So what do we think of Battlefield 3?

Its a damn good game, but it has its flaws.

Since this is about the multiplayer I thankfully don't have to discuss the mediocre campaign and tacked on (but moderately fun) co-op that pale compared to MW3.

The MP is hit or miss. Its a big fun blast with great graphics, sound, fun with friends and great teamwork. Easily one of the best online shooters ever made, and no matter what your role, its easy to have fun and you can be helpful (or totally unhelpful) no matter what you pick. Not to mention amazing map variety, a bevy or weapons and vehicles, sweet attachments, and balanced classes.

That said, the engine is new and pretty iffy, with some bugs and lots of pop in. The balance is WAY out of wack when it comes to jets and AA guns and certain maps (where a mode like Conquest might be great, but Rush fails miserably). Plus the hit detection is still not that great, and suffers from client side issues like delays in dying.

Overall, it was a bit overhyped and rushed and doesn't grab me like Call of Duty 4 or Bad Company 2's multiplayer grabbed me at first, but it was a blast and with time I think a few patches and expansions should make this game the amazing multiplayer shooter we all hyped it to be. That Karkand pack is already a step forward with the extra guns and amazing maps, and I hope I'm not the only one hoping for a Back to Bad Company pack that brings back some favorite maps and guns of mine (XM8, for the WIN).

I went with the 2nd option, but replace BF2 with BF2142 for me.

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]2142 is still the last one I ever liked.... The maps in BF3 are complete garbage. They're small, dull, and 2/3rds of them are cluster ****'s.Jebus213

The most popular 2142 maps were probably Suez Canal and Port Bavaria. None of them were huge. The biggest maps were Shuhia Taiba and Highway Tampa, none of them were very good. Too big IMO and the flags were too far apart. Why do you say the maps in BF3 are garbage? I personally love Operation Firestorm, Kharg Island and Nosharh Canals, with Caspian Border a close second.

Edit: with 48-64 players that is. those 4 maps are too big for anything less. 64 players on Operation Firestorm and Kharg Island feels just about right, although it's a bit too much for Noshahr Canals and Caspian Border. Can't imagine playing them with only 24 players. Even Grand Bazar and Seine Crossing I would say 32 players is just about right.

Ok, I should have explained better. I was talking about Suez Canal Titan and Port Bavaria Assault Lines. Suez Canal Titan was about the same size as Kharg Island. 4 flags were relatively close together with one further away. Port Bavaria Assault Lines was not a big map, if you just consider the playable area and ignore the vast empty land that you had to traverse to get to the playable area, as most of the time you just had to do it once.

Regarding those 4 maps you mentioned, I agree that 32 players is the maximum.

I personally think some of the vanilla maps (the ones I mention) are really really good. I played 2142 about 2 weeks before BF3 came out and the maps feel so empty, there's nothing but empty space between the flags. Where in BF3 the maps are so full of stuff, greating for hiding, sneaking undetected, etc.

But yeah I'm looking forward to Back to Karkand as well. Strike at Karkand with 7 flags seem great.

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

[QUOTE="RandomWinner"]

Well that's good because operation metro was not fun at all. Is rush as fun as it was in BC2? I'll make the switch to conquest if I have to but I loved rush. And is the destruction still important because, once again, not in Operation Metro, the crappiest map of all.

RandomWinner

I don't play Rush :) Only ocasionally on Damavand Peak. Rush does not work very well with high player counts, so I tend to prefer Conquest.

Ignore what some people say, the destruction is very very good. Far better than BC2. On BC2 the destruction was too predictable. All the houses where copy-pasted and the destruction was fully scripted you always knew what walls were about to collapse and where. Also, pretty much only houses were destructable. You could hide behind a wall and it wouldn't be destroyed. Not so in BF3. The destruction is much more dynamic, you can open holes in walls and you generally can't predict how things will break. Trees fall down as well. I admit that I haven't played for that long yet so maybe there are some patterns but I didn't notice them yet.

I know what you mean. I kinda liked the scripting, it became part of the strategy because corners are indestructable :P

I can see why Rush would be weaker with so many players. Does it still feel like you have an impact in conquest when there are 63 other people playing?

I see what you mean. Having a big impact in a 64-player match is tough. If that's really your thing stick with lower player counts. If you enjoy large scale chaotic battles, 64 is the way to go. The PC gives you that option, there are plenty of servers to pick from.

I'm torn between buying it because it looks f*cking awesome and not buying it due to Battlelog, Origin, the possibility of not being able to access any of your games, getting banned by playing on modded servers unintentionally and other draconian bullsh*t EA has imposed.

I'm torn between buying it because it looks f*cking awesome and not buying it due to Battlelog, Origin, the possibility of not being able to access any of your games, getting banned by playing on modded servers unintentionally and other draconian bullsh*t EA has imposed.

Vesica_Prime

Ok, let me get this out of the way. I dislike Origin but it's in the background so it doesn't bother me much. But I LOVE Battlelog, it's very well made, you have all the stats there, the UI is very quick and responsive and launching the game from the web browser was actually a very good idea. No intro videos, nothing, when you join you're right into the game. One thing that I find annoying in MP games is that when a game ends, if you don't get out immediately, you then have to wait for the loading of the next map to finish before you can exit. With Battlelog you just ALT-Tab and Close Game.

I'm torn between buying it because it looks f*cking awesome and not buying it due to Battlelog, Origin, the possibility of not being able to access any of your games, getting banned by playing on modded servers unintentionally and other draconian bullsh*t EA has imposed.

Vesica_Prime

Is that even possible? If you just play on servers that come up on Battlelog how could you be banned?

Its a damn good game, but it has its flaws.

Since this is about the multiplayer I thankfully don't have to discuss the mediocre campaign and tacked on (but moderately fun) co-op that pale compared to MW3.

The MP is hit or miss. Its a big fun blast with great graphics, sound, fun with friends and great teamwork. Easily one of the best online shooters ever made, and no matter what your role, its easy to have fun and you can be helpful (or totally unhelpful) no matter what you pick. Not to mention amazing map variety, a bevy or weapons and vehicles, sweet attachments, and balanced classes.

That said, the engine is new and pretty iffy, with some bugs and lots of pop in. The balance is WAY out of wack when it comes to jets and AA guns and certain maps (where a mode like Conquest might be great, but Rush fails miserably). Plus the hit detection is still not that great, and suffers from client side issues like delays in dying.

Overall, it was a bit overhyped and rushed and doesn't grab me like Call of Duty 4 or Bad Company 2's multiplayer grabbed me at first, but it was a blast and with time I think a few patches and expansions should make this game the amazing multiplayer shooter we all hyped it to be. That Karkand pack is already a step forward with the extra guns and amazing maps, and I hope I'm not the only one hoping for a Back to Bad Company pack that brings back some favorite maps and guns of mine (XM8, for the WIN).

SPYDER0416

[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

I'm torn between buying it because it looks f*cking awesome and not buying it due to Battlelog, Origin, the possibility of not being able to access any of your games, getting banned by playing on modded servers unintentionally and other draconian bullsh*t EA has imposed.

nunovlopes

Is that even possible? If you just play on servers that come up on Battlelog how could you be banned?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4909/modded-battlefield-3-beta-servers-could-result-in-bans

It's great as far as Modern FPS Multiplayer games go. Definitely the best I've played in that genre. It fall short of Warhawk for me, but if they address the small amount of lag present in the game they'll have a better shot.

Ok, I should have explained better. I was talking about Suez Canal Titan and Port Bavaria Assault Lines. Suez Canal Titan was about the same size as Kharg Island. 4 flags were relatively close together with one further away. Port Bavaria Assault Lines was not a big map, if you just consider the playable area and ignore the vast empty land that you had to traverse to get to the playable area, as most of the time you just had to do it once. Regarding those 4 maps you mentioned, I agree that 32 players is the maximum. I personally think some of the vanilla maps (the ones I mention) are really really good. I played 2142 about 2 weeks before BF3 came out and the maps feel so empty, there's nothing but empty space between the flags. Where in BF3 the maps are so full of stuff, greating for hiding, sneaking undetected, etc. But yeah I'm looking forward to Back to Karkand as well. Strike at Karkand with 7 flags seem great.nunovlopes

its better than CoD. Im having a hard time enjoying it though as im just thoroughly sick of FPS games.

[QUOTE="vashkey"][QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"] How is Halo competitive? It's not even about shooting skill but about knowledge of the map. SAGE_OF_FIRE

Aim assist is heavy on any console game.

[QUOTE="Sandy106"]MW3 is so much better in every way.BF3 isnt realistic and the Elit3 service is better than anything DICE could come up with. MW3 requires teamwork and skill, BF3 requires hiding in a bush with infrared.Tikeio

No. :|

Well, maybe it's true for people that play more team-based gamemodes.

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]Ok, I should have explained better. I was talking about Suez Canal Titan and Port Bavaria Assault Lines. Suez Canal Titan was about the same size as Kharg Island. 4 flags were relatively close together with one further away. Port Bavaria Assault Lines was not a big map, if you just consider the playable area and ignore the vast empty land that you had to traverse to get to the playable area, as most of the time you just had to do it once. Regarding those 4 maps you mentioned, I agree that 32 players is the maximum. I personally think some of the vanilla maps (the ones I mention) are really really good. I played 2142 about 2 weeks before BF3 came out and the maps feel so empty, there's nothing but empty space between the flags. Where in BF3 the maps are so full of stuff, greating for hiding, sneaking undetected, etc. But yeah I'm looking forward to Back to Karkand as well. Strike at Karkand with 7 flags seem great.Jebus213

I like it when people hold on to their precious games as if they're flawless. 2142 was a great game, like I said I played it for 300 hours, but it had its issues, that BF3 doesn't. Grenade spam for once. RDX spam. These 2 combined in the Titan with 40 players = massive clusterfest. People using keyboard macros to drop RDX at your feet and blow it up before you have the chance to even fire your gun. Recons waiting with RDX in the Titan vents. Supports deploying sentry guns in the upper Titan corridors, where the bullets were able to travel across the walls and that was never fixed.

And no, Suez Canal Titan is not bigger than Operation Firestorm or Kharg Island.

I thought the exact same thing when I played the demo. The graphics sucked and so did everything else. However, when I got the game at launch, it was amazing. I loved using vehicles because I used to only play CoD and it was a nice change. I also liked how it felt more realistic (i.e. no killstreaks). I thought the single player campaign was awesome, albeit short, while the multiplayer is amazing. I personally enjoy conquest mode the most. Ghost_702

Multiplayer better than everrr. On PC of course.
Mainly because of the small (balance) tweaks (spotting, damage, icons, cIasses especially assault/med), improved netcode, and the little additions that actually add small layers to the battlefield (laser, TUG, disabling, respawn permission, mortar, squad perks).

This is the best BF ever, but the maps aren't the best ever.
I think with some BF2 styIe maps (which we will soon see) the game will shine even more.
The singleplayer is laughable and unimportant.

From the feedback here, it would've been better of DICE simply remade BF2 using the latest tech.

My complaints:

The maps are the worst in the series.

The campaign is the worst I have played for a FPS this gen.

The bloom is distracting.

It is a camper's delight. Snipers are what kills me 50% of the time.

Still buggy. Hit detection is a joke.

Since the console version has a limited player count, vehicles become to over=powering.

I know the game is AAA quality. It looks great and sounds even better. But I was shocked at how boring the maps were and dissappointed in theglitches and balance of the game. As always if you get into the game late you are so underpowered by the 12 year olds who spend 6 hours a day on it frustration will set in. I personally would rather play Homefront. It doesn't look near as good but there are more new ideas, better balance, and the maps are better.

My complaints:

The maps are the worst in the series.

The campaign is the worst I have played for a FPS this gen.

The bloom is distracting.

It is a camper's delight. Snipers are what kills me 50% of the time.

Still buggy. Hit detection is a joke.

Since the console version has a limited player count, vehicles become to over=powering.

I know the game is AAA quality. It looks great and sounds even better. But I was shocked at how boring the maps were and dissappointed in theglitches and balance of the game. As always if you get into the game late you are so underpowered by the 12 year olds who spend 6 hours a day on it frustration will set in. I personally would rather play Homefront. It doesn't look near as good but there are more new ideas, better balance, and the maps are better.

WarTornRuston

Dont understand why you say "13 year olds", when more than 75% of them are probably older than that.

Battlefield 3 is awesome...but I would get it on PC. In my opinion, it's better in almost every way when compared to BC2. My only complaint is the naming of the classes. "Assault" shouldn't be the medice, and the guy with the LMG, unlimited ammo, and lots of explosives shouldn't be called "support". Had they switched those names, then the classes would have been perfect.

But you should really consider getting it on PC. Consoles got a crappy PC port, and it shows in gameplay. Caspian border seems like a ghost town on console.

Battlefield 3 really should be a PC exclusive.

My complaints:

The maps are the worst in the series.

The campaign is the worst I have played for a FPS this gen.

The bloom is distracting.

It is a camper's delight. Snipers are what kills me 50% of the time.

Still buggy. Hit detection is a joke.

Since the console version has a limited player count, vehicles become to over=powering.

I know the game is AAA quality. It looks great and sounds even better. But I was shocked at how boring the maps were and dissappointed in theglitches and balance of the game. As always if you get into the game late you are so underpowered by the 12 year olds who spend 6 hours a day on it frustration will set in. I personally would rather play Homefront. It doesn't look near as good but there are more new ideas, better balance, and the maps are better.

WarTornRuston

jsut saying

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Its a damn good game, but it has its flaws.

Since this is about the multiplayer I thankfully don't have to discuss the mediocre campaign and tacked on (but moderately fun) co-op that pale compared to MW3.

The MP is hit or miss. Its a big fun blast with great graphics, sound, fun with friends and great teamwork. Easily one of the best online shooters ever made, and no matter what your role, its easy to have fun and you can be helpful (or totally unhelpful) no matter what you pick. Not to mention amazing map variety, a bevy or weapons and vehicles, sweet attachments, and balanced classes.

That said, the engine is new and pretty iffy, with some bugs and lots of pop in. The balance is WAY out of wack when it comes to jets and AA guns and certain maps (where a mode like Conquest might be great, but Rush fails miserably). Plus the hit detection is still not that great, and suffers from client side issues like delays in dying.

Overall, it was a bit overhyped and rushed and doesn't grab me like Call of Duty 4 or Bad Company 2's multiplayer grabbed me at first, but it was a blast and with time I think a few patches and expansions should make this game the amazing multiplayer shooter we all hyped it to be. That Karkand pack is already a step forward with the extra guns and amazing maps, and I hope I'm not the only one hoping for a Back to Bad Company pack that brings back some favorite maps and guns of mine (XM8, for the WIN).

AcidSoldner

Yes, thank you. Instead of trying to market it to the BF audience, they basically went "lol CoD suz, get BF3 and make fun of CoD because BF is teh better", instead of letting it stand out on its own. They stripped the campaign of any originality the BC campaigns had, added a tacked o faux Special Ops co-op (that pales compared to MW's Special Ops), and then had a whole host of dumb problems with it to try and beat CoD (Rushing development so it comes out earlier but more bugged, showing Operation Metro as the beta map instead of an actual nice big map, hyping it to death and trying to one up CoD every time they made a damn announcement, etc.)

With CoD's dominance secured, I'm hoping EA doesn't try to overtake it next BF and goes back to making a pure, BF game marketed and made for BF fans, not CoD fans. When I play BF, I want to play BF, not CoD. If they're going to treat it as the next CoD, then why would the average consumer want the next CoD when they could have the current CoD? Its just shoddy marketing that adds to the fanboy flames and doesn't do BF any favors, especially since CoD fans will just play CoD no matter how much you try to market BF for them.

Its like Splinter Cell making a huge marketing campaign trying to get MGS fans to get Splinter Cell instead of trying to be original so MGS fans don't stick to MGS thinking that Splinter Cell is trying to ape MGS. They're different games, and should be treated as such.

[QUOTE="WarTornRuston"]

My complaints:

The maps are the worst in the series.

The campaign is the worst I have played for a FPS this gen.

The bloom is distracting.

It is a camper's delight. Snipers are what kills me 50% of the time.

Still buggy. Hit detection is a joke.

Since the console version has a limited player count, vehicles become to over=powering.

I know the game is AAA quality. It looks great and sounds even better. But I was shocked at how boring the maps were and dissappointed in theglitches and balance of the game. As always if you get into the game late you are so underpowered by the 12 year olds who spend 6 hours a day on it frustration will set in. I personally would rather play Homefront. It doesn't look near as good but there are more new ideas, better balance, and the maps are better.

KungfuKitten

I think its more the audience and EA treating it like CoD, so a lot of people go straight for Recon expecting mad skillz to prevail over teamwork. Plus during the PS3 beta, I was WAY more useful with sniper rifles like the SV-98 then I was on PC, I don't know why (especially since I'm just as good with every other class and have a similar k/d on PC and PS3).

I like how rifles are now. You need a headshot to kill in one hit or need to hit an injured person in the chest to kill so sniping isn't a ticket to an easy k/d, and the beacon and spotting for Recon make it a much more effective class for teammates and more flexible on defending or attacking then in BC2. It definitely evens everything out and makes all classes nice and fun for however you want to play.

I really like it. Probably not as much as I liked 2142, but it's still really good. Metro was a pretty big cluster**** at first, but people have been getting better at it and now rounds don't always end in RU pummeling the US. There's still not a lot of teamwork in the public servers (no surprise there), but the incentives are in place and when people actually stick with their squads there can be some really fun matches.

[QUOTE="AcidSoldner"][QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Its a damn good game, but it has its flaws.

Since this is about the multiplayer I thankfully don't have to discuss the mediocre campaign and tacked on (but moderately fun) co-op that pale compared to MW3.

The MP is hit or miss. Its a big fun blast with great graphics, sound, fun with friends and great teamwork. Easily one of the best online shooters ever made, and no matter what your role, its easy to have fun and you can be helpful (or totally unhelpful) no matter what you pick. Not to mention amazing map variety, a bevy or weapons and vehicles, sweet attachments, and balanced classes.

That said, the engine is new and pretty iffy, with some bugs and lots of pop in. The balance is WAY out of wack when it comes to jets and AA guns and certain maps (where a mode like Conquest might be great, but Rush fails miserably). Plus the hit detection is still not that great, and suffers from client side issues like delays in dying.

Overall, it was a bit overhyped and rushed and doesn't grab me like Call of Duty 4 or Bad Company 2's multiplayer grabbed me at first, but it was a blast and with time I think a few patches and expansions should make this game the amazing multiplayer shooter we all hyped it to be. That Karkand pack is already a step forward with the extra guns and amazing maps, and I hope I'm not the only one hoping for a Back to Bad Company pack that brings back some favorite maps and guns of mine (XM8, for the WIN).

SPYDER0416

Yes, thank you. Instead of trying to market it to the BF audience, they basically went "lol CoD suz, get BF3 and make fun of CoD because BF is teh better", instead of letting it stand out on its own. They stripped the campaign of any originality the BC campaigns had, added a tacked o faux Special Ops co-op (that pales compared to MW's Special Ops), and then had a whole host of dumb problems with it to try and beat CoD (Rushing development so it comes out earlier but more bugged, showing Operation Metro as the beta map instead of an actual nice big map, hyping it to death and trying to one up CoD every time they made a damn announcement, etc.)

With CoD's dominance secured, I'm hoping EA doesn't try to overtake it next BF and goes back to making a pure, BF game marketed and made for BF fans, not CoD fans. When I play BF, I want to play BF, not CoD. If they're going to treat it as the next CoD, then why would the average consumer want the next CoD when they could have the current CoD? Its just shoddy marketing that adds to the fanboy flames and doesn't do BF any favors, especially since CoD fans will just play CoD no matter how much you try to market BF for them.

Its like Splinter Cell making a huge marketing campaign trying to get MGS fans to get Splinter Cell instead of trying to be original so MGS fans don't stick to MGS thinking that Splinter Cell is trying to ape MGS. They're different games, and should be treated as such.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="nunovlopes"]Ok, I should have explained better. I was talking about Suez Canal Titan and Port Bavaria Assault Lines. Suez Canal Titan was about the same size as Kharg Island. 4 flags were relatively close together with one further away. Port Bavaria Assault Lines was not a big map, if you just consider the playable area and ignore the vast empty land that you had to traverse to get to the playable area, as most of the time you just had to do it once. Regarding those 4 maps you mentioned, I agree that 32 players is the maximum. I personally think some of the vanilla maps (the ones I mention) are really really good. I played 2142 about 2 weeks before BF3 came out and the maps feel so empty, there's nothing but empty space between the flags. Where in BF3 the maps are so full of stuff, greating for hiding, sneaking undetected, etc. But yeah I'm looking forward to Back to Karkand as well. Strike at Karkand with 7 flags seem great.nunovlopes

I like it when people hold on to their precious games as if they're flawless. 2142 was a great game, like I said I played it for 300 hours, but it had its issues, that BF3 doesn't. Grenade spam for once. RDX spam. These 2 combined in the Titan with 40 players = massive clusterfest. People using keyboard macros to drop RDX at your feet and blow it up before you have the chance to even fire your gun. Recons waiting with RDX in the Titan vents. Supports deploying sentry guns in the upper Titan corridors, where the bullets were able to travel across the walls and that was never fixed.

And no, Suez Canal Titan is not bigger than Operation Firestorm or Kharg Island.

[QUOTE="Vambran"]

Battlefield 3 > MW3 ... If you have a high end PC. Otherwise MW3 is better ( nothing is taken out or scaled back for consoles)

Firebird-5

BF3 on console you lose about half the player cap and Maps are smaller.

[QUOTE="Tikeio"]

[QUOTE="RandomWinner"]

I'm just trying to find out if you think something about some things. Come on, did you have fun?

RandomWinner

Meh.. I guess I'll give you a srs answer about what I think of BF3.

Multi-player is decent. Not awesome or great, just somewhat good. I think BC2 is better overall though. I've only played the console versions of both games though. Can't speak for the PC versions.

Very nice. I feel kinda stuck. I don't have a PC that runs it and I know the PS3 version is not comparable to the PC version. But PC gamers have strategy and are good with keyboard and mouse, I feel like I'd get torn to shreds. I don't know.

But listening to some PC gamers, I am put off from getting it on consoles, is it legitimate criticism or is it PC elitists being elitist D-Bags?

My only real problem with is, besides some balance issues and IRNV, were the maps. Back to Karkand is the greatest thing to happen to BF3, and it's what the maps should've been instead of the TDM heaven they are now.

[QUOTE="vashkey"][QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"] How is Halo competitive? It's not even about shooting skill but about knowledge of the map. SAGE_OF_FIRE

I like BF3, not much in love with Origin or the disconnections/freezing problems I encounter with the game (PC version).. Its really frustrating :(

[QUOTE="pl4yer_f0und"][QUOTE="SAGE_OF_FIRE"] How is Halo competitive? It's not even about shooting skill but about knowledge of the map. DragonfireXZ95

[QUOTE="Dead-Memories"]it's the best competitive FPS to be released this gen, that much is certain.rasengan2552

Sorry, I can't agree with you

The PC version is probably one of the best multiplayer experience I have played in recent years, especially when you're in a squad with squadmates assisting each other to achieve victory. Can't speak of the console version, although I've heard people said it's not as special as the PC version.

its good, but it clearly shows the consoles and the maps dont work well together sometimes :P

Story is gaash i've barely touched it and the coop can be pretty fun sometimes.