Battlefield 3 Review | IGXPRO

IGXPRO - When Battlefield: Bad Company 2 came out last year, we overheard some classmates talking about how they spent the whole weekend playing the game’s multiplayer, telling the usual gamer war stories of close matches or about how some weapons were overpowered or how the other team was filled with cheap bastards. For their entire conversation they talked exclusively about the multiplayer aspects of the game until finally we couldn't stand it. 6.5/10

[Hufandpuf]

honest review. The game's $60 price tag is only worth it for the multiplayer. As with many of the reviews, the co-op and singleplayer are only average. My only problem is that the 6.5 should be a 7. Be glad they added a singleplayer and co op in the first place.

[T900]

I think 6.5 score is too harsh on the game. Specially with 64 player battles, dedicated servers etc. When a game like COD, which has been endlessly rehashed gets 9.5's across the board.

Imo BF3 is probably the FPS of the generation specially for MP. I would give the game atleast a 9.

[bumnut]

This is a review of the 360 version, it is only 24 players.

[newmonday]

this is a single player review

[decrypt]

Well they were reviewing the console version of the game. I would say the review is right on.

[Hufandpuf]

I am not saying the game deserved a 7. But he gave it a 6.5, but I think it should AT LEAST be a 7.

[JellyJelly]

The multiplayer by itself warrants nothing lower than an 8.

And compared to the inflated scores MW3 has been getting for not doing anything new for the past 5 years then BF3 deserves a 10. It's the better game of the two and probably the best FPS multiplayer you will experience this gen.

[T900]

Agreed specially the game is so well optimized. Entry level hardware runs the game at 1080p 60fps with mid to high settings. With all thats going on with 64 players thats a feat in itself.

[Septic]

The problem here isn't the game, its the newer generation of 'reviewers' who are only aware of the Battlefield series by over-hearing a conversation their classmates on a series that is essentially an off-shoot of the real Battlefield game; one which didn't even have a single player campaign. (Maybe the reviewer was too young to play the game then)

To the reviewer; you clearly do not understand the essence of the Battlefield series, and whilst you can critique the package as a whole, you are clearly missing the point about the MP aspect of the game. I have not experienced any connectivity issues that would prevent me from enjoying the game (and neither have several of my friends).

I'm sorry but I cannot take the opinion of a reviewer seriously if he has never even played Battlefield 2 or even begins to understand what Battlefield 3 is all about. As it stands, there is no military FPS that can match the visual fidelity, the scope, the depth and enjoyment Battlefield 3 offers.

Another poor review that appears to be looking for hits.

[slainbaby]

A review should not have to be compared to previous entries in the series for it to be fair,unless of course it relates to story continuity.

[fastNslowww]

bf3 isn't noobified for his liking

[Tenkin]

They were clearly payed, they gave cod a 9/10 there just trolling for views now

[T900]

Lol good catch if they gave BF3 a 6.5, then they should have given COD a 2 tops.

[krisq]

Maybe not payed but clearly for hits. No doubt about it.

[MajorJackHoff]

paid*

[krisq]

Thanks Major :)
English is my fourth langauge.

[Joecool6101]

Two different reviewers for each game.

Honestly not sure why everyone loves this game so much. The glitches all over the place are terrible.

I agree with the writer of the article, I'm sure this game deserves a much better score on PC as that is where it shines. I always enjoyed BF2 on PC and looked forward to BF3 for such a long time hoping for a similar experience but on console and honestly, 6.5 is being generous. They should have actually had game testers try the game before releasing.

COD on the other hand, sure it hasn't changed much throughout each one.. but the story is different and it's a solid game with no glitches during single player.. but severely lacking vehicles which is something I enjoy about the BF series..

Each game has it's flaws and unfortunately the 360 version of BF3 just has too many. Perhaps we will review PC version at a later date so then it'd get a better score.

[SKUD]

Midnight confessions. Awesome.

[slampunk]

This website won't ever get a hit from me, only read the heading!!!.....It's been touched on before.....but i'll say it again.....This nob clearly doesn't understand the essence of BF.....

[Euthanasia78]

Its like someone telling me "I dont like the UFC" "Its too violent". Obviosly He hasn't a CLUE of what he's doing. Bet He's enjoying MW 2.5, with its reused buildings, same graphics, same animations, same level up sound, same physics, same hit box problems, SAME exact game as MW1. Now that ppl have found code in MW 2.5 with the names of all old maps, I hope everyone who bought elite likes preordering dlc they probably already own. As in rehashed old maps. KDR killed teamwork too. Ppl only care about their score. Not the team. Not the win. Just KDR. I despise what MW has become. Sure it will sell alot, but so did New Kids on the Block. That didn't make them good did it?

[babis1974]

i am sad for this poor review... for those who have played the game it's a masterpiece. my review is 9.5

[Noticeably_FAT]

Finally a decent console review of Battlefield 3.

[FunkMcnasty]

It was a "decent" review to you because you've already made it clear in past comments you're not a Battleifield fan.

Perhaps I might add the fact that your beloved MW3 is getting 9's for serving consumers last months frozen leftovers is complete bullsh*t. I think a decent review of that game would equate to a 6.5 as well..

[Noticeably_FAT]

Get over it man, MW3 is clearly the better game and clearly has the less issues. Read a review by any legit reviewer and you'll see it's not the same old thing.

Of course the game plays like COD, that's what millions of people want. What kind of idiot would change up something that works as well as COD games do? It'd be a total waste of time because nobody would buy it anymore.

Once again were reminded that N4G is clearly NOT the majority when it comes to what gamers want.

[FunkMcnasty]

I wouldn't argue with you that BF3 has its issues.. sure there's lag, strange glitches here and there.. but overall it is a very solid multiplayer shooter.
I suppose my overall argument is that BF3 got an average review score of about 7-8.. and it completely re-vamped itself since its previous iteration Bad Company 2 and pushed consoles to their technical limits, never mind what the PC version did.

Meanwhile, Call of Duty, which also allegedly has similar issues (and always has) to BF3 in terms of lag and glitches, gets nearly perfect review scores, yet almost every review i've read mentions it's only made minimal refinements to gameplay, multiplayer, and the critisisms about the campaign being too short with an incoherent story line and constantly respawning enemies remain. So, basically, because everyone enjoys Call of Duty, MW3 gets a perfect score.. just because it's fun? It doesn't seem like an objective way to review games, and i think by rewarding IW/Sledgehammer's efforts with 9's and 10's doesn't motivate developers to try something different and innovate an overpopulated genre.

I think that CoD is popular because of the easy pick-up-and-play factor that it has, along with the frantic fast paced action of the multiplayer. But that doesn't mean CoD developers can't make changes to the game.. they can keep the core multiplayer, add a new engine, and some new mechanics and it would still sell millions and I doubt anyone would complain.

I also don't think that Call of Duty is the "better" game. It's just the more popular game.

[ssb3173]

This is a decent game, online could be better but overall its acctually pretty good