Metro- Battlefield 3 Console Review

Metro: "Overall, and particularly on consoles, it doesn't really feel like this has moved on very much at all from Bad Company 2. The multiplayer is very good, but it's not as distinctive as on the PC and has none of the same potential for fan-made mods. It's also much more obvious that the game doesn't really have any new ideas of its own. That's not necessarily a problem, but the fact that it so incompetently tries to steal those of others is.

Go into the game knowing what to expect and this is one of the best shooters of the year so far, go in expecting a better-looking Call Of Duty and you'll leave bitterly disappointed."

[DasBunker]

"go in expecting a better-looking Call Of Duty and you'll leave bitterly disappointed." lol judging by the score seems like they did this mistake.. you go in expecting a battlefield game not goddamn COD..

perhaps they only reviewed the metro map, you know cuz their name is metro? if so i agree... that map deserves a 7.

[Hufandpuf]

Consoles aren't bad, but if you want the full experience I recommend buying the PC version.

[brettyd]

Well im sure if someone one has a capable PC thats what they would do. The problem is most people dont have a gaming PC. Like myself.

Personally, im having a blast with the PS3 version. I think it still looks great, i thought BC2 looked great as well.

[Biggest]

Screw how it looks. Until StarHawk, you won't get to play as varied a shooter on consoles. The game is awesome.

[BattleTorn]

I can't be bothered to read a review with such a low score.

It's not that don't appreciate opinions from both sides (like/dislike)

But currently I'm enjoying BF3 on Xbox360 immensely; I don't need to fill my head with reasons NOT to enjoy it, as much as I am.

(I can only assume a review with 7/10 has focused on the negatives)

FYI, I don't go into BF3 expecting a better looking COD. they simply aren't the same

[iamnsuperman]

Then why click? Why comment? If you read the reviews it not always focused on the negative. A lot o the 7s I have read praise the multiplayer but criticise the single player and co-op. Just because it doesn't get a 9+ doesn't mean it is all negative.

[BattleTorn]

Well I think BF3 has definite flaws, but 7/10 seems as though they were concentrating on them.

(also I do take a read after a intial comment like that, i know; silly)

usually when I see a game get a unusually low score, I will go see what the reviewer/site gave BRINK (a game I was very excited for (still enjoyed),but mainly disappointed)

Metro gave Brink 5/10.... So my respect for the 7/10 grew just a little.

furthermore, the review says "best version of Battlefield ever on a console"

But Metro gave BF:BC2:Vietnam 8/10

[JellyJelly]

I've been playing it for 5 hours straight. Both SP and MP. All I can say is that there seems to be a media bias against Battlefield.

The game is amazing and the single player campaign is getting an unfair amount of criticism.

Having played the game myself it's easy to almost become conspiratory when seeing reviews lke this one.

[NuclearDuke]

Media bias? Are you kidding someone or what?

People praise the Multiplayer, in every review. Even this one. However, people are being honest, that the Co-Op & Singleplayer is horrible.

Seems like being honest = biased media.

[XDF]

Multiplayer can be great but shouldn't a game be based on the whole package vice only 1/2 full? Maybe, just maybe, the single player part is just not that good.

[Biggest]

The answer SHOULD be yes, but it isn't. This game is getting the extra criticism that every game before it SHOULD have received. There are games with half the options and double the issues that are graded on a "Since you're buying it anyway, here's a 10/10!" scale. There are games given free passes on broken multiplayer and the sentiment from fans is "I only care about the SP anyway" and games with broken SP get vice versa. If any game should get a free pass on its SP it is Battlefield. The upcoming StarHawk also falls into that category. I agree that the entire package should be reviewed and scored appropriately. I also believe that consistency is more important than finally deciding to play by the rules. If you overlook most things, don't expect people to cheer you on for finally telling the truth. Especially when the truth you choose to enforce in no way overshadows the important truth, which in this case is awesome game that should be bought.

[warner38]

The game is ok 7 is about right
The sp is crap
Multi player is ok but not that much better than the old game

[OC_MurphysLaw]

I hate to admit it but that is the overwhelming feeling I am getting from the game too. I might call it an 8 more than a 7 but I am not feeling all the 9's and 10's I have been seeing.

[optimus]

The more I play the game the more I'm agreeing with the lower scores. I can only compare it to battlefield 2 since that was my 1st and only battlefield game until now. And 3 does look better than 2 but there are some parts of 2 that were better executed than 3. Still, I got bored with 2 midway through and my boredom is growing with 3. Right now I won't be rushing out to buy 4.