EA Confirms Fixes to Battlefield 3 Bugs After Blackout Threats
EA showcases over 200 planned fixes to Battlefield 3′s multiplayer, right after the threat of a blackout from its userbase.
Battlefield 3
Players: 1 Offline player, 32(64-PC) Players Online
Publisher: Electronic Arts
Genres: First-person Shooter
Publisher: Electronic Arts
Genres: First-person Shooter
Release Date: October 25, 2011
Developer: EA Digital Illusions CE
MSRP: $59.99
Developer: EA Digital Illusions CE
MSRP: $59.99
Battlefield 3 leaps ahead of its time with the power of Frostbite™ 2, the next instalment of DICE's cutting-edge game engine. This state-of-the-art technology is the foundation on which Battlefield 3 is built, delivering enhanced visual quality, a grand sense of scale, massive destruction, dynamic audio and incredibly lifelike character animations. As bullets whiz by, walls crumble, and explosions throw you to the ground, the battlefield feels more alive and interactive than ever before. In Battlefield 3, players step into the role of the elite U.S. Marines where they will experience heart-pounding missions across diverse locations including Paris, Tehran and New York.
Sage Reviews: Battlefield 3
Posted By Bennett The Sage about 6 months, 3 weeks ago
Battlefield may have beaten Call of Duty to the punch, but does that mean it’s any good?
Follow me on Twitter at BennettTheSage
Three British Idiots Play Battlefield 3 Beta (Wez, Larry & Ian)
Wez, Larry and Ian glitch their way through the Battlefield 3 Beta in this very funny video!
Battlefield 3 Video Review - ZGR
Is Battlefield 3 the next best shooter? Daniel from ZGR gives you his thoughts!
Battlefield 3 Review (PC)
In one of the only examples ever where Frostbite sends Johnny somewhere he'd wind up getting sand in his crotch, his charged task of reviewing Battlefield 3 is now complete. By reading it, you'll be taking part in the initial stages of "Operation Sugar Pants!"
Angry Joe Plays Battlefield 3
Angry Joe and Johnny M. of Blistered Thumbs tackle BF3's Cooperative missions together while discussing this highly anticipated FPS heavyweight!
Sage Reviews: Battlefield 3
Battlefield may have beaten Call of Duty to the punch, but does that mean it's any good?
First Look at Battlefield 3 "Back to Karkand" Vehicles
A STOVL fighter jet, a desert buggy, an APC, and a… bulldozer?
Battlefield 3 Angry Review
Angry Joe gives the final word on Battlefield 3. How much does it improve upon
Sage Reviews: Battlefield 3
Battlefield may have beaten Call of Duty to the punch, but does that mean it’s any good?
Angry Joe Plays Battlefield 3
Angry Joe and Johnny M. of Blistered Thumbs tackle BF3′s Cooperative missions together while discussing this highly anticipated FPS heavyweight!
Battlefield 3 Review (PC)
In one of the only examples ever where Frostbite sends Johnny somewhere he’d wind up getting sand in his crotch, his charged task of reviewing Battlefield 3 is now complete. By reading it, you’ll be taking part in the initial stages of “Operation Sugar Pants!”
Battlefield 3 Video Review - ZGR
Is Battlefield 3 the next best shooter? Daniel from ZGR gives you his thoughts!
EA Confirms Fixes to Battlefield 3 Bugs After Blackout Threats
EA showcases over 200 planned fixes to Battlefield 3′s multiplayer, right after the threat of a blackout from its userbase.
First Look at Battlefield 3 "Back to Karkand" Vehicles
A STOVL fighter jet, a desert buggy, an APC, and a… bulldozer?
Battlefield 3 Angry Review
Angry Joe gives the final word on Battlefield 3. How much does it improve upon
Sage Reviews: Battlefield 3
Battlefield may have beaten Call of Duty to the punch, but does that mean it’s any good?
Angry Joe Plays Battlefield 3
Angry Joe and Johnny M. of Blistered Thumbs tackle BF3′s Cooperative missions together while discussing this highly anticipated FPS heavyweight!
Battlefield 3 Review (PC)
In one of the only examples ever where Frostbite sends Johnny somewhere he’d wind up getting sand in his crotch, his charged task of reviewing Battlefield 3 is now complete. By reading it, you’ll be taking part in the initial stages of “Operation Sugar Pants!”
Battlefield 3 Video Review - ZGR
Is Battlefield 3 the next best shooter? Daniel from ZGR gives you his thoughts!
Battlefield 3 Review (PC)
Posted By Johnny Maloney about 6 months, 3 weeks ago
Battlefield 3 Review (PC)
Battlefield 1942 marked a turning point for my online gaming. Not in the sense that I started to play online with larger groups of people on larger maps, rather that I continued to play online with the same small group of people and just discovered there were more ways to arse around in Battlefield 1942 than in your regular first person shooter. “A first person shooter that lets me fly a twin engine bomber over enemy lines just so I can jump out, wreck the plane, and get shot in the face on my way down? That sounds like a great way to spend a hundred hours!” As the saying goes, that was then and this is now, and Battlefield has had more than just a few incarnations of actual wars, future wars, and the scaaaaaaaary wars that could be happening RIGHT NOW!! Perhaps not that scary, but everybody’s been giving me grief about not getting in the Halloween spirit. Battlefield 3 now marks Electronic Arts’ latest entry into the series, with the lofty goal of toppling “the (apparently) most anticipated game ever” of Modern Warfare off whatever decadent throne it now sits atop.
| PROS | It’s gorgeous, it sounds amazing, its variety, FROSTBITE 2! |
| CONS | Short campaign, some weird AI paths, PC specific functionality problems |
| WTF?! | I swear I’ve seen THAT guy in Transformers. |
He’s been in 24, CSI and Bones as well.
No, seriously… I’ve seen that guy in Transformers. What’s even stranger, is that he’s also going to be in Modern Warfare 3 – what a racket! There’s even a fighter pilot that bears a strange resemblance to Michael J. Fox. That’s all immaterial however, we’re here to talk about the game.
Battlefield 3 is a game about shooting people with a variety of weapons. Got that? Good. Roll credits!
Now that’s out of the way, let’s dig out the core. Describing the gameplay of Battlefield 3 in detail is a fairly pointless affair, because if you’ve played any other multiplayer Battlefield game, you’ve played something quite similar to this. That’s not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but it pretty much primes you for what you can expect: conquest, rush, and a variety of deathmatch options in a variety of climate regions, with vehicles, a cavalcade of unlockable items, awards, badges, dogtags to collect, perks, and so on. A change or two has been made, such as the amalgamation of the medic class into the assault class, starting you out with medic packs and unlocking defibrillator paddles in what I think was the first rank advancement. PC players too are witness to the return of jets, as well as the 64 player conquest maps which can get pretty hectic (so long as you’re not walking everywhere).
Even if you did decide to walk everywhere, aesthetes would certainly enjoy themselves most of the time. Right out of the gate, it’s pretty obvious that this is one of, if not the, best looking game to hit the market this year. Previously I had awarded that honor to CD Projekt Red’s The Witcher 2, but some of the sprawling outdoor areas throw my admiration for it and other open world army games like ARMA II under the truck, run it over several times, and rub broken glass in its face, all before I remember that I loved ARMA II as a game before I could make her pretty. (I still love you baby… we’re a team, you an’ me!) While good looking however, Battlefield 3 does adhere to a strange habit games appear to be taking these days, in that it’s not necessarily trying to look more realistic, rather than how people perceive war as “realistic” through pop culture. The strangest example of this here to me is the grit and dust on the screen that in any real situation would likely cause a horrible conjunctivitis infection doesn’t seem to bother anybody. It’s still an impressive graphic effect, obviously taken from camera effects in movies and TV, but I screw my eyes up in confusion sometimes, wondering why it’s there.
I do believe somebody should have taken that left turn at Albequerque.
These excellent visuals are brilliantly punctuated by immaculate sound design. The distant snap sounds of guns change incrementally the closer you get to them, echoes ringing in valleys pour through the speakers, and the delays between firing noises and the sounds of rounds striking your cover as the dull hum of an unfriendly motor whirrs closer to your desperate position strike phenomenal reactionary responses. Even conversations carried out in the campaign bounce off environments impeccably, with the small touches of chairs squeaking, or papers shuffling. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that many of the cutscenes were filmed, and then animated over in a rotoscoping-like fashion.
8/10
Three British Idiots Play Battlefield 3 Beta (Wez, Larry & Ian)
Wez, Larry and Ian glitch their way through the Battlefield 3 Beta in this very funny video!Battlefield 3 Video Review - ZGR
Is Battlefield 3 the next best shooter? Daniel from ZGR gives you his thoughts!Battlefield 3 Review (PC)
In one of the only examples ever where Frostbite sends Johnny somewhere he'd wind up getting sand in his crotch, his charged task of reviewing Battlefield 3 is now complete. By reading it, you'll be taking part in the initial stages of "Operation Sugar Pants!"Angry Joe Plays Battlefield 3
Angry Joe and Johnny M. of Blistered Thumbs tackle BF3's Cooperative missions together while discussing this highly anticipated FPS heavyweight!Sage Reviews: Battlefield 3
Battlefield may have beaten Call of Duty to the punch, but does that mean it's any good?- November 07, 2011 at 12:08am
It seems like Modern/Near-Future war shooters are now like WW2 shooters in how there are so damn many of em.
As for this game, I definitely liked it, despite its annoyances like the Battlelog issue and if a server has a bad latency rate, its unplayable due to the player keep back-stepping while you move and shots will miss even if up close on the target. With that, the MP is pretty good and I like the feeling of the sniper class.
The campaign definitely ain’t worth writing home about, I’m probably willing to say its slightly better than the MW2 and BO campaigns, but nothing I’m going to play twice (though I could say that even to the great campaigns, guess the momentum of the first playrthrough just can’t be captured again.) For the most part, I think its worth the score it got, still got plenty more games to play this year though.
- October 31, 2011 at 02:18am
(About the video review:)
Judging a Battlefield game by it’s singleplayer is like judging Yoda by his size. Sense it makes not. - October 28, 2011 at 04:03pm
Personally, Battlelog is a non-issue. It doesn’t hamper my experience, it has some nice features, and it works great to get me into a game. I’ve seen people go totally negative on it and I don’t think that is fair at all. You get into games much quicker than you would an ingame browser and generally everything works as it should. Some things can be a tad iffy, but when I hear people say that Battlelog is the reason they won’t get BF3, I laugh at how they are missing out on a game for a simply ridiculous reason.
A great review though as I would pretty much agree with this. While the singleplayer is competent, it doesn’t really do anything new and is way too familiar to what Black Ops did last year, though with abit more realism than that, but still an idea already used. I actually don’t know why they have those cutscenes there as to me, it seems like they could’ve almost removed the flashback stuff entirely and not hurt the game, though I still am a few levels from completion.
The multiplayer is top notch though. It does MANY things better than Bad Company 2, though people who played that will still be familiar with the game, same for BF2 veterans, though it’s very much an amalgam of both series. This game is gonna keep me hooked for a long time, especially with consistent expansion packs over the next 6 months, starting with Back to Karkand in December.
- October 28, 2011 at 05:03pm
Might be just that it screwed up in the beta most of the time (1 out of 5 attempts to join a game succeeded for me, this is not counting when I got in and was immediately kicked or lagged out for whatever reason), but I got fairly irritated by it and I have no intention of going through that again.
Also the fact that you have to actually start a game to change your settings, then in case of some graphics settings leave and start another one if you actually intend to play with those settings is ridiculous. - October 28, 2011 at 07:50pm
Well that was because of Beta. I haven’t had any issues with Battlelog since Beta and it all seems to work just fine, though of course it’s hardly perfect. The settings thing again, isn’t an issue, that your kinda trying to make it out to be. Even if the game had an ingame menu instead and you are able to change your settings, you would have to restart your game anyways if the settings said so, so I’m not really seeing the problem here. And really, how often is a person changing his settings? You do it once till you get it running right, if it isn’t already doing so, and then you never touch them again.
- October 28, 2011 at 03:32pm
It amazes me how these companies can continue to produce these straight-faced, military themed shooters and how people can keep buying them up like hot-cakes. I know it’s old hat to hate on shooters right now, but I still don’t get it. How can people NOT get bored of this stuff? I can only hope that soon enough shooters will go the way of the JRPG when people get tired of playing through the same old archetypes with a fresh coat of paint and the releases will become farther and fewer between. Maybe the next gaming trend will appeal to me more.
Saying it out loud, that does sound a bit selfish, but oh well. I doubt it will happen anytime soon, anyway.
- October 28, 2011 at 05:51pm
I originally hadn’t intended to buy this, but because of a reviewing schedule snafu, it got dropped in my lap. I do agree with you that the military shooter has been played out, and I don’t nearly enjoy them as much as I do other genres these days. That said, I felt like it would be unfair to review BF3 against a backdrop of other genres of games. It’s almost as if the “war fps” has become a genre independent of the fps altogether. I wouldn’t recommend people buy it until there was a price drop, but then as time goes on and I see more and more $60 titles from companies like Ubisoft, Activision and EA, I’m feeling I have to draw a hard line in the sand.
It goes without saying that if you’re sick and tired of war fps games, then BF3 does *not* deserve an 8. But if we were all to review games on whether or not they tread familiar ground, it’d be a much crueller profession indeed. Judging from your comment, you’d do well to save your money… it doesn’t do anything new or groundbreaking.
- October 28, 2011 at 11:28pm
I asked this question to someone else a few weeks ago who said pretty much the same thing (and they never answered me). How would you change shooters to be more original and “not Boring”
I will be honest, I don’t buy shooters for the campaign, bought BF3 on 360 and havnt even used the campaign disc. Its all about the multiplayer and while the general mechanics of shooters remains the same, it is the new maps, weapons, gadgets etc that change the overall experience. Plus upgrades to the game engine and graphics play a part too. that is just my opinion though, and I am generally curious about your opinion.
- October 29, 2011 at 03:14am
People like what they like I suppose.
I’m still not bored with zombie games for example.
Funny enough, unlike King Walrus, I pretty much only buy shooters like these for the campaign, which is why you’ll never see me buying them at launch, I gotten all the recent CoD games for under 20 bucks each. I just don’t care about competitive MP, it’s just not for me.
It just seems to bring out the worst in people, I don’t buy games to get online just to be insulted by racist 12 year olds.
- October 30, 2011 at 01:10am
don’t worry man, battlefield doesn’t have any kids playing it and no body really mic spams either
- October 30, 2011 at 01:14am
yeah, but what about other genres like fantasy RPG’s, there are mostly the same, especially the free to play ones. oh, and how about racing games, most of them are all the same right? just like shooters?
- October 30, 2011 at 12:58pm
First of all, we’re not talking about online games here at all, that’s a whole different animal entirely. Anyway, look what happened to the JRPG. Same goes for racing games. They’re not nearly as popular or frequently produced as they once were. When the innovation and creativity stopped, so did the sales. You’ll notice that a lot of modern racing games also have a somewhat creative hook to help sell them. Sports games are obviously a bit different because people have more of a real world investment in what they represent, which allows the producers to be lazy. Fantasy WRPG still aren’t as released nearly as frequently as military shooters and tend to have more variety or creative ideas. I mean, I could easily tell the difference between Skyrim, Witcher 2, Fable. Not so much the case for BF3 and MWF and any other generic military shooter I can think of. I’m aware that all genres are guilty of this, but the military shooter is the only sub-genre I can think of that can garner such great sales while doing so little to innovate. Space marines are getting pretty fuckin’ old too. The only “shooters” that interest me are the ones that aren’t just shooters anymore. They’ve mixed themselves in with other genres (like Bioshock, deadspace, uncharted, Deus ex, Mass Effect etc. ) and attempted to actually do something different. Besides, to imply it’s okay for shooters to do it because other genres are guilty of the same is a tu quoque fallacy.
- October 31, 2011 at 05:56am
I am in full agreement with you, in all honesty… I don’t pimp ARMA II because I get paid to, I write about it because it supercedes my military-shooter desire by measures I cannot express.
The videogame industry is becoming more and more like the movie industry. The lowest common denominator is becoming increasingly more lucrative. Bad games DO get made, and they get made frequently for the risk/reward return. When gamers become tired of pretending to be people who demonstrate their skill (the unlock system is now ALL about making gamers feel better about their level of skill) in environments that are “realistic” we’ll see a change.
I wonder about Michael Bay movies similarly.I would also counsel you to edit your litany of games that “actually do something different,” including Bioshock and Deus Ex.
EDIT: upon re-reading, that last bit reads a bit bitchy. I apologize for my tone, I do believe I’ve been a little distracted and stressed lately. Mea culpa.
- October 28, 2011 at 01:16pm
I absolutely hate punkbuster. Back when I was playing a lot of PR I swear that stupid little application caused hours of grief because it doesn’t update properly, and even though I’ve opened all of the pertinent ports in my firewall to allow it to do its thing, it still would randomly boot me off of servers, not allow me to connect at all, and generally be unpleasant.
As for the game, sounds good – but also sounds and seems a lot like BFBC2. I’m not sure jets & 64 player maps make it different enough for me to want to come back.. espescially since I played a ton of BFBC2. Not at $60.00 at any rate.
- October 28, 2011 at 12:49pm
Battlelog. That’s why this is the first Battlefield title I’m going to skip.
- October 30, 2011 at 01:06am
you can’t be serious? also, the reply system in blistered thumbs suck ASS
- October 28, 2011 at 11:36am
I’m really enjoying this one. I can really see why people dislike Battlelog though. It can be a nuisance having to load Orgin, a Browser, just to click on the game, even for single player.
That said, I really do like the game. - October 28, 2011 at 10:54am
Awesome I was hoping to see your review of this game, great as always.
And to the comment from Lowlander about Payday Id say that both games are great multiplayer games but are apples and oranges when compared, I think there is space to enjoy both games multiplayer separately but equally. - October 28, 2011 at 11:02am
Oh certainly. But I’m fine with what I’ve got.
Or at least, I would be if more people were playing it. GET ON IT, GUYS!
No Posts
Battlefield 3 Angry Review
Angry Joe gives the final word on Battlefield 3. How much does it improve upon
Sage Reviews: Battlefield 3
Battlefield may have beaten Call of Duty to the punch, but does that mean it’s any good?
Battlefield 3 Video Review - ZGR
Is Battlefield 3 the next best shooter? Daniel from ZGR gives you his thoughts!
Three British Idiots Play Battlefield 3 Beta (Wez, Larry & Ian)
Wez, Larry and Ian glitch their way through the Battlefield 3 Beta in this very funny video!
Three British Idiots Play Battlefield 3 Beta (Wez, Larry & Ian)
Wez, Larry and Ian glitch their way through the Battlefield 3 Beta in this very funny video!
Sage you’ve been had. I was shocked to hear you say what you said about the graphics, I didn’t experience any of those problems. You probably played this on a console.
Play this game on a decent PC, you’ll come to find it’s one of the bets looking games made graphically.
Are you even aware of the history of Battlefield?
Battlefield should’nt even have a single player, Battlefield 2 and all the games before it that were PC only were multiplayer only. The single player is something that came with EA.
Think of the singlerplayer is bonus content, Ive got it for my PC and ive not even touched the singleplayer cause thats not what Battlefields about, DICE know this.
And your complaints about graphics? get off your Xbox and run it on a high end pc, then we’l talk.
Fuck xbox LOL
Sage does his reviews on a PS3. which while being superior to the xbox on a hardware level is still inferior to most mid end gaming towers.
Sage run away before the fanboys get you!
Gotta say, this guy must just absolutely suck at multiplayer to review Gears 3 and this game the way he did. He may also want to get his eyes checked in reference to the graphics on both titles as well.
Here’s one for you: How come ppl aren’t bitching about singleplayer-focused games that have lackluster multiplayer, because the singleplayer is that good?
You come off a bit like a snob to be honest. And if we’re to apply the same treatment to all games, this is more than a fucking rental. Don’t listen to sage, try it out yourselves, aslong as you have internet. But this is what Battlefield is about anyway.
The reason why nobody bitches about bad multiplayer and a good single player is because no one give a shit if the multiplayer to a game is bad, if the multiplayer sucks then we’ll play another good multiplayer game! Hell, if battlefield 3′s multiplayer sucked, yes people would be disapointed but they would just say “Alwell” and keep playing BF2 or COD. In most games games Multiplayer is something adding to the game to lenghthen the game time. However there are other games that have the focuse on Multiplayer like battlefield and (lets face it) COD.
With that logic, if a single player game came out (Dragon Age 2) that sucks, people would just say “Oh Well”, and just go back to a game that is great (Dragon Age Origins)….this did not happen, lol.
I Agree
I like Sage,but I suspect he should stick to reviewing old anime. He is not only overtly Sony biased but has the annoying tendency to look for negatives that sometimes aren’t as negative as he make it sound. Battlefield 3 is game to be played in a decent PC and if the console versions aren’t up to par (Ooo,the ugly faces!).
Sage When you talked about the graphics I can’t help but feel that you were talking about the console versions. While i have experienced character models becoming completely invisible the pc version graphics are far to superior to at least the xbox’s. I have not seen the ps3 footage to compare against but i have heard that ps3 version also has the optional upscaled texture pack. I think you should get on a high pc and do a comparison of the graphics on ultra to that of the console’s watered down versions. but agreed the story could use a bit more polish and a could have done well from not basically repeating the same story type again.
So after I read about the rewrite of the Origin EULA, and checked to see it first hand I decided to get over myself and get the game. I haven’t played too much. The Campaign seems buggy, I saw an enemy run through a wall and vanish on the other side, and there is one point where Im not sure if i just don’t know what i have to do, or if the game doesn’t realize I’m at the point where it is telling me to be and doesn’t continue with a new objective. (there is a “Move here” marker, and when I move there nothing happens)
Multiplayer is a lot of fun, although I get my ass routinely handed to me by almost everyone. But that’s most certainly due to me sucking at every multiplayer game in existence that is not AvP2 and not due to balance issues (though I do think unlock mechanics like these make the game harder on noobs).
Anyway altogether I would say its the best of BF2 and BC put together, with updated graphics. A really good game, but it’s been there before.
Oh there is one thing: When the weapon and arms in my HUD disappear or stay in place, while i move or turn, that really annoys me. But I can’t say what causes it, a problem with processing graphics or lag.
I think you summarized my main gripes with the campaign well, especially the AI problem. Although, since I’m playing on the PC I didn’t have any graphical problems and the game looks quite good. When it comes to multiplayer, I think it’s pretty swell. The only problem is that the game is so laggy I can’t play it properly. As soon as that is sorted, it should be ok. Nothing amazing though.
Although I agree with you when it comes to the campian, I highly disagree with your opinions with the multiplayer. Battlefield series has done so well the past few years because of mulitplayer. Thats why most people buy the game. Battlefield 3 shouldn’t just be “praised for the multiplayer” it should be incredebly commemorated. It imporved the graphics, fixed issues of the previous game like the look ranged, highly acurate shotguns, and spawn killing the other team at their base, and designed the maps in a way that made the game look even more caotic and much harder to camp for a long period of time. The amazing multiplayer and the amount of time it takes to upgrade your guns the game stays fun and exciting for many, many hours. And because of this it doesn’t make it a week rental. It makes it a must buy for anyone that likes online FPS’.
P.S: I think you were in snob mode when you were writing this review sage
Exept from the battlelog system sucking , I have had no problems with the game what so ever . Gameplay is fast and intense , team play is essential , graphics are awsome , destruction is awsome. So where all this negativity comes from, I dont fully understand. Obviously PC owns consoles no doubt about it so get a proper PC and play it on there. Haters gonna hate.
I usually don’t disagree with you as much as I do now. The multiplayer is amazingly good(haven’t played the single player and I’m not planning to) because let’s face it, you don’t play battlefield for a good campaign.
You should make a clear distinction that you are playing the console version. The PC version doesn’t suffer from graphical glitches and looks spectacular. It is also an overall superior experience in the multiplayer thanks to the higher player count.
The single player part is true on the PC as well. It’s underwhelming and the enemy AI is quirky. You have your incompetent team mates and the enemies that think that you, the player, are the only enemy in the world.
Would’ve been better to just drop the whole campaign and put those resources into bug fixing, optimization and creating more multiplayer content.
I noticed every comment talking about how this review judged the game mostly on it’s Single Player are the ones getting the most thumbs down.
Also, don’t trust the “Our Users Say” panel. There’s a good chance it’s been greatly influenced by the MW3 crowd. Try the game yourself.
When MW3 comes out, I’m sure it’ll run into the same thing this game did: hardcore fans of the opposing game series voting it down simply because they are fans of the other series.
Regardless, Angry Joe seems to think very highly of this game. Let’s wait and hear his opinion. Joe and Sage usually are at opposite ends sometimes. It’s best to hear more than one opinion about everything.
The “Modern Warfare” FPS genre has gotten so ridiculously stale. People were tired of the WWII setting back in the days when COD4 came out, but now it’s even worse. Both Activision and EA are rehashing the same garbage over and over. I was hoping that Battlefiled 3 would stir the genre in a different direction, but let’s face it, this is BC2 all over again and there’s nothing new.
I skipped Modern Warfare 2 in favor of BC2, but now I’m skipping both BF3 and MW3.
I hate military FPS games like this that only focus on the multiplayer part. I am however suprised by your negative review of this game. BF3 is 99% identical to MW2 or MW3m and all the other military games. So you should giv all of these games an almost identical rating. Lets see what MW3 gets from you when it comes out. If it gets a higher score, everyone will know you are just a MW fanboy.
This game is nothing like the “Modern Warfare” series, at least not in its multiplayer part. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.
It depends entirely on how good the singleplayer is on MW3. Battlefield 3 singleplayer does pretty much rip off CoD’s success… I wish they would have taken other route, like not so damn scripted gameplay. But sadly they didn’t. Multiplayer is a whole diffirent game thou.
Way to blatantly generalize a game you’ve never played before. It shares the modern warfare aspect and some story ideas in the campaign, but that’s where the similarities stop.
Weird, i never really had any AI or render problems, always worked fine for me, exceped EA server lag.
okay, I’ve been a Battlefield veteran and i have played most of the Battlefield games and most of them focus on multiplayer, a mater of fact, the first Battlefields like Battlefield 1942, Battlefield Vietnam, Battlefield 2 and battlefield 2142 all were multiplayer only games and they had no single player…until battlefield 2 modern combat which had a single player but it didn’t really have a story and it was basically multiplayer with bots, then battlefield bad company came out with a single player, i haven’t actually played it fully because i didn’t have the PS3 or the Xbox 360 but i played the first mission at my friends house…it sucked, but the multiplayer was fantastic as always, then bad company 2 came out and the single player was not half bad, it was fun, engaging and it was full of action, it had issues but it was still reasonable, and again, the multiplayer was beast. so in other words, i don’t really care for single player in battlefield games and i felt that sage was concentrating the review on the single player too much and not the multiplayer. but that’s just my opinion. also, i haven’t played battlefield 3 yet so once i do get it, I’m just going to check out single player my self
I believe the “our users say” portion can clearly show the divisiveness of the Battlefield franchise in general. I hope that DICE takes the hint and stops wasting time and money on the singleplayer campaign. With the multiplayer focus, the “multiplayer but against bots” singleplayer of the old games would have been far more welcome.
But I suppose they wanted to try to break into CoD’s market share, and if that means they had to shoehorn in a cliched singleplayer campaign to get trailer material, then so be it, cos hopefully they’ll be exposed to a multiplayer world wider than “deathmatch” and “team deathmatch”, and where teamwork is far more valuable than lone wolf gunning and running.
P.S. Yes, I know that more modes exist in the CoD games, but the vast majority of matches are DM/TDM, compared to Rush/Conquest in BF.
Good review Sage. Every other review mostly focused on Multi-player. I’m still going to get this for christmas though as I love BF online.
I think the idea of focusing the review on the singleplayer as opposed to the multiplayer in a game that is designed for multiplayer longevity is fair. although I do feel like someone who isnt interested in this game for its multiplayer is missing out on alot of the point.
I personally think this game is about as good as it gets when it comes to modern day FPS’. the multiplayer is absolutely epic.
I really hate it when people say Single Player doesn’t matter…whether it’s a First Person Shooter or not, campaign is, and always was, a key component of a game. If developers thought that way, we’d have more games like MAG (which I’ve never played).
I don’t think it’s a good thing if I feel old when I say I wish single player campaigns had the depth and length that they used to.
Except, it’s not necessary for every game. The singleplayer experience was certainly the main focus years ago, but with the internet now, it doesn’t need to be. There’s certainly nothing wrong with a multiplayer focused experience. Battlefield 3 should’ve been just liked MAG, multiplayer only, as the singleplayer just isn’t needed for a series that became as popular as it has, purely because of it’s multiplayer focus. It’s like saying TF2 isn’t a good game, cause it doesn’t have a singleplayer campaign.
Even if the singleplayer had been amazing, ground breaking, it really wouldn’t have mattered too much in the end as I got Battlefield 3 for the multiplayer. It would’ve been a nice bonus to have a solid and interesting campaign, but it would’ve been played once, and then never touched again while I played the hell out of the multiplayer, like I have been since the game was released.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind if a game is an online-only experience. I play LoL a lot, and I’d play TF2 if my computer had any quality to it. I normally don’t buy games for the multiplayer though. I find it as a nice addition. That obviously isn’t the case with BF3, which I’ve played a lot of, but if it’s included, it should be lengthy and have depth.
I am glad the single player is short. I didn’t even want a single player campaign in the game. I haven’t got the game yet, but all I really wanted was BF2 with modern graphics.. If it delivers on that, I will be happy.
I don’t play any other “war” FPS like CoD or MoH so saying that something is “clitche” doesn’t really apply to me, or for other people who don’t play every game that comes out. That is a statement from a jaded gamer “who has seen it all.”
I will throw in my 2 cents and probably be down voted for it but whenever I read these comments the “score” given to them by other people is no concern.
I have clocked about 20 hours in multiplayer now since UK release and I have really enjoyed what I have seen so far. The classes are for the most part nicely balanced and the assault, engineer and support weapons no longer function as well at long ranges like they did in Bad Company 2 which I really liked. (what I mean is by just firing single shot bursts with Acog scope and being able to kill folks at mega long range).
The vehicles are fun to use although personally I am a big fan of moving on foot with my squad and taking out vehicles when possible but the addition of them makes certain segments of the multiplayer really intense.
My problems start with the MP before I even get into a game, sometimes very difficult to join games with a full squad (4 players on 360 which is my console) and all be on the same team. Often the leader gets into a game and others are left in a cue waiting to join, other times we are split onto different teams altogether and then there are times when some players cannot connect or game crashes when joining.
The only other complaint about MP is some of the other players mentalities. It can be frustrating when you have a team that consist of only assault and snipers and the assault guys rarely drop health packs or revive fallen comrades, the lack of people playing support means it is hard to get ammo refills when they are needed. However this is minor because the guys I play with play off each other really well so its not something I worry about.
Single player I did the first level and havnt been back since, not because I dislike it but because I fall into the category of people who bought the game for multiplayer and see the single player as something to do in the downtime between sessions.
Overall I think its a fun game but it is riddled with issues that need to be fixed. I personally got a used code for the physical warfare pack which pissed me off to no end and the matchmaking drastically needs to be improved.
Anyone who says the game is perfect is a fucking liar.
No worries. I also really like the online multiplayer and most of the criticisms have been directed at the single player portion. I also agree it is a fun game, but it is far from perfect.
This review angered me. The campaign was intense and not dull by a longshot… is Sage even human? How is he not fazed by the incredible sound, animations, and presentation? The graphics on PC are STUNNING and frighteningly realistic. It was better by CoD’s campaign or Bad Company 2′s campaign by a longshot, with a more detailed ‘living’ world to fight in. With amazing sounds, graphics, and animations to the mix to make a more visceral experience. It was a roller coaster ride of awesome!
And also notice another trend? Anyone who is defending the campaign gets a high thumbs down rating… awwwww, so we are defending our game against an obviously pretentious, snobby, foolish internet reviewer? We HAVE A RIGHT to defend our favorite games from all critics. If most of you have the right to say how crappy and dull (when it is NOT dull) the singleplayer is, then people who like Battlefield 3 ALL AROUND have a right to defend!
Seriously, stop defending your precious beloved internet reviewers, people. They are there for entertainment, not to help with informed decisions. Trust your own instincts. Rent games, try them out, and buy ones that YOU like. Don’t listen to ANYONE. I only watch Sage for Anime Abandon, which is funny, and Masterpiece Fanfic Theatre which he stopped doing recently.
Also, if many of yuo think the campaign is dull… have you even played CoD or other military shooters? Their intensity and portrayal of war is like a CHILD’s GAME compared to Battlefield 3. Sound and animations help to carry BF3′s NOT SIX HOUR CAMPAIGN (it felt long and epic, it seriously felt like I’ve been through A LOT) to new heights of awesomeness!
And no, I am not DICE’s lapdog. I am NO ONES LAPDOG. I am a lapdog to MYSELF. I trust my own feelings and emotions. If I like a game, I WILL defend it.
So really, people. Be predictable. Thumb me down like predictable fools… instead of being intellectuals and thinking this through. COMPARE BF3′s campaign to Homefront, to Brink, to OTHER shooters released and you will realize a HUGE difference…
I’m pretty sure he was playing on the PS3, meaning he doesn’t get the power and features that the PC version gets.
The problem with BF3 campaign isn’t the presentation and sound, it’s that as a story, it does things with a tad more realism in comparison to CoD, but it doesn’t really do anything new or interesting with the story. I still have a few levels to finish, but the plot is doing the same idea Black Ops already did, and doing what MW2 did before that, having nukes involved with a Russian mastermind. It does things better than CoD, but then again, it doesn’t exactly.
It’s cool to see people did like it, but it is just an opinion everyone is giving here.
I can be an intellectual AND thumb you down.
First, most of us have played the game and I’ve already gone through the campaign twice, and I can tell you that BF3′s campaign is not nearly as good as other shooters I have played it has even taken concepts from even Black Ops. But I think you are wrong for forgetting what makes a campaign memorable: the story and characters. Sounds, animations, and graphics are important, but what defines a great or terrible campaign experience is the story that unfolds and the development of the characters. Most of the characters, save for a few, have no development at all and are entirely one-note. The story was entirely predictable and cliched. I guessed when they mentioned about one of the missing nukes being in Paris, I knew that there was going to be a mission where we would have to retrieve the nuke and it was going to detonate at the end. This was a cliche taken from COD4 and has been repeated since. It helps if you look through the pretty picture and actually see the campaign for what it is: cliched, dull, and predictable. I’m down voting you because I think you’re being a complete jerk about your opinion.
Compare this game to Red Orchestra 2 and realise that compared to it, BF3 feels damn arcadey?
That said, the campaign was exciting to you? Just where are the thrills in sitting in a turret? Or better yet, sitting in the back of a jet and checking the rudders and flaps? And then endlessly releasing flares as you’re seated behind the most ineffective pilot in human history, followed by engaging in tactics that almost remind us of boss fights from the 8-bit days, wait for the enemy fighter to have released HIS flares and ~THEN~ fire ze missiles.
And let’s not even touch upon the fact that the campaign is restrictive as all hell. You can only move when the game tells you to, you can only run when the game lets you, and at several instances you are denied creative thinking as any attempt to flank or outmanoeuvre them is met with the screen turning greyscale and great big letters warning you that “you’re leaving the combat area”.
That is simply put, poor design. And if you can’t see that and yet accuse us of not using our grey cells and blindly supporting Bennett, then, well, you frankly have got no justification to be calling yourself an intellectual. Since you clearly ~never~ sat down and even wondered just why he didn’t like the campaign (never mind that he explains part of it in his review) and blindly leapt to the game’s defence.
Besides, what are you getting so worked up about anyway? The whole point of reviewing is to share your opinion about something with the world. Bennett didn’t think BF3 was anything special, that doesn’t invalidate his opinion in any means, if he honestly didn’t care for it and cautions his viewers that they shouldn’t expect the world from the game, where did he go wrong? Where does that make him pretentious? Tastes differ, deal with it.
I swear, some of you video game fans are impossible to please (not particularly aimed at you Arkeveen), if they give low to average scores to games you like they’re pretentious, incompetent fools, and if they give high scores to games you don’t like, you’re already halfway done with typing a wild accusation of the reviewer accepting bribes from the publishers.
Heh. If most people play these shooter games for the multi player why would anyone buy another shooter? I mean how many active multiplayer shooters are out right now? If I was developing a shooter game I might as well put my heart into the single player campaign cause multiplayer already has elite titles people play all the time. How many multiplayer shooter games can one person play before it makes the whole thing unremarkable?
Well the shooter market thrives on multiplayer action, It’s never been a genre that has relied on it’s singleplayer aspect, like one would say about the RPG genre. Of all the big shooters, Gears of War 3, Call of Duty, Halo, Battlefield, what always keeps people coming back? Multiplayer. Not saying you can’t do a good singleplayer, but people like a new shooter to play every couple years. Very few games I feel have the long lasting appeal, unless your named Counter-Strike and TF2, where they can go YEARS before getting a sequel lol
Kinda off topic just a tad, but Co-Op just became important to the game, as you can unlock about a half dozen different weapons to use in multiplayer, which is pretty cool.
Reminds me of the XP-hail you get in the new Exterminatus mode in Space Marine.
I will say this. To those of you who gripe because Sage judged the game based on its single-player story mode:
So the game series is designed and centered around multi-player. I’ll give you that. For a franchise for which this is the main thrust, it makes sense that its fans will concern themselves mainly with how the designers continue that aspect of the gameplay.
But don’t try to tell the rest of us that it is unfair to judge the game’s single-player story mode. Don’t sit there and try to tell the rest of us that Sage is simply wrong for judging the story mode, just because you’re only concerned about the online multi-player mode.
And here is why you’re wrong if you do that:
1. If it’s in the game, it’s fair game to judge it. BF3 includes a story mode, and so any good review will have to talk about it.
2. There are some of us who do care about a game’s single-player experience. If we’re not as concerned about the multi-player as you are, we still need to know whether the game is a good one for us to buy.
3. Almost anything you need to know about a game’s mechanics, you will learn just as easily from the single-player mode as you would from an online multi-player experience.
Really, there are only a few things that need to be touched on with multi-player that wouldn’t be addressed in a discussion of the single-player mode: (1) class balance, (2) server issues, and (3) gameplay variety. Almost anything else, you will be able to experience in single-player just as easily.
So if you care only about the multi-player experience, and the game gives you that, then go buy it. But don’t try to tell reviewers like Sage to ignore single-player mode when reviewing a game. The rest of us do care, whether you do or not.
LET’S ALL PLAY POKEMON
This review is just plain stupid. It completely misses the point. The single player campaign for Battlefield is a glorified tutorial at best, it shouldn’t be the focus of any kind of competent review of a game. That’s like if someone did a review of WoW and spent 90% of the time talking about the fishing.
What really makes or breaks a game like this is how the multiplayer works. Does it run smoothly, are the classes well balanced, does it strike a good balance between damage and hitpoints, does it have metagame that detracts from its setting? Those are the questions a competent review should answer.
Also it should draw a comparison to BFBC2 and lay out what they changed, what improved and what got worse. How does the inclusion of prone affect multiplayer matches?
Oh well, I felt this was a poor review that answered none of my questions. It just stated the obvious in a thousand ways. Military shooters are kind of stale and lack serious innovation? Wow, really? My mind! It is blown!
Wrong!
Believe it or not, there are some people who buy a video game, not for the multiplayer, but for the story mode. I rarely if ever participate in online multiplayer – mostly because my ISP is unreliable – so, to me, a game is made or broken in story mode.
You are right. Not everyone thinks that multiplayer is most important part of game. To some people single player is and I am one of those people.
“This review is just plain stupid. It completely misses the point. The single player campaign for Battlefield is a glorified tutorial at best,”
He explicitly stated that in the freaking video. WOW.
IMHO, judging a game from multiplayer is never really a good idea for a new games like this that just came out in the market, because multiplayer involves the community behind it.
Any game with a great multiplayer can to completely ruined by its community, whether it be idiots yelling extremely offensive “Vocabulary” over and over again, or just dead silence, as if everyone’s playing single player by themselves
Only time will tell how the BF3 community is gonna turn out (or forgotten if EA decides to milk this with new game after new game, as with CoD now)
I really cannot disagree with you more, Bennett. “Battlefield 3″ sets a bar – in multiplayer, presentation and physics – that games will have to adapt to from here on out. Also, you talked WAY too much about the campaign, which no one – I repeat, NO ONE – ever gave two shits about. This game is about the multiplayer, the singleplayer is only a formality. Also, if you’re not playing this game on the PC, then you’re not really playing it at all.
Oh well. To each his own, but I personally cannot fathom how ANYONE could ever like this game less than “Call of Duty: Black Ops”, which I’m pretty sure – judging from Bennett’s review of that game – that he did.
To be fair, comparing BF3 to Black Ops is rather pointless as they’re very different beasts. CoD’s multiplayer is about fast deathmatches or simple objectives on maps you can traverse in under two minutes on foot and play with about 16 people. You can pick it up, have fun for a few matches over the course of twenty minutes, and put it down again and feel content.
Battlefield is about 64 players doing many things on a huge map that can last twenty minutes or longer for a single match, and involves vehicles of various sorts, I’d say that for what it tries to do, its only direct rival is Red Orchestra 2, which now that it has been thoroughly patched is more than a worthy contestant for the title of most enjoyable 64 player shooter. And you can there at least bloody well see what’s going on without bloom lighting and lens flares ruining your sight. But even that still is a different beast since it banks heavily on hardcore realism which makes BF3 seem arcadey, which makes both games appeal to different crowds as well.
Long story short, I mostly agree with Bennett, and I feel that comparing BF to MW makes as much sense as comparing WoW to Dragon Age.
Sorry, but I just cannot agree with him that this game looks unimpressive, is unremarkable and only worthy of a weekend rental at best. I just can’t.
I was thinking about this fan war, BF vs CoD and the more I thought about it themore apparent something became. Here’s my train of thought going from A to B:
“Why does a rivalry between the two games even exist? They are hardly similar. Sure both started with WW2 and have moved to a modern military setting on which they now have released several games, but that’s where the similarities end. One is a small scale rather skirmish-like game with fast paced firefights, the other is a large open battleground focussed on teamwork and larger scale tactics. Aside from the look both are completely different games, like Left 4 Dead and Dead Rising, you don’t hear people taking sides between these… oh wait.”
Bottom line: Fanboys/-girls are idiots and if they can’t appreciate a different game for what it is, that’s fine, they shouldn’t play it, but there is no sense in talking it down.
Did we play the same game? I admit that the campaign is clice but i like it a lot. Im just a sucker for millitry drama and such. I never had any AI issues, but i also do play on Hard so ya. I also havent seen any texture pops or anything of the sort. I seriously lost respect for you sage. Considering the fact that BF is WAAAAAAYYY Better than CoD. So stick to movies cause you can obviusly not review games at all considering Ign gave it a 9, GI gave it a 9.25 and Gamespot a 9.
Just because you don’t agree with a guy’s opinion on a game doesn’t mean he should stick to reviewing anime. If Sage didn’t like it, he didn’t like it and he has every right to give his opinion. Seriously, you’re quoting IGN and Gamespot! Really? Also Game Informer is a vehicle for Gamestop and they will tell you a lot of things that will get you to buy certain games. I’m sorry but I would rather trust the opinion of Sage here than most of the writers for GI. Frankly, I can corroborate the frustration of the AI as I have been going through the campaign again. At times I can compare the friendly AI to that of SWAT 4, where my teammates are in my way and standing in my spot. Also there was some texture popping but nothing to complain about.
For me, the multiplayer is fantastic and I felt like the game is worth buying if you just want multiplayer. However, everything else is just alright. I’ve encountered so many bugs and glitches within the campaign that I really grew frustrated with it and the enemy AI even on easy mode can be challenging at times and not in the good way. I haven’t played the co-op yet so I can’t really judge it yet, but it’s really disappointing that I couldn’t play with my roommate in any multiplayer or co-op.
Wait the game has Dubstep in its soundtrack?
Oh how I’ve been misjudging you BF3! Can you ever forgive me?!
Battlefield 3 is all about multiplayer. The campaign is an extra at best. This game should simply be judged with Multiplayer in the foreground…not doing so is pretty much FAIL.
Any reviewer who gives a sh**, simply HAS to judge EVERY game on it’s WHOLE content. The devs included single player, yes? Why not judge it?
I really don’t get the complaints about judging the single player. You’ll never play it? Great, buy the game and ignore the comments about the dull single player. Enjoy the multiplayer instead. Not that hard now, is it?
As I stated above, there are people who don’t care about multiplayer. So it is important that any game – any game at all, regardless of what aspects its developers emphasize – must be judged on all its aspects. That includes single-player campaign mode. I won’t buy a game without a decent story mode.
Great review.. pretty spot on. The problem is if you do decide to rent this game, you won’t be able to play multi-player at all (unless you want to spend $10) and get stuck with the lackadaisical campaign mode.
In all fairness a game should be judged on the single player. If you only play a game for multiplayer well that is nice for you. But if a game has a shit single player it should be judged for that and that should affect the score. A single player campaign should be a main focus of game if you implement one, a great multiplayer is nothing but an addition.
This is a sequel to game that had no single player and dont you think the original fans of the game would be left out if they DICE put all effort into Single player instead of Multi? This game started as multiplaye.r so that is its strong point and what it should be judged on.
You’ve never been part of the Battlefield series then lol Battlefield, up till Bad Company, has always been a multiplayer only thing, and Bad Company only did singleplayer right once with the first game. I agree, if they are gonna add in Singleplayer, they need to put more work into it, but I don’t agree that multiplayer should be the addition and singleplayer the focus. No one is playing the Battlefield series solely for the campaign.
Damn… I think I’m gonna take advice from the “our users say” poll up above and stay away. I’m sure there are a few COD fans that just downgraded it because it’s not COD… but that many people must be onto something. Plus I love the single player campaign in FPS’s. As far as I’m concerned the campaign is a GREAT way to get yourself accustomed to the controller layout, as well as learning the maps and little tricks of the trade. For me though, personally, never really cared much for the online multi-player (unless it’s co-op) seems to bring out the worst in people. I look forward to the campaign in FPS’s that the online aspect of it… and yes, I’m aware that I’m a dieing breed because 50% of gamers never even play the campaign anymore… which I find kind of sad.
BF3′s multiplayer doesn’t bring out the worst in people, it has a very high emphasis on teamwork and tactics, unlike a certain other game I know.
Doesn’t really matter what game it is (and BF3 is one of those games), if it’s online it bring the worst out in people. Also just my opinion.
Too much focus on single player for a franchise that didn’t even have single player until after Battlefield 2. The series is crafted for it’s multiplayer and taking single player into account is what is giving this game mixed reviews from people.
“Multiplayer is great, but everything else is stale and boring, therefore it’s only good at best.”
Different variations of that line exists in several reviews, including your own. But since we all only care about multiplayer, I’d say the game’s score should be much higher than what everyone is giving it.
Ignore the single player. No one cares about the single player. No one has ever cared about the single player.
Ever.
Singleplayer and Co-Op is in the game, so it should be judged, but it’s obviously not what is bringing people to the series. 3 million people played the Beta. It’s clear to see what people wanted to play and I think more reviews should reflect that more. While alot of games either bring focus to the singleplayer or a split between singleplayer and multiplayer, BF3 is the rare game, where multiplayer is the main focus and singleplayer is the tacked on feature.
Sorry, but as a matter of fact I do. If it’s there, I’ll play it. If it’s good, well, that only enhances the whole experience. If it’s bad it’s not a ruined game but it looks more stale as a package.
While I would agree with your singleplayer complaints, I felt like you put too much time into the review for the singleplayer and co-op, things most were not really excited for, and so little into what is the best aspect of the game, multiplayer. This is where the game shines, standing out from games like Call of Duty, with it’s scale, variety, and intensity. You pick one map and just switching from Conquest to Rush, will change how you play that map. Then you change that up even more depending on if you use a vehicle, what class you go with, what main weapon you choose, and what gadget/device, you have on, you can play maps so many different ways.
The multiplayer alone makes this one of the best shooters I’ve played in the past few years, probably since when TF2 came out, and before that would be Battlefield 2.
Well EA, you did it, you finally did it.
You managed to completely and utterly destroy the ONLY military First Person Shooter to ever welcome me and say, “It’s ok, you’re not obligated to like me.”
I felt like I was welcome in the world of Battlefield, I didn’t feel like I’d be considered a schmuck if I didn’t like it, like what happened with the Call of Duty games.
And now, with you horrible Online Passes and despicable Origin system, it all makes me stand up from my chair, slam the table with the palm of my hand and say “THAT’S IT! I’M DONE!”
I hope you’re happy EA, because you succeeded in shitting on another one of my favorite game franchises. >=(
I don’t want to but I have to agree. The game itself is ok. For BF fans even great. But it brings nothing new to the table except Origin, webbrowserinterface BS and online passes.
Yes, it looks nice and it’s good to have the prone back but that is not enough for me to convince me to install crap like Origin and being forced to browse my way into the game while 100 popup tabs crowd my view.
Another good game ruined by very strange choices by EA.