An unbiased review of Battlefield 3.

From my blog: 47Reviews.BlogSpot.com

.

Alright, I'm a few weeks late, leave me alone. Better late than never, right? One of the most anticipated games of the year is now available. Does it live up to the hype? Is it the Call of Duty killer? 
.
DICE/EA and Activision had a lot of words exchanged between them in the months leading up to the release of their games, Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3, respectively. Naturally, it intrigued me, and I had high hopes for both games with all the words that were flying back and forth.
.
Let me just dive right in here - the campaign and co-op in Battlefield 3. Enjoyable, but in no way comparable to Call of Duty. The story is worth playing through, but it's utterly average, at best. As far as difficulty goes, for sake of a comparison, the campaign on the hardest difficulty is harder than Modern Warfare 3's, and about the same length (Roughly 6 hours). For the co-op mode, you get six missions that you can play through with a friend. I must say, these are all surprisingly challenging, even on easy, so consider yourself warned. The missions can all be completed on normal difficulty within about 3 or 4 hours, so it's not lengthy, but it's a worthwhile experience. Still, even with the enjoyable co-op mode, the single-player campaign is just not that great.
---
Campaign and co-op score: 3.75/5
.
And the main focus of Battlefield 3, the multiplayer. Battlefield 3 launches with 9 maps on-disc, with more to come in the months following via DLC. DICE really made a huge deal about this game and its new engine, Frostbite 2, and to be honest, I don't see much of a difference at all in map destruction between this game and Bad Company 2. Hell, I don't hear much of a difference, or notice much better graphics period, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, because Bad Company 2 was already pretty snazzy. The maps in this game are pretty nice, despite there only being nine. The only map I don't particularly care for is Tehran Highway, mostly because of the lag issues there are on it, but I'll talk about that stuff in a bit. The gameplay in this game is just what you would expect from a Battlefield game. It's somewhat slow paced due to the map size, but at the same time action packed and exciting. If you read my Battlefield vs. Call of Duty entry, you'll know that I mentioned that Battlefield is for the more cerebral player, and that rings true in Battlefield 3. You really have to think about what class you want to be, and what you want to do to work your way to your objective. In Call of Duty, seeing as how there are no vehicles, you can really pick almost any combination of things and manage, but in Battlefield, you can't go it alone. You need an **** guy to heal you up, the Engineer to lay a hurting on enemy vehicles while repairing your own, a Support guy to lay down covering fire and provide ammo, as well as a Recon guy to spot enemies, and throw down a radio beacon for your squad to spawn at. Team work truly is essential for a successful squad, and to get the most out of the game.
.
With all of that said, there are several problems I have with this game... really, so many that I'll likely forget a few in my list. What comes to mind first is the hit-detection. It is spotty to say the least. Some times you can kill a guy in 5-6 shots, other times it really seems to take 15, even if he's nowhere near a medic kit. This can be fixed with a future update, and it likely will be, but as of now, it's really one of the biggest frustrations I have with this game. Second, a close second, is the lag. Even with the game running at 30fps in a Squad Rush match, the game has its fair share of lag, and it's just a bummer to see. This could also be managed in coming months, but I think it'll be more difficult. My third biggest issue isn't with the game, but with some of the people that play it. I really already said it earlier - if you aren't playing with friends or a communicative squad, you will NOT get the most out of Battlefield 3. Hop into a match alone in a random squad, and you'll more than likely find yourself with some morons that are either camping back and doing nothing, or playing Rush or Conquest like it's Team Deathmatch, rather than contributing to the team. Overall, the online experience in Battlefield 3 as of now is just slightly above average. Solid, but in need of several fixes.
---
Multiplayer: 4/5
.
And that's really that. TL;DR, Battlefield 3 is a game with a lot of potential. It looks pretty good, and for the most part plays well, but the amount of bugs in this game can't help but make me think that EA rushed this game out to beat Modern Warfare 3. In a few months, and with a few pretty drastic updates to fix the games problems, I could give this game about a 4.5, but as it sits now, the game really just feels like a beta to me in several ways, and so I give it a
.
4/5

 

Discussion Info


Last updated July 3, 2018 Views 0 Applies to:

What makes this require the title "unbiased"? All major gaming journalist sites are supposed to be unbiased and they don't have to say it for me to think the review is unbiased.

most gaming journalist sites are also retarded and think uncharted 2 was a 10/10

i given up hope for review sites tbh. anyways i agree with the OP, campaign was meh, multiplayer is great fun but could have done more.

I put unbiased because a lot of idiots tend to think "OMGOMG MW3 MOST RECENT GAME, YOU'RE GIVING BF3 A LOWER SCORE BECAUSE YOU'S A FANBOIIII."

.

Yeah, I don't think any adventure type game should get a 10. You beat it, it's over, and that's it. $60 for that? Sorry. No thanks. I don't care how good of a game it may be.

honestly, so far the only game that deserves near a 10/10 this year so far is skyrim, i just played for 12 hours and only did 4 quest.

uncharted 2's problem is, the single player is actually boring, and the multiplayer is terrible its hardly worth 1 playthrough, mass effect is another over rated game but at least its worth 2 playthroughs

i think you are right about the hit detection , for me MOH as the best hit detection of any MP i have played  so far .

[quote user="OrdealByFire"]

From my blog: 47Reviews.BlogSpot.com

.

Alright, I'm a few weeks late, leave me alone. Better late than never, right? One of the most anticipated games of the year is now available. Does it live up to the hype? Is it the Call of Duty killer? 
.
DICE/EA and Activision had a lot of words exchanged between them in the months leading up to the release of their games, Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3, respectively. Naturally, it intrigued me, and I had high hopes for both games with all the words that were flying back and forth.
.
Let me just dive right in here - the campaign and co-op in Battlefield 3. Enjoyable, but in no way comparable to Call of Duty. The story is worth playing through, but it's utterly average, at best. As far as difficulty goes, for sake of a comparison, the campaign on the hardest difficulty is harder than Modern Warfare 3's, and about the same length (Roughly 6 hours). For the co-op mode, you get six missions that you can play through with a friend. I must say, these are all surprisingly challenging, even on easy, so consider yourself warned. The missions can all be completed on normal difficulty within about 3 or 4 hours, so it's not lengthy, but it's a worthwhile experience. Still, even with the enjoyable co-op mode, the single-player campaign is just not that great.
---
Campaign and co-op score: 3.75/5
.
And the main focus of Battlefield 3, the multiplayer. Battlefield 3 launches with 9 maps on-disc, with more to come in the months following via DLC. DICE really made a huge deal about this game and its new engine, Frostbite 2, and to be honest, I don't see much of a difference at all in map destruction between this game and Bad Company 2. Hell, I don't hear much of a difference, or notice much better graphics period, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, because Bad Company 2 was already pretty snazzy. The maps in this game are pretty nice, despite there only being nine. The only map I don't particularly care for is Tehran Highway, mostly because of the lag issues there are on it, but I'll talk about that stuff in a bit. The gameplay in this game is just what you would expect from a Battlefield game. It's somewhat slow paced due to the map size, but at the same time action packed and exciting. If you read my Battlefield vs. Call of Duty entry, you'll know that I mentioned that Battlefield is for the more cerebral player, and that rings true in Battlefield 3. You really have to think about what class you want to be, and what you want to do to work your way to your objective. In Call of Duty, seeing as how there are no vehicles, you can really pick almost any combination of things and manage, but in Battlefield, you can't go it alone. You need an Assault guy to heal you up, the Engineer to lay a hurting on enemy vehicles while repairing your own, a Support guy to lay down covering fire and provide ammo, as well as a Recon guy to spot enemies, and throw down a radio beacon for your squad to spawn at. Team work truly is essential for a successful squad, and to get the most out of the game.
.
With all of that said, there are several problems I have with this game... really, so many that I'll likely forget a few in my list. What comes to mind first is the hit-detection. It is spotty to say the least. Some times you can kill a guy in 5-6 shots, other times it really seems to take 15, even if he's nowhere near a medic kit. This can be fixed with a future update, and it likely will be, but as of now, it's really one of the biggest frustrations I have with this game. Second, a close second, is the lag. Even with the game running at 30fps in a Squad Rush match, the game has its fair share of lag, and it's just a bummer to see. This could also be managed in coming months, but I think it'll be more difficult. My third biggest issue isn't with the game, but with some of the people that play it. I really already said it earlier - if you aren't playing with friends or a communicative squad, you will NOT get the most out of Battlefield 3. Hop into a match alone in a random squad, and you'll more than likely find yourself with some morons that are either camping back and doing nothing, or playing Rush or Conquest like it's Team Deathmatch, rather than contributing to the team. Overall, the online experience in Battlefield 3 as of now is just slightly above average. Solid, but in need of several fixes.
---
Multiplayer: 4/5
.
And that's really that. TL;DR, Battlefield 3 is a game with a lot of potential. It looks pretty good, and for the most part plays well, but the amount of bugs in this game can't help but make me think that EA rushed this game out to beat Modern Warfare 3. In a few months, and with a few pretty drastic updates to fix the games problems, I could give this game about a 4.5, but as it sits now, the game really just feels like a beta to me in several ways, and so I give it a
.
4/5

[/quote]

Allow me to retort

http://fastharry.com/2011/10/26/dices-battlefield-3-is-awesome-for-sure/

explosions are lame, however, i did pop a truck in my tank flying down the road and the wheels blew off and it was sliding across the road....that was kind of funny, its almost impossible to zoom in the 50cal on the tank and kill anyone now...the darn mount shakes too much....you get live 5 hit marks on a guy then they just shake it off like it was no big deal.....base raping is still fun...

"Yeah, I don't think any adventure type game should get a 10. You beat it, it's over, and that's it. $60 for that? Sorry. No thanks. I don't care how good of a game it may be."

So, in your book, if a game doesn't have multiplayer it automatically loses points. That sounds pretty freaking biased to me.

Ten years ago the vast majority of games were meant to be single player experiences. That was a time when story and character development were very important. Nowadays a multiplayer game can tack on a half-baked story with cookie cutter characters and you can give that game a 4/5, maybe even a 4.5/5? Sounds to me like your reviews are tainted with the stench of bias.

...Just because I won't pay $60 for a game that's over in 10 hours doesn't mean I won't play them.

.

Sounds to me like you can't use your brain.

I can't use my brain? Can you not read? I accused you of being biased towards multiplayer oriented games. I never said that you would not/do not play single player games.

-

And, in the end, what's $60 for ten hours of entertainment? I know plenty of people shell out $40+ for the latest 3D Blu-Ray movies. Those range from ~ 1.5 to 2.5 hours long. That's an average of $20 per hour of entertainment. A game like Uncharted 3, which is pretty much just an interactive movie, lasts ~ 10 hours and costs $60. That's $6 per hour of entertainment. Hell, that sounds like a bargain when compared with the Blu-Ray. 

-

I suppose it's your loss, however. Perhaps in the future you shouldn't add the word "unbiased" to your clearly biased reviews. That might save you some confusion.