Top
390°
7.5

Destructoid: Battlefield 3 Review

For the past few years, Electronic Arts has desperately been attempting to gain a leading share of the first-person shooter market. Games like Medal of Honor and Crysis 2 have been selected as champions to take down Activision and its Call of Duty franchise, but they've never been considered serious threats.

Battlefield 3 represents EA's first real chance at carving out a competing niche. With its huge marketing budget, gorgeous visuals, and an army of fans ready to argue in its honor, this is a game with some serious muscle behind it.

Read Full Story >>
destructoid.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Aussiegamer1800d ago

Jim sterling, hahahahahah.

I still think he is just trolling us.

Organization XII1800d ago (Edited 1800d ago )

I'm not sure how can you take someone's reviews seriously when he gives Kirby a perfect 10/10.

http://www.destructoid.com/...

Ratchet & Clank: All 4 One - 4/10

http://www.destructoid.com/...

Jim Sterling's either a bit too opinionated or a plain out troll.

@Eldorado and you can't deny that Killzone 3 wasn't on par of its predecessor(in other words it sucked). It only had good console visuals - that's all!

ElDorado1800d ago

He gave Killzone 3 a perfect 10.

DasBunker1800d ago

i think the KZ3 review was only for the lulz and to freak people out cuz they were not expecting that

MostJadedGamer1800d ago

Actually that is the reason you can take his reviews seriously. He is the only reviewer I know that actually gives his honest opinion on games, and don't just give games high scores or low scores because everybody else is doing it. Every other professional reviwer I know of just trys to conform to the crowd.

Optical_Matrix1800d ago

He gave Killzone 3 a 10/10. I'm a big Killzone fan, but Killzone 3 shouldn't have released this year. It didn't feel like a significant step compared to Killzone 2. It's as if Sony wanted it out in February 2011 just to bolster the exclusive line up. The multiplayer barely felt any more robust than Killzone 2. It was more like an 8/10. it was a great game, but thats about it. Nothing special in my opinion. Here's hoping Killzone 4 is feature/content rich.

I refuse to read BF3 reviews as well. Too much hype and controversy surrounding the game for me to take any reviews seriously. I loved the Beta, so that's all I need to confirm my purchase (which will arrive at my door tomorrow, 2 days before the UK launch..so please).

ReservoirDog3161800d ago

What do you mean Killzone 3 sucked!? Besides a slow start, it was honestly one of the most entertaining games I played this year. And I was very skeptical about it since it didn't seem to set the world on fire like Killzone 2. The singleplayer changed it up so much that you can just never get bored and the story didn't take itself so seriously.

I highly disagree with you and somewhat agree with Sterling.

And Jim Sterling is just the way he is but he gives his reasons why he gives those scores. He doesn't just say I didn't like it just cause, he gives his reasons. Whether they're as big of an issue as he makes it out to be is up to your tastes but he's his own man. And he uses the entire 10 point scale.

Having said that, the link to his review is dead.

evrfighter1800d ago

if I remember correctly he gave witcher 2 a 5 or 6. That was the last time I visited destructoid

BlindGuardian1800d ago

I'm about two thirds of the single player and I can confirm everything he wrote about it is truth

I don't have a problem with playing another short, corridor single player FPS but something about this one feels off, it's too uninspired, too bland, too much "been there done that" feeling, it has big environments but if you try to move a few steps away from the path you'll get the dreaded "leaving playable area" countdown, most of the stuff you shoot at that's not enemies doesn't react (bottles or civilians), there's an endless mission on an air fighter that mostly plays itself, when big battle take place you can't see anything, you don't know where are the guys shooting at you, and you'll get kill long before you spot them

and the graphics on the 360 are nothing especial, far from Killzone 3 and Crysis 2

Venjense1800d ago

How can you give a game with shit SP more than an 8/10. Why bother making it all, may as well just create more maps and game modes and make it MP only.

VvKILLAGOOSEvV1800d ago

Looks like Jimbo didn't play Team Deathmatch, I swear I run into more enemy players in that mode than I do in CoD...Not joking it's insane.

rjdofu1799d ago

So... Jim Sterling strikes again!

Lucky UC3 has successfully evaded him LOL.

Clarence1799d ago

KZ3 was a let down. I was excited for awhile but that faded after 2weeks. guerrilla games drop the ball.

Christopher1799d ago

In the world of video game reviewers, Jim Sterling is a big wildcard. Sometimes, you never know what her's going to do or say, just don't go in with any set expectations.

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 1799d ago
chidori6661799d ago

"Jim sterling, hahahahahah. "

Jim Sterling gave an accurate review of a game and make valid points, so please stfu ,people have diferent opinions you troll.

Aussiegamer1799d ago

Good for you champ.

1. take a joke.

2. get a life.

Anon19741799d ago

I clicked the link. I saw who did the review. I moved on.

SilentNegotiator1799d ago

It's a perfectly legitimate review. The SP is crap and plenty of resources went into it. They could have used those resources to make a more robust MP, but they didn't. And the MP isn't exactly perfect. Having ANYTHING be fought over like it were the sole objective, like tanks, is poor balancing. If there were a decent counter-balance and other options, one thing wouldn't nearly assure victory. Rocket launchers tend to dominate in small areas. Goofy co-op structure with a forced helicopter stage. The terrain is often too noisy to get a good aim on someone. Battlelog over-complicates everything.

There are times I totally disagree with Jim Sterling, (like when he claimed LBP2 lacked re-playability) but Jim hit the nail on the head and drove it in on one swing on this one. Too many things in BF3 have been forgiven to fandom.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1799d ago
Lovable1800d ago

"and an army of fans ready to argue in its honor"

Hahahahaha..that was a good one.

DasBunker1800d ago

reviewer doesnt know how to play the game

"run for a very long time across a huge open space, then bump into a tank and die."

"Tanks are sluggish and alienate one from the atmosphere of the match, while airborne transport is a nightmare to use"

gamingdroid1800d ago

That is actually how I felt playing BC2 minus the tank. Usually it was snipers. BF3 beta was even worse when it came to snipers.

DasBunker1800d ago

"run for a very long time across a huge open space, then bump into a tank and die."

run? why not ride an ATV, another vehicle or spawn on a squadmate? also most of the time tanks are spottable from a fairly distant... learn to sneak around, flank etc..

"Tanks are sluggish and alienate one from the atmosphere of the match, while airborne transport is a nightmare to use"

this is a balance and even a bit of realism thing... air vehicles would be harder to take down if they were easy to pilot..

"snipers"

this isnt call of duty where youre on the undercover of precious walls into safeness.. avoid running like a headless chicken on open field

gamingdroid1799d ago (Edited 1799d ago )

***avoid running like a headless chicken on open field***

LOL... Open field is all there was, unless you are planning to camp as well!

Son_Lee1800d ago

People bash on this guy because he actually isn't afraid to use the entire review scale. 7.5, when using the ENTIRE scale, is still a very good score. Sure, the game may not be for everyone or do anything new, but it has many redeeming qualities that one can't deny. I wish people could see that the review scale is more than just 7-10.

Jacks_Medulla1800d ago

The way I look at it, the review scale for video games is similar to the grading system of American schools. 10-9 is equivalent to an A, 8.9-8 a B, 7.9-7 a C, etc. Review scores make more sense, to me, when viewed this way; everything below a 6 is just varying in how terrible it is.
As for Sterling, I stopped trusting his reviews once he gave Assassins Creed 2 a 4.5; I don't even enjoy the Assassins Creed games, but I'll admit they deserve scores much Higher than a 4.5. Even if the score was based on the "full scale", a 4.5 is still below average.

Rage_S901800d ago

This was actually a really well written review. People should read it first before saying olololololol jim sterling.

radphil1800d ago (Edited 1800d ago )

"People bash on this guy because he actually isn't afraid to use the entire review scale. 7.5, when using the ENTIRE scale"

I would be on the side to agree with it, except that he doesn't admit to some of his bias, when you see him giving Return to Dreamland a perfect 10, bad mouth and made a false generalization of the PC crowd because of a closed mind to piracy(he basically stated it's all the PC Community's fault for piracy), and among other things. From the way he does things, his word just doesn't seem to hold much weight anymore given with how he tends to speak without too much thought.

He can write some long pieces, but 1/2 the time you just question him.

Also just for reference, he gave Payday a 7.5 also, and after having both, BF3 has a much higher quality standard.

girlwithturn1800d ago

Biggest PR doesn't changing quality of simple military shooter.

GameZenith1800d ago

Who cares what reviewers say.

One person's opinion does not equal the true quality of a game.

BF3 is still an superior game to MW3. Why?

- Better Graphics
- Next Gen Engine
- Multiplayer that requires team play and less lone wolf
- 64 Players
- The Use of Vehicles which changes the landscape of the battlefield
- Destruction which changes the landscape of the battlefield

JeffGUNZ1799d ago

other then the engine, you described BFBC2.

That's the problem. It's so much like BC2 that it feels underwhelming.