Battlefield 3 PC

User Score
7.5

Generally favorable reviews- based on 4971 Ratings

User score distribution:
Buy On

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jan 29, 2012
    6
    I love everything about how this game should play. Masterful multiplayer, perfect for the 4 of us friends to enjoy together, fantastic maps/weapons/vehicles, and the best graphics to date in gaming. If I could play it all day long with friends, I probably would. But I can't. Punkbuster took me out of BF3 all this week after a known security flaw was finally abused. The awful OriginI love everything about how this game should play. Masterful multiplayer, perfect for the 4 of us friends to enjoy together, fantastic maps/weapons/vehicles, and the best graphics to date in gaming. If I could play it all day long with friends, I probably would. But I can't. Punkbuster took me out of BF3 all this week after a known security flaw was finally abused. The awful Origin web-based Steam-wannabe launching platform boots me from whatever server I'm in about once per hour. The game freezes and crashes about once per two hours, separate from Origin. The amount of deaths sustained in any 4 hour marathon play session from bugs, glitches, and most notably from hackers requires constant effort to find an enjoyable server. Nothing from EA, Dice, or punkbuster has removed the massive amount of cheating on PC play. Just look at the leaderboards Origin gives you. None are legit.

    This game was going to be absolutely huge upon release. Everyone knew that. EA was going to make a fortune on this game no matter what, and their preference to take extra net income over spending a few million bucks to make this game work is very obvious. Steam anti cheat has worked properly for many years, as has their delivery system and platform. EA elected not to use that system this time around, obviously to make even more money. The cash grab that is Origin is fine, if it works properly!!! It doesn't. At all. When the gaming community hands you a billion dollars of our money, we shouldn't have to deal with such issues. We should all be talking about balancing issues, new items, new maps, how to further improve such a great release, but the only thing the BF3 forum produces is complaints of stability, complaints about hacking, complaints about bugs, etc. We are far beyond the initial release kinks that every massive selling game will endure. EA's traditional business model of spamming out a game with a higher number behind the title to make more money on the franchise continues, and I won't be suckered into buying another unless I read how stable and flawless the game is 3-6 months after release.
    Expand
  2. Nov 26, 2011
    6
    Excellent realistic gun sounds, very good, realistic graphic, destruction, and thats end of good things in the game. Singleplayer is trying very hard tell story very similar to Modern Warfare series! There's like in CoD "difficult choice" and "big end with killing super bad character". I like end's like this, but why similiar end is in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Call of Duty 6: ModernExcellent realistic gun sounds, very good, realistic graphic, destruction, and thats end of good things in the game. Singleplayer is trying very hard tell story very similar to Modern Warfare series! There's like in CoD "difficult choice" and "big end with killing super bad character". I like end's like this, but why similiar end is in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Call of Duty 6: Modern Warfare 2 and Call of Duty 8: Modern Warfare 3?
    Multiplayer is very good, destruction is amazing, and showing a real war. Sounds are great too but there's break with them, there's a lot of bugs... Nice 6 for very bad single, and bugged multi.
    Expand
  3. Nov 4, 2011
    5
    I could spend this space writing about how great the game looks, how well it sounds, how fun it can be and all that - and I probable should as that is usually what people want to hear in a review be they gamers, publishers or developers..
    But quite honestly what I feel like writing about is all the frustration I'm left with after having finished the campaign... A game is not supposed to
    I could spend this space writing about how great the game looks, how well it sounds, how fun it can be and all that - and I probable should as that is usually what people want to hear in a review be they gamers, publishers or developers..
    But quite honestly what I feel like writing about is all the frustration I'm left with after having finished the campaign... A game is not supposed to ship in such a state - you are not supposed to have a browser window open to find solutions to the game breaking bugs, you are no supposed to give up playing the multiplayer game because you can't play for more than a few minutes before it crashes..

    Dice have created a really beautiful game that serious gamers should play, but they should wait as it's certainly not finished yet - it's no secret PC gamers are getting the short end of the stick in this console era, but dear Dice and EA - I think most of us would much rather have waited for the finished game in December than be given an unfinished Beta in October..

    Anywhoo, when it works it looks and plays awesomely - so do pick it up, just do yourself a favor and wait until the first couple patches are out as it will save you a lot of frustration..
    Expand
  4. Oct 31, 2011
    6
    This game is great and would deserve at least 8/10, most likely 9/10. So why 6/10? Because this game is UNFINISHED, plenty of bugs from beta are still in final version and the ONLY reason for this is... they wanted to get a pre-CoD premiere. Well screw you, maybe we get bugged games all the time right now, but that doesn't mean it's what WE the gamers want. We want to buy game, a comp toThis game is great and would deserve at least 8/10, most likely 9/10. So why 6/10? Because this game is UNFINISHED, plenty of bugs from beta are still in final version and the ONLY reason for this is... they wanted to get a pre-CoD premiere. Well screw you, maybe we get bugged games all the time right now, but that doesn't mean it's what WE the gamers want. We want to buy game, a comp to it's spec and play it and have fun, not tu realise we need to wait for patch for who knows how long. So 6/10, learn something for the future. Expand
  5. Nov 5, 2011
    6
    I have a confession to make, seriously. The day BF3 was released I came on here and posted my user review as a 10. Here's the thing, after you play 20+ hours of BF3, it's simply a lie to yourself if you rate it a perfect 10. BF3 has many patches to go before it (hopefully) approaches perfection. I joined the BF series with BF2, a **** masterpiece. I'm still a huge BF3 fan and will stillI have a confession to make, seriously. The day BF3 was released I came on here and posted my user review as a 10. Here's the thing, after you play 20+ hours of BF3, it's simply a lie to yourself if you rate it a perfect 10. BF3 has many patches to go before it (hopefully) approaches perfection. I joined the BF series with BF2, a **** masterpiece. I'm still a huge BF3 fan and will still play because even with its faults, the moments of brilliance are not easily matched by any other competitive FPS. But the faults are (seriously now) SOME-OF-THE-MOST-INFURIATING-FUN-KILLING-EXPERIENCE-RUINING faults I've ever witnessed. You must understand the degree of game experience ruined by several very specific design flaws and bugs. 1) Dying behind cover. This happens. In fact it happens every time you're capable of experiencing it, which is when you're running into cover. I don't mean cardboard box cover here boys and girls, I mean you've rounded a concrete building, you've jumped over a cement barrier, you've dodged into an alleyway, yet you take fire and DIE 5 to 10 feet behind impenetrable cover. This anomaly has nothing at all to do with cover, it has to do with BF3â Expand
  6. Oct 25, 2011
    5
    I joined metacritic solely for the purpose of writing this review and hopefully saving some people the frustration EA has caused me. I've been a long time battlefield fan and couldn't wait for this game to hit store shelves. Critics seem to rave about it and people who are wowed over by pretty visuals seem to love it. I on the other hand have had more frustrations with this game andI joined metacritic solely for the purpose of writing this review and hopefully saving some people the frustration EA has caused me. I've been a long time battlefield fan and couldn't wait for this game to hit store shelves. Critics seem to rave about it and people who are wowed over by pretty visuals seem to love it. I on the other hand have had more frustrations with this game and EA's piss pore attempt at an online distribution site than I think I have ever had in all my time PC gaming. The game crashes, battlelog is an absolute joke right now, errors left and right, and glitches out the ass. Not to mention the swarm of hackers already flooding the servers. As of right now I have played maybe 20 minutes of the game and could honestly care less about it. Maybe EA will fix these problems (which were also present in the beta, funny absolutely none of it was addressed upon release). As of right now though I have had no fun with BF3. But hey, they got my money like they wanted and the game looks great on my PC so I guess thats a plus.

    Personally, I'm going right back to BC2 and plan on leaving this in the dust until EA does something about Origin and the many bugs plaguing this game right now. Maybe a good game in the future but I wish I would have passed for now.
    Expand
  7. Oct 25, 2011
    5
    Terrible, inexcusable single-player. Crappy multiplayer netcode. Another proof that FPS games are considered an excuse for mediocrity because terrible CoD kiddies will pay for it no matter how crappy. All these 10 ratings might as well be ignored, the single player is so terrible every review should be brought down at least 4 points.
  8. Oct 25, 2011
    5
    First off, I have to say that the multiplayer is actually quite good in many ways, and many of the beta bugs were fixed. Now, for the bad... many weren't. Sometimes animations don't load properly and you will see some members of your team just hang there floating from point A to point B, other times after you land a kill the enemy will just stay there in ready position. I only encounteredFirst off, I have to say that the multiplayer is actually quite good in many ways, and many of the beta bugs were fixed. Now, for the bad... many weren't. Sometimes animations don't load properly and you will see some members of your team just hang there floating from point A to point B, other times after you land a kill the enemy will just stay there in ready position. I only encountered those bugs maybe twice each in 3 hours of gameplay, but it was still quite annoying. Then I have to mention the singleplayer. It was candidly... awful. QTEs every few minutes of gameplay, enemies spawned in two at a time from spawn points that were clearly in view, voice acting that was sub par. I know most people don't play Battlefield for the singleplayer, but every single other Battlefield game had a GREAT singleplayer experience attached, making it all the more disappointing.

    Lastly Origin. Any game that forces you to use third party software for all gameplay immediately gets a a negative mark, but Origin is one of the worst offenders that I've seen. It collects personal information about your hard drive and what games you have installs, what you play, and how long you play it. In systems like steam this is a non-issue, because steam doesn't collect and use this information, but EA does not have that moral hangup. If not for Origin this would be a solid 7/10, if not for the bad singleplayer 8.5/10.
    Expand
  9. Nov 10, 2011
    7
    I say this right now, the campaign is completely forgettable , its the standard call of duty formulaic affair complete with rail shooting out the bum. The multiplayer on the other hand excellence mired by some bad design choices and of course bugs.
    If you go into this game wanting to play the 64 man or even the 32 man servers , know that you will die alot . to the point where every
    I say this right now, the campaign is completely forgettable , its the standard call of duty formulaic affair complete with rail shooting out the bum. The multiplayer on the other hand excellence mired by some bad design choices and of course bugs.
    If you go into this game wanting to play the 64 man or even the 32 man servers , know that you will die alot . to the point where every other death is either a aircraft bombing you or a player spawn killing you and the teammate you spawned on . The maps are console maps pure and simple , not a damn one of them save for the really really big ones are playable with anything more than 24.

    There is also some balance issues. A few gadgets will have players frustration at new levels , namely the cheap flashlights that blind players in broad daylight, the mortars that can be used in protected zones and have infinite range and AA tanks that beat battle tanks.

    there is also rubber banding , both in bullets and in players. So be warned like all dice games this one launched with some very rough edges
    Expand
  10. Nov 5, 2011
    7
    On the game itself, I can barely comment because it was barely playable for long periods of time. The recommendations for it are not what they say they are. I know, I do not own the most powerful computer in the world, but I surpassed the minimum limits and still, on low, this game lagged like crazy. From what I was able to play, it's a solid shooter any fans of the genre or justOn the game itself, I can barely comment because it was barely playable for long periods of time. The recommendations for it are not what they say they are. I know, I do not own the most powerful computer in the world, but I surpassed the minimum limits and still, on low, this game lagged like crazy. From what I was able to play, it's a solid shooter any fans of the genre or just Battlefield in general ought to pick up. DICE and EA really impress with their wide assortment of vehicles, my favorite being the AC-10 Warthog, a very cool plane in a very cool game. In my opinion, the transitions from vehicle to infantry makes this game supperior to other Modern shooters, such as CoD. Expand
  11. Nov 16, 2011
    7
    Nothing special, it's just another generic military shooter with shiny graphics.I'm not saying it's bad, heck no the game's MP is good but the problem is then it does nothing new at all it's just BF2 with better graphics and more idiot friendly gameplay (No commander,easier air vehicle controlls and lonewolfs don't get punished at all ). If you're still playing BF2,vietnam,2142 or 1942Nothing special, it's just another generic military shooter with shiny graphics.I'm not saying it's bad, heck no the game's MP is good but the problem is then it does nothing new at all it's just BF2 with better graphics and more idiot friendly gameplay (No commander,easier air vehicle controlls and lonewolfs don't get punished at all ). If you're still playing BF2,vietnam,2142 or 1942 stick to those games since BF3 really doesn't offer anything new or innovative at all. I only recomend you to buy BF3 if you never played any BF game or only played the terrible consolized BC series. Expand
  12. Nov 8, 2011
    7
    This game should have two ratings: one for it's multiplayer and one for it's single player. Seeing that I'm not allowed to do that, I'm forced to give an average of the two. The single player portion of this game is pathetic. The story is linear, the character models were very non-unique, and it was clear that they tried to implement some of the cinematography story-telling that was inThis game should have two ratings: one for it's multiplayer and one for it's single player. Seeing that I'm not allowed to do that, I'm forced to give an average of the two. The single player portion of this game is pathetic. The story is linear, the character models were very non-unique, and it was clear that they tried to implement some of the cinematography story-telling that was in MW2, but they don't do it nearly as well. There were some levels that were good in BF3 - featuring the use of vehicles and introducing some of the vehicles that you'd be using in multiplayer, but the story itself just wasn't very good. (Score: 6) The multiplayer game itself is very fun. The graphics are amazing and the levels were adequate. It uses the same formula as BC2...which is that it requires you to use teamwork to win. However, it isn't without its problems. The spawn points on the map are retarded, in that the game spawns you in the dumbest possible spot - even though you get to pick the spawn location/area. A lot of the times I died right after spawning because the game would put me in the most open area possible. The multiplayer game itself is fine, but the platform used to connect to games is retarded. Connecting through something that looks like a regular webpage (through Origin) is tedious. Origin is glitchy and caused my game to crash multiple times both in game and in the process of joining games. The auto join doesn't work very well either. I hope they fix this over time. EA really should have went with Steam on this one...

    Overall Multiplayer Score: 8/10 (Would have been 9 without Origin)
    Expand
  13. Nov 9, 2011
    7
    I am going to have to give this a 7. I hate that game developers no longer listen to their customers and make horrid decisions they should know off the bat are wrong. No in game server browser for instance. 90% of the community said NO and they said "ehhh too bad." I think my #1 complaint in this game is the client side hit detection. there is simply no excuse for this what so ever. TheI am going to have to give this a 7. I hate that game developers no longer listen to their customers and make horrid decisions they should know off the bat are wrong. No in game server browser for instance. 90% of the community said NO and they said "ehhh too bad." I think my #1 complaint in this game is the client side hit detection. there is simply no excuse for this what so ever. The numerous glitches still existing have the entire community pissed off as well of course and well it just wasn't finished. After BETA feedback they should have realized they needed to push the game back and do a giant overhaul. Everything they tried to "add" from BF2 were somewhat decent ideas in theory but in the end they all failed. Sure it looks cool to jump over objects but half the time it doesn't work. They wanted to switch up the equipment of classes and made engineer the only class that makes sense. They wanted to give LMGs bipods and suppression so now they generally fail because suppression doesn't give you stats like most people want. Sniper rifles were OP in BC2? Oh I heard it was LMGs in BC2. Everyone is going to whine about something but with piss poor hit detection and horrid hit boxes there was 0 reason to expect a sniper to get a headshot every time no matter how skilled. Oh and air battles, yes the air vehicles. It just warception. A battle within a battle. When I'm on the ground I can ignore choppers and jets but when I am in a jet I can forget about shooting anything on the ground. More destructibility? No, maybe prettier but not more. Its perfectly defined. I take out the same chunk of wall every time if I can even take it out. I can blow this up and this up but not this car or fence? I don't see why developers won't just take game mechanics that work. Change maps and update graphics and destructibility and release it. Why change so many stupid things? I love the game and am having fun. But I don't see myself dumping a year into it. Once I hit max level I am pretty sure I will be done with it. I have no faith in the FPS franchise anymore ever to release a solid game again. Expand
  14. May 24, 2012
    5
    This game would be a 9 in my book but EA has resold the servers and you can no longer play on official servers running a dedicated game mode (rush) on all maps...super frustrating. Tons of hackers, amazing graphics, brilliant concept, great level design, great sound, play the game 100 different ways, did I mention the terrible back end and awful customer service, thanks EA for ruiningThis game would be a 9 in my book but EA has resold the servers and you can no longer play on official servers running a dedicated game mode (rush) on all maps...super frustrating. Tons of hackers, amazing graphics, brilliant concept, great level design, great sound, play the game 100 different ways, did I mention the terrible back end and awful customer service, thanks EA for ruining Dice's beautiful project. Expand
  15. Nov 20, 2011
    7
    The new Battlefield from EA Dice is just another prototype of generic shooter with high jumping graphics, excellent sounds effects and OST, Great gameplay with and incredible multiplayer mode but deficient IA, unforgettable story mode and so expensive to enjoy in maximum settings.
  16. May 8, 2012
    5
    Couldn't wait to play it as im a massive BF2 fan. But it was a complete let down. The game wasn't even finished prior to release and is the MOST buggy game i've EVER played. Many people bought the game and simply cant play it as it just wont work. To add injury to insult the game gets constant "maintenance", in other words its unplayable for hours at a time. This time affects players inCouldn't wait to play it as im a massive BF2 fan. But it was a complete let down. The game wasn't even finished prior to release and is the MOST buggy game i've EVER played. Many people bought the game and simply cant play it as it just wont work. To add injury to insult the game gets constant "maintenance", in other words its unplayable for hours at a time. This time affects players in Australia and surrounding area's as it is timed to not effect EU and US playtime. While this game is enjoyable to play, the numerous problems have pushed many to vow never to buy EA/DICE products, i cant blame them as the sheer frustration of wanting to play it but not being able to tests your patience. Origin is not worth pissing on even if it was on fire.
    P.S Singleplayer is crap, its all about the multiplayer.
    Expand
  17. May 20, 2012
    5
    Huge BF fan. But I uninstalled this game a month ago since it wasn't being played. Pros: graphics, vehicles, some improvements on bc2 (revives, MCOM charges have to be disarmed even at 0 tickets)

    Cons: HORRIBLE MAP DESIGN, PLAYER DROPOFF, needs more destruction, NETCODE (client-side hit detection), patches break more than fix, battlelog + origin, guns are bland, classes are imbalanced,
    Huge BF fan. But I uninstalled this game a month ago since it wasn't being played. Pros: graphics, vehicles, some improvements on bc2 (revives, MCOM charges have to be disarmed even at 0 tickets)

    Cons: HORRIBLE MAP DESIGN, PLAYER DROPOFF, needs more destruction, NETCODE (client-side hit detection), patches break more than fix, battlelog + origin, guns are bland, classes are imbalanced, too many laser designations (needs more AT4), BUGS
    Expand
  18. Jan 16, 2014
    7
    Battlefield 3 takes many steps in the right direction. Suppression, customizations, return of prone, 64 player maps, and a bunch of additional modes. However, DICE loses some points by making practically all of these additional game modes "premium" content (meaning you have to pay another $30 bucks to unlock them).

    DICE demonstrates once again they know how to make games with huge
    Battlefield 3 takes many steps in the right direction. Suppression, customizations, return of prone, 64 player maps, and a bunch of additional modes. However, DICE loses some points by making practically all of these additional game modes "premium" content (meaning you have to pay another $30 bucks to unlock them).

    DICE demonstrates once again they know how to make games with huge learning curves. Only the most persistent (or masochistic) will make it beyond a few games. Death comes far too quickly and often from nowhere. Vehicles are too few and too powerful. Experienced pilots can effectively lockdown an entire 64 player map with just two jets.

    Complaints aside, the game can be a lot of fun. Though it makes me long for the simpler days of Battlefield 2 or even 1942.
    Expand
  19. Dec 18, 2012
    5
    another average shooter. sigh..... when are we gonna have a video game revolution. Its just like everything these days, movies, music, its all created for a bunch of kids. very sad. I find myself going back in time and playing old games, you know, when they were actually good.......
  20. Apr 12, 2013
    5
    The Battlefield franchise is trying so hard to differentiate itself from Call of Duty that it takes major missteps. Like every recent shooter, BF3 features a tacked on campaign that is too short. The Frostbite 2 engine is a beast and roars loud on PC’s. A long and feature rich campaign would be the best place to showcase the graphical prowess of the engine and give hardcore PC gamersThe Battlefield franchise is trying so hard to differentiate itself from Call of Duty that it takes major missteps. Like every recent shooter, BF3 features a tacked on campaign that is too short. The Frostbite 2 engine is a beast and roars loud on PC’s. A long and feature rich campaign would be the best place to showcase the graphical prowess of the engine and give hardcore PC gamers bragging rights. Instead, DICE gives us a COD-like campaign that only provides 4-6 hours of play. Yawn… The campaign is just another dull, formulaic, on rails experience. On a positive note, the graphics, voice acting, and gameplay are action movie quality. But this is no reason to forgive the short and forgettable experience. Arguments persist that the multiplayer component suffered because DICE & EA felt compelled to add campaigns to the franchise. That’s an excuse. That was the developer’s opportunity to shine, not blend in. The multiplayer is truly epic. On PC, maps are huge. Once again, we see the power of the Frostbite 2 engine. Destructible environments, debris filled streets, and lingering dust create realism that is unparalleled by other popular shooters. Vehicles add to the chaos as players are constantly sprinting thru alleys to avoid tanks or getting to high ground so they can rocket a helicopter. When I first played this game, I was like WTF!! The experience can be that good. The Battlelog is a controversial element of BF3 because it requires a web browser to access the game. But I like it. The interface is well-designed and makes customization and server selection easy. Since customization is ridiculously deep, the Battlelog is a natural progression of the series. Gunplay is solid, but jerky and insanely fast character movements make aiming difficult. Overall, the multiplayer has a ton to offer, but it falls short in several ways. The most mindboggling aspect of BF3 is the fact that servers are rented by players. That’s right, someone else pays so you can play, baby!! Many of the rented servers are available to us cheapskates for free. This is not inherently bad because it allows freedom not available in other blockbuster shooters. Some servers only offer certain maps and game modes. Others prohibit certain weapons such as rocket launchers. But a significant amount of admins are abusive. Every BF3 player I’ve talked to has had at least one negative experience. I’ve been banned from a server for “excessive use of claymores”. A friend of mine was banned from a server because his K/D was too high (if you call 45/9 too high). I’ve witnessed admins rebalancing teams so they got all the best players. This is unacceptable. Some admins are gracious enough to post the rules. If players break them, they get kicked. But I’ve seen more than one admin breaking his/her own rules. But wait, there’s more! BF3 lacks voice chat. Using headsets to talk with teammates requires third party software. Unfortunately, not all servers utilize the necessary software, so players must search dozens of servers to find one with voice enabled or find their own solution. DICE claims BF3 emphasizes teamwork but omits voice chat. *Scratches head in confusion* Needless to say, the “team” element has suffered. Another annoying aspect of the game is unbalanced spawning. If a player sneaks up behind a sentry’s position, his entire team can spawn off him and easily overtake the opposition. This even happens during firefights. I’ve blasted away at an opponent only to see 3-5 people spawn off him and shoot me. Infuriating is an understatement. It gets worse. Even after selecting “random” spawn points, players regularly spawn into opponents’ sights and are shot immediately. This is especially problematic on smaller maps. Such spawning lends itself to base camping and cheap kills.BF3’s leveling system punishes low ranking players. Players will need to put in absurd amounts of time while performing specific challenges to get decent weapons. I like the large maps, but wandering around for 20 minutes looking for opponents only to be sniped and then respawn 3 miles away gets dull. The Co-op missions were decent, but there a e only a few and they’re extremely short. The biggest flaw of BF3 stems from its targeted audience: the PC market. Matchmaking, gun mechanics, and even map sizes suffer unless gamers play it on PC. The absolutely horrendous recoil, bullet drop, and awkwardly swift, jerky character movements just beg for mouse aiming. Since 70% or more of BF3 players own consoles, this game caters to a declining market. However, BF3 lacks so many necessary ingredients that it must be played on PC to be fully realized, and all at the user’s expense. This truly shows the darker side of game development. Once the wow factor of the Frostbite engine wore off, I realized this is a mediocre shooter comprised of nothing more than large maps and drawn out matches injected with bouts of tedium. Expand
  21. Sep 2, 2013
    6
    I so wish that this was better!
    Let me get this out of the way: BFBC2 is one of the best FPS I've ever played. It changed everything about the genre for the better. Destructible terrain, fantastic visuals and sound effects. Tight controls and satisfying weapons.
    Battlefield 3 keeps a lot of it but also screws some things up. Massively. First and foremost, the campaign sucks. Truly. You
    I so wish that this was better!
    Let me get this out of the way: BFBC2 is one of the best FPS I've ever played. It changed everything about the genre for the better. Destructible terrain, fantastic visuals and sound effects. Tight controls and satisfying weapons.
    Battlefield 3 keeps a lot of it but also screws some things up. Massively.
    First and foremost, the campaign sucks. Truly. You know they don't care any more when they start ripping of the story of Call of Duty games. Really, that's like a gourmet restaurant taking tips from MacDonald's. The gameplay isn't enjoyable without other players since the AI is dumber than my hat. There is no co-op feature and the whole thing is just a mess.
    But Battlefield is all about the multiplayer, right? BC2 was, I know that for a fact. The problem is that BC2 had a great campaign as well. There were interesting characters with good dialogue and it wasn't just set piece after set piece holding together a paper-thin plot.
    Anyway, that's enough rambling; how is the actual multiplayer? To answer my own question: it's solid. Not amazing but not terrible either. The weapons feel very powerful and are satisfying to use. There are some blatant balance issues but they can be overlooked. The biggest problem is the original set of maps. They are large, sure, but they were not actually that well designed (most of them, that is) and they actually had to bring in Strike at Karkand (still a masterpiece of map-design) to mix things up. The most pressing issue is that the maps usually don't support more than one playstyle. Some maps are impossible to play without a Sniper and some are so cramped and tight that that isn't even an option. A large map isn't any good if you don't use it to its fullest. The destructible terrain is still impressive but not used as much as you would want and probably not even as much as in BC2.
    And the final problem is Origin. This was not taken into account when I was considering the game's score. Origin is an absolutely awful program. I don't even have a problem with the fact that it's always online but it doesn't work. At all. I really haven't been able to play the game for months because Origin doesn't let me start it. I've contacted EA and they haven't been able to solve the issue. This is unacceptable and if this is the case in BF4 then I will never buy a game from EA ever again.
    Expand
  22. Apr 15, 2013
    6
    I love all previous battlefield games on PC but this is simply not the same game. The one thing I did the most in previous battlefield games was playing the game against bots, either myself or with other people. This I enjoyed a lot. But battlefield 3 has except a short and average campaign only pvp play and nothing else. I simply don't enjoy that type of play, whatever it is in a FPS, aI love all previous battlefield games on PC but this is simply not the same game. The one thing I did the most in previous battlefield games was playing the game against bots, either myself or with other people. This I enjoyed a lot. But battlefield 3 has except a short and average campaign only pvp play and nothing else. I simply don't enjoy that type of play, whatever it is in a FPS, a MMORPG or an action RPG.

    Battlefield 3 has many things that could work very well if they had bots, the character progression would work fantastic with real single player gaming, the more difficult assignments would be ideal when you start to become better then the best bots(or just try them against weaker bots) all expansions would be interesting for coop/single player gamers rather then just the PVP niche, but one decision ruined it all; not including tradition battlefield bot matches in battlefield 3.

    Whatever battlefield 4 shall be a good game shall for me and many other people depend mainly on 1 thing: Shall it have bot matches?
    Expand
  23. Jul 24, 2013
    7
    Definitely a cool game. Not such a great single player experience, but it is definitely worth the money if you are playing online. I like the weapons they use in the game so i purchased a few game replicas: http://www.airsplat.com/battlefield-3.htm
  24. Sep 8, 2013
    7
    This is my first Battlefield, and I'm quite impressed with the multiplayer. I love levelling up, love the graphics. I stay alive a lot longer than in Reach... Very addicting and fun.

    The single player campaign is too much in rails for my likes.
  25. Feb 1, 2014
    5
    The strength of this game is based almost only on the multiplayer. The story is not worth remembering.
    PROS:
    +The multiplayer is very well balanced. +Amazingly wide variety of weapon customization. +The maps are pretty good. I'm not a fan of the large maps, but a lot of people are. +You got a lot of say of the track of the game (multiplayer) by just playing. Everyone has the pressure
    The strength of this game is based almost only on the multiplayer. The story is not worth remembering.
    PROS:
    +The multiplayer is very well balanced.
    +Amazingly wide variety of weapon customization.
    +The maps are pretty good. I'm not a fan of the large maps, but a lot of people are.
    +You got a lot of say of the track of the game (multiplayer) by just playing. Everyone has the pressure of making or breaking the game.
    +There are glitches. "Isn't that a bad thing?" you may ask. No, because it is hilarious!
    CONS:
    -The story sucks. I don't need to into detail, it's just bad.
    -The multiplayer isn't noob friendly. If you're new to FPS, get a CoD game with bots for practice.
    -The planes and tanks in the multiplayer are more of an annoyance then anything.
    -Web-based game, because EA hates their fans or something.
    -EA
    I don't know. Do like multiplayer? Get it. If you want a game with value, don't.
    Expand
  26. Feb 3, 2014
    7
    Story: 7 out of 10, Graphics: 10 out of 10, Fun: 7 out of 10, Controls: 7 out of 10, Ease to Learn: 7 out of 10, Length: 8 out of 10, Re-play: 3 out of 10, Value: 7 out of 10

    Just didn't draw me in for some reason (story? controls? clanky?). I loved Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare much more than this game. Played the CoD4: Modern Warfare game on the Playstation 3 and enjoyed using the
    Story: 7 out of 10, Graphics: 10 out of 10, Fun: 7 out of 10, Controls: 7 out of 10, Ease to Learn: 7 out of 10, Length: 8 out of 10, Re-play: 3 out of 10, Value: 7 out of 10

    Just didn't draw me in for some reason (story? controls? clanky?). I loved Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare much more than this game. Played the CoD4: Modern Warfare game on the Playstation 3 and enjoyed using the PS3 controller more than the mouse/keyboard for Battlefield 3; this may be the difference in my enjoyment.
    Expand
  27. Jan 1, 2014
    7
    As we know this is a classic of the online multiplayer shooters and many people played it, before Battlefield 4 lowered the numbers of players using part 3. It wouldn't be a rating if i wouldn't rate both, the single and multiplayer but i feel very disapointed in the campaing mode. With a few hours of gameplay it's long enough to be not only a tutorial but it just feels like a corridor youAs we know this is a classic of the online multiplayer shooters and many people played it, before Battlefield 4 lowered the numbers of players using part 3. It wouldn't be a rating if i wouldn't rate both, the single and multiplayer but i feel very disapointed in the campaing mode. With a few hours of gameplay it's long enough to be not only a tutorial but it just feels like a corridor you have to pass through the way the designers wanted it to be. I so pissed when i have to play Blackburn and so happy for every moment i can play as Dima., caused by the better levels with him. Sometimes when you could easily dodge the crappy quicktime events the game won't let you e.g. kill your opponent on the spot. How difficult can real story telling be...
    The Multiplayer saves the day but it seems to be hard for newbies to compete with worser weapons and no attachments. There is no need for that stuff if you look back to to original 1942 where you actaully had 4 loadouts and nothing more it was real fun. Well not everyone has the money for the shortcut bundle which must be enormous waste....

    Singleplayer pro:
    + nice AI that also uses knives if you forget one of them and just walk to close
    + A story that has something like a interesting idea and is told by interuptable movies
    + Different tasks with different vehicles
    + Dimas Levels give you freedom of your strategy
    + Graphics are nice and most times the levels look good
    + Chars seem to be alive with all sorts of conversation going on
    cons.:
    - Quicktime events everywhere. I felt like constantly beeing a fool by this and having no choice (even if i got a good gun in my hand...) but tapping into the trap. some of them are really pissing off since fist fights can't be a matter of splitseconds and i actually play a shooter and not a adventure.
    - The Drama of losses pisses me really off... We are at war people die there of both fractions i don't feel like needing to cry for a single guy.
    - Normally I have varoius ways to win over a situation but best way ends in an endless game... there are endless enemies if i outflank them and make headshots from the side, than if i take a seat behind the HMG and spray bullets like stupid with no aim.
    - Corridor shooter: sometimes i have the choice of a 10*10m battlefield even if i see 100 meters. Otherwise we leave the battlefield. There is hardly a choice where to go or even how to kill the enemy.
    - Most stupid tasks ever... Hey driver why don't you run in a suicide mission across the battlefield, there is a 30man troop with no b***** to do it? Why do i need to wait until my vehicle falls apart before i may use my weapons?
    Some Characters seem so damned stupid in the story, that you feel like you wanna crash something heavy on their head. Like they aren't using brains according their information status, but that's needed in a way to keep goin on.

    Multiplayer:
    pros:
    + very realistic mechanics
    + revive, medipacks and spawn points aren't here to make it realistic but fun to play and balanced
    + some unlocks make you interested in continuing leveling
    + you can have tanks, jeeps, etc. and it's nicely implemented
    + aircrafts and their easy control management
    + many large and interesting maps
    + good balancing calss is changeable with dead chars
    + not much of cheaters
    + many different modes
    + mostly destructable environment
    + respawn is not automatic and i can change my equipment
    cons:
    - sometimes stil bugs like you get stuck somehwere where you have acually no obstacle
    - crappy webinterface that let's you start the game new for every match
    - too much of unlockables that you need s****loads of time to get them
    - too expensive before the release of part 4 (50€ stil) that prevented more full servers now the user base is shrinking and now the unlocks for 18€
    - pay to win with unlocks and extra stuff for premium; extensions should be more according maps
    - aircrafts dominate too much on the map since flying might be too easy.

    Over all it seems to be stil a good alternative to Battlefield 4, which is reported to have many issues after the release. Even if the numbers of players are going down in favor for other games...
    Expand
  28. Jul 26, 2014
    5
    Last Played: July 2014
    PROS: + Not too hard, your standard shooter bloody goodness
    CONS: - Really stupid AI teammates hinder more often than help - Additional software required for online play (punkbuster) REVIEW: Note that this is only a review of the single player campaign, since you have to allow EA to spy on you to play online. Well, I'll be honest right from the start in saying
    Last Played: July 2014
    PROS: + Not too hard, your standard shooter bloody goodness
    CONS: - Really stupid AI teammates hinder more often than help - Additional software required for online play (punkbuster)

    REVIEW: Note that this is only a review of the single player campaign, since you have to allow EA to spy on you to play online. Well, I'll be honest right from the start in saying that shooters aren't my favorite genre. That being said, sometimes there is no substitute for gunning down really stupid AI in a relatively easy game-which is what this is. No health bar, lots of ammo and extremely stupid AI who will run across killing fields because they don't want to sit still for more than 5sec. Still, if you stand out in the open it won't take much to kill you on Normal mode - though running and gunning with a shotgun is surprisingly effective when you consider how important cover is otherwise.

    Cons include extremely frustrating moments when a scripted AI teammate shoves you into heavy fire to get to their pre-recorded post-I wanted to shoot those idiots more than once-especially since their only function seems to be to draw enemy fire-they will engage enemies nearly indefinitely without killing them unless you do so yourself. Furthermore, in order to play online you have to give EA explicit permission to access your computer via their "punkbuster" software. This is supposed to prevent cheating, which is a noble goal, but it's as invasive as a full rectal exam just to go to the public pool-yeah it will help prevent disease, but you wouldn't see me lining up to have somebody stick their arm up in my business just so I can splash around with the dorky preteens.

    Sometimes EA offers the game free to hook you into buying the DLC. I'd say it's worth $0, but if you can't get it for this, pass.
    Expand
  29. Apr 25, 2014
    5
    2 балла за эффекты и более милую скушную одиночную кампанию. Мультиплеер коль его почти все так боготворили ранее чуть отличается от колдовского. Сказать честно мне совершенно не понравилось играть при синюшной цветокоррекции, постоянном смазывании экрана и большом колл-вом постоянно всплывающих спеццэффектов. Это всё эффектно и красиво, но абсолютно мешает разглядеть противника и играть с2 балла за эффекты и более милую скушную одиночную кампанию. Мультиплеер коль его почти все так боготворили ранее чуть отличается от колдовского. Сказать честно мне совершенно не понравилось играть при синюшной цветокоррекции, постоянном смазывании экрана и большом колл-вом постоянно всплывающих спеццэффектов. Это всё эффектно и красиво, но абсолютно мешает разглядеть противника и играть с комфортом вообще. Об изрядном доминировании странностей в виде багов и говорить не стоит. Физика. Баланс. Скушные карты. Бессмысленное времяпровождение за прокачкой. Всё это сводит меня сказать, что об Battlefield 3 слишком много рассказывали хорошего. И ничего интресного там нет. Пустая трата денег. Expand
  30. Aug 14, 2014
    6
    Even though it is a classical shooter game, i liked it a lot. I liked enemy's AI and it was as hard as i want. Graphics are still awesome, the story line is really good(i loved the ending) even if it is completely linear you know from the start that this is this kind of game. EA is master of making action titles like BF3, i am not yet on BF 4 but i am planning on the near future and i amEven though it is a classical shooter game, i liked it a lot. I liked enemy's AI and it was as hard as i want. Graphics are still awesome, the story line is really good(i loved the ending) even if it is completely linear you know from the start that this is this kind of game. EA is master of making action titles like BF3, i am not yet on BF 4 but i am planning on the near future and i am waiting like crazy for the Mirror's Edge 2.

    What i "hate" about EA right now is the origin setup. I really dislike the thing that when i want to play a game i have to start it from Origin first, then go to the link in the internet browser and from there push the play button and after this the game will start. Come on you made the easiest thing in the world to be the most difficult, you are EA find a solution for this system it is disfunctional non-iser friendly at all.

    For this reason i am giving a 6 out of 10, with the hope someday EA will decide to fix the "start problem"
    Expand
Metascore
89

Generally favorable reviews - based on 61 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 60 out of 61
  2. Negative: 0 out of 61
  1. 86
    It's all a matter of taste, after all. They each provide a certain type of entertainment – when talking about Battlefield 3, it involves a bigger game, more open in its possibilities and more spectacular. But on a longer timeline, less frantic and with fewer Bruce Willis scenes than the mass appeal beast it set itself to dethrone.
  2. LEVEL (Czech Republic)
    Jan 20, 2012
    80
    No, Battlefield 3 is not the best game of today. But good looking – definitely. It also has an absolutely addictive multiplayer. Who needs more? [Dec 2011]
  3. PC PowerPlay
    Dec 4, 2011
    90
    Both a triumphant leap forward and a return to form for the Battlefield series. This is the best multiplayer shooter on PC. [Christmas 2011, p.58]