm not sure about the 360 version, it is worth noting that the PS3 servers have had a bad case of the gremlins for a while now.
The squad system is still broken, even after the latest patch, and the voice chat servers are still wonky.
Generally I would excuse this for the first couple of weeks of release, but these were both open, and closed beta issues.

For a game that stress teamwork, those are some things you'd expect to have fixed by now, yes?

Doom-Slayer:
I find that idea strange. Hes reviewing the game, not two different games.

It's not an idea, it's a precedent:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/reviews/2445-Call-of-Duty-Black-Ops-Video-Review
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/reviews/2447-Call-of-Duty-Black-Ops-Multiplayer-Overview

I'm merely wondering why they didn't follow it as it's obviously the better route of doing it. The point is not two reviews, it's giving enough time to review an element. If you prefer, you can keep it in one review and make it twice as long or as long as necessary to actually explain what the game is about, the ups and downs and generally, just give an actual review that informs whoever's watching it.

Doom-Slayer:
Also the "people only play this for MP" is a bit of a cop out. BF games have always had fairly decent SP campaigns, Bad Company 2 for example had a great one SP campaign, this doesn't quite live up to that.

First off, Battlefield games never had a singleplayer. They had a bot match through all the maps with a small historical description while the map was loading. The Bad Company spin off series has had SP, but I wouldn't regard it as great.

Doom-Slayer:
I'm also reminded by Yahtzee, because if this game had had an amazing SP element, all the fans like yourself would be talking abut that, but since it doesn't the inevitable comment of "nobody plays it for that" comes up. If a game puts focus into both elements it needs to make them both of a high standard. Either do one well, or both well, don't skimp on one of them.

I'm not saying "people only play this for MP". I'm saying "people who buy this will finish the SP in 6 hours, then spend 100s of hours on the multiplayer - so how can you spend an equal amount of time reviewing both?". Though again, equality isn't the issue, not giving the multiplayer its due review is (which is not surprising considering the whole review is some 5 minutes long and giving a review in half that time is not really reasonable). And again, not saying this as a fanboi because "YOU DIDN'T SAY HOW AWESOME MULTIPLAYER IS!!!11!11!", merely observing the fact the review is not at all informative, of the multiplayers good and bad sides.

For the record, no, it's not ok that BF3's singleplayer is meh. I was quite disappointed with it as the launch trailer really pumped me up and made me hopeful they'd make a game that has a good singleplayer. It wasn't my number one concern, but I was looking forward to it and am rather disappointed on that end. I don't regret buying the game because of it - not by a long shot. I knew going in that this is a multiplayer game, that's why I was buying it and the singleplayer would only be a bonus. But it's sad nonetheless because the singleplayer trailer made it look like it had potential and I always hate to see wasted potential.

he probably fell out of a window. Theres tall buildings all up and down that map.

The multiplayer is a broken glitchy mess with an unlock system that unbalances play and rewards the most tedious grinding outside of Korea.

ViciousTide:
BF3 will make you want to break the disc or sell it back for many reasons. Too many Campers, level 50's already who practically have nuclear weapons and slaughter the battle field of players who can't level it quickly because they can't win a game. Tanks have upgrades for higher level players, need i say more? You get shot once in the foot from a level 50's sniper riffle and you fall over after shooting him 4 times with your sniper riffle. I swear i meleed this guy in the back 5 times and the animation didn't activate for the kill.

Helicoptor "hopping" from base to base is the best way to win Conquest on the big maps.

This game literally makes me want to rent Modern Warfare 3 to see if that will be any better when it comes out. I doubt it though. Thank God Skyrim is coming out next Friday!

I entirely agree. There are parts that were clearly not even tested. The spawn beacon is one of the most poorly implemented ideas i've ever seen. How you can allow people to then spawn nowhere near the beacon and off the map beggars belief.

Hello,

Do you have anyone who can look over this site http://www.fpscheats.com/topic122941.htm and fix the problem with EA and these Battlefield 3 Hacks? I have four people in my clan using the hack and it's simply not fair the way these guys can see every single enemy on the screen. The last guy using it had 17,000 points and was ranked 50 already. I'm currently serving in the Marine Corp and Battlefield 3 is what I do to relax (believe it or not).... but these cheaters have made me so mad. What can I do? It doesn't seem like anything.

I called EA support FIVE TIMES (was on the phone for 90 mins total) and every person I talked to said the game had no hacks out for it. I even sent them to the website and showed them the videos and screens and they said they were fake... c'mon, are they serious?

I also tried to post asking for help on the EA Forums and every single time they delete my post. After spending $60 and EA made $5 Million in sales the FIRST WEEK I think a deserving LEGIT player like me deserves some sort of answer about a fix. Can you help?

Regards,
Chris Johnson

use of the loading music from bf 1942 secret weapons? awesome
and yes.. the single player is crap.. i took me a bit to notice that there was a quick time event

Multiplayer awesome buuutt....

Where are the destructible buildings? seriously, like the maps have taken a step down imo, the lack of destructible buildings, too many choke points, they even feel a little smaller even if they aren't.

I loved BC2 because I could blow a hole in a wall and get away from impending doom, or i could blow a sniper out of a sniper nest with a RPG etc

Seems wrong to take it out.

Also single player is aaaaaaaawful, like visually nice but boring story, boring action, boring acting, WAAAY too many qte, basically this really annoyed me because it's like they didnt even try.

TBH all in all Battlefield BC2 is a little better I think BF3 is a step down.

some things are better but a lot of things are worse.

It seems like they just wanted to poach the modern warfare crowd. For some reason me thinks EA has been too involved.

When there is a lot of money on the line games seem to suck more I've noticed. I still enjoy BF3 but it seems like it's just going to be another cash cow where they develop to what they think players want instead of what they think will be a good game.

seriously I really think they screwed up with the removal of most of the destructible buildings. It was one of the main gameplay mechanics. Now it just seems a bit blander.

Vrach:

Indeed, the BF1942 soundtrack is one of the most epic gaming scores ever. I'm not totally averse to the BF3 adaptation either though (full versions starting about halfway in):

While the original is certainly better, I like the ambience the new version creates. It's a shame the singleplayer couldn't live up to it, it really had some potential (the 2 seat plane level took my breath away for the first few minutes)

completely unrelated to your post, that trailer makes the game look really good, until you realize its actually showing every good moment in the entire game, and that between every one of those clips theres usually just hours of pure boring.

Worst part is that I think they came really close too. The graphics and sound are nearly perfect for the experience..and then it just gets pummeled with bad story and quicktime events. for instance the Fighter Jet level was amazing the first few minutes as you take off from the carrier..and then its proceeded by 10 minutes of you click "x", and 10 minutes of you aiming at dots on the ground through a black and white lense. That level would have been perfect if after 2 minutes, they just let you take over and fly (Admittedly I'm not sure how exactly they should pull that off..but anything would be better than what they did)

Really good review, pretty much sums up my thoughts on it

Excludos:
completely unrelated to your post, that trailer makes the game look really good, until you realize its actually showing every good moment in the entire game, and that between every one of those clips theres usually just hours of pure boring.

Worst part is that I think they came really close too. The graphics and sound are nearly perfect for the experience..and then it just gets pummeled with bad story and quicktime events. for instance the Fighter Jet level was amazing the first few minutes as you take off from the carrier..and then its proceeded by 10 minutes of you click "x", and 10 minutes of you aiming at dots on the ground through a black and white lense. That level would have been perfect if after 2 minutes, they just let you take over and fly (Admittedly I'm not sure how exactly they should pull that off..but anything would be better than what they did)

Yep, agreed 100%. Every part of their story had potential to be awesome, but it was just very badly executed. It just shows they didn't put their A game into making the singleplayer, which, while not surprising, is more than a little disappointing, as delivering on all 3 fronts (singleplayer, co-op, multiplayer) would've made it the ultimate game.

Just fix the fucking multiplayer, stop charging for online passes and get rid of the k/d whores.

Slycne:

Certainly I could write another 1,000 words on BF3, like how there is no easy way to practice flying helicopters and jets (the older titles at least had bot matches) and that some upgrades really should have been unlocked at the start, but ultimately that doesn't encapsulate much of my thoughts on Battlefield 3. I don't necessarily think it's a great experience because of x, y, and z. It's the unique opportunities to play the game beyond just K:D that makes it good, like stealing that tank as I mentioned.

Wait, what? No botmatches?

So there's no more 3 vs 60 LAN games then. And no learning how to fly the (now probably broken) jets and helicopters, unless you know people that have empty servers available for you (which I do, but still).

I'm also wondering what "good" features there were in Bad Company 2. Because I don't know of any. BC2 esports died 3 weeks after launch, for a reason. BF2 esports is still going.
The destructible terrain isn't destructible, it's just an object replacement with particle effects. Come back when you can deform the terrain in real time. I want to see permanent marks from driving the tank in the mud, not buildings being "destroyed" in the exact same way each and every time.

Slycne:

Vrach:
On your second point, while I don't care about Escapist reviews and didn't even notice they had a score, the singleplayer is a problem in this review. Know why? Cause it took over the review. The reviewer spent most of the time talking about the singleplayer and only said "yeah, it's good and unstructured" about the multiplayer. There is so much more to be said about the multiplayer, which makes you wonder, why doesn't this have a 2 part review like most other shooters in the past?

As someone who has played and is still playing BF3, I can tell you that this review barely even touches on what the game is and doesn't provide nearly as much information as it should to anyone watching it to get a clearer picture of what they're getting - this review doesn't provide you with any more information about BF3's multiplayer (which I think we can agree is the main part of the game) than any retailer would with the description that's straight from DICE. But then again, I can't say that's too uncharacteristic for Escapist reviews.

edit: Oh and it doesn't say a word about the co-op, interestingly enough.

By word count, I actually spent more time talking about multiplayer than I did single player. Perhaps it merely feels like I focus on the singleplayer because I left it for last.

Certainly I could write another 1,000 words on BF3, like how there is no easy way to practice flying helicopters and jets (the older titles at least had bot matches) and that some upgrades really should have been unlocked at the start, but ultimately that doesn't encapsulate much of my thoughts on Battlefield 3. I don't necessarily think it's a great experience because of x, y, and z. It's the unique opportunities to play the game beyond just K:D that makes it good, like stealing that tank as I mentioned.

CounterAttack:
I highly approve of the use of the original Battlefield 1942 theme.

That simple theme drums up so many memories across this series, so I had to get it in there somewhere.

Out of curiosity, for a game like this, why didn't you do separate reviews for the single player and the multiplayer like for Blops? Seems like it was warranted here.

Mumorpuger:
Out of curiosity, for a game like this, why didn't you do separate reviews for the single player and the multiplayer like for Blops? Seems like it was warranted here.

We did that in the past when editors felt they were better suited to only comment on one aspect of the gameplay. I enjoy both avenues of singleplayer and multiplayer so no such splitting was required.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here