7.5 : Battlefield 3 Review writes "But what we get is something on par with the mindless nonsense that was Black ops, with a ridiculous, often boring and extremely liner story mode, in the first few hours I think my vehicle was blown up by an RPG 3 times and I had a building fall on me yet managed to survive it all. It fell into the same trap of trying to recreate “moments” rather than a “game”. Large sections of cut scenes or QTE break up the gun play and this just takes you out of the experience."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
superfranky2336d ago

stupid review, stupid reviewer
he doesnt get his God of War in BF3 and gave it a 7

iamnsuperman2336d ago (Edited 2336d ago )

Dissagre. "he doesnt get his God of War in BF3 and gave it a 7".

No he gave it a 7.5 because it has a bad single player experience that is more about moments than an in depth story a long with bugs that made him battle "the game" not battle "within the game"

"The score is perhaps lower than others have given BF3 but we felt we had to review the full package and not just the online"

I applaud the review for this. A review should be about the package as a whole not one part of it (which a lot of reviews for big publications have done). His justification for the score is very reasonable. 9 for multiplayer, 6 for single player. 7.5 total.

BoneIdle2336d ago

Well said, it seems anything under a 9 is the reviewers fault not the games !

superfranky2335d ago

By your logic iamnsuperman, MAG should have got 5's across the board...same with Socom: Confrontation, why you ask? They don't even HAVE a complete package, $60 games that only had multiplayer.
Or let's talk about Dead Space 2 and Bioshock 2, good single player, but a tacked on multiplayer, so that means regardless of the campaign, we have to review the whole package, so let's see, that's a 7.5 TOPS for those two games.

BoneIdle2335d ago

mag is sold as a online only game so you review the online only. bioshock 2 should take both into consideration and the fact its single player was a bit of a let down too.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2335d ago
fluffydelusions2336d ago

Horrible review. Great game!

NuclearDuke2336d ago

How is the review horrible for being honest?

If you take a look at ANY review that is 9.0 or above, they only review the multiplayer. They dismiss reviewing the singleplayer because they do not feel its a true battlefield component.

This review takes in the ENTIRE package and gives an overall score on the title. Battlefield 3.

Big kudos to the reviewer for being honest!

Clayman2336d ago

It will be interesting to see if certain other modern military shooters will also be downgraded because of the dull SP or if they will just get a free ticket to GOTY right away.

josephps32336d ago

Battlefield3 was a little rushed to compete with MW3. Another few months would have done wonders. I'll wait for the Bad Company using the Frostbite 2 engine to come out. I'm guessing it will be all that Battlefield3 could and should have been-better SP, less glitches, better visuals throughout and there may even be BOTS.

I think Bots would be invaluable in the console version since there is less players. I'd love to hook up with 6 friends and have lots of bots fill in the gap to have a hectic real battlefield experience without annoying strangers. That would be a real fun battlefield party.

Ocean2336d ago

Folks...could any early adopters of BF3 check this out and see if they have had the same problems?

Its on the EA forums as well