E3 2011, a new trailer for Battlefield 3 is shown and it quickly becomes a must buy. Before this, I've never played a Battlefield game with the exemption of the Battlefield: Bad Company series. I bought those games for the destruction and change of pace from other FPS multiplayer games, the same reason I bought Battlefield 3 a couple days ago. Excited, I put the disc into my PS3 and anxiously wait through the install to play one of the most hyped games of the year.
To start off, I begin with a couple rounds of multiplayer, because, let's be honest, multiplayer is the main reason most people buy the Battlefield series. What started off as a couple matches turned into a long session in which I became enriched in the community of players with actual skill and the tense 24 player matches. Battlefield 3 multiplayer is a little scarce on modes which brings me to my first complaint. There is Rush, Squad Rush, Conquest, Team Deathmatch, Squad Deathmatch, and...That's it. I didn't know what to expect, so I guess it didn't matter much, but I was at least hoping for a Free for All or something more. Another aspect that seems lacking are the amount of maps, at the current moment there are only 9, which I'm sure will be greatly expanded upon with the addition of DLC.
On the Maps side of things, there is a great sense of hostility. The maps are huge and death awaits around every corner. If you're in the middle of an open field, you're going to die. Either from snipers, gunned down from a helicopter, or obliterated by a tank. It's truly amazing how many ways there are to die in this game, it's amazing and I don't mind getting killed because it teaches me a new lesson every time. With every death, you learn how to get better and are another step closer to becoming a pro. With the open field maps you have a strong sense of scale. It's an amazing feeling to be in a match with helicopters, Jets, and tanks all around you in an epic battle that sets the bar for what a multiplayer FPS should be.
I could write a book about how awesome the multiplayer in Battlefield 3 is, but I would lose your interest. In short, the multiplayer is a tactical masterpiece that requires cooperation and skill. It will keep you hooked for a long time with all the unlocks and customization options which include dog tags, soldier appearance, vehicle additions and more. Next up, we'll look at the campaign. It's a simple story, one that we've heard dozens of times with modern games. It involves terrorists, nuclear weapons, and flashbacks. Sound familiar? That's because it plays almost exactly like Battlefield 3's biggest competitor, Modern Warfare. Instead of the open maps found in multiplayer and freedom you expect from the series, you get linear corridors, scripted sequences, and as a result the whole experience suffers.
While some of the sequences are pretty neat, it isn't what I expected. Like I said, I've only played the Bad Company series, but I still expected something different. In about 6 hours, the single player is done and there isn't much reason to revisit it other than to collect achievements or trophies. The campaign brought up another subject that I need to adress. In the trailers, EA highlights the destruction that the Frostbite 2.0 engine allows. We were only shown campaign videos showing the destruction and from that I expected the destruction to be like Bad Company only much, much better. I was wrong, instead of the destruction I was expecting, you get scripted sequences in single player, and glitchy, limited destruction in multiplayer. While it isn't that much of a big deal, it still makes the whole experience feel unfinished.
In the end, Battlefield 3 is an excellent FPS that was perhaps let some gamers down by creating mass hype that it didn't achieve for the most part. While it did deliver on most of its promises, it left some of them unfulfilled and others ignored completely. Nevertheless, it's an amazing game with a multiplayer experience that is rough, but will be a masterpiece with a few patches. The content is enough to last for months, content which will last much much longer with DLC EA is promising in the coming months. I don't have a gaming PC, but because of this game, I am going to become one once I earn enough money to build my own. If the PC version is better than this already amazing game, I'd gladly pay more for 64 player matches and bigger maps. If you're a fan of team based FPS shooters, definitely pick this game up.
This has been my first review, any feedback will be greatly appreciated to help me make better reviews in the future.
Whether it comes through remakes or a new game with a similar style, DICE should aim to revive the glory days of Battlefield 3 and Bad Company 2.
hmmm I think there will be no old BF glory days for EA since they are loyal to their greediness and laziness :D
You're asking for a miracle with EA that will never happen unless they can exploit the money making schemes behind it.
Replies(1)
(Opinion): EA needs to release the Battlefield 3 Remake in order to win back gamers. after the disappointing reception of Battlefield 2042 & Battlefield V.
I've been wanting to see this for a long time; though I don't trust DICE to handle even a remake of their own work at this point.
Give it to Respawn.
Literally the only major in house developer I actually trust from EA at this point.
End-execution result aside .... Isn't that what BF Portal set out to achieve?
BF3 MP(maps + weapons) in a new Frostbite engine?
Hate it or love it .... but that's what they did.
Call it a Remaster technically ... coz Remake would be changing the mechanics and that's wot BF4 did over BF3 at MP side (barring the single-player story, which obviously has to be different)
Definitely not. They need to look at where they went wrong learn from it to make the next game as good as they possibly can instead of descending into the biggest problem with modern gaming and bowing to a hive-mind that is against new games
Hive mind against new games? The hell are you on about? New games come out all the time. New IPs are coming out all the time.
Battlefield pretty much peaked with 3 and 4. Ever since then they either under delivered or simply released broken games.
Naw they need to remaster bf3+bf4. I don't trust them to create new games anymore. I'll buy a remaster on new gen console, but i won't go near a new battlefield game again.
It's already known why it went wrong with Battlefield 2042. They didn't listen to feedback of their own creators, that's why so many of the people who worked on the older BF games left. And apparently they were working on a battle royal BF but changed their mind halfway, hence the huge empty maps. Also the time they had wasn't nearly enough to finish the game.
At least now people higher up have been replaced to fix the game. I assume they are not going to make this mistake again.
They need to stop with the live service bs, and make Battlefield games fun again. They're so worried about getting as much money as they can, that they forget that you have to make something that gamers actually want to play.
Unfortunately I don't think a multiplayer game can succeed on a broad scale without being structured as a live service. People don't like the terms "live service" or "games as a service," but if you ever look at the complaints people have about games, it's clear that's what they actually want. Look at Halo Infinite; great gameplay, and a solid batch of maps; 15 years ago it would have been considered great, but now because they aren't churning trashy new maps in every few weeks, people are crying all over the internet about it. Look at BFV-it got new maps for a year a half, which is later than any BF game except 4, and people still cry about it being "abandoned" because they actually want a live service.
A remake of 3 would unfortunately not work unless they found some way to make it a live service because if they just released the game, people would be crying about the lack of new maps within a few weeks.
You hit the nail on the head! I can’t tell you how many hours I spent on the original Counter Strike, Wolf:ET, UT:99, Gears 1, etc. etc. Heck, going back even further GoldenEye and Perfect Dark. None of these were live services but damn did I spend a whole lot of time playing the same maps and loving them.
It always amazes me when I hear people say that without anything new to unlock, even if it is just stupid weapon skins, that they are bored with the game. As vocal as people are about hating live services, there sure seems to be a lot of people who only get enjoyment from the superficial additions from a live service.
@ElCapitan006
It's nice to see that I'm not the only person who recognizes this. Unfortunately, except for some latent communities on older games, there aren't people who play a multiplayer game because the game is fun anymore. When I suggested on the battlefield subreddit that Battlefield shouldn't have a progression system at all (it didn't at first, of course) I was criticized because people would see no point in playing a game where they aren't "earning" something when they play. This was borne out by all the people refusing to play the objective in Halo: Infinite because they were more concerned with dumb weekly challenges. The sad reality is that, although devs are certainly part of the problem, a lot of bad choices in game design now are rendered necessary because an entire generation had their concept of what multiplayer should be entirely shaped by COD and FTP games.
Personally I used to buy Call of Duty and Battlefield every year since 2010 but the past year I finally stopped. They are both definitely taking inspiration from Fortnite and I'm just not into it. The only reason it took so long for me to stop buying Call of Duty is the zombies mode but that's finally just so terrible I don't feel the need to buy just for it anymore.
Have a couple of years off wouldnt hurt. People want what they can’t have. Distance makes the heart grow fonder and all that come back in a couple of years all next gen and fresh. Yearly churn is just too much don’t need a new one every single year the same thing could be achievable with a few free maps 6-9-12 months down the line not like they can’t afford to at that point they probably have off cuts of levels spruce em up a bit. Doesn’t need a full blown? New sequel every year if the games are that good they wouldn’t anyway 🤷🏻♂️✌🏻 ;
I don't see why a remake of am old game would win people over
Even if they made a phenomenal remake it wouldn't change how they make new games
Because loads of people think BF3 is the best-ever BF game, and EA re-releasing it means they are giving people what they have been asking for all these years. Plus, it's not like it'll cost them a ton
So why a remake, why don't they just structure new games off BF3 formula or is this about nostalgia?
Jack because they're too incompetent to do that. They need to learn to walk first before running. Try copy and pasting BF3, and if they don't royally F that up then maybe they could try a new game again lol. DICE has fallen so hard
It's October 25, 2021 and this is the Battlefield 3 10th anniversary! Here are a few nuggest of info why BF3 is still the best BF game of all-time.
I am glad I played this game at its prime.
Some of the good memories of my life.
I got BF3 and gears 3 for Christmas. Some of the best memories I have from the 360 era.
I played this on PS3. It was my first online game as well. I remember getting all excited even being melee'd, lol. But THIS was battlefield to me..so much fun.
This is a totally serious question, so actually looking for an answer here. But am i crazy for feeling like 4 was just an improved 3? Like it was 99% the same just with different maps (even a lot of the same maps) and i kinda liked the weapon progression a bit more. Is it because it took forever for bf4 to be fixed after launch? Or is there a specific reason people like it more that im just not getting 🤔
I tend to agree that 4 was better but I absolutely think the launch issues left it forever tarnished in our memories. Games should work and work well at launch but the industry seems to think otherwise. We are partially to blame for believing their marketing and adopting software early. Took me a loooong time to stop falling into the marketing honeypot.
Well in my opinion 3 had more destruction in it. Like oh I don't have cover let me blow a hole in the wall and hide in there real quick
Battlefield 3 had way better maps though. Seine, Metro, Caspian, Bazaar. Heck, I think BF3 had the most memorable maps in the entire franchise.
100% agree with you here. Loved 3 way more than 4. Honestly I think the launch issues put me off 4 for a long time.
Everything after 3 has basically been a reskin but worse than all the improvements in 4. I only have 2 complaints for BF3, the horribly blinding sun and the maps having really bad restriction placements. I think most consider the best cause it was pretty straight to the point and didn't rely on gimicks to get attention. Sniping with a scoped shotgun with explosive shells will always be my most fun memory with the game.
I think for improved a lot after all the patches to be a better game but three just has a good place in my heart
3 had better maps, more interesting hot spots, also was just new at the time being all full next gen feeling. In fact it holds up really well even today.
4 maps were just about alright, and also people who played 3 prolly felt 4 was just an iterative upgrade. Thats it.
But I know one thing for a fact this new battlefield is just a reason of cod. Take the hud out and I bet people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 2042 and cod
BC2 and BF4 are better if you ask me. Much better gunplay and all around feel.
yea pretty good review....i never expected the campaign to be amazing because BF series never really concentrated on campaign...IMO it's the best FPS on the market by far =)
lol endless fun? maybe to a world of warcraft lifetime player gamer demographic
Good review, but for me the SP has been disappointing if you take into account what Dice did with Bad Company and I feel they could have done so much better with this game but then again the Battlefield series has always been about the multiplayer.
Good review, I haven't seen any glitches that stand out in multiplayer, but there is some stuff to be fixed.
Great review. Im loving it so far and i enjoyed the campaign for what is was. But with the hype has to come the delivery, and the only thing that has delivered is the multiplayer. Everything else seems like the extra fat to an already great formula.