The eleventh installment of the Battlefield series is finally here. It seems like just a minute ago we were being captivated by the amazing graphics seen on the PC version’s trailer. The PS3 version, although not as graphically impressive as its PC counterpart, still managed to do justice to the standard of Battlefield visuals this gen. The truth is, Battlefield 3 isn’t completely what I expected in terms of everything except online multiplayer. However, it still does manage to deliver one hell of an FPS experience.
The Battlefield 3 campaign immediately launches you into the story. Sgt. Blackburn, the main character that you’ll spend most of the time playing as, is being interrogated by two agents. Solomon, the main antagonist, plans to bomb both Paris and New York. While this is going on, you’ll go through a series of flashbacks as the marine recalls all the pieces that lead us to where he is now. You’ll find yourself having to find men that are well acquainted with Solomon along with any enemies in that area.( ex. Al Bashir and PLR). This was a simple yet creative way to guide players throughout the campaign. Certainly it has been done before, but at least it’s not too unoriginal. You’ll also play as other characters in the game such as Sgt. Miller and Dima. The story is a bit tragic, but with the help of some philosophical words by your Russian comrade, Dima, you’ll learn to accept its harshness. The only flaw that stands out completely in this game’s single player is how abruptly the campaign ends. Some missions are simply epic, while others leave you asking why it couldn’t have been made better. It’s like a rollercoaster lifting itself to a steep upward climb only to drop 20 ft. There should’ve also been a more personal take on some of the characters, such as Miller’s son, or a slight look at Blackburn’s past, just so that more of those emotional scenes would’ve had a bigger impact on the player.
Most of Battlefield’s personality when it comes to gameplay is taken right from the Bad Company series and improved on slightly. The A.I. is great, although the scripted events don’t do them much justice and the quick time events are a bit lazy. Press X once and you’ll punch your enemy twice, he’ll attempt to hit you, and then you’ll throw him down a staircase. Of course, this is somewhat exaggerated, but it could’ve definitely been done better. I also dove into the co-op for quite a bit and I have to say that they were just as beautifully presented as any other mission in the campaign. However, it would’ve been nice to have some split screen, two player action added.
Of course, many will jump immediately from the campaign right into the online multiplayer and why not? It’s amazing! Almost everything is done almost perfectly, from the sound to the maps, the vehicles and kits, all aspects are crafted to suit a very enjoyable style of gameplay. The sound in this game easily outshines that of any other shooter. Every gun, explosion, scream, and/or missile is extremely realistic when heard throughout the game. The kits have a special strategic value to them, whether it be the upgrades on land for your soldier or those on vehicles. There is a small issue though among the multiplayer modes. It seems that in team deathmatch, the developers found it a bit humorous to have enemies spawn right next to you throughout the match. This becomes a bit unfair for those unlucky souls that happen to spawn right in front of you and your ever so shiny knife. For those of you who are newcomers to Battlefield, you will do a lot of dieing, and then some. You will learn to appreciate every single object that you can use for cover. If you run out in the open for one second, you are basically spinning the wheel of fortune, except all of your possible outcomes all include death. Once you understand this, your skill will be able to develop easier with fewer frustrations. This is something that I both love and hate about Battlefield, because even when being smart about where you go in the huge maps, you always run the risk of dieing in a random event. Even in smaller, more crowded maps like the Seine crossing there are tons of alleys and buildings to get outflanked from. Not to mention that as buildings are damaged you will have to become aware of their potential dangers since players can use them for cover or good old camping.
A specific concern with this game is how tedious its own presentation is. From the beginning of the game’s opening cinematic to the main menu, it is an epileptic’s worst nightmare. Fonts will blur, pop, and fade in a way that you will think that the developers tried too hard in that aspect. Surely, the same cannot be said for the graphics. Now I will say that Battlefield 3’s graphics did not live up to the hype on consoles, but they are still stunning when you look at any other shooter this gen, besides Killzone and Crysis. Problem is, the lighting seems to be an annoyance at times. To be honest, some maps are so bright that heaven seems to be about to reveal itself with a choir of “It’s raining men”. On the other hand, it’s forgivable when you think of the level of detail that the developers have put into this game.
Although it didn’t live up to the hype (at least not mine), I am finding Battlefield 3 addicting between its online multiplayer and the usual list of trophies. Just some better presentation, an improved campaign, and the same addicting multiplayer will be greatly welcomed for its successor, but for now, I’m enjoying 2011’s best shooter.
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.
99 Problems and that ad campaign is one, IMO.
Seriously, that song has NOTHING to do with what's being presented on screen or the game. It's some of the worst, lowest common denominator marketing I've ever seen.
"COD fans probably like 50 Cent's monotonous, redundant and lobotomised "gangsta" rap, right? All we have to do is equate our game with that music and cha-ching! High fives all round! Who's up for some cocaine?!"
campaign was crap they dont even let me open doors and continue myself i have to wait always until my squad comes.
@LightofDarkness, the campaign was fine imo, that song is a classic in that genre if you ask me, but to each his own.
@StraightPath, I didn't really care for opening doors, but I was thinking to myself when I finally had to open one.."wow it's my turn"?. lol
Wow,I just got into gaming and I'm hooked on this game your review is on point. :)