G4TV: Battlefield 3 In Depth

Adam Sessler and Blair Herter go in depth with our 4-star Battlefield 3 review, breaking down why it didn't get that fifth star, and wondering if the single-player campaign was unnecessary.

The story is too old to be commented.
ATi_Elite2181d ago (Edited 2181d ago )

I totally agree!

the SP could of been DLC later on as BF has always been about MP.....which has some server issues (Origin) do to EA having DICE waste time on a SP and Co-oP.

4/5 B+/A 9.0/10 is what i give BF3....without the SP/Co-op BF3 would of been perfect.

Lovable2181d ago

so by removing the SP, Battlefield would have gotten a perfect score? LOL

This is beyond unreal...

2181d ago
Hufandpuf2181d ago

So adding stuff to the game brings the game's score down? If you have an excellent MP, but mediocre SP, It's going to get judged either way. It's not like SP was a free part of the package (though its very welcome in my eyes).

2181d ago Replies(2)
Jamaicangmr2181d ago

I thought that while the campaign was short it did keep me immersed enough to enjoy it. I played through on hard and the experience was good yes there are missions that felt like a bore like the jet mission for example. However overall it was a good experience to me.

They just limited the score because of MW3 anyway. MW3 already has its prepackaged 5/5 from Xplay we all know this to be true.

Campaign is good multiplayer is excellent. Needs alil fixing in one or two areas but overall a sold package.