Battlefield 3 Xbox 360

User Score
7.4

Mixed or average reviews- based on 2137 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. Oct 25, 2011
    7
    The user reviews posted are highly biased from a fanboy perspective. 10 from the BF fanboys, and 1 from the Cod chaps. Neither score is representitive of the games quality.

    If you intend on buying BF3 for the campaign, I strongly suggest that you rent instead as it is an uninspired standard shooter from start to finish (which isn't very long). Multiplayer is where it is at. BF3 is
    The user reviews posted are highly biased from a fanboy perspective. 10 from the BF fanboys, and 1 from the Cod chaps. Neither score is representitive of the games quality.

    If you intend on buying BF3 for the campaign, I strongly suggest that you rent instead as it is an uninspired standard shooter from start to finish (which isn't very long). Multiplayer is where it is at. BF3 is certainly worth a look for its MP component, and there is a lot of fun to be had here. From my perspective, if you didn't enjoy Bad Company 2, then you aren't going to be won over by this instalment, but for the best part, it is worth a look. The weapons feel tight and punchy, the vehicles feel very distinct, and the graphics are some of the best avaiable on consoles. Unfortunately as a console game, BF3 fails to deliver its true potential, as the limit of 24 players on such huge maps really does limit the game from delivering the full on scale of war that it should. The pace is certainly a lot slower than that of COD games, and there is far less class customisation. Over all, BF3 is a fun, but lacking experience which only supports the fact that we need a new generation of console to provide the 64 players that games like Battlefield really deserve.
    Expand
  2. Oct 25, 2011
    6
    This game had a chance to be amazing but the single player bogged it down. Multiplayer is the same Battlefield we know of, but since nothing really new and amazing was added it gets downed a point. The single player is what really lowered the score. It sucks.
  3. Oct 26, 2011
    5
    The Good. Great multiplayer modes (when servers aren't down)
    The Bad. The campaign is forgettable and annoyingly cliche at times, they have oddly placed button mashing during action sequences that are completely out of place, graphics are overdone to an extent where they look poor, and many glitches are sprinkled throughout the game play that are often frustrating enough to distract you
    The Good. Great multiplayer modes (when servers aren't down)
    The Bad. The campaign is forgettable and annoyingly cliche at times, they have oddly placed button mashing during action sequences that are completely out of place, graphics are overdone to an extent where they look poor, and many glitches are sprinkled throughout the game play that are often frustrating enough to distract you from the game play.
    Expand
  4. Oct 25, 2011
    5
    Feels like a cheap MW knockoff. The controls aren't as smooth as MW. Parts of the campaign are really boring. Technical issues up the wazoo. Been a great disappointment.
    Buy it in the bargain bin.
  5. Feb 9, 2013
    7
    Battlefield 3 is a superb multiplayer shooter let down by a shockingly bad campaign. The singleplayer campaign throws you into the role of a U.S Marine, with a generic plot concerning nuclear weapons, not to mention highly restrictive and linear environments that completely deny exploration. Many segments of the campaign force you to engage in tiresome tasks such as waiting for team-matesBattlefield 3 is a superb multiplayer shooter let down by a shockingly bad campaign. The singleplayer campaign throws you into the role of a U.S Marine, with a generic plot concerning nuclear weapons, not to mention highly restrictive and linear environments that completely deny exploration. Many segments of the campaign force you to engage in tiresome tasks such as waiting for team-mates to open doors while you stand idly with your weapon lowered. I expected vast, giant battles that encouraged the player to experiment in large maps with huge varieties of weapons and vehicles. Not a messy linear, poorly written generic war shooter. Fortunately, the multiplayer experience is polished with love and care, with enough guns, customisation and ranking systems to keep the hardened MMS veteran in the game for some time. The maps are also quite good, with the giant battles I was expecting in the campaign (more so if you purchase some of the DLC packs). The graphics are also quite good, but keep in mind that you need an Xbox 360 Hard Drive to enjoy decent textures; if not, your visual experience will suffer. overall, a decent game marred by an extremely sub-standard campaign. Expand
  6. Nov 13, 2011
    7
    Finished the campaign, played the co-op and multiplayer too! Now honestly, I really don't see much difference in gameplay at all from BF2/BC. I mean obviously there is new graphics and jets but the core gameplay is the same, weapons are pretty much the same too. I really don't get all the people who say "OMFG BF3 is LIKE TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM PREVIOUS VeRSIONS", please don't be aFinished the campaign, played the co-op and multiplayer too! Now honestly, I really don't see much difference in gameplay at all from BF2/BC. I mean obviously there is new graphics and jets but the core gameplay is the same, weapons are pretty much the same too. I really don't get all the people who say "OMFG BF3 is LIKE TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM PREVIOUS VeRSIONS", please don't be a hypocrite to COD. The campaign i found while some parts of it was good, it was ultimately short and i found it to be a copy in Black Ops Campaign. Why? Same type of interrogation, then they both somehow find out where the hell the bomb/evil villain is... Seriously... don't just copy BF3. Next onto Co-op, it's really nothing special. I liked it, but once you've done it on hard, then there is really no point in doing it again, unless you really want to unlock every weapon for multiplayer. And even then all you do is grind the last mission for points... Now onto the multiplayer :) I absolutely love the ground vehicles! The flying vehicles however are alot different. When you start out on the game you CANNNOT KILL the flying vehicles. You have to unlock the engineer to a degree in order to even shoot things out of the sky without having to run to the AA guns, in that time smart pilots would have shot the crap out of you... (Engineers get a RPG/bazooka for tanks quickly so no problems there). Also having a max party of 4 (your squad) is severely limiting when you want to play with more mates. Even if you're in the same squad when you want to join, YOU WILL GET PUT ON DIFFERENT TEAMS! How the hell does that work? The servers/bugs seriously need sorting out. I'd love to put a 7.5 as thats what i really think the game is. You have to judge the whole game on everything! Not just the multiplayer which is very good. Expand
  7. Nov 12, 2011
    7
    Unfortunately it seems we are doomed to see an infinite number of fps flood the market and most of them are the same as the next this is only better than CoD because its different it has a new feel to it.
  8. Nov 16, 2011
    7
    Let me get started by saying that I play both the COD series and the Battlefield Series and I am proud of what both have offered. Since this is about BF3 I will try and limit my thoughts to this game except where a comparison is valid.

    BF3 is a powerful game that allows huge maps and tactical game play. You have to know that when you play this game you are better off working as a squad
    Let me get started by saying that I play both the COD series and the Battlefield Series and I am proud of what both have offered. Since this is about BF3 I will try and limit my thoughts to this game except where a comparison is valid.

    BF3 is a powerful game that allows huge maps and tactical game play. You have to know that when you play this game you are better off working as a squad then just running and gunning like an arcade game. Buildings actually break apart and collapse. The campaign is slightly short on delivering based on the hype. Don't get me wrong, I like the series but I just hoped for more in the campaign considering it has its own disc for Campaign. The multiplayer has been plagued with lag and rubber banding problems since release. There have been squad issues with parties trying to play together and various other issues. This brings my score down. EA says they have fixed most of it but I have not seen a huge improvement. The quality of play once you are in the maps and playing is quite high. You have to allow for bullet drop and try to lead people with your shots. No other game does that. The class leveling and player leveling being separate is nice but can be daunting to get to the next level. Feels like an eternity. The BF3 graphics are better then COD in so many ways. The lighting, details, shading and all that goes with graphics is superb. You cannot ask for a more graphically pleasing environment. Since I have only played those two games from this genre I cannot compare the graphics to other games.

    If you are looking for a FPS game this holiday season I would pick BF3 over COD. Again, don't get me wrong but this is a better choice for multiple reasons. I am sure that I will get heat from all the dedicated fan boys of each game and that is fine. Again, I play both series. I like both series. However, I will tell that MW3 fell very short for me this time. So without a doubt I would choose BF3. However, if your a player that can't play tactical and it is all about your stats and kill-death ratio, go to COD and play MW3. I am sure you are a better fit for that franchise.
    Expand
  9. Jan 1, 2012
    7
    Im a fan of both cod and bf and it's ridiculous that all these fanboys of both games are bringing there scores down. Now let's get to the game. I already gave the game a point off because IMO the single player wasn't that good. For the multiplayer, it's usually fun, but it's gets boring because the maps were obviously designed for 64 players on PC, not 24 on xbox and ps3. I do like theIm a fan of both cod and bf and it's ridiculous that all these fanboys of both games are bringing there scores down. Now let's get to the game. I already gave the game a point off because IMO the single player wasn't that good. For the multiplayer, it's usually fun, but it's gets boring because the maps were obviously designed for 64 players on PC, not 24 on xbox and ps3. I do like the variety of vehicles in this game, it somewhat makes up for the large maps, but some are smaller and have more action and those are the ones I play on like operation metro, when Im in for some jets or tanking I'll go with caspian border or another large map. Another downfall is, there is literally only 2 game modes (Conquest and rush) compared to mw3's like 20. Which in turn leads to the game eventually getting boring and not fun to play. I honestly think this game deserves a 7 and while it can be fun at times, it lacks the action of mw3. I think mw3 is slightly better IMO, maybe because the fast paced action just suits me better or I have just been a more of a cod guy than a BF. If you loved bc2 then you will probably like this game, however if your used to cod you may or may not. That is my honest review. Don't listen to the fanboys. Expand
  10. Nov 24, 2012
    7
    Amazing multiplayer with stunning graphics! (If you have HD) This game steps it up a notch compared to most first person shooters. Audio is great, weapons are diverse, maps are huge and aesthetic, teamwork is a necessity to win a game. Not everything is good about this game though. The campaign was very disappointing. Worst story I have ever experienced in a video game. The main themeAmazing multiplayer with stunning graphics! (If you have HD) This game steps it up a notch compared to most first person shooters. Audio is great, weapons are diverse, maps are huge and aesthetic, teamwork is a necessity to win a game. Not everything is good about this game though. The campaign was very disappointing. Worst story I have ever experienced in a video game. The main theme is also ruined. The theme used to have real instruments, but now it sounds like techno and fart sounds. The destructibility is not as good as it used to be from Bad Company 2. It also seems like you can't mute people who are either kids, or are playing music into their mics. Overall, the game is good/great. Expand
  11. Dec 31, 2011
    6
    The multiplayer may be some of the coolest modern combat you'll experience on a console. It's absolutely glorious, and worth the price for that alone. Unfortunately, the single player campaign is the same heavily scripted Call of Duty-ish trash I've come to loathe from FPS games. In some cases it's even worse, descending into button mashing quicktime events and rail shooters. For aThe multiplayer may be some of the coolest modern combat you'll experience on a console. It's absolutely glorious, and worth the price for that alone. Unfortunately, the single player campaign is the same heavily scripted Call of Duty-ish trash I've come to loathe from FPS games. In some cases it's even worse, descending into button mashing quicktime events and rail shooters. For a game that proves it has so much versatility and complexity on the multiplayer side, it's a huge disappointment not to have more freedom on the single player end. Expand
  12. Nov 9, 2011
    7
    Good Campaign but sincerely needs to show a new user how the hell to use the vehicles ie. Training Mode for dumb blind people with 1 arm.

    Somewhat dissapointed with the fighter jet scene whereby I wasn't given the keys to a joyride!
  13. Oct 27, 2011
    7
    All Fan boy junk put aside. This is a solid game that is well worth the $40 from my amazon preorder. It knocks the pants off any other shooter of its kind except halo, COD, Gears. That said its a blast to play huge map battles bring a ton of fun for you and some buddies. The single player campaign is fun and extremely impressive graphically and they nailed the sounds. The story is aAll Fan boy junk put aside. This is a solid game that is well worth the $40 from my amazon preorder. It knocks the pants off any other shooter of its kind except halo, COD, Gears. That said its a blast to play huge map battles bring a ton of fun for you and some buddies. The single player campaign is fun and extremely impressive graphically and they nailed the sounds. The story is a complete mesh of the last 3 COD games. Regardless of this there are still some epic moments such as the sniper mission which I have been waiting a long time for something this detailed. There is a ton of LAG/Frame rate issues though. And whats with the 1.5GB update to get your graphics up to speed? The Code to play online is also a joke and provided much frustration on my 360. Top that off with week user interface that feels like a PC game. Then the Server went down for a brief period, so I hopped over to the SEPERATE DISK campaign and it starts repeating the opening scene on a loop of about 10 seconds? Whats that all about. The game just feels rushed. Far too many little issues considering they put 100 Million into advertising. Half that money shouldve stayed in game development. My score wouldve been a 9 if they issues had been resolved before launch. Im just disappointed in DICE for not smoothing it out more. It is such a solid platform, especially after a BETA. These issues should have been fixed. Well worth buying if you want to kill a week before MW3. Expand
  14. Jan 4, 2012
    5
    wow bf3 has got a lower score in the critics than mw3. bf however has a campaign of **** its dull. but its short which makes me give a 3 the only good thing was the graphics in the campaign but the multi player is fun because u can use the gadgets which are great to use overall it is in the middle for me
  15. Nov 8, 2011
    7
    A solid and intense shooter, but lacks the massive scale of the previous game. Obviously the engine just wouldnt allow it, which is really disappointing. Im hoping updates and map packs will develop this game more into the experience people expected
  16. Oct 27, 2011
    7
    Not a bad game just underwhelmed. The graphics are not that great, hard to see enemies sometimes. Alot of spawn killings and collision detection if off some of the time. laggy multiplayer, it is a good time filler untill MW3 comes out.
  17. Nov 8, 2011
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The multiplayer is great. Perhaps a bit chaotic, but still fun. It's no the same of COD, but its difference makes it enjoyable. So relative high marks go to the multiplayer. The loss in points comes from the single player campaign. It's short, a few hours short. With the Co-op potion, you gain another hour or so depending on difficulty, but I was promised an extensive Campaign and it fell short. There are also a half dozen quicktime interactions that seem plastered on. They're clunky and the button pressing doesn't correspond with on screen action in the dynamic rewarding fashion of comparable FPS's. Further, the vehicle portions we confining and not as enjoyable as promised. The fighter portion, you don't even have the opportunity to fly. You fire missiles and do a watered down lasing segment that's no where near as enjoyable as COD's AC130 missions. The tank missions, save the final segement through the city, lacks character. There are highlights, such as the beginning mission and the sniper mission, but these cannot eclipse the nonsense turns in the plot. For the FPS that boasts closeness with reality, there are some things that are unforgivable. One is committing an act of war on Russia by attacking a division of Russian troops with an underequipt and weaker force. The second is an American soldier murdering his CO to help a Russian he met seconds before. It's just nutty. And for that, not the multiplayer in any way, the score is much lower than it should have been. Expand
  18. Nov 2, 2011
    7
    Honestly, I am a huge battlefield fan and I mean huge I love every game of the series I have but Battlefield 3 is an unfinished product that needs a lot of patching before I can call it a smooth experience. To start off with the campaign is good but very generic, honestly a very good copy of COD Black Ops' campaign which I didn't like. The campaign also has a good number of glitches in itHonestly, I am a huge battlefield fan and I mean huge I love every game of the series I have but Battlefield 3 is an unfinished product that needs a lot of patching before I can call it a smooth experience. To start off with the campaign is good but very generic, honestly a very good copy of COD Black Ops' campaign which I didn't like. The campaign also has a good number of glitches in it which can detract from the experience; overall I felt detached and found a few of the checkpoints to not even load and I had to restart the mission in order for the problem to be fixed. Multiplayer is amazing and in my opinion it is the best in the series and one of the only redeeming factor in the game; lots of unlocks, medals, camas, ribbons, and more. Multiplayer I feel and always will be the only reason you should buy a Battlefield game but all the other things like campaign and co-op are nice bonuses only problem with this just like co-op is the servers are absolutely terrible and connection is lost all the time and I can recall twice now were the servers were down for about 3 hours which is really aggravating .Co-op it is a nice experience and you can actually unlock guns for multiplayer in it which I felt was really cool; the co-op has six levels as of now. Overall I feel this is a worthy successor to BF2 but it has a lot of problems that can be renovated and if and when they are the game will shine in a better light but as of now the game feels unfinished although I still recommend that you pick it up given the chance. Expand
  19. Oct 30, 2011
    5
    The single player was just alright, like many seem to think. A few nice set pieces and nice visuals, but the AI was disappointing. As far as the multiplayer is concerned I appreciate the grand scale of the maps. I actually think the graphics are nice, considering their size and the action on screen. The sound effects really draw you in as well. But the maps are too big for the playerThe single player was just alright, like many seem to think. A few nice set pieces and nice visuals, but the AI was disappointing. As far as the multiplayer is concerned I appreciate the grand scale of the maps. I actually think the graphics are nice, considering their size and the action on screen. The sound effects really draw you in as well. But the maps are too big for the player count on the consoles. There are times when I have to travel too far to engage with enemies only to get sniped and start the process all over again which becomes very frustrating. There is a lack of flow to the game play, in my opinion. And although I have grown a little tired of the noob tubes and powerful explosives in Call of Duty, Explosives in BF3 seem so weak and not very useful. It is hard to put my finger on but I never seem to get a connection with any of the guns and there is a certain "clunkiness" to the feel of the game flow. I have yet to get into a "zone" like I have with Modern Warfare or even Halo. I was always more of a Call of Duty fan, but I was very excited about this game, especially with all of the hype leading up to release. And I do appreciate this game for what it offers as opposed to Modern Warfare. But I think I'm more of a fan of the more fast paced, instant action of MW, even with the dated game engine and lack of realism. Expand
  20. Nov 6, 2011
    7
    This is quite a poor effort from Dice / EA, a franchise low for Battlefield. I have been a battlefield fan since 2 and I thoroughly enjoyed 2142, Modern Combat and Bad Company series. Having said that, I admit that I prefer the fast paced, individualistic multiplayer of COD games. But I am not reviewing this game from the point of a COD fanboy, just some one who enjoys both series. I amThis is quite a poor effort from Dice / EA, a franchise low for Battlefield. I have been a battlefield fan since 2 and I thoroughly enjoyed 2142, Modern Combat and Bad Company series. Having said that, I admit that I prefer the fast paced, individualistic multiplayer of COD games. But I am not reviewing this game from the point of a COD fanboy, just some one who enjoys both series. I am also going to talk about the graphics everybody knows its a great looking game. Firstly, I must address the campaign, which is the most lifeless and linear modern war shooter I have ever played. If you expect ''battlefields'' look elsewhere as levels are progressed via a very restrictive follow the leader type design, there is no room for dynamic action or combat scenarios. The level openers and enders may have a few cool scripted sequences and set pieces, (none lasting longer than 10 seconds) but the actual gameplay is void of anything exciting and engaging. Speaking of set pieces, I feel this just doesn't compare to the way games like Uncharted and Gears of War incorporate set pieces into the gameplay. Its not just something to look at in the background, but there are entire 10 minute levels in those games that compete with the biggest most impressive set pieces seen in blockbuster movies. 4/10 for SP.

    The multiplayer portion of the game is designed better and more faithful the to title. If you enjoyed Battlefield 2, you will feel right at home with this game, its very similar in design, modes and map design. The main new featured are jets, disabling vehicles which that the turrets will work even if the wheels wont, more sophisticated and realistic lighting and enhanced squad abilities. The main drawback however, are the maps, especially the larger ones, which are more barren,less vertical and feature less destruction, which means matches especially on conquest game modes are slower than usual. This means firefights are never quite as fun as they could be. Overall, its great but not much of a sequel to Battlefield 2 or even Bad Comany 2. 8/10 for MP.
    Expand
  21. Feb 19, 2012
    7
    With a beautiful campaign and decent MP, Battlefield 3 is one of the only remaining good FPS shooters.
  22. Nov 11, 2011
    7
    Yeah here's another over hyped game after playing Bad company 1,2 after seeing all the kool clips thinking o yeah lock and load here we go..To my sadness it's nothing like bad company you can't blow up doors and rain down mortar strikes to bring down buildings the destruction system was so tame..Frostbite bite 2 yeah right more like 0.0. There's no sandbox like bad company its either youYeah here's another over hyped game after playing Bad company 1,2 after seeing all the kool clips thinking o yeah lock and load here we go..To my sadness it's nothing like bad company you can't blow up doors and rain down mortar strikes to bring down buildings the destruction system was so tame..Frostbite bite 2 yeah right more like 0.0. There's no sandbox like bad company its either you follow or the whole game just sits and waits or you die for being out of the combat zone...It's just a game on rails really thought we got out this for next gen games..No sooner you get a good idea you go backwards and near the end really they must of ran out of time level design was like PS 1 big building plane open walls god really..The aircraft stuff was fun nice to see something different but really when you do a flyby use some realism you fly that friggin close you might as well sat in the captain chair on the carrier maybe some interaction from your character we all seem to be silent quite types...fun game but not worth the money for a new release maybe get it when it comes down in price... Expand
  23. Nov 1, 2011
    7
    Let me start by saying i didnt like any battlefield games before this at all as i found that it was too orientated on being a high level online and having alot of experience in shooters in the campaign. This time round i gave it a shot and to me i missed. Its not a bad game at all but it is defiently not a AAA game that all the professionals call it. I feel its a step down in a way as iLet me start by saying i didnt like any battlefield games before this at all as i found that it was too orientated on being a high level online and having alot of experience in shooters in the campaign. This time round i gave it a shot and to me i missed. Its not a bad game at all but it is defiently not a AAA game that all the professionals call it. I feel its a step down in a way as i did in fact find it enjoying in battlefield games to destroy the terrain and so much was promised yet not delivered. it is extemely hard to destory buildings unless you are in a tank and it takes frustratinly long to level up online, but now i have my fully kitted out medic class, im ready to go. the campaign is basically trying to copy cod in every perspective. its no longer a wide open map and great tactical attacks but more macho americans barking at you. Its very short like cod but the gamerscore total is easy to achieve. Online is almost immposible to play with friends i have found and i dont like i that you have different classes. Its a very frustrating game overall online but pretty fun. And if you think im a cod fanboy then i dont particularly like cod either, im most likely gonna give MW3 a 7/8. As a conclusion, wait till its cheap and then buy it because its not worth £45 Expand
  24. Nov 10, 2011
    7
    Great single player (even if the reviews say different) and ok multiplayer. The main problem facing battlefield is server issues, lack of multiplayer unlocks, and balance. Snipers are still OP and bad for team play. Mortars are a joke and ruin rush mode. After you player and rank up you really have nothing to look forward too. Ran into lots of crashing and rubber banding online, you alsoGreat single player (even if the reviews say different) and ok multiplayer. The main problem facing battlefield is server issues, lack of multiplayer unlocks, and balance. Snipers are still OP and bad for team play. Mortars are a joke and ruin rush mode. After you player and rank up you really have nothing to look forward too. Ran into lots of crashing and rubber banding online, you also can't leave games during intermission. The weapons feel nice though and the graphics are ok on console. Overall just doesnt live up to the hype I had for it. Expand
  25. Oct 26, 2011
    6
    RE-SUBMITTED AS I LEFT THE RATING AT 10!!!
    Very disappointed! That's the short version. I am a FPS addict and I had high hopes for BF3. I wasn't a fan of the last offering in the series, but good trailers gave me something to cling to. I played the multiplayer Beta and was unimpressed by the hit-and-miss servers, the overly bright sunlight and "detached" feel to the experience. It looks
    RE-SUBMITTED AS I LEFT THE RATING AT 10!!!
    Very disappointed! That's the short version. I am a FPS addict and I had high hopes for BF3. I wasn't a fan of the last offering in the series, but good trailers gave me something to cling to. I played the multiplayer Beta and was unimpressed by the hit-and-miss servers, the overly bright sunlight and "detached" feel to the experience. It looks like they fixed the brightness.... and little else. The multiplayer isn't a battle simulation or a full-on FPS, it is a combination of both, unfortunately not in a good way. There are glitches when using vehicles and inside buildings.
    Co-op campaign - I played this with a friend. You feel isolated, as though you are the only two soldiers in the world fighting an oncoming army whilst everybody watches.
    Single player campaign - The graphics range from excellent high-quality HD to cartoony, blocky and basic. To aid realism you have to peer through scratched glass and deal with 'lens flare'. Whilst this does add to the realistic feeling it ultimately makes for a frustrating game where your vision is obscured a lot of the time and you miss out on the action and enjoyment. In summary, I would say the game looks a little rushed (to beat the release of COD - MW3?). Graphics in places are really not up to the current standard for a top-of-the-range modern FPS. Having said that, it is better than some and would have looked better stacked against games from 3 years ago. I wish I had waited until January and picked up a cheap copy.
    Expand
  26. Oct 29, 2011
    6
    It has really impressive graphics though I've faced some shader bugs on Xbox360 for some levels, it something ignorable considering the high quality of the graphics in general; I have finished the game in single player mode and I have played it in the multiplayer too, sincerely, I didn't like it, I've gave a huge chance to change my opinion playing it for hours and hours but it didn't pay,It has really impressive graphics though I've faced some shader bugs on Xbox360 for some levels, it something ignorable considering the high quality of the graphics in general; I have finished the game in single player mode and I have played it in the multiplayer too, sincerely, I didn't like it, I've gave a huge chance to change my opinion playing it for hours and hours but it didn't pay, the weakest point for me is the gameplay which is really poor, you just cannot mastery it, weapons balance is ridiculous, timing is not good, signs and feedbacks are not clear and pollute your screen, as a FAN of Battlefield series, (I have all games of the serie), I feel particularly frustrated, is a pity. Sincerely, keep the same team working together for my two sequels and we will have THE GAME. Expand
  27. Oct 30, 2011
    6
    Speaking on the Campaign only: THE GOOD: Absolutely beautiful graphics throughout most of the game. Solid variety of weapons, all of which feel and sound great (you need a good sound system to fully appreciate the sound effects). THE AVERAGE: The AI is simple for a 'top-tier' game, most popping up with limited flanking etc. Decent mission variety; escort, vehicle, defend and other typicalSpeaking on the Campaign only: THE GOOD: Absolutely beautiful graphics throughout most of the game. Solid variety of weapons, all of which feel and sound great (you need a good sound system to fully appreciate the sound effects). THE AVERAGE: The AI is simple for a 'top-tier' game, most popping up with limited flanking etc. Decent mission variety; escort, vehicle, defend and other typical types. Great cinematic feel to the beginning of the flight mission, then a let down because you don't have control of the jet (just guns and missiles). THE BAD: The campaign is pretty lame as a whole. The story is garbage, basically a mirror image of the competition MW. You kill Russians and play as them in select missions; shameful rip off. Many of the missions are boring walk and shoots through uninspired environments. You spend one mission on the streets of Paris, but you are no where near any famous landmarks. Another you spend in a drab mall in the middle east.
    The campaign is worse than medal of honor and bad company 2. Very disappointing single player, but if your a multiplayer exclusive you'll probably be happy.
    Expand
  28. Oct 30, 2011
    7
    NOTE: You are not about to read a review full of the word "faggot" and there is absolutely no bias in franchises on my behalf. It's also written with proper grammar and spelling.

    It feels bad - having to rate the game the way that I am, but I absolutely feel like this is the way I have to do it. After months of waiting, telling all my Black Ops friends that Battlefield 3 was going to blow
    NOTE: You are not about to read a review full of the word "faggot" and there is absolutely no bias in franchises on my behalf. It's also written with proper grammar and spelling.

    It feels bad - having to rate the game the way that I am, but I absolutely feel like this is the way I have to do it. After months of waiting, telling all my Black Ops friends that Battlefield 3 was going to blow Call Of Duty out of the water and all that jazz - I feel disappointed and I'm happy that they didn't listen to me and throw down pre-orders before the reviews came out.

    Campaign Mode: Now, I have seen a lot of the Battlefield defenders out here stating that the single player shouldn't even be taken into account. Frankly, that's false on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.. but a wise man once said that any game with the single player option, should have a leg to stand on based on that single player option alone. Aside from pretty graphics, the campaign here is stock-standard - there isn't really a reason to touch it. It's the same old thing we've seen over and over again, and it's the kind of thing that goes straight into the bargain bin these days. But I would never fully condemn something without offering an alternative - so how about next time we see a campaign that is based on providing a story-based tutorial on tactics that should be used in the multiplayer game? Let's not mince words here, Battlefield IS a multiplayer experience first and foremost - but if you're not going to try and string out a decent story and drag it out over a trilogy or something of the sort - have SOME point to the thing.

    Multiplayer Mode: This is of course where the game was meant to shine, and for the most part it does - it works the way that it was designed... when the people do. Your experience is going to be severely based on who you are playing with, and this day and age it's just about as bad as ever. Let's be serious for a moment - if you think that your friends are always going to be around when you want to play - that's something that just isn't going to happen. I have around a dozen friends to play with and aside from the rare one day a week a good number of us getting together is a rarity.

    BUT, when it does work and you all communicate things CAN be beautiful. I won't even take into consideration the servers going down so much on release - and knowing EA and my experiences with all of the Battlefield games, they will be going down quite a bit - I've had some pretty good experience. But than again I have also came into situations where my team-mate has just driven around in circles inside mission critical equipment. It's infuriating, it takes you out of the game and it happens more often than I'd like to admit.

    The unlocks right now are the only thing keeping me going at a regular pace.. the terrain is beautiful and provides a good deal of cover but there is a lot of independent scenery that I am finding myself having to navigate around.. and poorly. I'm talking bits of small scenery on the ground that is slowing me down in ways that it really shouldn't.

    All in all - for everything bad, I am finding something good. It's just I feel that the good is going to wear off and the bad is going to stay. If you seriously can't stand the way COD handles multiplayer (and you are educated enough to see what changes they've made this year) AND you can only afford to buy one of these.. go with Battlefield, it's not what it was hyped to be but it's what you've come to know and love.
    Expand
  29. Nov 8, 2011
    6
    The single player campaign tries too hard to mimic the typical obnoxious unimaginative CoD: MW story lines. While certain parts were enjoyable other areas just made me regret of buying this game. Aside from it being a bad console port. DICE should just have focused on making a great multiplayer game.

    The multiplayer: It's filled with mix feelings. The servers are poorly maintained. The
    The single player campaign tries too hard to mimic the typical obnoxious unimaginative CoD: MW story lines. While certain parts were enjoyable other areas just made me regret of buying this game. Aside from it being a bad console port. DICE should just have focused on making a great multiplayer game.

    The multiplayer: It's filled with mix feelings. The servers are poorly maintained. The hit detection can be off at times if not rendered useless when you start shooting blanks at an enemy. Enjoy the destruction but it's no where near the BFBC 2 level of destruction. This game is not worth $60. Save yourself some money and buy the multiplayer for 20 bucks off some one and the EA vip pass for $10 dollars more.
    Expand
  30. Oct 26, 2011
    6
    Nice looking generally (the weapons aren't great visually) with very atmospheric audio. Very boring "cutscenes" where I have no control over my character. Slow overall - modern warfare is a much more fun game to play- with moments of coolness. Never seen a console game with so many bugs. Have had multiple crashes... Never seen that before on a console game. Clearly a PC game for theNice looking generally (the weapons aren't great visually) with very atmospheric audio. Very boring "cutscenes" where I have no control over my character. Slow overall - modern warfare is a much more fun game to play- with moments of coolness. Never seen a console game with so many bugs. Have had multiple crashes... Never seen that before on a console game. Clearly a PC game for the PC crowd that was "almost" ported to 360. I'd recommend skipping it on consoles. Expand
  31. Oct 25, 2011
    7
    Fails to hit its mark. 360 graphics are less compelling than PS3. While still visually impressive, the game lacks depth beyond the stats it collects. The story-line is dull and the game-play is not what I expected from a game this big. I often felt like the objectives were unclear. War felt (at times) slow. The people who gave this game a 10 have very low standards when there is a clearFails to hit its mark. 360 graphics are less compelling than PS3. While still visually impressive, the game lacks depth beyond the stats it collects. The story-line is dull and the game-play is not what I expected from a game this big. I often felt like the objectives were unclear. War felt (at times) slow. The people who gave this game a 10 have very low standards when there is a clear standard for FPS' in the industry - Call of Duty. Expand
  32. Nov 10, 2011
    5
    I am a (33yo) COD fan who bought BF3 because I genuinely wanted to experience a difference type of gameplay, but I have to say (without bias) that I am left neither loving or hating this game... which is probably a bad thing. It was easy enough to get used to the controlls; the scenes in the campaign are sufficiently challenging; the mutiplayer is OK (apart from those flashlights andI am a (33yo) COD fan who bought BF3 because I genuinely wanted to experience a difference type of gameplay, but I have to say (without bias) that I am left neither loving or hating this game... which is probably a bad thing. It was easy enough to get used to the controlls; the scenes in the campaign are sufficiently challenging; the mutiplayer is OK (apart from those flashlights and invisible campers... urgh). It feels very much like a PC game and lacked the more obvious Arcade feeling that COD provides. Comparing the two games is like pitching an iPhone against a Galaxy. i.e. basically both good but if you're a fan of one, you're unlikely to be swayed by the other. Expand
  33. Oct 29, 2011
    5
    The single player is ok, Iâ
  34. Nov 12, 2011
    6
    My review is only for SP Campaign mode as i do not play online. The graphics are very good but the story is not as involving as it should have been and it is VERY short. No where near to challenge Modern Warfare series and totally over hyped. If not for the hype, and therefore the dissapointment afterwards, i would have given this a 7.
  35. Oct 31, 2011
    7
    I am a fan of the Battlefield series but this game does have some issues. First, the multiplayer servers SUCK! Finding a hardcore match or team deathmatch that allows you to play with your friends is nearly impossible. Second, in multiplayer the random respawn often places you in close quarters with enemy fighters resulting in your second death within a very short time frame. Now theI am a fan of the Battlefield series but this game does have some issues. First, the multiplayer servers SUCK! Finding a hardcore match or team deathmatch that allows you to play with your friends is nearly impossible. Second, in multiplayer the random respawn often places you in close quarters with enemy fighters resulting in your second death within a very short time frame. Now the positives: 1-The graphics an sounds are ASTOUNDING. The large maps and various classes allow you to play according to your style. You dont have to be a twitch COD player to rack up numerous kills in this game. Further, as you level the game continues to stay extremely balanced. Having problems with prone snipers? Level up support and get mortars. Having problems with run and gun? Be a sniper and prone out along the edge of the map. Like to gun but also be a party favorite? Be assault and heal your friends! Get killed a lot? Get in a tank and reek havoc! Getting killed by tanks? Be an engineer and nuke them with mines and rockets! The balance is amazing. Dont let the COD fanboys/girls dissuade you. IF EA fixes the servers the game will be shooter of the year! Expand
  36. Nov 7, 2011
    7
    Battlefield 3, oh Battlefield 3. One of the most anticipated games of 2011, with the ultimate goal of killing the popular Call of Duty series. Did DICE achieve that goal? I don't think they did. Sure, the multiplayer is incredibly awesome and addicting, but the Campaign and Co-op just really ruin the overall game. I'm not even sure why DICE even bothered to waste their time with addingBattlefield 3, oh Battlefield 3. One of the most anticipated games of 2011, with the ultimate goal of killing the popular Call of Duty series. Did DICE achieve that goal? I don't think they did. Sure, the multiplayer is incredibly awesome and addicting, but the Campaign and Co-op just really ruin the overall game. I'm not even sure why DICE even bothered to waste their time with adding that stuff in, they're not story tellers. The Campaign is extremely boring, and is a chore to play. I don't even know if I'll ever finish it, because it's not even worth finishing. DICE's attempt at making an enjoyable Co-op experience failed. It's not quite as boring as the campaign, but still bad enough to make me not even complete the last two missions I haven't played yet. So by now you may be wondering why I didn't give this game a 1 or 2. The reason why is because 1.) The game is one of the best looking and sounding on a console. 2.) It's gameplay is super smooth and awesome. And 3.) The game's multiplayer is one of the best experiences I've played in a long, long time. It's definitely lived up to my expectations, and is the ONLY thing keeping this game afloat. I find it 10x more fun then Call of Duty's repetitive multiplayer. DICE couldn't of done a better job with it, and that is the sole reason why this game gets a positive score from me. If you're looking for a game with an incredible multiplayer, BUY THIS GAME. Just don't touch the second disk (Campaign). I hope this review helped those of you who are still thinking about buying this game. Expand
  37. Nov 8, 2011
    5
    My comments relate only to the single player game. I'm new to this series; it'll be my last. I felt like a bullet magnet. Friendly NPCs stand in the open in front of me. I stand up behind cover and get drilled while they are not hit. Where's the logic in that? The campaign is way too short. It's trade-in time for this one.
  38. Nov 11, 2011
    7
    Beautiful...but boring. The short campaign mode that was anticipated to be one of the best shooter campaigns of all time just didn't have enough fuel to catch fire. The game itself if probably the most visually appealing and is a technical achievement in the graphics department, but overall it just doesn't pack enough "oomph." The multiplayer is solid, fun, and offers tons of unlocks forBeautiful...but boring. The short campaign mode that was anticipated to be one of the best shooter campaigns of all time just didn't have enough fuel to catch fire. The game itself if probably the most visually appealing and is a technical achievement in the graphics department, but overall it just doesn't pack enough "oomph." The multiplayer is solid, fun, and offers tons of unlocks for players to focus on. If you buy this game, buy it for the MP, not the SP...aka don't pay the full $60 for it. Also, if you have the opportunity, buy this on PC, so you can run it the way it deserves to be ran. Expand
  39. Nov 10, 2011
    6
    I like 2 give 7.0 but it will be a positive review. but this game deserves a mixed review. I will deduct points from this because of its single player campaign and cooperative missions. and I give points for its great multiplayer. I can't it has a great graphics because of its countless glitches.now this is ma verdict, 6.0 for the most anticipated FPS of this year
  40. Nov 12, 2011
    6
    Ever heard the old expression: All talk and no action? It's not quite that bad, but in their attempt to dethrone MW, I think they overdid it. For all the flaming about 'CoD is just going to be the same thing!', that was my exact feeling when I played BF3. Yes, it's pretty, but the concept and the mechanics are a further polish to Bad Company 2. I guess after all the hype I expected more. AEver heard the old expression: All talk and no action? It's not quite that bad, but in their attempt to dethrone MW, I think they overdid it. For all the flaming about 'CoD is just going to be the same thing!', that was my exact feeling when I played BF3. Yes, it's pretty, but the concept and the mechanics are a further polish to Bad Company 2. I guess after all the hype I expected more. A lot more.
    Yes, I know it's got the Almighty Frostbite 2 Engine! (Capped for a reason) But where's the innovation from it? Yeah, you can use a flashlight and a laser. Ok...nice but not enough to make me start Occupying Infinity Ward in a smelly tent, sorry.
    First off, does anyone even care about the storyline here? For that matter, anyone even KNOW what it is?...... I've heard nothing but complaints, even from fans of the game. My thought is this: If you're going to even BOTHER adding a campaign, why not at least put some effort into it?

    They added Spec Ops, which was pretty fun and a good idea to add in-game content as you progress, problem is, the missions are beatable within hours of owning it and you won't have much unlocked, thus forcing you to replay the same missions over and over......and over.

    The multiplayer. Well, all I can say about this is repeat what I've said above: It's a prettier version of Bad Company 2. I DO like the improvement to the light machine guns, whereby it truly does suppress the opposition and I DO like the light/laser functions, they're fun, but innovative? Hardly. Reason to act as though we just received game of the decade? Um, no.
    If you liked BC2, you'll enjoy this multiplayer, that's about the best I can offer there.

    It's not that it's BAD (thus my 6.5), it's just that it was sold to us as not only the new king of the throne, but as if it was going to blow us out of the water, which is not true by any measure. Add to that the fact that EA is horrific for online play to begin with (the first week of release, you couldn't complete a game for anything, and that is when you actually were able to join one.).

    The BF fanboys want this to be as good as MW and it simply isn't. And I'm saying that having played both for several years now.

    Sold on Amazon for forty bucks a week and a half after I picked it up. Don't believe the hype.
    Expand
  41. Nov 21, 2011
    6
    Graphics are a huge deal to me and this game looks freaking gorgeous despite it's many bugs. Problem is, the campaign was a shorter, watered down and effortless knock off of the COD: Black ops story and actually left me offended that they charged me for it. On top of that, this game pulled a Medal of Honor and made the mechanics of the campaign different than that of the multiplayer. TheyGraphics are a huge deal to me and this game looks freaking gorgeous despite it's many bugs. Problem is, the campaign was a shorter, watered down and effortless knock off of the COD: Black ops story and actually left me offended that they charged me for it. On top of that, this game pulled a Medal of Honor and made the mechanics of the campaign different than that of the multiplayer. They seem like two different games and it's definitely a weird way to go. The multiplayer is same old battlefield absolutely no changes whatsoever from previous releases with the exception of a few more weapons selections. THIS IS A RENTER! DO NOT BUY. Expand
  42. Jan 27, 2012
    5
    First-person shooters aren't worth buying. Trying to talk to the other players online will cause you be be flamed, raged at, and having the insults keep on coming after you. The only respect I really have for this game is that it is more innovative than Call of Duty.
  43. Oct 26, 2011
    5
    IMHO, Battlefield 2 was a much better experience. I felt like I was actually part of that squad. The dialog and overall audio was spectacular. The fluidity of the controls was stellar and needed not be changed. The improvements to the third installment should have included of course a new campaign map, better graphics engine, and deeper interaction; not all the unnecessary attempts toIMHO, Battlefield 2 was a much better experience. I felt like I was actually part of that squad. The dialog and overall audio was spectacular. The fluidity of the controls was stellar and needed not be changed. The improvements to the third installment should have included of course a new campaign map, better graphics engine, and deeper interaction; not all the unnecessary attempts to prove a point. Tree was no point to prove. The game was perfect and to me needed only "To be continued..." to scroll the screen when I finished it. I guess you can tell I'm less than impressed with what I consider to be a thoughtless rush job. Let's see. Graphics are not ground breaking. Missions are confusing and boring. Destruction is unrealistc. I can shoot through concrete but not a computer. Where is my hand gun. All these long range scoped weapons in mostly CQC situations. Where are all these enemies, that weren't there before, coming from? The feel of the trigger isn't as convincing as previously. The dialog is cheesy and repetative. In BCB2 I felt like I was the 5th member of that squad, not an unfamiliar newcomer. The jet and tank missions were equally ridiculous. I think I blew up 5 tanks in as many seconds. Where did all the rave come from? Who previewed this game? I think DICE dropped the ball here by leaning on hype during the beta phase and not sticking to the recipe. This game reminds me of one of those movie previews that makes it impossible for you to even think about missing and then when you go see it all the best parts were the previews... Expand
  44. Oct 25, 2011
    6
    I geuss this shows why consoles hold back technology, This game is clearly ment for todays PC's and not for years old console hardware and it shows.
  45. Dec 9, 2011
    5
    It's like they took time and effort to make this game horridly inconvenient in every aspect. The most glaring issue is well, the glare. Every light is powered by Stark Industries super batteries and are brighter than the sun, and the sun itself glares off the entire field and in some levels makes it downright painful to see. No game before this one has actually caused me painful eyestrain.It's like they took time and effort to make this game horridly inconvenient in every aspect. The most glaring issue is well, the glare. Every light is powered by Stark Industries super batteries and are brighter than the sun, and the sun itself glares off the entire field and in some levels makes it downright painful to see. No game before this one has actually caused me painful eyestrain. To add to your inability to see is a screen blur when shot at and between the three you may as well play with your eyes closed in a lot of cases. More inconvenient is the menu. I could argue it's scientificly designed to be as unfriendly as a spiked sex toy. It's nothing like the old menu and if you want any kind of information on these random seemingly unknown weapons they pulled out you have to go to an even more cluster***** menu to get vague descriptions on what something does. Along with other call of duty features is the spawn killing (just died 8 times in a row in the only spawn available to me.) And the fact that a gun is never seen firing at you. Every death seems to occur from behind. I'm thinking stark industries has added some teleporters to directly behind me because no enemy has yet to NOT shoot me in the back or directly to my side. It's full of what you like in a call of duty er... battlefield game, but still atrociously inconvenient in seemingly every way. Expand
  46. Nov 11, 2011
    5
    It's a decent game, but i wonder how much the press got payed for those reviews ;). I guess that 100 million budget included 50 millions just as bribes and "attentions" for the press.
  47. Nov 10, 2011
    6
    Game looks amazing, but it's still the same old thing when it comes to multiplayer. I must say that I find this game to be one of the most unbalanced multiplayer games ever. The more you use something, especially a vehicle, the more perks/advancements you get. If you come in as a level one and get into a chopper fight with a level 20, there is no way you will win. I understand that theGame looks amazing, but it's still the same old thing when it comes to multiplayer. I must say that I find this game to be one of the most unbalanced multiplayer games ever. The more you use something, especially a vehicle, the more perks/advancements you get. If you come in as a level one and get into a chopper fight with a level 20, there is no way you will win. I understand that the point of leveling up is to unlock something, but it should not be to the point where the perks make you invincible to lower levels. You run into the same issues while playing online as you did in BC2, mechanics running behind tanks making them invincible, camping flags, etc. The single player is vanilla flavored, nothing special and you have played this story before in any shooter that has come out in the past 10 years. For so much hype and trash talk, I was hoping for something that wasn't so bland and recycled. Expand
  48. Nov 10, 2011
    5
    Battlefield 3 verdaderamente me sorprendio con su nuevo engine frosbite 2 y eso de andar navegando en coches y destruir paredes y edificios se me hace genial este juego destrono a COD que se ha vuelto pura mercadotecnia
  49. Nov 10, 2011
    5
    All I can say about BF3 is that it's the most over hyped game of all time. Besides the graphics the game is not that great. I don't think I've played a game that's set at 30 frames per second since the PS2 days and that really drags the game down. The campaign is okay but I can't stand multiplayer. I wish I would have rented this game like I did bad company 1 and 2.
  50. Oct 25, 2011
    7
    First of all, let me start by saying that I like this game. I enjoy the COD franchise as well, but for different reasons. With that in mind, this game was a slight let down. I did not set my sights very high after the beta. Though I know DICE has a good track record for fixing problems with their games, I also know it usually takes them a while to do it, usually about when interest in itFirst of all, let me start by saying that I like this game. I enjoy the COD franchise as well, but for different reasons. With that in mind, this game was a slight let down. I did not set my sights very high after the beta. Though I know DICE has a good track record for fixing problems with their games, I also know it usually takes them a while to do it, usually about when interest in it begins to wane because of the problems they took too long to fix. I didn't expect any great upgrade to the graphics from the beta, as there is only so much computing power in an XBOX 360, so I have no real complaint about them. They look pretty decent, better than Black Ops, in my opinion but there are some issues with framerate bogging down at times in intensive areas.

    I would certainly not recommend this game if you are looking for a thoroughly engrossing and long campaign mode, as you will not find it here. The voice acting and visuals are quite stunning, but the story is contrived and rather short. I think it took me about 4 hours on a medium difficulty setting. But really, who buys this kind of game for the campaign mode anyway.

    Multiplayer ...I don't want to use the word 'shines' but it is still quite engaging and fun. I find myself enjoying it more than I have most Call of Duty games at first, at any rate. The maps are well-designed, massive and quite nice to look at. I have not run into many technical issues. I have had little problems connecting to games, and I have only been disconnected once in several hours of play. The problem with the console version is this: It should feel like a battlefield. It doesn't. The limited server size makes it feel much closer to other FPS's. I am sure the PC version is amazing with 32 people on your team, trying to do stuff. But that is the biggest reason it falls short, in my opinion. It should feel like a full-scale war on these massive maps, but it just doesn't. It feels more like an objective based COD match than it should.

    Overall, I feel it is an enjoyable experience and I enjoy playing it. I hope to one day find a squad that communicates and actually tries to accomplish something, but I won't hold my breath right now, heh. As a note, the reason I compare certain aspects to COD is not because I am a fan of the COD series. I use it as a reference as that is BF3's closest competition. There is my opinion of the game, take it for what it's worth to you, it is just an opinion.
    Expand
  51. Nov 10, 2011
    5
    The Single Player campaign was a joke. The Multiplayer was boring and consisted of running around for minutes only to get shot at from some camper from far away. The Engine suffers from enormous amounts of pop-ins and blurry textures on consoles. The servers were down at launch, and honestly, the only part of this game I thoroughly enjoyed was playing Co-Op with a friend. I regret buyingThe Single Player campaign was a joke. The Multiplayer was boring and consisted of running around for minutes only to get shot at from some camper from far away. The Engine suffers from enormous amounts of pop-ins and blurry textures on consoles. The servers were down at launch, and honestly, the only part of this game I thoroughly enjoyed was playing Co-Op with a friend. I regret buying this to be quite honest, I got it cheap, but I still feel bad about buying it. Though I'm not surprised to be honest, I recall buying Bad Company 2 because a friend recommended it, and I ended up playing it for an hour or two. Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever played any Battlefield game I've purchased for more than a couple of hours each - not a lot of value for the money invested. Get working on Mirror's Edge 2 DICE, at least that game had amazing creativity, though get some new writers please - all your games suffer from mediocre storytelling. Expand
  52. Nov 11, 2011
    5
    First Impression
    I have played this game for approx 5 hours(2hrs of campaign,1 coop and 4 games of rush).First off,Single player is pathetic.It bores me.The action is too slow,graphics that makes everything looks too flashy(i think there is finally something about overrealism),so slow and quiet that i fell asleep in the middle of the afternoon in the middle of the mission.COD MW3 is much
    First Impression
    I have played this game for approx 5 hours(2hrs of campaign,1 coop and 4 games of rush).First off,Single player is pathetic.It bores me.The action is too slow,graphics that makes everything looks too flashy(i think there is finally something about overrealism),so slow and quiet that i fell asleep in the middle of the afternoon in the middle of the mission.COD MW3 is much better,much better replay value.The Co-op is insanely hard for some reason,the poorly placed checkpoints like in BFBC2 does no credit to this game.DICE,YOU COULD HAVE DONE MUCH BETTER ON THE OFFLINE GAMEPLAY!Not everyone has a gold membership,like me(mine went off bcos i ran out of cash to buy the next 3 months,thus only 4 games of rush)Multiplayer is tad bit better,but i miss the action and explosion of COD.Maybe thats y i like COD more.Anyway personal preferences,u like BF3,u buy Bf3,u like MW3,u buy MW3,not my business.Back to the review.As i was saying,multiplayer is alot better than campaign.good varieties of classes,weapons though it saddens me that i cant pair a freaking rocket launcher to my support class instead of engineer.meh,vehicles are overpowered and underpowered.Overpowered when there is only 1 team wif a freaking transport tank wif the other team is on foot,unfair much?Underpowered,there are too many vehicle destroying weps(i mean seriously,at every encom there is freaking anti tank???,u go caboom faster than u can say"get the **** out!")weapons attachments are stupid,i mean,who the hell uses a flashliight in the middle of a ****ing desert?,i already get blinded by the sun,and u want to point laser in my eyes?No thanks,u r dead faster than u can run.and seriously?vehicle attachments?so magically u step into this vehicle and and woo hoo!free ir smoke?wtf?or u bring around a LMG for a tank wherever u go?LOL much?and u can select whr u spawn?what the hell?who says BF3 is more realistic that mw3?True,killstreaks make no sense,but in real life,they are acheivable,e.g,specialist strike package,dun u get better by kiliin more ppl?perks u say are retarted,e.g.sleight of hand?um,im pretty that is possible.Practice everyday and u will eventually get it,or use steroids.BF3,who the ****s bring a medic pack that nevers run out or a ammo pack that gives u unlimited ammo?So both games are realistic and unrealistic,in their own different way.The only good points of the game is the graphics.However,whats good graphics if u cant even have fun?its the fun that matters,and mayb a little visual pleasement(a word that i came up wif).Like steve jobs said,"It Just Works"COD uses a tried and proven method.And it works.It sold a whooping 9.2mil in 24hrs.bf3?5mil.double.so pls,i ask of all the BF3 fanboy/girls/gays/etc,pls stopping flaming a game that u havent even played.btw,i spent more time playing the BF series than then COD series(i bought BFBC2,It was the worse fps game i had even played,it was so frustrating,multiplayer was uninteresting.But bf3 is better i appreciate that.)MW3 is that first COD game i bought(i played BO,MW,MW2 on frens consoles,which is about 3hrs per game).Sorry,Battlefield fans,Between MW3 and BF3,ill give my vote to MW3.
    Final words
    Overall,This is a beautiful game with nice graphics.However,it disappoints in various aspects such as replay value and offline modes.DICE,u could have done better.
    +Great Graphics
    +decent multiplayer
    -Poor replay value
    -PC version is alot better than consoles for some reason
    5-6/10

    p.s.a personal request,PLS,PLS DO NOT POST BIASED REVIEWS ABOUT MW3 OR BF3.BF3 players are being a ****
    Expand
  53. Nov 8, 2011
    7
    Battlefield 3 is unfortunately a mixed bag. The multiplayer is as expected, fantastic, addictive, and intense. While TDM can be kind of fun for some quick killing, the star of the show is conquest, and to a lesser extent, rush. Compared to the open ended multiplayer maps, the single player is an immediately stale and linear affair, only having Battlefield in name. The only thing reallyBattlefield 3 is unfortunately a mixed bag. The multiplayer is as expected, fantastic, addictive, and intense. While TDM can be kind of fun for some quick killing, the star of the show is conquest, and to a lesser extent, rush. Compared to the open ended multiplayer maps, the single player is an immediately stale and linear affair, only having Battlefield in name. The only thing really keeping it afloat are the great graphics and sound to make it a lively experience. The story is throwaway, and some of the levels (most notably the jet level) end up disappointing. You hop in a jet expecting to fly around, but ends up being an on rails shooter. Many periods with little game interaction. It was not all bad though, the tank level was cool, as well as other exciting moments, but they fail to dispel the stale aura the whole thing has. Also, why no jet practice outside of hopping on a server, and praying you don't get shot down while you figure out how to fly the damn thing? With something with such a steep learning curve, you'd think they'd add someway to practice this. Expand
  54. Nov 10, 2011
    7
    graphics are a bit rubbish. lag in multiplayerr is shocking - it is 2011 after all. mw3 lag is non existent, although black ops was a lag fest.

    single player is so frustrating, u shoot a baddie, clumsy freindly ai runs in front of u all the time, ten u get a no freindly fire message. single player is not worth it. multiplayer is brilliant with one exception. frame rate is rubbish. 30fps
    graphics are a bit rubbish. lag in multiplayerr is shocking - it is 2011 after all. mw3 lag is non existent, although black ops was a lag fest.

    single player is so frustrating, u shoot a baddie, clumsy freindly ai runs in front of u all the time, ten u get a no freindly fire message. single player is not worth it.

    multiplayer is brilliant with one exception. frame rate is rubbish. 30fps looks like bf2. mw3 akes this look amateurish. but saying that, battles are more strategic and fun in bf3 than mw3 which is too fast.
    Expand
  55. Nov 4, 2011
    6
    Lets get the lesser part out of the way first. The campaign is okay, with a couple juicy parts in it but nobody is really here for the campaign, its the multiplayer! BF3's multiplayer is the best out there and will look to be up if not better than MW3.
  56. Dec 23, 2011
    6
    Not a bad game. I gave this game a chance after the abortion that is MW3. I can honestly say the mechanics of the game are sound. It takes a bit of getting used to after playing MW3 for so long. However, I was pleasantly surprise by the hit detection, lack of lag compensation issues and overall smoothness to the game. Maps are good as are the weapons and sound. Graphics are very nice.Not a bad game. I gave this game a chance after the abortion that is MW3. I can honestly say the mechanics of the game are sound. It takes a bit of getting used to after playing MW3 for so long. However, I was pleasantly surprise by the hit detection, lack of lag compensation issues and overall smoothness to the game. Maps are good as are the weapons and sound. Graphics are very nice. I gave the game a little lower score since I'm not terribly fond of the vehicles, the annoying glare effects, and limited load outs. Overall though a pretty solid FPS with huge potential if they pay attention to the gaming community. Worth buying. Expand
  57. Nov 13, 2011
    6
    What is the deal with the descending heartbeat audio/animation after every death? That is the most annoying thing I have ever experienced in any video game ever made. The guns do not handle well, and the single player is completely broken. Who are these characters? They aren't interesting in any way. I enjoyed Bad Company 2, but this game is meaningless.
  58. Nov 16, 2011
    5
    Great graphics terrible game-play. not as fluid as call of duty but a great game in it's own right. maps are big and the game modes are great, but because im not usto the way the game plays i find myself dying a lot and not enjoying it.
  59. Nov 16, 2011
    6
    Decent.....not great just OKish. Anyone who says this is better than MW3 is stupid. Not nearly as fun and plain and simply a game for the sad people who only base thoughts on a game based upon the engines and crap. Not very fun but OK as a game
  60. Nov 20, 2011
    5
    I enjoyed this game but believe it needed a little more time to polish it overall. If this game came out with only multiplayer I would of given it a 8 but releasing this game with such a poor attempt at the single player is i'n excusable from dice and releasing the game with no tutorial to help with the online aspect is also a poor decision the amount of times i have seen people try and beI enjoyed this game but believe it needed a little more time to polish it overall. If this game came out with only multiplayer I would of given it a 8 but releasing this game with such a poor attempt at the single player is i'n excusable from dice and releasing the game with no tutorial to help with the online aspect is also a poor decision the amount of times i have seen people try and be a pilot with no idear what their doing is frustrating at best but mostly annoying Expand
  61. Nov 21, 2011
    5
    Online play is a blast due to everything being destructible but the single player mode is terrible. If I had to chose between this or MW3, I would go with the latter, simply due to the story and the extra game modes available.
  62. Nov 26, 2011
    5
    Graphics are good, Single player is trash, multiplayer is okay, if you like running across a huge map looking for the fight! Tanks are cool, Jeeps are cool, Jets are wack, Helicoptor is wack, controls are too awkward. People dis MW3 but run across a big map just to gun fight in a small space, just like MW3 lol.
  63. Dec 7, 2011
    7
    This game has plenty of potential, but limits itself by having a poor leaderboard design (plenty of cheaters atop as well) and very few game modes. The graphics are average at best and the hit system is a bit flawed. Campaign mode is a dissapointment, but that is sadly expected at this point in this modern FPS age. The co-op mode is short on missions, but a blast to play. If you mustThis game has plenty of potential, but limits itself by having a poor leaderboard design (plenty of cheaters atop as well) and very few game modes. The graphics are average at best and the hit system is a bit flawed. Campaign mode is a dissapointment, but that is sadly expected at this point in this modern FPS age. The co-op mode is short on missions, but a blast to play. If you must choose one FPS this year go with Battlefield 3. Expand
  64. Dec 18, 2011
    5
    This is a good game - for the most part. The graphics are excellent, the level of customization and things to earn and unlock are amazing, but its the little things that kill this game. From the network issues when playing either the campaign (I know right?) to the insistent "unable to connect to server please try again" when playing multiplayer are very frustrating when all I want to doThis is a good game - for the most part. The graphics are excellent, the level of customization and things to earn and unlock are amazing, but its the little things that kill this game. From the network issues when playing either the campaign (I know right?) to the insistent "unable to connect to server please try again" when playing multiplayer are very frustrating when all I want to do is blow stuff up. For me my biggest complaint is the lack of balance in the matches I mean who the heck wants to go against a level 45 (or higher) when your a level 12?! Not only are they superior to playing they have unlocked weapons that make yours look like a pea shooter. while yes you have the camp that claims this is a good thing, for the causal player it detracts from the enjoyability of the game. As a final note I am not a COD fanboy and played BF2 for a very long time and is a game I very much enjoyed. PROS:
    Graphics
    leveling system with lots of stuff to earn and unlock

    CONS:
    no balance system in the matches (level 1 vs level 45)
    network issues galore
    Expand
  65. Feb 13, 2012
    7
    a good game when it wants to be. Dice can make a great game but when it comes to ea's side of the bargain as usual they dont realise that bf needs a lot of memory, server space, servers and good quality servers. Something that games like NBA2K9 and fifa11 dont need. Not that they work on those games either. EA really should up their game and realise bf has the potential actual potential toa good game when it wants to be. Dice can make a great game but when it comes to ea's side of the bargain as usual they dont realise that bf needs a lot of memory, server space, servers and good quality servers. Something that games like NBA2K9 and fifa11 dont need. Not that they work on those games either. EA really should up their game and realise bf has the potential actual potential to kill cod but with an unfriendly interface and of course the **** online pass and having to manually install updates it really does seem like EA are trying to scrape any cent they can in exchange for user value and a supporting fan base something I dont admire. Expand
  66. Mar 7, 2012
    6
    Battle field 3 is fun game but it have stupid people playing it. When I am playing i am one wake island which was battle in world war 2. because i am fighting americans i am japanese so i decide to be like them historiclly and crash airplane into americans to win war. but people say not to do that even tough i tell them i am just being like real life japanese. then they ban me because theyBattle field 3 is fun game but it have stupid people playing it. When I am playing i am one wake island which was battle in world war 2. because i am fighting americans i am japanese so i decide to be like them historiclly and crash airplane into americans to win war. but people say not to do that even tough i tell them i am just being like real life japanese. then they ban me because they not understand histroy. this is fun game, i give it 9/10 if you play with smart people, otherwise 4/10, so 6 as compromise Expand
  67. Mar 21, 2012
    5
    I dont care much for the Battlefield multiplayer, but the campaign was decent solely because of the gameplay and the squad-based feel to the game.However, the ending blows and i wont be picking up the next one, just sayin.
  68. Nov 2, 2012
    6
    Single-Player: The first thing i noticed is the HUGE similarities to the plot of Black Ops. Although this did not bother me i thought it was worth noting. The gameplay is very generic. The story ends pathetically.

    Multiplayer: Although I did not play lots of it, it's worth noting that I found it not as fun as BFBC2. Other than that a nice Multiplayer suite with some Fun game-Modes.
  69. Feb 8, 2013
    7
    This was my first Battlefield game and I loved it at first then thinking it was significantly better than Call of Duty. As I played this game more and more, my opinion slowly changed about this game. Why? Well the campaign feels boring and I felt like DICE put a campaign in the game just to be there. Boring characters, basic objectives, and generic bad guys. The story just feels bland andThis was my first Battlefield game and I loved it at first then thinking it was significantly better than Call of Duty. As I played this game more and more, my opinion slowly changed about this game. Why? Well the campaign feels boring and I felt like DICE put a campaign in the game just to be there. Boring characters, basic objectives, and generic bad guys. The story just feels bland and really has no replay value. The Call of Duty campaign has more of a story than this. The controls feel very "clunky" and a bit confusing. I am so used to Halo and Call of Duty controls and I was hoping that Battlefield's controls will feel just as smooth. Many people might disagree with me on this one, but the graphics in the game look off. I can't really explain why, but something about the graphics does not look right. Last is I absolutely hate the mulitiplayer. The maps are too huge, and I am always confused what to do. The multiplayer is to complicated for me and it just ruins the experience for me. The reason why this game is a 7 is because the game isn't terrible and sometimes I find it entertaining. Maybe I am being hypercritical about this game because I am comparing it to two major franchises, Halo and Call of Duty. Even If I am grading it too harsh, I kinda expected the game to be a little different. Expand
  70. May 27, 2013
    7
    single player is ok but story is average graphics are awesome. Possibly one of best looking games on current gen and xbox. the mutiplayer where its at. dlc is stupid though
  71. Aug 22, 2013
    7
    Honestly, it'd be a pretty solid stretch to say that this game lived up to the ridiculous amount of hype that it received prior to its release, let alone living up to its name as a Battlefield sequel. I tried to review this game with as little bias as possible since I was an absolutely huge fan of Battlefield: Bad Company 2. While not exactly a direct sequel to Battlefield: Bad Company 2,Honestly, it'd be a pretty solid stretch to say that this game lived up to the ridiculous amount of hype that it received prior to its release, let alone living up to its name as a Battlefield sequel. I tried to review this game with as little bias as possible since I was an absolutely huge fan of Battlefield: Bad Company 2. While not exactly a direct sequel to Battlefield: Bad Company 2, using that as an excuse for why the game manages to fold in on itself in so many facets of gameplay is just stupid. To start, the single player campaign probably tops off as the new worst Battlefield campaign that I have ever played. If you've ever read my harsh review of Battlefield: Bad Company 2's single player, imagine that, but somehow setting an even lower bar. Maybe it's just difficult to make an interesting and entertaining single player campaign in military shooters and I just don't realize that. Regardless of the reason, calling the Battlefield 3 campaign atrocious would be an understatement, believe it or not. The campaign reeks of generic firefights and oozes with cliché on-rails sequences that fall under the "been-there, done that" category that the Call of Duty games have become known for. I would even make an exception if these on-rails sequences were any good, but the majority of them are uninspired and lack that "wow" factor that at least Call of Duty's sequences possess. In summary, you should not be buying Battlefield 3 for the offline aspect. Throughout all of the experiences of Battlefield 3, it seems as if DICE will shamelessly rip off anything COD-esque in an attempt to rally more fans to their cause. Because of this, Battlefield has lost a number of crucial elements that make a Battlefield game a Battlefield game, and I'm not just referring to the campaign, but I'll get to that. Battlefield 3 also introduces new cooperative missions that can be played with a buddy but as is the trend, is nothing more than a hodgepodge of ripped off missions from Modern Warfare's Spec Ops. They're only worthy of your time because they unlock new weapons to be used in the online multiplayer, which is always a good thing. Obviously, the online multiplayer is the meat and potatoes of the game, and fortunately for the most part, it manages to provide a solid experience. The sound effects still blow my mind with how incredibly realistic and intense a firefight on a Battlefield game can be. Running through a seemingly-deserted building with bullets whizzing past your head, gunfire echoing throughout, and the roar of helicopters and jets in a dogfight above can be intoxicating. Its moments like these that allows Battlefield 3 to really shine and create that certain addiction that can be had. The controls are as solid as a shooter can get and the weapons all feel impactful and exciting to use. However, despite these positives, there's a laundry list of flaws that the online possesses. One of which is the fact that players can now go prone, which another feature stolen from Call of Duty. The prone mechanic allows players to camp even easier now and with such huge maps, it can be difficult to pinpoint that guy that just keeps sniping at you from underneath a bush. The mechanic has no place in this style of multiplayer and simply results in tarnishing the experience. It seems as if the entire online caters to lesser-skilled players. Map designs this time around seem to encourage camping and the refusal to pursue objectives during game modes such as my favorite, Rush, is rampant. Vehicle hording is as strong as ever, with many players simply waiting around for certain vehicles to respawn. DICE has also made it much more difficult this time around to destroy vehicles, with tanks being able to absorb 5 or so RPG rounds for exploding. Not to mention that you can only choose 1 of 3 types of anti-vehicle rocket launchers, making it even more challenging to down that pesky kid constantly flying around in an assault chopper. Camping as also been made significantly easier due to certain new additions in equipment. In an attempt to nickel and dime in the way that COD's Elite system does, DICE allows players to "rent" servers for a fee and alter the rules and settings to their liking. This would be totally fine if not for the fact that when joining games, you are thrown into one of these altered lobbies 99% of the time. In fact, I have not played a DICE server in weeks. You can "favorite" certain servers and rejoin later but it seems like every time that I attempt to rejoin a server, there's never anybody in it. Buying the online DLC gives players cheap and unbalanced weapons, which definitely hurts the experience as well. Overall, the Battlefield experience online is alive and well. While I still have a blast with it (occasionally), it's difficult for me to whole-heartedly recommend a game that seems to cater directly to players who insist on camping. However, if you're a Battlefield fan, it'd still be hard to go wrong with a purchase. Expand
  72. Feb 7, 2013
    7
    Summing this game up is difficult, as part of it is glorious while the other parts are frankly disappointing. Firstly the most disappointing aspect was EA marketing campaign, they embarrassed themselves with some churlish war of words with Activision over a series EA foolishly copied in it's single player and co-op modes. I wouldn't mind if EA had a more innovative single player to tauntSumming this game up is difficult, as part of it is glorious while the other parts are frankly disappointing. Firstly the most disappointing aspect was EA marketing campaign, they embarrassed themselves with some churlish war of words with Activision over a series EA foolishly copied in it's single player and co-op modes. I wouldn't mind if EA had a more innovative single player to taunt Activision with, but alas both the single/co-op modes were pathetic COD clones, even down to the imperialistic Western tones. However the mulitplayer is where Battlefield has and will always excel at, truly the best multiplayer experience I've had since UT2004 and GOW1. The various modes, free dlc if you have the limited edition, steep but highly enjoyable learning curves makes this multiplayer game of legendary status. BUT EA once again sought greed by inserting the money making rent a server, thus leaving many p***ed as endless players got booted from matches for no reason, or games ended early due to hosts being spoilt brats. Thankfully EA restored the DICE servers due to fan anger, however that cheeky move along with the inferior COD clone single/co-op modes makes the overall package a seven! Expand
  73. Feb 21, 2012
    7
    First of all, I prefer Battlefield to Call of Duty. I haven't even tested Modern Warfare 3 so I can't compare this game to it but I know that Battlefield 3 fits better to me. But the game isn't in my honest opinion that awesome as many seems to say. No, this is not the best FPS ever but no, this is neither the worst. The game is actually decent. Multiplayer is excellent at the best. It'sFirst of all, I prefer Battlefield to Call of Duty. I haven't even tested Modern Warfare 3 so I can't compare this game to it but I know that Battlefield 3 fits better to me. But the game isn't in my honest opinion that awesome as many seems to say. No, this is not the best FPS ever but no, this is neither the worst. The game is actually decent. Multiplayer is excellent at the best. It's hard to describe the positive sides of the multiplayer. All I can say that when you can form a good four-man-squad you'll get a ton of fun. Vehicles are lovely as always- Negative side is easier. Some of the maps are boring and at least one of the is just bad. Operation Metro map is something I despise. It's a long pipe and it doesn't fit in the game. The menus are complicated but most of all, dying is annoying. Yes, I understand that dying is part of the game and that's not really what I'm aiming for. The point is that when you die you have to watch almost forever that kill cam(word I learned from CoD omg). It's not even a killcam as it doesn't show the kill. It just shows the killer running around the map. The time you're waiting for respawning could've been used for changing kits and weapons. Oh and you still can't leave the server between rounds.

    Singleplayer and co-op. I probably shouldn't talk about them as Battlefield series have always been a multiplayer franchise. But because they're part of the game, they're part of the review. Let's just say that the campaign is just well dry. There's really nothing to grip. I don't know if the player is supposed to care about the characters but at least I didn't. The campaign consists of series of random missions and honestly, sometimes I didn't even understand how they were part of the game. It's like DICE tried to squeeze everything into the campaign. Though I admit that the jet mission was kinda cool even though it was pointless. Co-Op wasn't that interesting either. Haven't been able to complete it actually since my buddy got tired of it too. Good thing is that you can play co-op with random people.

    All in all, Battlefield 3 is a decent game. It's nothing extraordinary but a Battlefield fan should definitely at least give it a try.
    Expand
  74. May 11, 2012
    7
    I'm bumping my review up to an 7, because I'm kind of enjoying it now, but my complaints stay the same. The campaign is short and dull. There are still way to many glitches left over from a late beta. The trailers were obviously PC graphics, even though they denied it. The graphics on the 360 seems to be just barely better than Bad Company 2. Still pixely, still have to squint to look farI'm bumping my review up to an 7, because I'm kind of enjoying it now, but my complaints stay the same. The campaign is short and dull. There are still way to many glitches left over from a late beta. The trailers were obviously PC graphics, even though they denied it. The graphics on the 360 seems to be just barely better than Bad Company 2. Still pixely, still have to squint to look far away. MW2 looks better. Though is does feel like it controls a lot better... (Feels more like COD, but not quite) It still feels glitchy and erratic like Bad Company. I know that this is a different story and series than Bad Company, but it just feels like Bad Company 2.5, which isn't always a bad thing. The menus suck and are full of glitches. Joining a squad is glitchy as well. This game gets a 7, one higher than the last Battlefield. Expand
  75. Jan 6, 2012
    7
    Battlefield 3 lived up to my expectations for about 2 weeks, then I found myself done with it, even after the Back to Karkand expansion. As a Battlefield 2 veteran, I was hoping for a game that was Battlefield 2, with improvements and revolutionized Battlefield the series. It only delivered to the latter, and I can't say for the better, but for the new. In other words: If your new toBattlefield 3 lived up to my expectations for about 2 weeks, then I found myself done with it, even after the Back to Karkand expansion. As a Battlefield 2 veteran, I was hoping for a game that was Battlefield 2, with improvements and revolutionized Battlefield the series. It only delivered to the latter, and I can't say for the better, but for the new. In other words: If your new to the series, you may or may not enjoy this game; it depends if you give it a chance. But BF3 still suffers from BC2s biggest flaw... it's hell playing this by yourself, and zero to no fun. Expand
  76. Mar 19, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. A Very Decent Game. The Campaign was very boring and very short , The only good thing about the Campaign is the graphics. Also It is very glitchy.

    Multiplayer is good but the maps are, in my opinon far too big. The Vehicles are fun and the graphics are amazing. One problem is the number of players and with maps that big there is not that much going
    Expand
  77. Dec 6, 2012
    5
    I could go on and on about the numerous flaws in this game, but suffice it to say I should have known better than buying yet another mediocre game from EA. Everything they touch nowadays seems average at best.
  78. Nov 10, 2011
    7
    Battlefield 3 on overall is a decent shooter. It's Frostbite 2.0 engine runs great and the graphics are most impressive but the game lacks power of the campaign. Battlefield is a great game but the story is cliche. It may deliver good voice acting and good gameplay but not as interesting like other shooters. The multiplayer is the best of the package. There is going to be a large communityBattlefield 3 on overall is a decent shooter. It's Frostbite 2.0 engine runs great and the graphics are most impressive but the game lacks power of the campaign. Battlefield is a great game but the story is cliche. It may deliver good voice acting and good gameplay but not as interesting like other shooters. The multiplayer is the best of the package. There is going to be a large community evolving over it's multiplayer for quite a long time and the game plays well. The disappointment is the glitches that occur during the game and some missions in the single player are boring at times. The graphics though are Fantastic. The engine runs well with the sounds and visuals and is basically sometimes the reason why people buy this game. If you want a strong multiplayer then grab a copy, but if you want it for the single player experience then it is recommended to buy a game like Crysis 2 or Call of Duty because it lacks in entertainment. Expand
  79. 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
  80. Nov 14, 2011
    7
    Having been very open minded about both this game and MW3. I've bought both games and racked up some hours on them. Neither seems to do much different from their predecessors, however isn't this what you would expect from a sequel?! My general conclusion over BF3 is that is has actually taken a step backward form BF2. Some serious updates are needed to sort out the clipping issues and aHaving been very open minded about both this game and MW3. I've bought both games and racked up some hours on them. Neither seems to do much different from their predecessors, however isn't this what you would expect from a sequel?! My general conclusion over BF3 is that is has actually taken a step backward form BF2. Some serious updates are needed to sort out the clipping issues and a few other big flaws. The overall feel of the game is fun and the epic maps are entertaining but there is just a distinct lack of satisfaction throughout the game. This is without going into the general uselessness of the planes until you have levelled them up, or the torches on everyones gun that will blind you in broad daylight if the enemy so much as looks in your general direction. I will be prepared to resubmit my opinion on this game after a few updates but until then I'm going to have to stick with the highly polished, action packed fun I get from MW3 and GoW3. MW may be a re-bake of an existing recipe but if it isn't broken, don't fix it, and straight out the box both MW and GoW deliver on every level. Expand
  81. Nov 20, 2011
    7
    Okay where to start. The campaign is average at best, but I don't play these games for the campaign. Multiplayer plays just like BF2 but there is now prone. Graphics are way overhyped for consoles, but from what I'm seeing online the PC graphics are extreme! I enjoy BF3 but I like playing MW3 more.
  82. Dec 15, 2011
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This game was meant for the PC. if i could give this rating a 7.5 i would. when your buying the 360 or PS3 version your just buying down a stale watered down version of the PC version. What i mean by that is the maps on Consoles have been reduced in size, vehicles, and of course the big let down in my opinion, the 24 soldier count in the games. The Conquest on some maps (say Caspian border for example) is too big for the 24 soldier count, and the soldiers a spread too thin. The leader boards may have a top of 10 to 12 kills at the most for the top player which is very uneventful for a BF game. but this is only for Conquest. there are still other game modes. Rush is the one i mainly play on 360 because the maps are not as large and there is two objectives close to eachother everyone goes to, too destroy and defend, which is alot better and more fun since all they players are closer together. The game is well balanced in my opinion, and i have had no problem with servers or lag (except on release day but hey its EA what did you expect?) overall i think this game was made mainly for the PC and MAINLY for multiplayer. The campaign isnt terrible, but compared to the Bad Company campaigns was not very pleasing, considering that those had characters you tend to grow on, considering they had actual LINES and some of them humorous. BF3 campaign you barely got to know the characters, and when they passed away (SPOILER) you felt no sympathy and shrugged them off. But in my opinion BF3 was made for multiplayer, and was made for the pc. if this was a PC review i would give a 9/10 but sadly, it isnt. Expand
  83. Dec 30, 2011
    6
    To start this off it is valid to take into account the actions that occurred before the games release. In conversation between the publisher of Battlefield 3, EA, and the publisher for COD, Activision, EA rammed it down Activision's throat that Battlefield 3 was going to be in every way superior to MW3, and they made nothing but a huge deal about that. I without a doubt can say thatTo start this off it is valid to take into account the actions that occurred before the games release. In conversation between the publisher of Battlefield 3, EA, and the publisher for COD, Activision, EA rammed it down Activision's throat that Battlefield 3 was going to be in every way superior to MW3, and they made nothing but a huge deal about that. I without a doubt can say that Battlefield 3 is NOT superior to MW3. This is not my opinion, this is the honest truth, and I will tell you how:
    Starting with the campaign. Without spoiling any of the story I can safely say that the storyline is nearly exactly the same as COD: Black Ops. The actual missions of the game are recollections of the protagonist who is being interrogated, and revolves around stopping some sort of terror like attack on the United States but instead of being a biological weapon in Black Ops, its a nuke. On top of that, the game play of the campaign mode is extremely similar to COD, but with one giant drawback: In COD, you are essentially a "tank." You can take massive damage without dying, even on the hardest difficulty, because of the large scale, epic feeling of the games. Because of the realist Battlefield goes for, you die very quickly. There will be times when you try to play a level and you will die repeatedly due to stray bullets and such. Even on the easier difficulties, there will be times when the game is unforgivably difficult. Moving on to the co-op of the game. All I really have to say about this is its COD:MW3 Spec. ops but entirely co-op. It was tacked on because MW3 had it. End of story.
    Now while these points do hurt Battlefield, DICE should be congratulated on their multiplayer. As with prior Battlefield multiplayer, the maps are big, and enjoyable, and while they are not exactly catering to the casual audience due to the learning curve of the game, if the individual is willing to put the time in they will enjoy it a lot more. Because EA's comments I can't give Battlefield 3 higher then a 6. At its core, Battlefield 3 is a multiplayer game. There will not be anyone who jumps at this game for the campaign, that's a fact. The question is, is the multiplayer, with a tacked on campaign, and co-op good enough to warrant a $60 price tag? Nope. In no way does it warrant that price. Being a long time fan of Battlefield's multiplayer I wish I could give this game a 7 at least, but because of EA's big mouth, and their false promises I have to lower my score. A 6 is the best it gets when all I get is good multiplayer, tacked on extras to say they have it when MW3 has it, and the smack talk to Activision.
    Expand
  84. Dec 29, 2011
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I would like to note that my opinion is based on single player ONLY. I went into the game with a positive outlook, as a fan of the MW series I decided to try out this game because of how popular it was... in short, the single player is severely lacking... nukes? really... I thought this was Battlefield not MW1... as the Game that was supposedly going to dethrone Call of Duty, this game falls short by a by a long shot... EA I know you can do better than this... in terms of story line, save the $60 for something else you won't find it here, in fact use the money to buy Call of Duty MW1, it plays better and the story actually makes sense to the player. Expand
  85. Jan 27, 2012
    7
    I decided to give this a 7 as an average for the two scores.

    I decided to give the campaign a 4. It was really short. IT was really linear. I had fun with it when I played it the first time. The second time I realized how dull it was. Not worth it if you don't have Live. Basically Modern Warfare 1 with better graphics. Al- Bashir is Al Asad. The multiplayer is a 9. And Yes I'm aware that
    I decided to give this a 7 as an average for the two scores.

    I decided to give the campaign a 4. It was really short. IT was really linear. I had fun with it when I played it the first time. The second time I realized how dull it was. Not worth it if you don't have Live. Basically Modern Warfare 1 with better graphics. Al- Bashir is Al Asad. The multiplayer is a 9. And Yes I'm aware that 9 + 4 is 13. I like the multiplayer, it is nearly perfect, it is completely refined, and has a lot of choice on how to implement strategy. My only real complaint is the jets. They are completely unfair. First of all its like impossible to get kills with the main guns, and that's the only way to get the way's to defend yourself with IR flares. And if the enemy has missiles, well then your screwed if your a vehicle, because there's no way to kill a jet, especially if they have IR flares. So I think Jets were a mistake.
    Expand
  86. Feb 4, 2012
    6
    It's a good game, the online battles require more strategy than MW3 and the maps are much larger and the competition is better (all things I like). Where the game is lacking is in the interface. You can't exit the game lobby between rounds, you can't view the challenges in a readable way between rounds and you can't change your loadout between rounds. There's no guarantee your partyIt's a good game, the online battles require more strategy than MW3 and the maps are much larger and the competition is better (all things I like). Where the game is lacking is in the interface. You can't exit the game lobby between rounds, you can't view the challenges in a readable way between rounds and you can't change your loadout between rounds. There's no guarantee your party members will be on the same team as you and you can't see what map the part leader is choosing (minor issue but nice feature if possible), it's nearly impossible to add someone to your battlelog as the website it sends you to has no search feature (but it tells you to use it to find your friends) and the featured player has been the same guy for months. Also, the game comes with no manual and the couple times I tried to use the online manual link in the game, it didn't work. I just got the game 3 weeks ago and kind of figured bugs like this would have been worked out by now. Expand
  87. Feb 15, 2012
    5
    Battlefield could be, by far, the best FPS I played IF DICE/EA gave us everything they promissed. Come on? 4 months and we still can't play with our friends.. we setup a SQUAD before the match, get into a game only to find that half of our squad is on the other TEAM. I would even try to understand if this kind of thing happened by using the "Server Browser" because they just tell you howBattlefield could be, by far, the best FPS I played IF DICE/EA gave us everything they promissed. Come on? 4 months and we still can't play with our friends.. we setup a SQUAD before the match, get into a game only to find that half of our squad is on the other TEAM. I would even try to understand if this kind of thing happened by using the "Server Browser" because they just tell you how many vacant spots a certain server have but never tell you if they are on the same team but using the QUICK MATCH this is unacceptable. Not to mention the random "Bad Luck" kills. Not asking for much... don't care about OP or weak weapons and all. I just wanna play with my friends... think you could do it? Battlefield:BC2 had this right. How can you screw up on this one? Expand
  88. Mar 20, 2012
    7
    When I feel like playing an arcade version of a war shooter, I play MW3. When I want to play a simulation, I play Battlefield 3. It provides a much more immersive experience then the Call of Duty series. It would be a perfect 10/10 if not for the absolutely boring and horrendous single player campaign.
  89. Mar 16, 2012
    7
    Battlefield 3 is a rather entertaining and well put-together game, but when compared to Battlefield 2, or even Bad Company 2, it feels empty, and a bit padded. The maps have, dare I say, grown TOO large. There have always been large maps and small maps, but now it seems like large maps are all that remain, and the game has a huge emphasis on vehicle warfare to the point where almost noBattlefield 3 is a rather entertaining and well put-together game, but when compared to Battlefield 2, or even Bad Company 2, it feels empty, and a bit padded. The maps have, dare I say, grown TOO large. There have always been large maps and small maps, but now it seems like large maps are all that remain, and the game has a huge emphasis on vehicle warfare to the point where almost no class has any chance against vehicles. In my opinion they were well balanced in Battlefield 3 and Bad Company 2, but with the addition of even more upgrades to them, they have become the be-all end-all in combat.

    The single player is bland, and feels remarkably similar to the single play of Call of Duty: Black Ops, simply brought into Modern Day. It's fine while it lasts, but it feels like the campaign overall goes nowhere, and even though the stakes are high, they never really feel that way. Really, it's just a series of walking down corridors and shooting faceless foes with whatever gun they stick you with.

    The co-op is a fun distraction, but like the single player, it doesn't last. A player with a friend can probably beat them all on the hardest difficulty in a day, or maybe two, and get everything it has to offer.

    Battlefield 3 is fun, but it still feels like DICE has a lot of work to do regarding balancing and features. At this point in time it seems like they're in a mad rush to compete with Call of Duty, rather than make their own, truly original and fresh game.
    Expand
  90. Mar 24, 2012
    7
    One of the most addictive on-line games I have ever played at one end, and completely shallow campaign and buggy co-op mode on other. Not what was advertised. Incredible realistic sound effects and quite ugly visuals with low resolution textures. You should decide by yourself - I quite frankly like it, but on technology front it's step back - just compare Frostbite/Battlefield withOne of the most addictive on-line games I have ever played at one end, and completely shallow campaign and buggy co-op mode on other. Not what was advertised. Incredible realistic sound effects and quite ugly visuals with low resolution textures. You should decide by yourself - I quite frankly like it, but on technology front it's step back - just compare Frostbite/Battlefield with CryEngine/Crysis 2 on Xbox 360.. Expand
  91. May 5, 2012
    7
    Well, Battlefield was always my favorite FPS, always bringing something new, but this one was just to confront Call of Duty. Same airplane stuff, same action videos, same interrogate now to play the past as black ops, sniper stuffs and many others, and the worst, has not a self bright, just look like any other shooter.
  92. Feb 21, 2013
    6
    Great graphics but nothing special. A letdown cuz I bought into the hype.
  93. Jun 17, 2012
    7
    Enjoyable game. Way better than call of duty. Instead of run and shoot, you actually have to traverse the land, and be carefull. Great graphics, and animations. Has balancing issues, and can rage easy, but there is soooo much content in the multiplayer. Single player is fairly good as well.
  94. Aug 13, 2012
    6
    Make no mistake, Battlefield 3 on a console is a fairly decent game, but I would advise not to buy it. There are better and cheaper games out there which offer the same fun without BF3 faults. Not the least its own predecessor Battlefield Bad Company 2. Let me name a few problems I had with the game.

    The singleplayer campaign is just plain bad. Boring, predictable, over the top, nuclear
    Make no mistake, Battlefield 3 on a console is a fairly decent game, but I would advise not to buy it. There are better and cheaper games out there which offer the same fun without BF3 faults. Not the least its own predecessor Battlefield Bad Company 2. Let me name a few problems I had with the game.

    The singleplayer campaign is just plain bad. Boring, predictable, over the top, nuclear terrorists, run for your lives, everything seen in other game before. The singleplayer dvd disc in the box is just a waste of the space and money and can be safely skipped altogether.

    On to multiplayer. Gameplay is fast, more like in a Call of Duty series games which for me is not a good thing. Especially with the Close Quarters map pack installed the difference between MW3 and BF3 is hardly there anymore. In larger maps balance of power is heavily skewed towards vehicular combat. Gone are the days when a single player had a chance against a tank or a heli. Also gone are the days of fully destructible buildings. Some walls will stand no matter how much punishment is dealt to them. More choice does not mean better choice
    Expand
  95. Sep 13, 2012
    5
    Online pass, Premium account, map packs *only* for Premium players...How much cash you need EA ?? don't get me wrong is a Great game. Excellent graphics, excellent game play... etc. but the online community is divided. In one side you have all the Premium players going around servers showing off, and in the other side you have the 2nd class citizens that only have a * online pass* and canOnline pass, Premium account, map packs *only* for Premium players...How much cash you need EA ?? don't get me wrong is a Great game. Excellent graphics, excellent game play... etc. but the online community is divided. In one side you have all the Premium players going around servers showing off, and in the other side you have the 2nd class citizens that only have a * online pass* and can only play in specific servers. This game should be in my eyes a 10 out of 10 game.. but I can't agree with what they done to the multyplayer community. Far far to greedy EA!! Expand
  96. Oct 16, 2012
    7
    If this review was based on the single player campaign then it would get a much lower score, i can't even bring myself to finish it because it is so generic and boring. Single player aside.... The multiplayer is the star of the show, the maps are huge, there are tuns of guns to choose from and the gameplay is addictive fun, if you are looking for an alternative to call of duty thenIf this review was based on the single player campaign then it would get a much lower score, i can't even bring myself to finish it because it is so generic and boring. Single player aside.... The multiplayer is the star of the show, the maps are huge, there are tuns of guns to choose from and the gameplay is addictive fun, if you are looking for an alternative to call of duty then Battlefield 3 may just be the answer. Expand
  97. Jan 31, 2014
    7
    Best action and online multiplayer. Awesome engine creates uninprecedented levels. The co-op is intense. But the game's campaign? It's basic. All in all you should buy this game
  98. Dec 22, 2012
    6
    "The most you'll get out of Battlefield 3 is its complex multiplayer that feels better design for PC." All other modes fall flat. Campaign is short, repetitive, and filled with unnecessary quick time events. It has a nice idea for a story but it was soft of poorly executed. Despite that, the campaign does have a great presentation in atmosphere but that's about it. Battlefield 3 also"The most you'll get out of Battlefield 3 is its complex multiplayer that feels better design for PC." All other modes fall flat. Campaign is short, repetitive, and filled with unnecessary quick time events. It has a nice idea for a story but it was soft of poorly executed. Despite that, the campaign does have a great presentation in atmosphere but that's about it. Battlefield 3 also includes co-op but its only online co-op with up to 6 short missions. The real meat and effort put into battlefield 3 is the multiplayer and the improvements with the in the new Frostbite 2 engine makes Battlefield 3 the most advance FPS I know. The multiplayer comes with 9 huge maps and 3 major modes. Some of the maps are not half bad but there not design well on the consoles of the amount of 24 players. There are a few maps that work greatly on the consoles and I had the most fun with them. There are 4 classes to choose from, any time in-game with each having there own Ups and Downs in combat. I found the class system decently balance but a little overwhelming for the console versions. You are pretty limited what you could do in a class due to the selection of gadgets. Battlefield 3 rewards team work and the lack team work with-in team mates and be frustrating and can ruin you experiences with out the right squad mates. The last thing I thing should mention is the new update to Rent a sever and this comes with a positive and negative side. People can rent severs and custom how they see fit in all versions. Because of this, Dice/EA feel that they don't need to put there own severs up anymore forcing the player to player setting severs. This means rules can be force unfairly sometimes and game settings could last hours then normal. Overall, the only real reason you should get Battlefield 3 is for its multiplayer and that alone isn't worth the $60. Its worse so with Rent a sever since now Dice/EA isn't paying to put up hardly any severs. Its hard to suggest a rent so I would agree to get Battlefield 3 with a price under $40-$30 or with the premium DLC package for $60. Expand
  99. Feb 27, 2013
    7
    It's not a perfect package but an EXTREMELY fun one...most of the time. The campaign is cliche, dull, and has nothing that draws you in, though frankly I doubt people came for it: it's all about the multiplayer. Which is where it shines. It's addicting not in the simple pleasure MW way, which frankly doesn't work for too long, but in the way that it's fantastically made and beautifullyIt's not a perfect package but an EXTREMELY fun one...most of the time. The campaign is cliche, dull, and has nothing that draws you in, though frankly I doubt people came for it: it's all about the multiplayer. Which is where it shines. It's addicting not in the simple pleasure MW way, which frankly doesn't work for too long, but in the way that it's fantastically made and beautifully crafted for hardcore but even still for the lighter gamers....but this is where it starts to crumble, just slightly. Campers, thinkers, and long time gamers equipped with the best leave little room for newcomers, until they've gotten a little experience under their belt and quit gaming and start thinking. In short it can be harsh, occasionally unforgiving. But when you're able to make your own in a match it pulls off spectacularly and to feel empowered. Expand
  100. Nov 16, 2012
    7
    Can't believe people love this but hate Call of Duty, this game's singleplayer is easily the worst FPS campaign of the gen it's so boring I wanted to turn the gun on myself. Next, the multiplayer it's fun for awhile but the maps are too big for the 24 players so it gets boring. Co-op missions were nice but there should be more.
Metascore
84

Generally favorable reviews - based on 57 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 53 out of 57
  2. Negative: 0 out of 57
  1. Feb 25, 2012
    91
    If you're looking for a great single player campaign you're out of luck, rent BF3 or pick it up in the bargain bin. If you're looking for the best online multiplayer action then BF3 is your game hands down.
  2. Jan 24, 2012
    90
    While Battlefield 3 was aiming to be the biggest name this holiday season, and while it has made strides towards knocking off Modern Warfare 3, it misses the mark. That's not to say it is a bad game, it's a very good one, but the polish and excitement that is found on the Call of Duty series feels missing here. Still, there are much worse games you could end up with this holiday season, and the competition between the two series should heat up significantly in the next few years.
  3. Jan 3, 2012
    90
    This experience alone sums up what Battlefield 3 is about. It isn't a John Rambo run and gun shooter and it shouldn't really be compared to MW3 in terms of how you play it. For players to truly understand the Battlefield experience you need to embrace the teamwork by joining a squad and calling out your spotted enemies, as after all, sometimes you also need your back covered too.