Battlefield 3 is a creature of contradiction. On the one hand, it's everything games should be about - a trip to worlds few of us will ever glimpse, an operatic war-scape wrought to screaming pitch by what is undoubtedly a next-gen engine in waiting. There are cut-scenes enough to fill out a box blurb, but much of the drama derives from sheer kinesis: office blocks collapsing into flakes of brick and plaster, the aural white-out of a grenade going off, and the drunken flop of punctured bodies.
Frostbite 2's difficulties on Xbox 360 hinder, but ultimately don't hobble DICE's panoramic aspirations. Yes, the textures won't match what you'd see on a nitrogen-cooled super-computer, but those textures make up environments of an unrivalled scale, bustling with visual noise. Between the smoke clouds, the flare of machinegun fire, the forlorn tumble of loose objects and the tiered wedding cake of explosions that is a tank biting dust, you'll never feel inclined to dwell on a smudgy boulder. Battlefield has always done spectacle well, thanks to its genesis as a PVP war simulator, but Battlefield 3 wants to deliver maximum fidelity up close to boot, and if the strain shows at intervals, that's because DICE has set the bar so high.
In some respects it's a game from the future, a statement of how the big budget mainstream FPS should be five years from now - more leisurely, evenly spread rather than clustered into flashpoints, giving you time to take stock between shoot-outs. But it's also a game where, at the climax of a hectic, yet wholly cosmetic car chase through New York's Times Square, you save the universe by tapping three or four buttons when you're told to.
You're bossed around a lot in Battlefield 3. Supremely confident in multiplayer, DICE's insecurity as a single player studio sees it adopting Modern Warfare's tight train of prompts and bullying hand-holders wholesale - not necessarily the wrong way of doing things, but a formula that's been showing its age since 2008, and not played to perfection here. The result is another strangely disempowering "blockbuster shooter", an "interactive experience" which seems to actually resent its own interactivity. In Battlefield 3, the player is less the driving force as an embarrassing elderly relative, needing constant mollycoddling lest he dribble over somebody's niece or put ketchup in his tea.
69 comments so far...
GHOSTY05 on 26 Oct '11 said:
Having put almost 40 hours into the BF3 beta and over 300hours into Bad Company 2, i strongly disagree with your score of 8
You also gave Bad Company 2 an 8, so your telling me this has the same score as bad company 2?
You might as well be saying the game has not improved, as far as i'm concerned its a solid 9 and i say this based on buggy beta code.
Be interesting to see what rating MW3 gets, probably a 9 or 10!
Mr Scarecrow901 on 26 Oct '11 said:
Good fair review. Slightly disappointed but oh well. Random assassins creed screenshot in the screenshot section though!
sketchyterry on 26 Oct '11 said:
I cancelled my Battlefield 3 order for Xbox in favour of re-ordering it on PC. Will have to probably run the game on low, if im lucky then on medium. But should look as good if not better than the console version anyway. Couldn't turn the chance of 64 player online, 32 vs 32 is so much better than 12 v 12.
It seems this is one of the few games that have been ported from PC to console and hence suffered a bit, the PC reviews for the game certainly seem more positive.
I also wonder what the score for the game would have been had they only had multiplayer (or a separate score the multiplayer)
WHAT WOULD IT BE OXM!?
golliwoza on 26 Oct '11 said:
Wasnt going to get this after being really let down by the demo. Maybe ill get it as a christmas present for a relative.
OXM ETboy on 26 Oct '11 said:
The beta isn't reflective of the multiplayer as a whole. Operation Metro isn't the best map for Rush - it's one of the tighter ones, with lots of checkpoints and no vehicles.
whelly1985 on 26 Oct '11 said:
wow after all the hype was expecting a 10, think you have done a pretty fair review though, im a cod fan more than a battlefield fan but will still be getting this at some point, maybe around christmas when i can get it at a knocked down price
golliwoza on 26 Oct '11 said:
I am sure that the multiplayer is great but I was dissapointed with some of the new features, I was also hoping for quite a good campaign and co-op as I dont want to splash the cash on a game only going good for the multiplayer.
Chaza360 on 26 Oct '11 said:
Yeah, and i bet the campaign will be worse too.
Bezza89 on 26 Oct '11 said:
As expected, average SP, stellar MP, looking forward to tomorrow.
Ghosty - numbers are irrelevant, whilst I'd have liked a 9 or 10 to persuade more people to play the game, doesn't detract from the game being good. You also have to take into account the single player sounds a bit rubbish.
buckleboff94 on 26 Oct '11 said:
great, unbiased review.
Its a shame I'm only buying 9's or 10's for now due to the game tidal wave.
still got borderlands +dlc to work through though :'D
jaypeyodi on 26 Oct '11 said:
any review that says its the most refined battlefield ever and only gives it a score of 8 is bullshit
im calling shenanigans
Jensonjet on 26 Oct '11 said:
I have no interest in purchasing this game, but after reading some of the comments about the review I felt the need to add a little comment.
I actually think this is a very decent review. It still doesn't go into enough detail about the technical side of the game or talk much about it's features for my liking but reviews never do. But it does seem to be an open and honest appraisal of a game that, in the build up to it's sale, has been hyped, promoted and adored by all the gaming websites I visit. Quietly impressive is that this review only occasionally mentions Modern Warfare. Other reviews read like a side-by-side comparison (but I guess that's down to 'quality and skill' of their writers!).
The TV trailer and the developer adoration in the build up seemed to suggest an amazing game. Perhaps on the best of PC rigs, with a massive screen and surround sound the multiplayer game is close to stunning. But the 360 screenshots and now some comments from those after having played the full game don't seem to marry up (unsurprisingly) with the developer's outpourings. I've no doubt hardcore Battlefield fans will love the game. But for the fact it promotes the online pass I wouldn't lose sleep it fails to capture the hearts of anyone else.
Sketchyterry,
You have a PC capable (or there abouts) of running this game and you considered buying a console version!?! I think you've made a very wise choice in cancelling your order and moving onto what will arguably be the far superior version. And it's cheaper too! Even if you can only run it looking as poor as the console effort, the increase in online players makes the console seem second-rate and decidedly old fashioned. Oh, and not to mention you now get to play with the most accurate controls.
m4ster b4ker on 26 Oct '11 said:
Aw that's really quite annoying, I really thought that battlefield could finally beat cod this year .... Well I suppose not - it at least deserved a 9 considering the improvement in the series and the sheer quality of the game.
I think that's a little harsh or r u just sticking up for cod again because of their little partnership wiv Microsoft - I can't wait to see what u think of mw3
GHOSTY05 on 26 Oct '11 said:
I also have a capable PC and could run the game easily on my PC at high spec.
I will give the XBOX version a good try first and if i'm not happy i will sell it and buy the PC version.
However i much prefer XBOX live so we will see come thursday when the posty should be pushing it through my door!
OXM ETboy on 26 Oct '11 said:
I realise this is pissing in the wind, but no - we're not in cahoots with Activision, Microsoft or indeed the heathen gods to keep Call of Duty on top. Having Xbox branding doesn't make us an Xbox puppet. Conspiracy theories are fun, though, aren't they?
inception24 on 26 Oct '11 said:
Again its saluted for its online multiplayer. I'm not surprised and I won't be buying this load of crap. Hate online multiplayers anyway. MW3 won't fair any better, but it will break records with its midnight launch and pre orders!!! Next....
comabob on 26 Oct '11 said:
Never thought u were - BUT i do recall reading the Halo 3 review in the mag and seeing it get an 8/10 - then whenever i read anything about it on this site - it was always quoted as a 9...
Dont know why - but i remember that.
Spiderless on 26 Oct '11 said:
I believe in you OXM staff
I also find it amazing that you manage to keep your cool (not that you've got much a choice I suppose).
I'm on the fence for this one, really not sure if its worth Ł40 (I'm a student). I'd get it on PC so on one hand I've got better graphics etc, then on the other I've got EA's Origin (which sucks) and likely a myriad of driver related problems.
So, if someone can answer these questions perhaps I can make a better informed decision.
Does the game feel like something new? Or like a rehash of old stuff? How does the destruction compare with BFBC2? Is it fun? Does the multiplayer really play anything like MW? Pretty sure I'm going to have to do a bit of research...
Murphy1978 on 26 Oct '11 said:
Both this and COD will sell by the bucketload though, so the score is irrelevant in the great scheme of things?
Who ultimately really buys these just for the single player? These sell for the multiplayer behemoths that they are.
And anyway, surely 8 is still a great score?
I loved BC2 and will no doubt love this. Hopefully it will be here tomorrow, was shipped yesterday.
Joe90_Remy700 on 26 Oct '11 said:
y'know, the funny thing is i bet all the things this is marked down for will be all the things mw3 is marked up for. at least they made a bloody good effort and even a buggy beta was waaaaay better than the "closest competitions" last 2 piss poor iterations. bf3: improved experience (anyone see the gadget show with bf3 as a simulator??) fantastic sound especially with astro/turlte beach/triton surround phones, destruction, choice and only 8/10?! mw3: same shite, same engine, same kids 10/10
on the flip side: i do not care too highly for review scores but alot of people do (guy above "i only buy 9/10 & 10/10 games" mate you are missing out take dead space for example) as it would help the sales of what is a fantastic shooting experience, but also i hope this strictness with the scoring will be continued to games given 10/10 that are, frankly, samey crap (and i'm not talking as a series, i'm talking repetitive gameplay like gta, tomb raider and yes, after 3 playthroughs, deus ex)
Skipstream on 26 Oct '11 said:
I can't believe anyone is surprised by the reviews for BF3 on XBOX. Well, not in regards to MP being great and SP being a bit lame.
I have to say though I am a little disappointed they couldn't take what is great in MP and somehow bring it to the SP experience. But, based on all the hype/trailers etc it was obvious SP was going to be a COD clone and, if you are going down that route they should have at least made it a better clone - oh well!
Still - some of the reviews out there are pointing out some horrible glitches that occur that will helpfully get patched.
As for MP (which is where I will spend my time on BF/BC/COD games) I am sure it will be fun. Once again though - as with Crysis and Rage - the technology within the XBOX is really starting to show it's age. Roll on XBOX 720 or whatever it's going to be called - I can't believe the rumours indicate a 2013 release rather than 2012 to be honest. FFS get it released and let's catch up a little - I mean come ON - the xbox only has 512mb of RAM to share between CPU and GPU - I mean - arghhh - my kids 4 year old Dell piece of sh***t laptop has 1GB in it FFS. How the developers get out what they do is bloody amazing when they have to work techno crap like this
Murphy1978 on 26 Oct '11 said:
Whilst I share your enthusiasm, if they release it in 2012, won't they be in EXACTLY the same position in 6 years, with dated architecture compared to some of the competition?
VizualDemon on 26 Oct '11 said:
8/10....not too shabby then...at least COD has a rival ...we the consumer will get the best gaming experience from these two going head to head....Random Assasins Creed pic in the screenshots...unless its been removed i can't see it..lol
SeanSMEGHEAD on 26 Oct '11 said:
Obviously this review was written by freemasons! Damn them
.... an 8 beh!
On a serious note, good informitive review that il take more from then others I have read.
Decent_Jam on 27 Oct '11 said:
Solid review Mr Ed, and thank you for trying your best to address my point, really appreciate that.
The fact that it's the game everyone expected, is obviously not unexpected. Numbers for reviews could be argued until the cows come home, but for a game which is 9 you wan't something which ticks all the boxes but falls short in a few areas (while 10 exceeds expectations, though is - of course - not perfect).
From what has been said here an 8 sounds fine, and it's not as if there aren't plenty of brilliant games on the 'must-buy' pages at the back of the OXM mag which are in the 8 club.
I was never expecting to have my mind blown by the single-player, because for the longest time I didn't even touch it on BC2 and when I did finished it out sheer determination not to let it beat me rather than enjoyment. Still it was enjoyable enough, so if it's a similar level to that with aforementioned QTE's I can't see myself complaining, but I will wait to judge for myself on Friday.
The main thing is, there is a decent alternative for those who don't want to buy Modern Warfare, and not one which is just a token opponent, a LOT of people will be playing this game, so the multiplayer will be bustling and should be great fun. My PC struggles playing MP3s without slowdown so I fear the times of me gaming on PCs are behind me, but they were some good times.
Still can't get over the jets aspect though, it just seems like such an exciting aspect to multiplayer, can't wait.
All in all, good news, no unpleasant surprises at this stage is very encouraging.
Jensonjet on 27 Oct '11 said:
Excellent. So what are you playing on the PS3 at the moment? Or that Wii thing... do they still make games for that?
wishface on 27 Oct '11 said:
shame the singleplayer part is going to be utter crap. I don't really see why this has to be. Noone expects to be playing through a complicated story. BC2 was fun enough.
Skipstream on 27 Oct '11 said:
Yes, I know what you mean but....if we followed that ethos we would never update our PC's, phones or whatever. What we need is a new machine that will take gaming forward without massively increasing the cost of game production imo.
So, developers are already developing/developd engines that can render textures in HD and keep 60 fps etc - but the current consoles can't keep up. We don't need a massive leap forward - just an upgrade. So, more RAM for them to work with - I mean - 512MB FFS - the machines should come with 2GB at least - if it's cost effective and useful - put in 4GB. Ensure they have a GPU with it's own dedicated RAM - 1GB at least - make sure it can work with DirectX stuff too (though I am wandering outside my scope of knowledge now!).
Finally - ensure the CPU can deal with this. I know they prob can't put in an 3.7ghz i7 equivalent and keep the console sub Ł300 but surely we could have a jump up somewhat?
Basically - I think the new console should be an improvement - not anything revolutionary. Just give the developers more umph to play with!
CunningSmile on 27 Oct '11 said:
There's also the fact that it normally takes developers years to get to grips with the new tech. The last days of the PS2 looked as good as if not better then the first of the PS3, and compare something like Arkham City with Perfect Dark Zero and they are streets ahead. Add to that the fact developers get so obsessed with the sparkly new toys and horse power of a new console they forget to add little things like plot and script to the first wave of new games.
Release a new console if you want MS, but for my money the last days of a console always beat the first days of it's replacement.
freefallX on 27 Oct '11 said:
Basically whats going to happen is OXM will give MW3 a 9 or a 10 and once again a game that does the same every year on the same engine will topple a game that has strived to better itself. A brand new engine is always going to have some problems but i dont think a game should be penalised for trying to better itself. If game development is left to the Infinity Wards and Treyarchs of this world we will still be playing COD on the ID3 engine in 100 years time...
OXM ETboy on 27 Oct '11 said:
I'd be playing Uncharted 3 if my PS3 hadn't died a death six months ago, and if I could afford to buy a new one. The only thing that makes me want to go back to the Wii is Monster Hunter Tri, and I prefer the PSP iterations (bows and horns are better than no bows and no horns).
@ Comabob
Halo 3 review was a bit before my time :p I'll take a look at that.
@ Murphy
It's all about the multiplayer if you're a serious (and vocal) Battlefan, yes, but I think you'd be surprised how many people buy these games for their single player components. And yes, 8 is a great score, but let's be honest, it's not the score many were expecting...
golliwoza on 27 Oct '11 said:
Yeah but this is not just about the engine, an engine doesnt make or break a game. This game mainly just has multiplayer going for it I bet half of the people who buy this wont even finish the campaign on this because its not great if it was a multiplayer only game it probably would get a much higher score. The thing about CoD which makes me still buy it is because its got a fun co-op Spec ops was great and challenging and zombies was also great as well as an action packed average length campaign and the multiplayer is fast fairly addictive and non stressful as well as a great thing to play with friends. I know battlefield's multiplayer is great and much better than CoD's but I buy games for the whole experiance and a crappy sounding campaign and half arsed co-op is half the package of BF3 gone.
I got mainly put of both theses games this year from fanboys on both sides slagging each other off on how each game is better and how oh cod will get this battlfield will get that and that is the reason I am buying neither, I respect battlefield alot more but some people I find in battlfield are getting just as bad as the CoD 12 year olds.
Sunstreaker77 on 27 Oct '11 said:
Crikey, seems to be a lot of angst directed at MW3 on a BF3 forum before its released!
I openly favour the COD franchise (excluding BLOPS) over the Battlefield one as I just prefer it, but I can see why BF has become very much a threat to COD's crown.
Whilst many may not agree with the review or score we do need some kind of benchmark to help those on the fence such as myself. I'll happily admit that after seeing the trailers, game play and general marketing that EA have thrown us I was one review away from being unfaithful to COD and camping (no pun intended) outside my local Game tomorrow morning getting my eager paws on a copy. I wanted to read the OXM review saying "Its a glorious cacophony of explosions and guns" "MW has to deliver a score of 11 out of 10 to be even half the game BF3 is" But with a score of 8/10 and a review that although way above average, didn't really float my boat, I'll think I'll trust my instincts and stick with my pre-ordered MW3.
At the end of the day fans will buy BF3, fans will buy MW3 and some will buy both irrespective of reviews, scores etc. but its good to have something to go on.
I could be wrong (BLOPS!!!) and after the initial euphoria has died down, BF3 may well prove to have ousted MW3 as the daddy of shooters and I'll have a pop but thanks to the review (taken at face value) I have my answers.
On a side note what would be interesting for both games would be the level of returns/trade-ins after they've been purchased. Surely that would give an indication of the level of success both have achieved?
BarmyArmy on 27 Oct '11 said:
I'm short for time so I'll cut to the chase. I think its a decent enough review, I was like others slightly let down by the score - generally most games which get slapped with an eight are good, but don't have the legs to last months, which is what I'm hoping for. However, it seems to be pretty clear that the single-player is dragging down the score so I'll be sticking with my pre-order.
To the whole 'bringing down CoD debate,' - I think it's still in with a chance (get to that in a second). Its been heavily marketed which is a good start, and the CoD/FIFA gamers have now got 'Battlefield' in their heads. However, anyone who expects this title "Battlefield 3" to beat CoD in sales or activity is a mug. This is the CoD 4 of the Battlefield series, Cod 4 didn't knock Halo off the FPS perch back in 2007, but it set up MW2 to do just that in 2009. If it works out, then Battlefield 4 should be in the position to do the same.
That's my take anyway
crobb991 on 28 Oct '11 said:
this i highly doubt. it appears that almost every magazine internet site and blog have all be bought in by the COD machine. However, it is clear that this trend will continue. you did it with spoace marine which was a very fun game and it only got a 7. Battlefield a genre topping game only got an eight.
COD MW3 will obviously get a 10...
wishface on 28 Oct '11 said:
7/10 is more than fair for Space Marine; a game that should have been so much more.
KillerKing on 28 Oct '11 said:
impossible; the battlefield 3 campaign is the worst single player campaign of any FPS I have ever played. period.
Murphy1978 on 28 Oct '11 said:
My copy didn't come today...
What am I missing?
Joe90_Remy700 on 28 Oct '11 said:
sooooooooooooooooooooooooo much fun! i'm only on the pc now because my wife is watching telly and i was up till the sun came out playing. maps are fantastic and can be very nicely rearranged. i mean, totally blown to sh*t. even huge towers, frosbite 2 is the mutts and i'd recommend x41's or equivalent - the sounds are so real, its unreal!
simonpm on 28 Oct '11 said:
Really, really disappointed with BF3. Awful gameplay, crap AI and the engine is nowhere near the overhyped next-gen standard it was purported to be.
5/10 at the very most.
Guilty Sparks on 28 Oct '11 said:
Although i respect your opinion Simon, i must disagree...... i've spent most of the day playing the single player, which in my opinion is simply fantastic, i've also had a couple of rush games online and i must say this game is really polished and will be a mainstay in my xbox for many months to come...... basically its f**king amazing 9/10, try giving it more time, it took me a while to adjust to BC2
But 5/10 as a score for BF3 is ludicrous
golliwoza on 29 Oct '11 said:
My bro is going to look out for battlefield today so if he manages to get a copy I will try and "obtain" it for a short period of time and give the multiplayer and possibly a bit of campaign a go, then back to batman and those combat challenges.
simonpm on 29 Oct '11 said:
Horses for courses I guess. Admittedly, I'm definately not a fan of "on-rails" games, so the first "button press sequence" and the first "attack here" aiming assist immediately put my back up. Also within the first 30 minutes of the game I'd already been pushed out the way or stopped from going somewhere by stupid scripted AI, which is also a massive game-breaker for me.
Sure, some people will enjoy this kind of "on a leash" gameplay, but for me it's incredibly frustrating and that, alongside the over-hyped visuals, are the reasons for my huge disappointment.
Murphy1978 on 30 Oct '11 said:
After speaking with GAME today I found out many people have not received their game, and many others had other issues, disks missing, DLC codes not working etc.
So, I pre-ordered from GAME, the limited edition, therefore I should get a code for the phtsical warefare bonus, is that a code? Is Karkland a code too? Or is that in the pack?
I'm still without the game anyway; probably going to buy it today and sod GAME off and get a refund. When they send the codes obviously.
wishface on 30 Oct '11 said:
Karkland hasn't been released yet. I don't really understand why the limited edition says it's included as it's not. Presumably it grants you access when it is released.
Crimbotoy on 30 Oct '11 said:
I managed to complete the game on hard in seven hours, this is poor. The game itself couldnt have ripped of Call of Duty anymore if it tried. The graphics were a let down, given that we were shown such an astounding preview. Lots of issues and the game seemed to struggle at points. The online gameing is a joke. I couldnt get into a game and was constantly told I had no connection and I was then kicked in the middle of a game for no reason. I had high hopes for this game, but I feel they have scored a major own goal here after promising so much.
Call of duty will be my next port of call and I expect it to be great, Well I hope it will!
Cdr JamesCool on 31 Oct '11 said:
The campaign was bad yes, but with the graphics shown on most previews were from the PC so they were going to be much much better than what we were going to get on the console, although I still think the graphics are good considering how old the technology is in the xbox now.
As for the online, I reckon it's all the people trying to play at once and the EA servers not coping, it's always like this with EA games until they patch it. If you have been trying to get a game in quick match try instead using the server browser as people (including myself) are having much better luck with that.
Murphy1978 on 31 Oct '11 said:
Still not here...
Wife won't let be buy a second copy.
Anyone else not get their Pre-Order code (or game) from GAME?
EDIT:
It turned up today (1st)...finally. A week to post, nice one Royal Mail!
I'll get on it later.
Murphy1978 on 1 Nov '11 said:
Double post...
Right up and running; I suck at it. Anyway, we got a OXM Platoon set up?
Carpet Monkey on 1 Nov '11 said:
ANOTHER split topic thread? Getting quite irritating. If you guys don't know, head over to the forums if you want more battlefield conversation and to join in the squad for multiplayer games etc.
Uncle dozens on 3 Nov '11 said:
I know I'm opening myself up to all kinds of crap but I have to start by admitting that I own both consoles, and that my copy of this game is actually on the other console. Having said that I cannot see it being miles different so I feel I am fair to state that I was seriously disappointed by your review but I ought to be fair and say that your reviews recently are in line with the current trends and I fear we are all falling into the same traps.
As an older gamer I grew up with C64 games that looked and sounded appalling and were rated on feel and control so I find myself still doing the same many years on. It is sad that most games these days are reviewed on looks alone, while feel, experience, gameplay and atmosphere have all fallen lower on the list of priorities.
I have owned the game since the day before release as my preorder was shipped early and due to my family commitments I haven't clocked the hours that many people have already achieved, but what I have done have all been awesome. There is no other word for it.
I have mostly played multi player. This is usual for me as I grab an hour here and there. The single player campaign will take me a few weeks to finish but I have played a couple of missions and it is all solid stuff. I haven't put the time in yet so I must apologise and move back to the multi player experience. At this point the game positively sparkles.
Only last night I was playing conquest game mode on a map I forget the name of, but featured a processing plant or power station in the middle of the desert. I was using my favourite engineer class and piloting a black hawk helicopter while my two door gunners hosed the living crap out of anything that moved. This lasted a full five minutes or so before I was brought down by a stinger missile. We all bailed out and parachuted down where I promptly pulled out my own surface to air missile and shot down the enemies gunship that was passing by.
The same map saw us taking out tanks, blowing the hell out of the environments, and all whilst trying the keep control of the command points. Overall we lost the game but it was a close thing and I was constantly on the edge of my seat. Modern warfare has never done that to me. My copy of black ops was traded in, mostly unused and uncompleted.
Most importantly I never stopped playing to moan to the wife and point at some boulder or tree that could have looked better. I never cheered when I blew up a wall because it looked ugly. Let's get some real perspective for a change. This game feels right. It works the soul as well as the thumbs. I feel genuine concern for my character if i end up separated from my team. I love the fact that i have to worry about effective range and bullet drop. I love finishing close quarters fights with my pistol. I love the fact that the pistol still feels deadly.
I like having different weapons depending which side I play, as well as uniforms. I like unlocking real attachments rather than putting my logo on the gun like black ops. I like being able to customise my class mid game when dead rather than waiting. There is nothing worse than equipping an attachment to find you don't like it and having to wait to turn it off. I like the fact that games last longer and you feel genuinely involved and have time to move and think.
If I had one complaint it was that online people hardly seem to bother spotting the enemy, preferring to try to shoot them instead even when others might be better positioned to do so. This is a user thing and hardly a fault of the game though and I'm sure it will change once people get used to it.
Spotting is an amazing feature. On a recent rush game I was playing as recon, not my favourite class but I need to develop it, and I spent a solid five minutes lying on a vantage point spotting moving targets for my team that were assaulting the base and claiming the 10 points for doing so every time one got killed. I shot at stationary targets for them and basically behaved how a recon class should do. Can't do that on black ops.
Next week I will be receiving my preorder of MW3 on Xbox, and I can't wait to see your review. I am very interested to see how fairly you score that. I expect it to be prettier, but will it be as good as BF3?
Joe90_Remy700 on 3 Nov '11 said:
dude that was a bloody good read, cheers. and that, ladies, is how battlefield works
ukburn on 5 Nov '11 said:
Ignore this review!!
Either this reviewer got a got flash bang in the face and can't remember what game he's just been playing or some EA PR guru let him play another game.
This game at the moment is barely 5/10. Why? Because if it's meant to be an online multiplayer then it fails. Badly. I've had this game since the weekend and can I get a game? Can I hell. I'm lucky if the game launches past the loading screen from hell. If the reviewer was play the game in the real world - i.e. post launch, I think the score would reflect this.
And as for the single player misson, the story is just a rip off of the old xbox game Black. If not, it's been heavily influenced by COD: Black Ops. Boring flash back conspiracy drivel.
For those who haven't bought this online disaster, do yourself a favor. Don't go wasting your money. Go buy a budget/preowned copy of Battlefield: Bad Company 2. It has a better story, better MP maps and at least you might just get play online. Plus it'll be damn cheaper.
Decent_Jam on 5 Nov '11 said:
Can't say I've had any issues finding a game in multiplayer, and from what I hear others' issues have fallen since they sorted out the quick match option the other day.
There may be some issues with this game, but to suggest it's only worth 5 out of 10 is selling it short. It is your opinion and I respect it, but based on the game I've played I agree with the OXM review (and the score).
Joe90_Remy700 on 6 Nov '11 said:
CoD fanboyism:
the story is not flashbacks like Blops. they actually tie in around particular events from the view of different soldiers involved, unlike totally random flashbacks for the sake of it (i mean, cold war to vietnam. wtf?) online is pure class, you must just be a total f*ck-tard at teamplay and open world vehicular warfare. 2 hrs after midnight release (when servers weren't so clusterf*cked) i had very few problems getting into matches, and now it has no issues whatsoever. the server browsing is very good, keeping a history and showing friends servers makes it so much easier to jump into decent matches - it a pleasurable first for consoles to have server lists. and at least there are dedicated servers, no player to player sh!te. dunno what game you were playing, but it wasn't battlefild 3
oh and yeah, i'm a battlefield fanboy if you want to call me that
wishface on 6 Nov '11 said:
Spotting IS an amazing feature, unfortunately noone else does it and teammates either aren't able to see it (and i'm not convinced it works) or don't know what to do. It's a shame the game doesn't reward Recon properly as this is what they are all about.
Murphy1978 on 6 Nov '11 said:
I can always find a game and my internet connection is pants.
This game doesn't half frustrate me at times, but that's more due to my poor skill rather than a poor game.
Spotting is nowhere near as effective as it was in BC2, I always spot. I agree that you should get more points for recon spotting. I also think that like in Gears 3, the spotting should be a left stick click rather than the back button. It does work, but without team members communicating properly seldon works.
As a leader I always target objectives and vehicles, nobody seems to understand why...
wishface on 6 Nov '11 said:
Spotting seriously needs fixing.
If you spot a target within site of an objective it won't say 'there's a target' it will say 'attack the objective' and so teammates aren't alerted.
Half the time it doesn't work.
If a target is spotted by a teammate (you hear the voiceover) nothing shows up on screen. What use is that?
This sums up the game I'm afraid. I don't think DICE know what they are doing. Levelling up Recon is next to impossible. You get zip for doing anything unless you play like the assault class which is rather pointless as Recon. The TUGS is meh most f the time. SOFLAM is useless since it's autotarget function is not very reliable and all the enemy has to do is drive a couple of metres and it will be in cover and the lock on is lost. It can spot targets, but in either case it relies on teamwork and since noone uses the javelin it's fundamentally useless. Recon hasn' tbeen designed properly at all, they lack the tools they need.
ukburn on 6 Nov '11 said:
To Joe 90/BF Fanboy
'CoD Fanboy'? That doesn't sound the langauge of a 'Battlefield Fanboy'. Sounds more like rantings of an obsessive who doesn't like hear another person's honest point of view. If I think the single player game sucks, I will do.
As for the multiplayer mode, I'm sorry if I'm not geek enough or am a 'f**ktard' (that's a really, really mature insult BTW), but I don't want spend forever hunting for an avaible server. I'd rather the spend time hunting opponents.
As for the 'CoD Fanboy' crap. Doh! Do you really think I would be recommending people to play BF:BC2 if I was a fan of CoD? My God, the logic of some people.
Murphy1978 on 6 Nov '11 said:
Who is your ISP, out of interest? Is your NAT open/Moderate or Strict? (You may need another game to tell you this; as it is not obviously stated)
Have you tried opening ports on your router?
http://www.joystiq.com/2011/10/29/psa-h ... lefield-3/
ukburn on 6 Nov '11 said:
Murphy,
I have no idea about the tech apart from the ISP. There shouldn't be an issue though, because BF:BC works fine.
Thanks for the help.
Joe90_Remy700 on 7 Nov '11 said:
just totally disable your router's firewall then you shouldn't need to open up specific ports. its fine so long as you have a network password and antivirus/malware programmes on computers
omegawolf on 8 Nov '11 said:
People are having issues spotting. Heres some help. Get friends in squad... Obvious but a priority, randoms as a rule don't spot. Spotting HAS RANGES! eg. A sniper spots a target across map, the engineer next to him cannot see spotted enemy because his range is not as good but other snipers see the spot and can fire. Spot ranges is not class dependant but scope dependant. An engineer can see a far away spot using the correct scope, but his firing range will be usless. Spots must remain in LOS or will become lost. So if you spot someone sneeking up on your friend keep him in LOS and range. Always spot... ALWAYS, if someone else "steals" your kill so what? There are plenty of people to kill! Last tip regarding scopes... The IRNV is awesome for spotting.
Wonky Sausage on 13 Nov '11 said:
Battlefield 3 - such hype, such promise... and they've done exactly what Infinity Ward did and released Battlefield Bad Company 2.5... Although what they've done is made Battlefield more unrewarding to play, and worse.... totally boring to play.
The maps, whilst a lot of thought has gone into them, are way to big.
This causes most people to camp - for the whole game... Please tell me where the fun is sitting in a house or a tree for 15 minutes doing next to nothing every game.
The guns feel weak, cumbersome, poorly designed and all round dumb. It would be nice to know your bullets are hitting
The laser beam and that other shitty light add on to your gun prove that this game requires less skill than CoD if you need a laser beam to aim..
The button layout is ridiculous. Having the right stick used to crouch makes player movements feel unprofessional and again lackluster.
So all this "CoD players suck at Battlefield because they don't know how to play it" stuff is probably more likely to read "CoD players don't want to play boring online multiplayer games where nothing happens and everyone just sits there camping waiting for 1 guy to make a move who actually thinks sitting around is boring" So its definitely CoD 1-0 BF3
I like all online war type games, but Battlefield just feels boring and unrewarding.
Homefront is so much better to play online than BF3!
Decent_Jam on 14 Nov '11 said:
That's your opinion, but I can't say I agree with you hardly at all.
There are times when the maps feel too big, but the same was true of BC2, and if people want to camp and be boring then that's their problem, I'd rather get stuck in to the action.
Not sure what point you are trying to make with crouch being clicking the left stick, why does one button configuration make a game 'unprofessional'? What makes them professional for that matter?
Having had the game since release I already feel it was a worthwhile purchase, it's not an outstandingly brilliant game, but it has plenty of wow moments for me and is good fun to play, and with a score of 8 I wasn't expecting ground-breaking gaming.
In all I'd say it's good, but if you don't like it you are perfectly welcome to trade it in and play something else
Durendal on 4 Dec '11 said:
Rightly marked down for terrible single player.
Which is ironic seeing as oxm shove halo and cod down your throat and award them both 9
bamozzy on 17 Dec '11 said:
I just picked up Battlefield 3: Limited Edition from Sainsbury's for Ł25. I opted for the PS3 version so that I could get the free Battlefield 1943 too.(they had it for the same price on xbox too for all those still looking to buy)
I still haven't got to play it yet as I had to wait an over an hour for the update (63 minutes) and then install and wait for the game install. I then needed to wait for over an hour for the Back to Karkland expansion pack and over another hour for the Battlefield 1943 to download (Grrrrrrrrrr - Bloody PSN).
At least I have got through it now so maybe I might get to play it soon.
lawsond28 on 24 Jan '12 said:
It's such a pity. For all it's shiny graphics and it's high production values, that this game fails on so many levels. I'm finding glitches seemingly everywhere. Last night I watched 3 or 4 of my squad members walk right through the burning wreck of a truck that I had blown up with a grenade launcher. This was just a few minutes after the scripted sound found itself on a repeating loop, making me listen to my buddy go on about his milkshake four or five times in a row.
As for fun factor, playing the single player campaign on Normal difficulty is about as much fun as playing any of the Call of Duty titles on Veteran difficulty. I have endured so many cheap deaths I''m amazed that I still pick up the pad to have another try. Like being killed by a single bullet when my health was at full level. Like taking cover behind a car that suddenly takes an RPG and explodes immediately in my face. Like blowing away a room full of bad guys to end up taking two shots in the back from a guy who appears out of nowehere. Where is the fun in spending 12 attempts at a level, slowly learning where to go, what to avoid, where to stand, where not to stand and where the next bad guy appears from? That's not fun, that's a chore. The massive recoil on the guns doesn't help the situation. I'm an experienced FPS player and although I don't consider myself to be an expert I do know that I'm not a bad FPS player, so my inability to get through the levels without having to reload checkpoints a dozen times can't all be down to me...right?
I'll be selling my copy on eBay once I've see painstakingly trudged my way to the finish of this boring drawn out war between...wait...what's the story again?
SidTheSloth on 24 Jan '12 said:
To each his own dude, but despite me not being an FPS fan i've had many a good game on this multiplayer wise. The campaign is indeed largely forgettable but multiplayer is where it's at, something i was fully aware of before buying - even though again, that's not perfect as you've noticed.