Battlefield 3 Reviews

[Gothams Finest]

The first Battlefield 3 reviews have been released.

I'll post the link to metacritic, its easier then linking all the individual sites.
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/battlefield-3

So what are your opinions on the reviews?

To me it sounds like there are a lot of bugs that need to be ironed out with patches (Which is what I was expecting anyway)

The single player sounds very disappointing

IGN -"Battlefield 3's campaign does hit some memorable moments (especially in the graphics department), but as a whole it's trite and frustrating. The campaign jams Battlefield 3's multiplayer into a linear box where freedom of choice gets thrown out a non-destructible window. There are only a few buildings to blow holes in, barely any vehicles to take the wheel of, and quicktime events adorn enemy encounters in almost every level".

Joystiq - "Battlefield 3's campaign isn't just a straight line, it's tactically linear. Firefights almost always unfold the same way. This is partly due to enemy AI that often seems stuck to a six foot leash from where they initially appear, but it goes deeper than that. For all the talk of destruction and immersion, Battlefield 3's campaign is a step backward from the manic calamity of Bad Company 2. There's no more blowing holes through walls to make an alternate route. Environmental destruction is cosmetic or scripted."


I'm really gutted, after watching the single player trailers I was expecting Battlefield 3 single player to be something really special.

But on the bright side it sounds like a solid multiplayer as always.

 

[cats_Paw]

http://www.techpowerup.com/153950/Battlefield-3-EA-Allegedly-Tried-Filtering-Reviewers.html

One reason for me to wait before buying.

 

[Gothams Finest]

This isn't very surprising. A lot of companies do it, not just EA.

 

[cats_Paw]

Yep, then they are angry about piracy . It sort of gives you more satisfaction NOT TO buy their games .

 

[Gothams Finest]

I don't think Battlefield 3 is going be a day 1 purchase for me anymore. I'm going to be sticking with Bad Comapny 2 for a while longer until patches are released and also wait for a more multiplayer oriented review to find out how balanced the multiplayer is etc etc.

I definitely won't be buying it for the single player anymore, so the multiplayer needs to be extra special.

It's ridiculous the lack of destruction in both single and multiplayer, and how the single player has become a Call of Duty clone with quick time events, linear missions, little destruction and worse of all infinite enemy respawn! You expect those kind of things from Call of Duty which makes it more acceptable because Call of Duty has always been like that but not Battlefied.

 

[casualcolors]

If you've spent any amount of time playing Battlefield games, you should know by now to not expect much from the single player campaigns. This series is oriented toward multiplayer almost exclusively.

I'm not sure what is meant by "ridiculous lack of destruction in multiplayer" since no review said anything about multiplayer and were referring exclusively to the single player campaign, and actually playing the beta revealed more likelihood to die from environmental destruction than in BFBC2 by far (stage 3 metro in particular).

 

[Gothams Finest]

Well I disagree mate. During the promotional videos showing off the SINGLE player EA and DICE were saying different.

They were trying to build peoples expectations of the single player, hyping it up, not something they would do if the game was "oriented toward multiplayer almost exclusively".

Bad company 1 and 2had great single player campaigns and did not have any of the bad things that Battlefield 3 has (quick time events, linear missions, little destruction, infinite enemy respawn)

 

[rocky41]

What is the problem with you people??
The review has got universal acclaim and still you think you wont be buying it, then you people are going to miss the real fun of the game, just look into every review it has been described as the best multiplayer experience for a long time. So if you don't want to buy it keep it in yourself and don't mislead others because i have played beta and it was awesome and there is no need to call it Call of Duty clone when you have not yet tasted the game, play the game and then post what you have experienced.

 

[Gothams Finest]

I'm not sure what is meant by "ridiculous lack of destruction in multiplayer" since no review said anything about multiplayer and were referring exclusively to the single player campaign

Have you not read any reviews? Lots of reviews, no, infact all all of the reviews have talked about the multiplayer.

Here is one example

Joystiq - "There is less destruction than I had hoped, though. It's not Bad Company 2, and levels won't start out intact and end looking like the surface of the moon the way they often did in that game. You might get a little wistful when you find walls you can't put a rocket through"

This is written in the multiplayer section of the review.

 

[Gothams Finest]

What is the problem with you people??
The review has got universal acclaim and still you think you wont be buying it, then you people are going to miss the real fun of the game, just look into every review it has been described as the best multiplayer experience for a long time. So if you don't want to buy it keep it in yourself and don't mislead others because i have played beta and it was awesome and there is no need to call it Call of Duty clone when you have not yet tasted the game, play the game and then post what you have experienced.

Please learn to read.

I pressume when you say "What is the problem with you people?" you mean people who aren't fan boys.

What is the problem with people like you not been able to accept other peoples opinion?

I was talking about the single player as a Call of Duty clone not the multiplayer (as most reviews have said as well) I for one will not be buying the game for the single player....so the multiplayer has to be amazing.

when you have not yet tasted the game, play the game and then post what you have experienced.

This applies to you too.

because i have played beta

So have a lot of people including me.

So if you don't want to buy it keep it in yourself and don't mislead others

So your saying people shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinion? and seriously if some one wants to find out about a game they go read reviews...reviews that are saying what I'm saying.

I find it funny how people take criticism on a game personally.

 

[rocky41]

Well i am disappointed by the way have started this thread. I saw the review before itself on metacritic and i liked the way everyone have given their score and almost everyone have loved the game and considered it the best multiplayer experience after a long time and that's what i need too and by the way i am not a fan boy i have played Call of duty more than i had played BF series.

And by the way you want the game for multiplayer and you are criticizing its single player campaign and did you read by yourself what they have wrote about the multiplayer ???

Well if the reviews were bad why have they provided it universal acclaim??
This game has got good score from every where and everyone has recommended it to buy and you took those review to voice your opinion that game is not so good.

Game Informer- "Multiplayer maintains the high level of quality DICE is known for, and the campaign is the best in franchise history"

BigPond GameArena- "Battlefield 3 has a decent singleplayer - it's certainly better than some other games I've played recently - but it's not mind-blowing. If it's the best multiplayer game in the world that you're after, get your affairs in order"

GameTrailers- "The coop missions are a nice addition, and to be fair, the single-player is the best in series history"

Everyeye.it- "This is war. This is what we FPS fans have longed for for years."

Everything is from metacritic.

Look people have their expectations and you are trying to destroy it some way.

Most of us want the game for its multiplayer and this is what they have been known for and DICE has provided us the best multiplayer experience.

"So you wanted the game for its multiplayer and you are not getting it because BF 3 has a linear singleplayer"

It seems weird to me. Well enough said by the way. I am getting my copy tomorrow and i am so excited!!!!!!!!

 

[casualcolors]

Well I disagree mate. During the promotional videos showing off the SINGLE player EA and DICE were saying different.

They were trying to build peoples expectations of the single player, hyping it up, not something they would do if the game was "oriented toward multiplayer almost exclusively".

Bad company 1 and 2had great single player campaigns and did not have any of the bad things that Battlefield 3 has (quick time events, linear missions, little destruction, infinite enemy respawn)

What can I say. If you watched a trailer for a battlefield single player campaign and thought the campaign would be good, you haven't been in battlefield games for long =/.

As for the review about levels looking like the moon after the match is over, that reviewer is overlooking the fact that BFBC2's maps that get heavily destroyed during combat are the smaller maps with smaller structures. These same kinds of structures can also be destroyed in BF3 along with the ground, which can't be impacted in bad company 2. Anyone logging in to caspian border and expecting it to look like arica harbor after a good match, is probably forgetting that caspian border's BFBC2 equivalent is Heavy Metal, a map that finishes the game looking similarly pristine as when it began.

Not surprisingly I think a lot of reviewers who don't actually play much of bad company 2, read about destructible environments in BF3 and got the wrong impression. So did a lot of players I guess.

I have to agree with Rocky, you don't actually seem to have read many of the reviews yourself and are coming off as desperately contrarian.

 

[Gothams Finest]

If you can't accept other peoples opinions please do not post here, because the way its carrying on this thread is going to get closed.

This thread was to put my opinion out there on the reviews, NOT the game, and I wanted to hear what other peoples opnions were on the reviews, and you have acted very ignorant. Your defending a game like its your own mother. Stop taking my opinion personal.

And by the way you want the game for multiplayer and you are criticizing its single player campaign and did you read by yourself what they have wrote about the multiplayer ???

Yes, I have read lots of reviews, hence why I made this thread.

Actually I wanted this game for BOTH the single player and the multiplayer, but after reading the reviews I shall not be buying it for the single player...I will only be buying it for the multiplayer. What is so hard to understand?

Well if the reviews were bad why have they provided it universal acclaim??

I have never once said the reviews were bad BUT there is ALOT of critisism about the single player. That is what I am talking about.

Look people have their expectations and you are trying to destroy it some way.

How am I trying to destroy peoples expectations, this is just my opinion.

Stop taking comments about a game review personally, I am only repeating what the reviewers have said.

 

[Gothams Finest]

The first Battlefield 3 reviews have been released.

I'll post the link to metacritic, its easier then linking all the individual sites.
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/battlefield-3

So what are your opinions on the reviews?

To me it sounds like there are a lot of bugs that need to be ironed out with patches (Which is what I was expecting anyway)

The single player sounds very disappointing

IGN -"Battlefield 3's campaign does hit some memorable moments (especially in the graphics department), but as a whole it's trite and frustrating. The campaign jams Battlefield 3's multiplayer into a linear box where freedom of choice gets thrown out a non-destructible window. There are only a few buildings to blow holes in, barely any vehicles to take the wheel of, and quicktime events adorn enemy encounters in almost every level".

Joystiq - "Battlefield 3's campaign isn't just a straight line, it's tactically linear. Firefights almost always unfold the same way. This is partly due to enemy AI that often seems stuck to a six foot leash from where they initially appear, but it goes deeper than that. For all the talk of destruction and immersion, Battlefield 3's campaign is a step backward from the manic calamity of Bad Company 2. There's no more blowing holes through walls to make an alternate route. Environmental destruction is cosmetic or scripted."


I'm really gutted, after watching the single player trailers I was expecting Battlefield 3 single player to be something really special.

But on the bright side it sounds like a solid multiplayer as always.

What about my original post do you not understand?

I thought people would enjoy talking on this thread, share their opinions and have some good banter, obviously not, because its just turned into a flame war.

I asked what peoples opinions on the reviews were not on the game.

I have quoted reviewers criticizing the single player, they were not my own words, I was interested to hear what people thought to these comments.

Personaly after reading comments like those I was gutted and I wanted to know if anyone else was dissapointed.

I rounded it off saying that the multiplayer looks solid as ever, so I wasnt saying the multiplayer was bad, so what dont you understand.

 

[Alex The PC Gamer]

I'm not taking anyones side here...but ya, Battlefield games shouldn't even have single player campaigns. BF2 didn't and is one of the best gaming experience I've ever had. I understand EA is promoting their SP as well but coming from a huge BF veteran (one who's hated Bad Company series but loved BF2), please don't take SP seriously. It's all about the MP experience here folks.

You simply can't mix a Micheal Bay (COD) SP experience when you're really aiming for simulated battlefield experience. I'm quite surprised that even reviewers "seem" disappointed like they were expecting something else....really? Or is it just for drama??? Anyways...

 

[rocky41]

Lets stop the war between each other because we don't really buy games based on these review only, i am sure you might have played a lot of games that had bad reviews like AVP, Lost planet 2 and many more.

No one has specified that "The single player sounds is disappointing" it just gets a little fade when compared to its multiplayer.

DICE people are known for their MP and not SP but still they have done a great job atleast the campaign is best in the series you should read those points too. While playing the game everyone will compare it with COD games and so does reviewers at IGN, this is why they have compared it with COD, but we have to see what unique they have for us in SP.

I have mentioned about its universal acclaim as you have stated that SP is very disappointing if this was the case then no game can get good reviews just based on their MP, take example of MOH 2010, they had really good MP but wSP was disappointing and just see its review.

The SP is good but not as good as MP that's the point here and you are making it sound like it is very poor or bad.

Talking about destruction, this is frostbite 2 so you can obviously expect more destruction. Which ever video i have seen they had destruction in it, so just stay calm take a deep breadth and when in MP you will be stuck in between enemies then this destruction will help you to make your way out of enemy camp!

And by the way SP has some problem due to some texture missing or enemy got stuck somewhere but there will be patch which will fix everything.

Having a linear SP doesn't mean it isn't good they might have done it their way to make it enjoyable.

Even the BFBC2 didn't have good SP and was very linear without any story mode but you can stick with it. Well its going to be you alone who doesn't want to taste BF 3 on first day of release.

You are making the game look dull so that's what my point is play the SP campaign first then justify yourself!!!!!!!!!!!!

Some reviewers didn't like the SP much but some of them loved it, so you should look at the bright side this, you have waited for a long time for this game just like me so don't let these reviewers spoil the fun that we can get for BF 3 and see you on the MP map some day maybe

 

[Gothams Finest]

You obviously still don't have a clue what I'm talking about.

I am going to buy it, just not straight away on day one like I have already said, but only for the multiplayer, I wont be playing the singleplayer, what is so hard for you to understand that.

And yes I know DICE will patch things, read my OP that I have posted TWICE, I have already said Dice will patch things up, just like the did with BC2.

I am not talking about the game I am talking about the reviews, stop talking about the game nobody has evan played it yet.

I am not making the game sound dull, I am only quoting the reviewers as I have said many many times, why do I have to keep repeating myself for you. This is a disscusion about what the reviewers have said not about the game.

 

[Gothams Finest]

Even the BFBC2 didn't have good SP and was very linear without any story mode but you can stick with it. Well its going to be you alone who doesn't want to taste BF 3 on first day of release.

Nobodys playing BC2 SP anymore, whats your point? I will be playing BC2 MP just like a lot of other people still will be.

 

[FlintIronStagg]

i happened to like the BC2 Campaign.

 

[Eldd]

The BC2 campaign was pretty cool, actually, yes, sir.

But... you do all realize you're fighting each other over a game that hasn't been released yet, right? Just have a little more patience, try out the final product for a week or two, and then come back in here and start bashing each other's heads.

IF you think that is worth it, of course, which I don't think it is.

 

[FlintIronStagg]

AARRGGGHH BF3 FTW!!!!! dumb COD i love BF3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

seriously though, take his advice

 

[rocky41]

All my point is this that when a game is known for its good MP and has a decent SP, then what is the point of spreading everywhere that it has a very disappointing SP so that's the reason he is encouraging others not to buy the game atleast for the first day. Well many reviewers considered it best of the series too so OP should considered their point too and should not spread his own dull comments everywhere.

A game cannot get good reviews if it has bad SP that's my point , and its just fade against its epic MP that's the point i am forcing here.

@gothems finest

If there is any fault in MP then you can make your point of not buying it on first day but most of us want to taste the 64 player ultimate rush mode. So looking into the threads like this will disappoint everyone.

I don't want to start again so lets just chill out, soon i will get my hands on with BF 3, happy gaming with BFBC2.
WE are going to experience the best MP after a long time, so play your BFBC2 MP as you didn't like the SP of BF 3 interesting. Haha, doesn't make sense atleast to me.

Take it easy BRO

 

[Gothams Finest]

The BC2 campaign was pretty cool, actually, yes, sir.

But... you do all realize you're fighting each other over a game that hasn't been released yet, right? Just have a little more patience, try out the final product for a week or two, and then come back in here and start bashing each other's heads.

IF you think that is worth it, of course, which I don't think it is.

I take your point mate and I agree with ya, believe me I do not think its worth it at all. This is not why I started this thread, all I am doing is defending the topic of this thread which is not to discuss how good or bad Battlefield 3 is, it is about the reviews for Battlefield 3. Which some people have trouble understanding.

Nobody can say how good or bad the game is when none of us have evan played it yet, all this thread was ment for was to discuss the reviews, and to be honest I regret making this thread, I should have known better then to think people on here could have a good mature discussion.

 

[Eldd]

You know what is really crazy these days with gaming industry, at least in my opinion? Game developers seem more than reluctant to publish a demo, a WORKING, FINAL RELEASE demo, single/multiplayer, so people can really taste the things to come, not just launch some poorly coded, unfinished product like a beta release, or something along those lines. I am not paid to do the work of DICE and test out their work, really now. Exactly the same thing does a company like Blizzard with their PTR realms, and then they still launch a buggy release, but still, things are a little different there though.

These days you have to take the developers' word that such and such release will be the best thing since sliced bread, but that faith has died a long time ago for me. So, then what are we left with, what are our choices? Pre-order an untried product, cause otherwise you will not get such and such map, or a fancy berett, or some stylish knife (fill in some more or less not-so-useful items yourselves) and you'd feel like a noob in-game when you see other players sporting the above mentioned items, right? And then, you have to pray and wait that they release some patches to plug in the holes in the fast-sinking ship; take a look at what id Software did with Rage, that's the latest example of greed and stupidity.

I really hope it's not the case with BF3 here, because I really want to try it out for myself, as I don't believe in others' opinions blindly, unless of course the game is a complete and utter failure, which I don't think BF3 is, no matter what it's said of it yet. But this game, whatever long I've waited for, will not be a first day buy for me. Not anymore. And this is only the fault of some dollar-greedy companies with little or no respect for their customers.

Sorry for the long rant, but this is what I think of "never-before-seen" releases.

 

[Gothams Finest]

You know what is really crazy these days with gaming industry, at least in my opinion? Game developers seem more than reluctant to publish a demo, a WORKING, FINAL RELEASE demo, single/multiplayer, so people can really taste the things to come, not just launch some poorly coded, unfinished product like a beta release, or something along those lines. I am not paid to do the work of DICE and test out their work, really now. Exactly the same thing does a company like Blizzard with their PTR realms, and then they still launch a buggy release, but still, things are a little different there though.

These days you have to take the developers' word that such and such release will be the best thing since sliced bread, but that faith has died a long time ago for me. So, then what are we left with, what are our choices? Pre-order an untried product, cause otherwise you will not get such and such map, or a fancy berett, or some stylish knife (fill in some more or less not-so-useful items yourselves) and you'd feel like a noob in-game when you see other players sporting the above mentioned items, right? And then, you have to pray and wait that they release some patches to plug in the holes in the fast-sinking ship; take a look at what id Software did with Rage, that's the latest example of greed and stupidity.

I really hope it's not the case with BF3 here, because I really want to try it out for myself, as I don't believe in others' opinions blindly, unless of course the game is a complete and utter failure, which I don't think BF3 is, no matter what it's said of it yet. But this game, whatever long I've waited for, will not be a first day buy for me. Not anymore. And this is only the fault of some dollar-greedy companies with little or no respect for their customers.

Sorry for the long rant, but this is what I think of "never-before-seen" releases.

I completely agree with ya and thank you for posting the first proper comment on this thread.