Try our new beta!Click here

Battlefield 3 review (PS3)

iamnsuperman | 1276d ago | User review
Reviewing: Battlefield 3
"Heart Pounding Missions" You Say. "Complete Choas" You Say. Not This Game
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.
Graphics Single player: Nothing really to brag about. Only one stellar moment the rest seems bland and uninteresting. Character models are ok Multiplayer: Surprisingly Beautiful. Much better than the single player
Sound It is a battlefield game. The weapon systems sound great and realistic and the explosions bring you right into the game. The voice acting is ok. Could have better
Gameplay Campaign: Enemy AI is dumb. The game goes through a set formula: go to an area, stay behind cover, take out waves of men and then move to the next area (rinse and repeat) which became representative and boring. Quick time events are a pain. Some game breaking bugs in this game
Fun factor Singleplayer: More of a chore to complete as enemies weren't very hard to kill as they stood waiting to get shoot by you and checkpoints seemed to be miles apart. On the plus side it is easy to get killed Multiplayer: Ok but spent too much time running around trying to find people
Online Ok. Spent too much time running around trying to find someone. The large scale maps didn't transition well for console gaming and this made it lose an essence of hecticness. No real reward for working as a team
Overall (out of 10 / not an average)
hennessey86  +   1275d ago
a 6.6, I really enjoyed BF3. But I suppose its each to there own :)
Kopite_2020  +   1274d ago
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.
iamnsuperman  +   1274d ago
I would if I had a good disposable income. I think certain games just need to be played on the PC and are designed for the PC which do not transition very well on the console. I wouldn't build a tower just for this game as the single player is awful. I might start looking into getting a gaming PC for the new ARMA if I can get a job that pays enough.
BosMa  +   1270d ago
There is a huge dif between the pc and console.

Also those who dislike the 'non cod, in your face action" would have bigger and more in your face battles via p.c.

This game is cpu heavy meaning i could run off the HD 4000 which is intel and one can aquire this buy buying an intel I5 3570 k for example, its in the porcessor. Youtube HD 4000 to see the perfomance, can buy whole set up for less than 500.. At a later date you can buy amd or nvidia gpu if you wish, also upgrade parts peice by peice.. rther than just tell you PC is better i try to show you how it can be done affordably as well as being to uprgade when finances become mor readily avail.

If you ever need help/info of a less than 500 dollars setup ask me and i can provide details. also can get it that number down to the low 4's.

I also own a ps3 console and have a nice rig, but not an elitist. I grew up on consoles, love my ps3 but along the way i made a choice , one that made more sense to me as far as saving.. knowing next gen consoles around the corner (300-500 investment) games being less flexible pricewise by way of brand new titles for consoles and the digital game market becoming more and more a pressence as the days go by, in the long run i will be saving, have more choices, not confined by hardware and a pc is a must for me anyhow. A much as i rather disc than digital any day of the year , gaming will become less of the first and more of the second and i dont want to pay another large sum of money to do this on a console which has hardware that is not worth the price when breaking the system down part by part and what one could get w/ the same investment via picking own parts. Then the next gen will come again and then another 3-500 plus, probably having same hardware constrictions and this is how the console survies, by having such constrictions and un-replaceable parts. in the long run it saves.. hope that makes a bit of sense..
Kopite_2020  +   1274d ago
P.S. I have a feeling the latest DLC may be more suited to the consoles.
BosMa  +   1270d ago
Dlc is more suited to all, publishers do not have pref, if they can sell it for consoles, handhelds and pc's they will.. if they have to optimize for pc they will.. dlc serves one purpose money and finding how to get as much of out..Maybe by way of "timed released" dlc , modern warfare for xbox and battlefield for ps3 but other than that pc will always have optimization, whether it comes from devs or mods, it will always be there and if its a console port it isnt always there immeditately but more and more new games of this nature come w/ free texture pack from devs.

DLC is more suited for wallets, thats it.
Kopite_2020  +   1268d ago
I was referring to the close quarters nature of it. Two of BF3s shortfalls on the consoles are the unpopulated large maps (due to player cap) and the lack of graphical fidelity in the open areas.
Nate-Dog  +   1274d ago
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.
#4 (Edited 1274d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
iamnsuperman  +   1274d ago
After completing the single player I went and looked back to see which missions I would like to replay ,and like you, the second to last one was the only one I was vaguely interest in to play again. The rest were really dull
#4.1 (Edited 1274d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
coolbeans  +   1274d ago
I would probably give a similar grade for console versions.
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.
SilentNegotiator  +   1274d ago
The campaign was a total mess.

And the multiplayer still hadn't fixed many issues from previous installments, and added lots of original ones. For one, the unlocks are still awful. You typically start off with a decent gun, unlock a crappy gun, unlock a crappy gun, unlock a crappy gun, unlock a crappy gun, THEN unlock God's gun. Tanks are absolutely too strong; and no, I don't care if it's realistic if the tanks create balance issues as they do. Helicopters are darn near invincible with an engineer in the back, and they don't take fire from half as many weapons like in Bad Company 2 (or be able to fly halfway out of the atmosphere where you can't even aim weapons up enough that DO damage).

I wouldn't even give the PC version higher than a 7.
Ducky  +   1274d ago
Which God's gun are you talking about? All of the best all-around weapons are unlocked quickly.

Helis are easier to take down than BC2 as long as you have a good recon and engie. They're also consistent now, unlike BC2 heli's which would either be invincible (like in IslaInnocentes), or flying coffins (like in Atacama)

Haven't encountered any balance issues with Tanks. Two rockets to the back, or a few packs of C4. Javelin it if it is acting as artillery.
#6.1 (Edited 1274d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
StayStatic  +   1273d ago
"The campaign was a total mess"

Yet it makes the modern warfare campaigns look like total garbage in comparison.

Ill admit it was lack luster because you did not get to take advantage of the battlefield features like actually flying the jet in the jet scene/level , the campaign needed more things like that imo.

However you risk entering a glorified multiplayer tutorial rather than a single player action campaign.
#6.2 (Edited 1273d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(6) | Report | Reply
HeavenlySnipes  +   1273d ago
Disagree completely
Not only is the campaign not a training ground to prepare for online (you never pilot anything other than a tank) but the COD campaigns are MUCH better than this

You can immediately tell the influence the Black Ops campaign had on this game (the way the story is told) yet the Black Ops campaign made much more sense and flowed better. The AI in both games are terrible but I don't want to talk anout COD here as this is a BF thread

The MP is the only redeeming thing about this game don't get it twisted.
yodawins  +   1274d ago
this is the same guy who gave mw3 an 8 for graphics and doesnt penalize mw3 for terrible ai.Hes completely biased on many levels.
coolbeans  +   1274d ago
Technically, we're all biased on many levels. And I don't see why either of those points harm the reviewer's credibility.

-Although I was a tad more harsh MW3's engine, there's a lot of credit to be given for the vast amount of different places in the game. It's tough for me to play the pixel-counting game when art design and smoothness (at 60 fps) are pretty solid.

-From someone who's recently played Brink, some History Channel FPSs, and just starting to play Metro 2033 it's a bit silly to say MW3's AI is "terrible."
Emilio_Estevez  +   1272d ago
"Technically, we're all biased on many levels." - I only wish more people understood this - it's almost impossible to be completely objective with games due to that.
HammadTheBeast  +   1271d ago
LoL Brink.

Sorry, I had to say it.
iamnsuperman  +   1274d ago
Well as for my review i praise the graphics for the multiplayer but show dissappointment (environmental detail being a big one here) from the single player so the 7 is more an overal score. In regards to MW3 i gave it an 8 because i prefer the overal look and art style that ran with little to no problems at 60fps (can't really fault that. Everything in bf3 (single player not multiplayer) looks too shiny and new.

MW3's AI isnt actually that bad and the enemies have some level of awareness (it isn't perfect though and does need improving) In this game there were too many times i could stand behind an enemy without them noticing.

I am not biased against BF3 or for MW3 and I do not look at both games trying to be the same thing (I hate having to comment on MW3 in this review comment section). I personally had a bad experience with BF3 and felt it was a missed oppertunity. If you read the review I do praise parts but something are just unacceptable (biggest one being the amount of game breaking glitches I found even when the game has been out for almost a year)
#7.2 (Edited 1274d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(6) | Report | Reply
Hufandpuf  +   1273d ago
though I personally don't agree with the score, this review is very well thought out.

Though my only gripe with it is that the singleplayer graphics look WAY better than the multiplayer graphics (on consoles) too me. for instance, the Comrades mission where you're in the news center (the blur room with the tv screens) ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE.

Multiplayer could be a mix bag for anyone in any game, but in my experience, I have a hell of a good time on consoles even without the player count.
yodawins  +   1273d ago
that's what happens when some retard tries to run through a level at easy get glitches. gamebreaking? my ass. lets remeber that this is a fps and all shooters are run to an area kill, rinse, repeat. and hell the graphics look pretty damn good while im running it at 90 fps pretty smooth if you ask me. this is a reply to 7.2.
lmfao he gives modern warfare a 9.5 for sound nuff said good day.
#9 (Edited 1273d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
coolbeans  +   1273d ago
". . .while im running it at 90 fps. . ."

There's a problem already: superman's reviewing the console version. Fps was inconsistent for me on the 360 version and I wouldn't be surprised to hear/see if PS3 owners were off worse.
yodawins  +   1273d ago
ha that's awkward.
ZoyosJD  +   1273d ago
I had a lot of problems with this game and clearly a completely different experience.

Ever since the patch, every time I start the game it gets stuck checking player profile data unless I delete the save file.

On top of that, occasionally the game gets stuck in an endless loading loop when I have to quit the game, (you guessed it) delete the save file, then start it back up.
So glad I beat the SP before the patch.

I am dropped from a server usually every third match which is horrible considering I normally am playing squad games (usually rush) with my friends.

While we are on MP for the moment, I must say that "not being rewarded for teamwork" is BS. As someone who is constantly dropped from severs with limited players and placed on the other team I can say for a fact that a good COMMUNICATING team means the difference between taking tags and getting stabbed. And there are plenty of rewads for aiding your team (ammo, meds, spawns, supressions, assists, etc.) even if victory isn't enough in itself (you greedy little...).

Now to SP...I must say I played through on hard my first time, and had no problems with AI (probably because I didn't rush in COD style). I understood the story perfectly. I still find most of the characters to be forgetful, yet remember the playable character names Blackburn, Dima, and Miller. I did on the other hand have increadibly annoying glitches, such as lights that would make half to all of your screen pure white unless you moved away or shot them out. One instace when I was in front of the bank was mounted on a gun, unable to exit or move, unable to shoot the light, and had to protect a chopper from hoards while 90% of the screen was pure white.

The graphics are beautiful, yet ruined by bugs and glitches. The MP is great fun in a good match, but can be ruined by balancing issues and people abusing items/vehicles. Co-op was the most enjoyable part of this game for me, but quickly got old and too repititious. Sound is asounding, expecially with a 7.1 setup. Had no frame rate problems (PS3 and PC BTW).

Even with all the problems I've had I'd still give the game a 7-8 recommendation to the average gamer. With a 9 for the PC graphics whores.
#10 (Edited 1273d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
SCSINUTZ  +   1272d ago
Wow, one year later and your first review? How noble. I think he says this to get his point across how much he likes MW3 better than BF3.

BF3 Single Player - not nearly as bad as described. Worth playing.

CO-OP - I really enjoyed this actually, very intense, and fun. 4 player would have been even better.

Multiplayer - Hands Down the best Multi experience you will have.

Although most games on PS3 suck. Stick with PC. Probably around 10 million people playing online, we won't miss you.

You don't even mention Close Quarters expansion(You will never have a problem finding someone to kill, Very Intense), and the new Armored Kill expansion coming out looks incredible.

Take your biased review elsewhere fanboy.
iamnsuperman  +   1272d ago

1. No this isn't my first review. Try looking at my submissions or click the all iamnsuperman's reviews button next time

2. I didn't bring up MW3 in the review at all. I replied to someone else who mentioned it in the comment that is it. I didn't even hint at any other game and now your just trying to create something that isn't there

3. Single player is boring. My opinion of what I experienced. You might have liked it and that is fair enough. Doesn't make me a "fanboy" (same goes for multi and co-op) as I feel I have explained my points in a logical matter

4. Don't be stupid. Of course I didn't mention the Close Quarters Expansion pack or the Armoured Kill expansion pack as, which I will like to point out most reviews, do not mention this because not only is it an added cost but it doesn't come with the original game. I reviewed the game as it is. DLC is extra content which you pay to use. Not something I should be saying is a positive or negative aspect when it isn't even included in the game

5. Yes I reviewed this nearly a year late. Doesn't matter really. I do not see your point. I got it recently. I can't afford the time or money to get everything on release.

You may disagree with me but there is no need to stir things up and call me a "fanboy". Show some common decency like the rest of the community has done in the above comments. Some disagree but they do not go to low levels of childish insults.
#11.1 (Edited 1272d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
UnwanteDreamz  +   1269d ago
I think your review is a joke, not worth the time it took to write. I wish I could get the time I wasted reading it back. I'm only commenting on the off chance a different opinion helps someone have fun with a great game.

The only point I can agree with in this review is the poor SP campaign. (If you play FPS for the SP then you can miss BF3 no loss. Its better than alot but that doesnt say much.)

If you rack up hours on hours of MP then dont skip BF3.

The MP review of this game reeks of a guy who never lvld up past 10 . You might have to find some good squad mates to show you how to dominate through teamwork but don't be fooled by this hack job. BF3 MP is as tactical as you and your squad make it. this guy should play more TDM if he cant counter tanks or helicopters. (TDM maps are very small with no vehicles )

Even though the SP was a let down BF3 is better than the reviewer says it is.

I would give you props for your effort if I didn't find this review misleading.
#11.2 (Edited 1269d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
Nes_Daze  +   1272d ago
Damn, a 6.6, a bit too harsh for a good FPS like BF3. IMO, the campaign is weak but not THAT bad, and graphics are good imo. As far as comparing it to MW3, which I see you didn't thankfully in your review, yet others brought it up, MW3's graphics are horrible imo. Not to mention I despise the movement in that game, and the unrealistic way that everything performs. But that's just me. Good review nonetheless.

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login

Battlefield 3

Average Score 8.5 Reviews(257)