First, let's get the elephants out of the room. Elephant one: Battlefield 3 isn't as handsome on console as it is on high-end PC. It's a great looking game, but it doesn't straddle the gap between this and the next generation of consoles.
Elephant two: the single-player campaign - always a weak spot - is damn good, but it can't hold a candle to the sublime multiplayer. Elephant three: it's a better game than Modern Warfare. Well, actually...
Problem is, although Battlefield 3 ticks all the right boxes, it's an unbalanced package, excelling in some areas and lagging behind in others. No question, it's a technical showcase but this winter has also seen Uncharted 3 (which does spectacle better) Batman Arkham City (which does fine detail better) and Skyrim (which does epic scale better).
One thing that definitely feels genre-leading is the multiplayer. If you're confident venturing online (and to clarify, it feels much more polished and traditionally Battlefield than the recent open beta) this game is essential. We've said it before of Battlefield games, but the team at DICE know how to create compelling, perfectly paced online experiences. Actually, scratch that - DICE know how to craft the tools and environments, which can be transformed into near-perfect multiplayer.
Battlefield 3 is another masterclass in giving power to the online player while staving off anarchy. Reactions not so good? There's a combination of kit and tactics that will compensate for your slower trigger finger. Can't do vehicles? There's an anti-vehicle set-up for you. Want to camp out with a sniper and still contribute to your team? Yes you can. In other words, there's always a role for you on the team.
However, despite being so accommodating, Battlefield 3 loses none of its online savagery. If anything, we found this game to be slightly more aggressive than Bad Company 2. That's encouraged by some of the smaller maps, such as Grand Bazaar - a finely balanced maze of dangerously open squares and twisting kill-zones, and by the wealth of kit on offer.
If there's any criticism of the multiplayer it's that team deathmatch adds nothing of substance, and feels like yet another box-ticking exercise to make sure the Call of Duty converts feel comfortable.
Rush and Conquest offer the same style of action, only with added tactical punch, leaving deathmatch redundant. But if Battlefield's multiplayer is an exercise in giving players the freedom to create their own spectacle - what the marketing types love to trumpet as emergent gameplay - the single player is the polar opposite.
Comments
70 comments so far...
StonecoldMC on 27 Oct '11 said:
Good review although im quite surprised at the 91 score, it didnt really read like that.
Will most likely pick this up next year. Still on the fence for MW3?
danhalen74 on 27 Oct '11 said:
reading the final paragraph, i take it you've played MW3 to a reviewable level? i only ask as im completely on the fence on this one. i normally buy COD as there's at least half of my xboxlive friends list who do the same guaranteeing big games full of friends all having a (drunken mostly) laugh. i was prepared to give BF3 a go instead but playing these kind of shooters without buddies gets boring quickly for me....im not sure about getting a great online game i know for a fact most of my less discerning gamer buddies wont give a second glance.....hmmmm
kirankara on 27 Oct '11 said:
sounds fair to me, the mp is main reason i bought this. the sp is a side note, ill try and if i dont like, ill just ignore.
I was seriously contemplating not getting this in favour of mw3, but I cant help but feel, i can leave black ops in collection for any cod-esque cravings I get, and still get people online, whereas this will genuinely satisfy my mp cravings.
Also getting uc3 in next week or so, and still not started Arkham City, as Rage been taking up my time (actually my favourite game this year, although the lack of proper auto save has caught me out several times, and royally f***ed me off), too many games, not enough time
adison on 27 Oct '11 said:
Erm excuse me MR CVG, how can you possibly know that the solo campaign is comparable to MW3's and that the Multiplayer is better than MW3's?
As far as I was aware MW3 has not been released and the only chance that people have had to play is at press conferences.
And although both games are military based FPS, they are nothing alike, Its like comparing chalk and penguins.
Grow up will ya.
kirankara on 27 Oct '11 said:
go onto Eurogamer and join Bf3 thread and then sign upto their "clan", youre always guaranteed games.
c3dpo on 27 Oct '11 said:
Nice review but one question please guys:
is the game out? Are the servers heaving with players?
If not, then to label the mp as superb is a bit misleading. Every BF game I've played on launch has had shocking server issues, also has the squad system been sorted out from the Beta, trying to get on the same one was a nightmare.
I'm not hating on this or COD, just need to know which one to buy first hand
Though I may save myself the day 1 bug / server rage and wait for some real players reviews on the MP
kirankara on 27 Oct '11 said:
press will have had plenty of hands on time with mw3 at conferences, behind scenes etc etc, maybe even had sessions in a review conference, which is how a lot of reviews are done these days. So they maybe can make comment, or maybe they were just fanning a few fanboy flames, who knows?
kirankara on 27 Oct '11 said:
They will have had experience of mp with usa public online, so limited server strain, but most likely , it will be a cluster f**k when goes online here for few days, but I can wait anyway, try out sp, or just play another game . It always takes few days for EA to bring required number of servers online to cope.
illage2 on 27 Oct '11 said:
Right this is coming from the same people who hyped up the game. I can see CvG is nothing but a biased website if this review has anything to say about it. For once I want to see a completely unbiased review of a game.
adison on 27 Oct '11 said:
Don't believe the hype!
How can you review either games multiplayer at this point in time?
You can't, IW & Sledgehammer have only let people play and see what they want them to see and Battlefield 3 isn't out until tomorrow so how you can give a relevant review of that multiplayer I don't know.
kirankara on 27 Oct '11 said:
Good luck with that, a review will always be biased, due to the fact that it's a subjective experience. Just look around and see if game appeals to you based on reviews ie the text, not the number at end.
StonecoldMC on 27 Oct '11 said:
http://www.centreflow.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/glowingexit.jpg
TheLastDodo on 27 Oct '11 said:
^
EDIT @illage2
Good review CVG, not sure the final score matches the text but it's kinda irrelevant as the text tells you exactly what you need to know.
Decent yet brief campaign for those that want a CoD like SP experience, for those that don't it will suit as training for the multiplayer, a co-op mode that sounds like a fun little distraction and the best multiplayer FPS experience around today.
It was also nice to see the CoD comparisons toned down this time too.
roguezink on 27 Oct '11 said:
So nothing on the console specific multiplayer server game finders or server modifiers? I'll find out for myself tomorrow then... cheers
kirankara on 27 Oct '11 said:
theyve not commented on mp of cod, just sp, and the game is online in usa , as was out 2 days ago, thus about 3 million people potentially online already, and thats without possibility of other countries in that region not having had game released there already too.
TheRandyNinja on 27 Oct '11 said:
lmao you really can't win you either say its not as good as mw3 and you get flamed or you say its on par or slightly better and still get flamed. dice has allways made epic big battles for multiplayer cods are small fast levels i think theres room for both. if there both similar in quality who cares who wins we have 2 great games coming out that we get to enjoy buy both and if you cant afford both try battlefield and trade it in for cod then you get the best of both worlds. i think the review was fair and didnt slap cod in the face at all so pipe down with the fan boy bs because your making yourself sound like a bunch of 12 year old kids
veato on 27 Oct '11 said:
Why are COD fans crying that CVG said BF3 is better than MW3? Er... they DIDN'T. In the article they said it's better than Call of Duty. Presumably in reference to currently released games. At no point did they say it's better than Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3. Learn to read
roguezink on 27 Oct '11 said:
Just a comment on what people are saying regarding comparisons to COD mp, and the UK BF3 mp not being online.
All reviewers are reviewing the game content as it comes 'out of the box' or by what they've played in press only exposure. How did the yanks review the game before all the public were on??? So, that's point one.
Point two, CVG obviously comparing to MW Black Ops mp or sp. Even if they have played MW3 in any form, they'll be sworn to a legal 'shut ya gob' about it. Perhaps it's not fair to judge agaist last year's MW game, but I'd put money on this year's MW experience being pretty similar. That said, BF3 and MW3 are obviously two very different games, and that should be made clear. I'd rather have heard more about the console versions in more detail, with some comment on the new maps etc, rather than comparing it to COD all the time.
adison on 27 Oct '11 said:
Ha Ha Cvg did mention MW3 but now it seems to have disappeared. Crafty CVG editing another finished article.
KK-Headcharge78 on 27 Oct '11 said:
Good review whets my appetite nicely for tomorrow, don't care about the console vs PC as I don't game on my PC so what it looks like is irrelevant to me (though I appreciate the obvious differences) The SP is a bit of a shame but should still be a blast through. Finally I see no point whatsoever in the COD MP comparison, totally different games, totally different gameplay, totally different environments, mechanics, modes etc etc etc. I can understand giving the respective fanboys their bait but in reality the two games have always played very differently. The lucky people are those who will thoroughly enjoy both, on their own merits, like me
kirankara on 27 Oct '11 said:
if game was reviewed at orgznised presso review conference , then theyd use localised servers tlc.play.mp
RustySpoon80 on 27 Oct '11 said:
Looks like CVG cant win. They dont compare it to MW3, they compare it to Call of Duty.
Based on previous (COD) games, you can make an educated guess what the multi-player will be like.
Some people do want to know what the differences are between the two games.
I've got this on pre-order through Zavvi for £17.95 and will then either trade in for MW3, or use my Nectar points to get MW3 free.
For the record, I'm more on the COD side.
cam123 on 27 Oct '11 said:
Haha:
"Same great battlefield multiplayer"
That reminds me of cereal's companies that change their recipe and write on the box:
"Same great taste"
KK-Headcharge78 on 27 Oct '11 said:
Oh and as a matter of interest is the quoted 6 hour SP campaign on pussy easy difficulty or the hardest? It kinda makes a big difference as I find with fps's that the higher difficulty not only extends the play time but makes them far more enjoyable generally.
veato on 27 Oct '11 said:
I think they SHOULD be comnpared. At the end of the day they're the two biggest military FPS shooters on the consoles and a lot of people (me included) are likely to only buy one of them at launch. Yes they have some core differences but ultimately they fall into the same genre with heavy MP elements so it's interesting to get someone's take on which they think is better and why.
Lurf on 27 Oct '11 said:
Finally people are starting to acknowledge that BF > COD. Now if only they started to massively abandon consoles I would be seriously happy
I've been playing the campaign for a few hours now and the only thing I don't like is that it's so on rails and scripted. It sometimes gives me the same frustration COD does. Not enough freedom. "Please don't leave the battlefield" ##$#@! Thankfully the experience is saved by beautiful graphics, great sound and some nice animations (Crysis like. For instance when you jump on the ground). The story is well... not meh but not w00t. As for the multiplayer I'm hooked. Massive battles on huge maps with vehicles where almost everything can be destroyed. Need I say more? Oh wait... goodbye Cawl of D00ty!
KK-Headcharge78 on 27 Oct '11 said:
Fair point, for me it's the depth of the comparison that matters. It's not sufficient to say one is just better than the other, I wanna know why and how because it is very subjective and there is a high level of differences between the 2 historically, most aspects in both appeal to me but it's clearly not the same for many and some people will base their choice on what is ultimately a flimsy comparison.
Oh and it provides the fuel for clowns as in the post above
Flamestrike on 27 Oct '11 said:
Hmm, you make it sound like they're not even in the same genre.
See, I don't buy that at all. I've no preference for either, (I'll get which cheapest at the time if I decide to get one of them at all), but you are, essentially, just running around in an FPS in a modern/not too distant future setting shooting people over and over again set in very similar environments, with very similar weaponary, with very similar gameplay, (the gameplay isn't that different, not in the same sense as Ridge Racer/Gran Turismo different), and in many other respects they're very much a like.
As such, comparisons should be drawn and if one turns out to be better than the other than that's the one you should get.
I can't see the point in buying both when they are so similar.
KK-Headcharge78 on 27 Oct '11 said:
Well we will have to disagree there, they are worlds apart for me. MOH was more like BF but I still loved that for it's different nuances.
TheLastDodo on 27 Oct '11 said:
They shouldn't be compared because they are totally different experiences even if they are in the same genre.
Would you compare Gran Turismo to Need For Speed? Course you wouldn't.
master warrior on 27 Oct '11 said:
If i preorder now will is still get the game tomorrow?
kirankara on 27 Oct '11 said:
Yup pl ayed rage on hardest difficulty and its 8 hr campaign been closer to 15 and still not done .
Comparison can be done, if it.explains differences and preferences etc , but this is realstically an.article in itself. The mp of.these two games offer very different experiences , and thus direct comparison is
Tough .
IbanezLewis on 27 Oct '11 said:
My pre-order from Shop.To has literally just arrived. Installing both discs then I'm AWAY!
MANYOO4EVA on 27 Oct '11 said:
As has already been mentioned the MP mode for BF and COD are miles apart.
BF = slower paced tactical large scale battles with vehicles involved on huge maps.
COD = Rambo style fast paced run n gun gunplay on small maps.
They are like chalk and cheese.
And for me, COD suits my gameplay style, and I cannot play both as I have tried, and yes I'm probably not skilled enough for BF.
As Dara O'Briain said: I'm Hardcore casual. Got the heart of hardcore gamer but the skill of only a casual one.
Not saying that BF is worse or better in anyway, it is just at the other end of the spectrum, and caters for a different experience and looks very good.
I will buy it for SP and Co-op when it's cheaper, and hope they bring in the Onslaught mode from BF:BC2. That was great.
The Bossman on 27 Oct '11 said:
So despite criticising the single player and co-op campaigns, it still gets 91/100? My copy arrives tomorrow but I'd prefer a review where you don't chicken out towards the end, give it around 85, the score you were probably going to give it in the first place then marked it up for fear of upsetting people. I'm buying both so it means nothing to me, but other people are different.
craiglackenby on 27 Oct '11 said:
So where is it 50 quid apart from PSN? I'm on the understanding it's £40 and I'll being paying £35 tonight minus my fiver deposit.
TW15T3D on 27 Oct '11 said:
CVG makes me laugh, there telling us that the game cost's £50 and yet next to the review is an advertisement for BF3 showing where you can get the game from for under £40?
Moorpheus on 27 Oct '11 said:
I've read user comments on other sites that are reporting Battlefield 3 overheating their Xbox 360s (i.e. the console shuts down and the light on the power pack turns red) - users have claimed this has happened both with and without the texture pack installed and that it doesn't happen on other games.
Anyone else heard about this? I don't really want BF3 bricking my 360
Sammy_bham on 27 Oct '11 said:
Nice review.
but the attempt to hide comparisons to then finally majorlly compare the games multiplayer = epic fail.
the one thing people need to realise, this is just ONE guys opinion. One of the other reviewers at cvg might have given it 10/10 or maybe even 7/10. this guy found the faults, but awarded it highly still.
ths same guy might actually hate COD. who knows.
complete and independant reviews are lacking these days. or even a split review a bit like gamesradar does sometmes would be a nice welcome
Having played the beta for battlefield and having download the mulitplayer from psn for the older game, i can safely say the multiplayer isnt for me, just my preference, i think the single player looks the dogs, but this seems to be the most critisied. so i dunno
each to their own, and everyone will find something they need from one, or both or neither of the games.
to the guys getting it tomorrow, enjoy, let me know what the single player is like
veato on 27 Oct '11 said:
Yes I would. If they came out within a month of each other and I only had the money to buy one game of that genre (i.e. racing) then I'd compare them to work out which I wanted to buy.
I might come to the conclusion that one is a racing sim and the other more arcade racing and weight up the pros and cons but ultimately I'd still be comparing them as racing games.
kimoak on 27 Oct '11 said:
Got mine from ShopTo also. Come today. Played a little of the single player. Loving it. Runs great on my machine which is almost a year old. High level detail too. Not tried upping to Ultra just yet though.
FlimFlam on 27 Oct '11 said:
Have to say its pretty refreshing that there hasn't been any 360 vs PS3 arguments yet, good show chaps.
Been playing the Xbox version this afternoon and have to say I'm impressed. Looks great, plays great, and after all the naysayers trumpeting after the beta, I'm delighted that DICE have come good. My faith has been justified, I stuck with my pre-order and have been rewarded, multiplayer is top draw.
Not interested in CoD, haven't been for a while as it began to bore me to tears, and MW3 has done nothing so far to sway me. Looks like the same multiplayer and a campaign that (even more than previous instalments) teeters on the utterly ludicrous. No thanks.
wyabcp on 27 Oct '11 said:
Good review, pretty much as expected, still looking forward to it... and will get mw3 too ... for those long cold nights we're going to have...
OH boy looks like i'm going to be rotting in front of the tv for months with these 2...
To be honest though after these, i'm done with current gen console, it's far way behind now... we deserve better ... come on M/S and Sony... forget about nintendo..
wyabcp on 27 Oct '11 said:
don't worry about it ... it's a rip off .. the price will come down to 30 quid soon, and the map pack will cost £8 , so you're better off waiting..
sonic_uk on 27 Oct '11 said:
My 360 copy arrived today and I've been playing Single Player since about 7pm this evening and really enjoying it. I've just got up to Operation Guillotine at the moment and as I bought the game expressly for its Single Player (not interested in Multiplayer in the least) I have to say I'm not dissapointed at all. So you can't actually "fly" the jet. You also couldn't "fly" the AC-130 in Cod4, or actually pilot any vehicles in that game for that matter - but that didn't stop it from getting fab reviews (yet Battlefield is noted for its lack of actual Single Player mode vehicular control?) . It also didn't stop it from being my favourite Cod game of all time (again for its Single Player). For those that say you shouldn't buy Battlefield for its Single Player mode, that's a matter of opinion, and my opinion is Battlefield 3 is a decent, fun and of course extremely graphically polished Military Fps Single Player experience which no doubt I'll play again and again (like I did with Cod4, Crysis and Medal Of Honour).
ricflair on 27 Oct '11 said:
The review in Metro is not so complimentary. The campaign especially gets a pasting.
IbanezLewis on 27 Oct '11 said:
I've been playing the campaign all day on Hard. It's fantastic, guns feel nice and punchy to use, if you know what I mean. It's a great singleplayer, miles better than BC and BC2 combined.
TheLastDodo on 27 Oct '11 said:
I read that Metro review too, any credibility that site had with their reviews has been completely destroyed with just one sentence in the 360 review.
Can't remember it word for word but they pretty much stated that a number of the faults found in BF3 (crap enemy AI among many other examples), they will overlook for CoD games.
That may sound like fanboy drivel to some of you but you can check it for yourself, end of the fifth paragraph in the 360 review, it's crap like that that turns people against CoD.
MrRage on 28 Oct '11 said:
Glad to see the MP stands up. True Battlefield games have never had a single player mode till this game so its not a problem for me
.
ricflair on 28 Oct '11 said:
It's not that bad. BF seems to be positioning itself as a more tactical game, yet they think the campaign is pure scripted, linear COD style pap and at odds to freedom of the MP, which is a big disappointment. And as much as I don't like the CoD campaign, that's how they make the series, you know what you're getting and they think DICE have just copied it. Valid criticism if that's what they think.
I think any games with s**t campaigns should be marked down accordingly, it's a large part of the package.
Anyway, this is what it says:
gmcb007 on 28 Oct '11 said:
I know i'm going to get ripped at for this but I agree with some things that Metro said.
The campaign was fillled with scripted events and the ever-annoying 'follow' leader set-up. Also, where the hell is destruction that was promised? The only real destruction that I seen was blowing a hole in the side of a building in one mission which was scripted anyways!
However, there's some things about that review are just plain wrong:
That's a load of crap, hell it's like they've just openly confessed to saying that they carry out biased reviews for COD!
TheLastDodo on 28 Oct '11 said:
RE: Metro
I have no issue with them saying BF3 SP is crap or they don't like the SP for X, Y, & Z reasons, thats absolutely fine but they practically said they would overlook the same faults BF3 has in their CoD review.
That is not on, if something is crap in BF3 and the same thing is crap in MW3 then they both deserve the criticism, but we all already know how it will all go down on 8/11/11.
ricflair on 28 Oct '11 said:
Well I just read it as them saying the CoD games handle the scripted style better than BF, that Cod is more arcadey and they play to that. Uncharted has some of that criticism levelled at it (scripted, linear, QTE), but ND handle it better than most.
BOBA21FETT on 29 Oct '11 said:
This game aint all that!!
TheLastDodo on 29 Oct '11 said:
That Uncharted review was hilarious, honestly, criticising Uncharted for being linear and scripted is like criticising FIFA because you can't play cricket or tennis in it, Uncharted has always being linear and scripted so why mark it down now?
Makes you wonder what EG's next pearl of wisdom will be, knowing EG lately it'll give Skyrim 6/10 for being too open world.
ted1138 on 29 Oct '11 said:
Not a fan of the 'story' though, it seems to be there just to tie the levels together, but feels like a 2nd rate rip off of a COD theme.
ricflair on 29 Oct '11 said:
It's a relevant criticism, so are we only supposed to review games from a certain perspective? Yeah, let's forget about the flaws and focus on the lovely graphics. Why this game is above criticism is beyond me. It's pure Michael Bay.
I would rate the UC2/3 in the same way EG rated it. Which was an 8/10 before people lose all sense of perspective, a top game and enjoyable, but heaven forbid someone should criticise it. I'm a bit baffled, but I've no problems with anyone who thinks the UC games are great.
Anyway, on topic. By all accounts BF3 is actually a bit s**t.
TheLastDodo on 29 Oct '11 said:
How is it a relevant criticism?
What you and the EG reviewer call flaws are design choices, design choices that are in every Uncharted game so why mark Uncharted down for it now? It doesn't make sense.
You review a game based on how well it delivers on it's intended premise, Uncharted 3 is a linear scripted story driven game, compare it to the last linear scripted Uncharted game, compare it to other linear scripted games, that's a fair comparison and as far as linear scripted games go, Uncharted games are among the very best linear scripted games out there, if you don't like linear games thats your prerogative, fair enough.
You can't criticise a game for not doing something that was never going to happen anyway.
And you're right Uncharted isn't above criticism, no game is above criticism but no game deserves nonsensical criticism.
ricflair on 29 Oct '11 said:
I'm sorry but that is absolute nonsense.
The_KFD_Case on 30 Oct '11 said:
Well written and detailed review, CVG - nicely done. I have to wonder where the 50 quid reference comes from? Anyway, if I were to buy this game for the console it would be for the single player game which I most definitely would not be willing to pay 40 nor 50 quid for even if it took me three times as long as six hours to complete.
Mmmmgrolsch on 30 Oct '11 said:
The Single player game is f**king garbage dude so don't even waste a penny on it, even the graphics are average.
gmcb007 on 30 Oct '11 said:
The SP was average at best. The first mission with the quake felt like the only mission to have had effort put into it's development. After that it's 5 hours of follow the leader and await for the door to be opened. BTW I like your sig, mainly because its sadly true.
The_KFD_Case on 30 Oct '11 said:
Cheers fellas, and yes, Grolsch's signature is (sadly) bang on target.
Flamestrike on 30 Oct '11 said:
Couldn't disagree more.
Mmmmgrolsch on 30 Oct '11 said:
Like you said you don't play any games in this genre and you're easily pleased. Your word's not mine.
The thing with that earthquake mission was that it has been shown off so many times. It didn't look scripted in the previews.
Flamestrike on 31 Oct '11 said:
Seriously grolsch, what is your problem? Can't anyone here enter a Battlefield related thread without you sticking your mug in and proceeding to spew bilge over them?
You don't like the game that's fine, every single member here gets it and you're perfectly entitled to hold your opinion. Now give it a rest as it's becoming tedious.
*edit*
And I said I was perhaps easily pleased with respects to the genre, not that I'm easily pleased all of the time. If you're going to quote me at least have the common courtesy to get it right.
viktex1p on 1 Nov '11 said:
I loved the multiplayer so much... And the number of stats battlelog stored... But, I was disappointed with the sign in feature and singleplayer....
sonic_uk on 1 Nov '11 said:
Well, who cares, I enjoyed the Single Player so much I'm playing it through again. Don't give a flying fig about Multiplayer, each to their own.
Very_Silver_Ownz on 1 Nov '11 said:
I agree. I haven't even got far in it and its just awful. Even worse than CoD BO's story.
bamozzy on 17 Dec '11 said:
I just picked up Battlefield 3: Limited Edition from Sainsbury's for £25. I opted for the PS3 version so that I could get the free Battlefield 1943 too.
I still haven't got to play it yet as I had to wait an over an hour for the update (63 minutes) and then install and wait for the game install. I then needed to wait for over an hour for the Back to Karkland expansion pack and over another hour for the Battlefield 1943 to download (Grrrrrrrrrr - Bloody PSN).
At least I have got through it now so maybe I might get to play it soon.