Battlefield 3 has been out a few days now, and luckily for me I had a quiet weekend with not much planned, giving me the perfect opportunity to flesh out just what's on offer from its multiplayer.
I'm happy to report that DICE and EA should be proud, because BF3's online component for the PS3 is a fine achievement.
It's balanced and exciting, with great map design and tight controls, BF3 feels great to play. What struck me most when I first started up the game was just how much the graphics had improved over the series last PS3 entry, Bad Company 2.
Naysayers be damned, because the game does indeed outshine its Playstation predecessor and there is a notable improvement in the visual quality with the new frostbite engine. The star of the show is the lighting, which adds to the environments a depth that seemed to be missing from Bad Company 2. Player models are also better, animations are slick and appealing, and the game oozes that 'AAA' feel.
The visuals aren't without issues. The complaints are commonplace with PS3 and other console games these days, and include some texture pop and clipping. There are also the occasional screen hitches such as a green frame flashing through your screen, and various other little technical niggles that keep the presentation from being perfect. That said, overall the visual quality of the game is high, and people won't be disappointed. The issues while there simply don't distract me enough for them to detract from the core of the game.
Online performance for PS3 for me has also been without issue. I've been kicked from games only twice, and had a few short lived server issues on day one (I got it prior to the street date), but aside from that its performed well.
There are 3 main game modes for multiplayer. The most popular staple of the franchise, Conquest, is a capture and hold type scenario, while Rush sees one side constantly advancing to destroy several objectives over the course of a very large map, and finally death match.
Conquest and Rush are where most people will get their thrills, and the name of the game in each is team work. PSN being what it is however, has very few players with headsets, which means a lot of the squad work will come from simply following team mates, attacking the same objectives, and giving what support you can through the game's medic, resupply and repair abilities. Players really will benefit from being able to co-ordinate team work with voice chat, as the game is pretty hard to play as a lone wolf affair due to the sheer size and complexity of maps. At this stage I should probably admit I don't use a headset myself, but I have been logging into Skype with a few friends in my squad, and I can say co-ordination is key.
At the time of writing I've just hit level 11, and that has taken about 8 hours. I've seen some players at much higher levels, so I can only imagine how long they've been playing, so it seems like it'll keep you busy for quite some time. Being an objective based game, players who put an emphasis on killing enemies at the cost of capturing or completing objectives will find their level up goes very slowly (unless they play death match which isn't too popular). Quite a few times I've been the highest scoring player in a game with under 10 kills, simply by fulfilling my role in a squad properly, and focusing on winning, not killing.
Another thing I should mention are the vehicles. The only ones I can competently handle are the tanks and jeeps. Choppers and jets are simply too hard for me to use, and look as though they require a lot of practice. Which brings up a few issues I have with the game.
One is the lack of any kind of 'practice' mode. Certainly players would benefit from vehicle tutorials of some kind, as particularly the games airborne fleet is hard to handle.
Another small gripe I have is the seeming lack of 'hardcore' mode. Now, I might admittedly be missing it here, but hardcore mode in Bad Company 2 was my favourite. To me is seems often that enemies can take too many hits before going down, and sniping at the early stages of the game, without a good rifle is a bland practice as the sniper rifle seems particularly weak.
Also missing is the ability to 'cook off' grenades, and throwing grenades seems to be done without much control as to trajectory. This isn't vital, but seems like a misstep in design.
Finally I have to mention sound design. Like Bad Company 2 before it, sound design on the game is brilliant. I'm blasting it out in only 2.1 stereo, through a set of Logitech Z4 speakers plugged into my TV, but it's amazing still, and I can only imagine what it sounds like in surround. It perhaps has the most immersive sound I've experienced in gaming, ever.
FPS and online multiplayer fans should pick this one up because it's just a brilliant online experience that promises many hours of fun and frantic online shooting.
9.5 out of 10.
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.
for me
9.0 graphics(some slow loading textures and animation bugs)
10 Sound (the sound is amazing; put it on war tapes in the audio settings and it'll sound better)
9.5 Gameplay (for me this is the best BF in the series because it has the most realism)
fun factor 9.5 (other than the campaign being somewhat disappointing this game is definitely the best FPS in the market
online 10 (you'll keep coming back for more if you're a true BF fan; i put in 100's of hours in BFBC2 and this one will probably closer to the 1000's
Good review, don't agree about graphics, but I do agree about the headsets, it would be nice to have more people with headsets since BF3 calls for soo much teamwork.