Battlefield 3 is a game developed by DICE and published by EA. Before release this game was subject to immense hype and being called by some as the Call of Duty killer. I finally get the game after almost a year of it being released and I can safely say this miss fired on so many levels.
This game can be split into two parts really. Well lets start with the down right awful which is the campaign. The campaign is an illogical mess that is very hard to follow. The basic premise to the story is that you (as Sgt Blackburn) are being questioned over the events that just happened. You then go back in time and relive these events via several people. This sounds simple and it would have be if the events you play were in some sort of chronological order. Well they are not. I felt a bit confused about what was going on and where this level slotted into the story. At one point you are fighting in Iraq/Iran and then you are playing as someone else (GRU operative Dima) in Paris Then you go back to Iran/Iraq. Then you go back to how Dima got to Paris. The story isn't helped by shoddy dialogue which just adds to the confusion. The characters in the story are instantly forgettable. I can barely remember their names and often I was looking up on the internet who each character was and how I have met them before.
Graphically the campaign in nothing to brag about. I often found some textures didn't load and the environment looked very bland and something I would expect from a title several years ago. One positive, I would like to mention about the graphics, is the level where you parachute in. This is the only moment in the campaign where the graphics look top notch. Character models look very much Battlefield like and the variety in equipment each soldier has is a nice touch. Lighting in the campaign is generally excellent. My main criticism is the shiny look DICE has made everything look. The game doesn't look gritty but almost pristine and new with way too much screen glare added. LED style lights seem to be the only choice of light in the Battlefield universe. There seems to be no variation at all (I mean there isn't any unnatural yellow glow you see in urban areas in real life).
Playing the likes of the Battlefield: Bad Company series you expect there to be a good level of destructibility. Sadly there isn't. Some barriers can be destroyed and off course (as it seems to be a common theme to have this in every FPS) pillars can be damaged. Despite this the destructibility is very realistic. It is just a shame only a select few items can be destroyed.
One thing that annoyed me about the single player was the combat and enemy/friendly AI. The combat seemed to follow a set formula which got very repetitive. A vain attempt was made to try to mix things up with quick time events. These were just infuriated. I shouldn't be playing quick time events (especially in this quantity) in an FPS. They were often poorly executed and added nothing to the experience. I have read that Andy McNab was the game's military tactics advisor. This may sound impressive but the end product is a slow, hoard like experience. Let me explain. I often went into an area and wanted to take the fight to the enemy by quickly moving forward cover to cover. Well the friendly forces didn't want to do this. It quickly became apparent that this game was to go to an area, stay behind cover, take out waves of men and then move to the next area (rinse and repeat). The enemy AI was equally as bad. Often they thought they were in cover and they were not. The sometimes just stood out in the open waiting to be shot and they never tried to use momentum to overpower you nor flanked you. It removed any sort of challenge to kill the enemy. You can easily end up standing behind them without them even noticing and in some circumstances they could be looking right at you and not engage you at all. I found friendly AI would just ram you if you were in the way of their predetermined path. What I do not get is a game can come out in 2011 and still have this problem. I have seen games at the beginning of this console generation (with lower budgets) not having problems like this.
The game campaign can be quite punishing. Despite the enemies' dumb AI they can shoot. It takes a couple of hits to take you down on Medium difficulty. This is fantastic, however checkpoints seems to be quite far apart. I found myself endlessly repeating certain sections which could have been broken down into smaller parts.
Another main problem with the campaign is the amount of glitches in this game. Too many times have I had to restart a level because a glitch stopped me from playing. I will rattle through a couple, of many, examples of glitches I came across. On the Tank mission I somehow managed to exit the Tank but couldn't move or get back into the Tank. Another glitch occurred while switching weapons when you are attacking Mehrabad Airport as Lt. Hawkins in an F-18. I had to destroy some aircraft but I had the wrong weapon out and couldn't switch. People seemed to just teleport around the levels. This games was released almost a year ago and the fact that these glitches haven't been addressed in unacceptable.
This game does get a lot better with its multiplayer and co-op experiences. Co-op is fine and I haven't experienced any problems with it. It is just boring. There was nothing here that made me want to keep playing and felt like it was only included to just have that tick on the box. The Multiplayer is good and by far the best part to this game (not hard considering) but still there are major problems in the design to it which I will come onto in a moment but first the multiplayer's graphics and gameplay.
I have to do a separate graphics segment for the multiplayer because they are stunning. Yes you read that right. The multiplayer's graphics are far better than the campaign's. I was shocked at the level in detail and how beautiful the environment looked.
The gameplay is the same as the campaign. The movement is very fluid and scaling obstacles looks natural. I am finding levelling up takes time which has become problematic for a new user while everyone has been playing for quite some time. The customisation options are aplenty which is fairly rare for an online FPS.
Now it is time for some negatives. I felt the online experience didn't transition very well onto consoles. The main problem was the maps were too open for the amount of people. On most game modes I often found my self running around just trying to find someone. Sometimes the online experience did get a little hectic but it should be happening more often. There was just too few players to the size of the maps created creating extended periods of nothing going on. The maps needed to be scaled down. There wasn't much destructibility either. I often felt disappointed I could take down structures like I could in the Battlefield: Bad Company series as it completely adds a new depth to the way objectives are carried out.
On the face of it the multiplayer looks like it was designed with teamwork in mind but once you go deeper you realise that you are not punished for going rambo style on the enemy nor do you get a special reward for working as a team. What this has created is that no-one works as a team. It seems pointless being a supportive class as you do not get much reward for it.
In both the multiplayer and single player the sound and weapon design is excellent. Weapons feel and sound like they will do some damage. Explosions sound completely different at different ranges and even setting this game up with something as simple as a 2.1ch speaker system enhances the experience ten fold. I often felt the explosions were going off next to me.
Overall this game is a total miss. The campaign is just dire with its incoherent story and shoddy AI. It feels that the campaign was a real last minute job. The co-op is a bit boring and feels it was added just to tick some boxes. The multiplayer is by far the better mode. However, the idea of vast open environments hasn't transitioned well from the PC as you could find yourself wondering around trying to find anyone. Also the general design hinders any sort of teamwork option as you are not really rewarded for your support actions.
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.
a 6.6, I really enjoyed BF3. But I suppose its each to there own :)
Get it for the PC, I built a whole new tower from scratch for games like this and having owned both the 360 and PC version I can say the level of immersion on the PC is worlds apart thanks to greater player numbers and much increased fidelity oth graphically and aurily.
P.S. I have a feeling the latest DLC may be more suited to the consoles.
Nice review and I completely agree about the single-player, was an incredibly poor game. The only mission that interested me was the second-last one. Everything else was dull and predictable to me, especially the ending. If it was fun then I suppose it wouldn't matter too much but as you say most of it was just cover-shoot-cover-shoot-procee d.
Went through the entire campaign and turned out despising the rest of the game because of it. I couldn't stand the fact that the 360 version needed this 2-3gig patch in order to just look similar to the HD screenshots. Even worse is the amount of bugs I encountered in simple firefights: enemies going through walls in outdoor fights, traversal over geometry, and more.
Although I'm sure I'd give BF3 PC somewhere in the low 8's, these shoddy console ports reek of inferiority on so many levels.