Battlefield 3 review

We take our time pushing through Battlefield 3 on the PC and Xbox 360 to give our final word on the recently launched title from developer DICE.

65
Battlefield 3 is one of the most inconsistent titles on the market, teetering wildly between being one of the best shooters of the year, and one of the most frustrating. Multiplayer is brilliant, but continues to be crippled with server issues weeks after launch. Single player, on the other hand, manages brief moments of excellence, only to be ruined by ham-fisted scripted events. Scripted encounters aren't rare to games, but Battlefield 3's approach is nonsensical. In one mission, I was told to to sneak up behind a solider and knife him silently. As I approached, a prompt told me to activate the kill. Since the prompt seemed too far from the enemy to work, I inched closer and my character simply fell over and died. "Maybe I was spotted?" I thought. I wasn't. The game simply wanted me to activate a lengthy battle sequence where my silent partner and I would be discovered. Since I didn't comply with the game's demand, my character just ceased to live, as if embarrassed to the point of death. (Watch this scene on YouTube.) Utilizing Quick Time Events is fine--and Battlefield 3 uses them quite often--but doesn't it only make sense when its use is to showcase something that the standard game mechanics cannot accomplish? Even destruction feels artificially designed. While Frostbite 2 may allow for more dramatic environmental damage, you rarely feel in control of shaping the world to your advantage. Whereas in Bad Company 2, the destruction felt very dynamic and chaotic, every hole punched in Battlefield 3 feels cosmetic or scripted. The game's A.I. is painfully annoying to face off against. As detailed in my PC single-player Field Report, every enemy soldier knows exactly where you are and ignores your allies the moment you step out of cover. What happened to feeling like you're part of a battlefield? The story in Battlefield 3 lacks creativity, summed up best as a mishmash of plot points ripped from other movies and games. And in spite of the campaign's issues, the narrative is disappointingly short. Just as things started to get interesting, the game simply ends with an entirely unfulfilling final scene. The cooperative campaign doesn't add much more. Suffering from the same design flaws as the single-player campaign, the six out-of-context missions available in co-op do little to better the game. Judged solely on campaign and co-op modes, Battlefield 3 would be a mess. Not only does it lack polish, it lacks an identity that is uniquely its own. Multiplayer is where Battlefield 3 defines itself. In other games, you feel like a superhero and are given tools to act as such. In Battlefield 3, you are a piece of a puzzle that must work in conjunction with other pieces in order to successfully advance. DICE has streamlined classes to four, giving the assault class the same tools reserved for the abandoned Medic class. Thus far--having played five hours on PC and three on Xbox 360--the classes feel balanced. The game features standard multiplayer modes like Team Deathmatch, but the emphasis continues to be on the franchise's objective-based Rush and Conquest game types. Simply put, these modes are unmatched in quality, and easily set Battlefield apart from the competition. My only complaint is the size of maps, specifically on PC, and how far too often I'd spawn a great distance from ongoing combat. Battlefield's 'Squad' mechanic helps in this regard, but you'll still be forced to run (or drive) miles to the action. This, however, is a minor quibble. Barring connection issues--as I had on multiple occasions--Battlefield 3 is the best military-based online shooter I've played this year.

Unlike the control felt in Bad Company 2, damage in Battlefield 3 is largely scripted.

When I first launched Origin to play Battlefield 3 on PC, the game's mandatory Battlelog gave me some problems. It was unable to update as it was required to do, but eventually the problems smoothed out. Battlelog is a nice addition, but its forced use on PC may be bothersome for some players. I do enjoy its immediate updates to my stat tracking, but it's not as detailed as other games--it lacks mission heat maps, for example. Battlefield 3 should be more than a graphics card benchmark, but for those uninterested in multiplayer, that's what the game is best served as on both PC and Xbox 360. It's no secret that Battlefield 3 attempts to compete with other shooters, feature for feature. While DICE's experience in producing compelling squad-based multiplayer is unmatched, many of DICE's other efforts fall flat. Should you be willing to pay full price for that inconsistency?
[This Battlefield 3 review is based on the PC version of the game purchased by the reviewer and the Xbox 360 version of the game, rented by the reviewer. EA's Online Pass was purchased by the reviewer for the Xbox 360. Specs for the PC used in this review can be found here.]
From The Chatty
  • reply
    November 7, 2011 2:45 PM

    Xav de Matos posted a new article, Battlefield 3 review.

    We take our time pushing through Battlefield 3 on the PC and Xbox 360 to give our final word on the recently launched title from developer DICE.

    • reply
      November 7, 2011 3:06 PM

      OH MY GOD A NEGATIVE REVIEW ABOUT BF3 RIGHT BEFORE MW3 COMES OUT

      WHAT A SHOCK.

      • reply
        November 7, 2011 3:51 PM

        Except it's true.

        I am thoroughly enjoying my playtime in Multiplayer. It is, by far, the best Battlefield game yet for me (coming damned close to Desert Combat).

        But, I played the Single Player...it's basically one giant quick time event, with nearly everything scripted. It even has the infamous infinite respawning whack-a-mole gameplay has the worst of the CoD and MoH games.

        The single player is boring and not enjoyable. But the multiplayer is awesome.

        Although like any true Battlefield game, there are some bugs (although no game breaking ones now).

        • reply
          November 7, 2011 3:52 PM

          I played the Single Player...it's basically one giant quick time event

          You've just described every FPS that's been released in the last 5+ years.

          • reply
            November 7, 2011 4:04 PM

            Ah, come on now. Modern military FPS, maybe. But there's lots of other fish in the sea.

            • reply
              November 7, 2011 4:16 PM

              No, no there aren't. Maybe Serious Sam 3 BFE and Rage right now, but it's "the rush to be Call of Duty". Additionally, we have Bioshock Infinite, which is going to be a handholdy "Press X to trigger scripted cover" fest; XCOM, which will be squad-based RPG-element-laden FPS action (hi, TF2!), and of course the inevitable Medal of Honor, Call of Duty, and Battlefield sequels.

              Years ago, FPS game developers took the classic deathmatch shooter and single-player campaign shooter, shouted, "YOU ARE DEAD TO ME!", slammed the door in their faces, and threw away the key. What we have left is what I highlighted above. That sucks; a genre I grew up with in the Doom, Quake, and Half-Life 1 era is strangling itself to death.

              • reply
                November 7, 2011 4:22 PM

                DX:HR would like a few words with you

                • reply
                  November 7, 2011 4:31 PM

                  That's still only one FPS. An awesome FPS but still only one. And even then it doesn't really do anything new, it's just really refreshing because we haven't had a FPS like it since the original Deus Ex.

                • reply
                  November 7, 2011 4:33 PM

                  It really would; I last left it at the beginning of the China level, and that was... September 28. Haven't played it since. I'm really conflicted about playing DX:HR because I always feel like I'm being fenced out of specific campaign choices, and/or don't have enough ammo, or upgraded the wrong augs. And those stupid boss fights are looming.

                  The other thing about DX:HR is that it demands a big block of uninterrupted playtime, about 2 hours max. I'm not that lucky, especially when work keeps calling and interrupting.

              • reply
                November 7, 2011 4:29 PM

                I'm ok with FPS not being like Quake and Doom because the genre needs to evolve. But it hasn't, almost every FPS is trying to be like CoD and it really sucks. I think Red Orchestra 2 is the only recent FPS that has tried to be different at all, which is funny considering it's a WW2 shooter.

              • reply
                November 7, 2011 8:13 PM

                Serious Sam? Are you serious? It's the opposite over over-scripting and is mindless run and gun.

                • reply
                  November 7, 2011 8:15 PM

                  Also, I've said this before and I'll say it again. As much as I have fond memories of Doom and Quake going back and playing takes a lot of shine off. They are bog simple key hunts with monster closets. Half Life is the only game in the group that you mentioned that stands up and it has a ton of scripting like the kind you bitch about.

                  • reply
                    November 7, 2011 8:50 PM

                    Some days I need "mindless run and gun" to offset the dialogue system in DX:HR, or the overdone scripted events in Rage. What you call "key hunts", I call "flow control". I started Doom 2 up through MAP06, and had a blast.

                    • reply
                      November 8, 2011 7:26 AM

                      To each their own, but don't bitch about a car with ABS and traction control just because you like to drive something from the 70s.

              • reply
                November 7, 2011 8:19 PM

                "5+ years" covers everything back through 2006 and even earlier.

                That's the entire STALKER series, for one thing. Halo 3, ODST, Reach. Both BioShock games, a whole raft of Valve FPSs, Borderlands, the Crysis series, Rage, Zeno Clash, Brink, Cryostasis, Far Cry 2, Metro 2033, Quake Wars, Dark Messiah, Mirror's Edge, UT3, Stranger's Wrath, Prey. Perhaps Fallout 3 and New Vegas depending on how you bin FPSs. into 2005 there's Prey, Quake 4, Sniper Elite... Etc. etc. yada yada. I'm probably forgetting several, and I'm sure there's lots I haven't played that qualify (Wolfenstein, various PS3 shooters, Hard Reset, whatever).

                General quality aside -- although most are pretty damn good -- none of these have any notable reliance on QTEs, much less being "one giant quick time event".

                Of course, your complaints are veering off in a different direction from MagicWishMonkey's, but you're still overlooking a lot.

                • reply
                  November 7, 2011 9:12 PM

                  I just said "years"; the real bad turn started about 3 years ago. I remember 2008 as the year I didn't buy any FPSes; I only got Fallout 3. The big QTE-fests are FEAR 2, CoD:WaW, MW2, and CoD:BLOPS. There was this, the focus on 360-first development, the "death" of mods (by developers not allowing them to be made), and so on.

          • reply
            November 7, 2011 4:09 PM

            He is not even describing Battlefield 3 properly.

          • reply
            November 8, 2011 12:30 AM

            No, I haven't. There HAS been a drivel of highly QTE games, cover systems and linear corridor shooters. But there have been some real gems as well (as described below).

            The game is VERY pretty. But just didn't have any excitement or interest. Which is odd, since it's there in the multiplayer. It didn't even have a sense of "adventure" that some games have.

            In short, the single player is just bad. It runs more like a 3DMark demo than a game.

            • reply
              November 8, 2011 5:02 AM

              I'm enjoying it quite a bit more than the last few CoD games, I guess MW was a bit better I'm having more fun playing BF3 than I did MW2 and Blops. At least there's a cogent story so far.

              To each his own, I suppose.

      • reply
        November 7, 2011 6:18 PM

        Mechwarrior 3 came out a long time ago.

        • reply
          November 7, 2011 11:17 PM

          That's still always the first thing that comes to mind when I see 'MW3'. Ahhhh, the golden years with my monster 3D pass-thru card...

      • reply
        November 7, 2011 8:12 PM

        The single player game is so full of retard I am not sure if I'm even going to bother finishing it.

    • reply
      November 7, 2011 3:08 PM

      They really need to fix those squad (especially voice chat) and UI issues. Why the hell can you not update your loadout between rounds?

      So utterly stupid.

      • reply
        November 7, 2011 3:11 PM

        Yeah, the UI is my biggest beef with the game so far. Also, not being able to hit 'start' to quit and go back to menus at the end of a match to open up a player spot before the next map loads bothers me to no end.

    • reply
      November 7, 2011 3:17 PM

      I really really dont understand how VOIP can be so broken & we have to use Teamspeak.

      • reply
        November 7, 2011 3:27 PM

        I fear it's the Battlelog leaving PC users with a lack of VOIP.

        Battlelog uses Sonar to allow the only form of VOIP, when in a party, through the browser.

        It's when you have to talk to everyone else that becomes an overlapping mess. Do they get rid of Sonar and put everything inside the client? Or do they make something incredibly complex on the browser side?

        My thoughts, and this would simply cater to replacing Team Speak to cater to the Shack, is to create a large VOIP "party" within a Platoon that people could leave and join. Further, it could have the option to automatically move you around into appropriate attack/defend, US/RU channels and, if setup so, could move you around in the appropriate squad. I guess this could also be done to the server, and not just the platoon, hmm.

        Oh well, not my problem.

    • reply
      November 7, 2011 3:22 PM

      Multiplayer is crippled with server issues weeks after launch? Man some of you dudes have the weirdest issues. Not like I disbelieve you, but I just never experience it.

        • reply
          November 7, 2011 3:37 PM

          Eh, that doesn't say much, other than you implying that most players spend more time connecting than playing. Unless these 300+ Shackers are the exception, I'd say you may be having firewall/NAT issues.

          • reply
            November 7, 2011 5:04 PM

            Plus the fact that most or all show-stopping MP issues at launch were largely relegated to consoles by all reports, yet there's no mention of that anywhere in the review.

      • reply
        November 7, 2011 3:24 PM

        Been playing since unlocking it with a Asian VPN early and not a single multiplayer/connection issue then or now/

      • reply
        November 7, 2011 3:31 PM

        Yeah that seems like big hyperbole. Plenty of shackers are playing. I've had some freezing but its been minor.

      • reply
        November 7, 2011 3:34 PM

        I haven't had any major issues, got 63hrs logged now online. MORE IMPORTANT: What's Xav's soldier name!? DOG TAGS.

        • reply
          November 7, 2011 10:05 PM

          Without this, review means jack shit, imo

      • reply
        November 7, 2011 3:35 PM

        I feel that the MP portion of the review was really glossed over. The short quips give the impression that it is a mess of disconnects and trying to find a firefight. In my experience, this couldn't be more wrong. The idea that a player has to run or drive "miles" on any map is a joke. In any vehicle, you will be from deployment area to the fight withing 10 seconds and there is no time when you have to hoof it more than 15-20 seconds (even on a map like Op Firestorm).

        Also, the idea that Battlelog's stat tracking is way behind other titles is news to me. I must have missed all these other games that do it better. A Google search for "mission heat maps" returns nothing in the first 5 pages of results and the only thing I can think that the review is thinking of are the TF2 maps that show where the fights were. IIRC that is all done by mods, rather than the game itself.

        I admit to having squad issues the first 2-3 hours, but I've had no issues connecting and joining with my party squad since the first couple days after launch.

        • reply
          November 7, 2011 3:41 PM

          Well considering the review is based on a combined total of 8 hours (5 on PC and 3 on xbox) it's pretty disheartening and obvious that not that much time was devoted specifically to either the SP or the MP.

          Basically enough time to get the gist, experience all of the problems, and none of the time to enjoy the game to the point that they will vastly outshine whatever launch problems he experienced.

          • reply
            November 7, 2011 3:44 PM

            That said, Xav is likely pandering to the Gamefly visitors that come through looking for titles to rent, and I bet GF gets a lot of traffic of people investigating the quality of the SP side of things, so it's probably important that this aspect is covered. I would agree 100% that BF3's single player is average at best, boring to terrible at worst.

            • reply
              November 7, 2011 3:52 PM

              I'd really hope that reviews aren't being written to appeal to Gamefly users. I highly doubt it since they're still covering PC games.

              I still don't understand why the review barely covered the multiplayer in a series that's known for its multiplayer though.

              • reply
                November 7, 2011 4:02 PM

                Yup I have all BF games and never played single player in any of them. Including BF3.

                • reply
                  November 7, 2011 4:30 PM

                  That's not hard to do when only one Battlefield game on the PC prior to BF3 actually had a single player campaign (Bad Company 2). Before that single player in Battlefield consisted of multiplayer maps and matches with bots on PC.

                  • reply
                    November 7, 2011 4:32 PM

                    And even that campaign wasn't that good. So it's totally believable when Xav says the single player in BF3 is shit as well, I just don't get why you'd focus on it.

                    • reply
                      November 7, 2011 4:51 PM

                      Yeah, I thought it was garbage aside from the destructibility of certain areas, but there are a few fans of BC2's campaign around here.

                      I'm playing through BF3 right now and it's not bad, but it's not good either. I dug the tank mission I just finished even though it was ridiculously easy. So far it's the only mission that felt like it belonged in a Battlefield game. The rest is super linear and feels very much like Call of Duty with prettier effects.

              • reply
                November 7, 2011 5:10 PM

                That's pretty much the state of game reviews as a whole nowadays isn't it? Singleplayer gets the majority of the focus, whatever co-op modes the reviewer has played with other reviewers get a mention, and the rest of the the multiplayer gets a footnote at the end of the review. The only time you typically see anything written about multiplayer is if the reviewer themselves is part of the multiplayer scene for that game (ie. Leahy and starcraft).

        • reply
          November 7, 2011 3:56 PM

          I would say Halo Reach really is the epitome of stat tracking for games. It is pretty far beyond Battlelog.

      • reply
        November 7, 2011 3:37 PM

        I've had some difficulties in connecting, namely it will be loading then I'll get the win7 this program has stopped working error, or I will be launched into a game but I have no sound

      • reply
        November 7, 2011 3:38 PM

        Yeah, that part of the review is a giant wtf.

      • reply
        November 7, 2011 3:46 PM

        Every problem I've ever had with BF3 has been solved by restarting the browser and the game

      • reply
        November 7, 2011 4:02 PM

        I had tons of trouble keeping connected to a match earlier during launch week, but they rolled out some fixes that took care of everything. No connection complaints since.

      • reply
        November 7, 2011 4:18 PM

        I have rubber banding issues. I got the game Thursday and haven't been able to play a game online yet. It's pretty sad.

        • reply
          November 7, 2011 4:23 PM

          Make sure you check your server filter and find one with the best ping. I seem to get the best pings from South servers, even though I should be East.

          • reply
            November 7, 2011 8:50 PM

            I was getting pings in the 20s and on the shack servers with the same results.

      • reply
        November 7, 2011 4:20 PM

        I haven't had a single issue with loading the game, but my girlfriend seems to have it lock up or load a black screen about 25-50% of the time. Both of us are using ATi cards with the latest drivers under Windows 7.

        • reply
          November 7, 2011 4:24 PM

          Every time I try to join a server for a new session the game will load to a black screen or crash, every time.

          Sometimes the second go won't work either, but it'll be good after that. Though I'll still get random crashes while playing too.

        • reply
          November 7, 2011 4:31 PM

          I've found that it launches BF3 minimized and if I do not click to maximize it in a certain amount of time eventually when battlelog tries to maximize it then it will be a black screen. Not sure if that is the same issue though.

      • reply
        November 7, 2011 4:32 PM

        Crippled might be strong, but the first load of a MP server never works for me. "BF3.exe has stopped working." But after that it works fine. Mostly. Had a black screen for the first time last night. And getting COOP to work isn't a slam dunk but it does work. Mostly.

      • reply
        November 7, 2011 10:36 PM

        I don't know what he's talking about. I have several small complaints about the game which is overall fucking amazing. Just simple UI / design decisions which with some streamlining could make it not only an excellent game but an excellent game with potential for a long long tail.

    • reply
      November 7, 2011 3:48 PM

      Shack reviews are bizarre lately

      • reply
        November 7, 2011 4:01 PM

        gotta generate them hits somehow

      • reply
        November 7, 2011 4:21 PM

        Multiplayer's awesome, singleplayer sucks, wtf else do you want.

    • reply
      November 7, 2011 4:00 PM

      No multiplayer issues here. The occasional server problem in the beginning and nothing recently. 15 hours of multiplayer so far and I consider it the best MP experience of any online shooter to date. Each to his own I guess.

      • reply
        November 7, 2011 4:01 PM

        He kinda concurs with your statement, "Battlefield 3 is the best military-based online shooter I've played this year."

    • reply
      November 7, 2011 4:00 PM

      Heh and they let you write reviews. What a worthless article. Go play CoD with the rest of the mindless sheep.

    • reply
      November 7, 2011 4:08 PM

      Okay fine, but what kind of restaurant would this game be?

    • reply
      November 7, 2011 4:11 PM

      I can't comment on single player because I haven't played it, but in regards to server problems weeks after launch: I can't think of a problem that hasn't been fixed since. Rubber banding was a big deal, but it's gone completely now. The only server problems at the moment is that admins keep Metro in 64 conquest rotation, that' needs to be fixed :p

      I'm not sure I understand what's inconsistent. Would consistency be getting one shot by quick scoping snipers in a tiny ridiculous multiplayer map? Would consistency be saving the world from the villain and almost dying in the process for 4 games in a row? Or consistency is releasing the same every year in November?


      • reply
        November 7, 2011 8:11 PM

        Well said. Also the MP rules and I've had no problems.

    • foo
      reply
      November 7, 2011 4:12 PM

      haha, I didn't think it was possible for me to lose any more respect for the Shack, yet here we are

    • reply
      November 7, 2011 4:17 PM

      GameFly’s BF3 review is arbitrary solely based on the preconception that the campaign offers gamers the liberty to chose their own path to go on and diminishes the reviewer’s credibility by attacking scripted events & the thought that it imitates other games. Thoughts?

    • reply
      November 7, 2011 4:33 PM

      What the fuck, Xav de Matos?

      • reply
        November 7, 2011 5:01 PM

        Battlefield 3 is the best military-based online shooter I've played this year. How dare Xav like BF3.

        • reply
          November 7, 2011 5:10 PM

          Has he played MW3 yet?

          • reply
            November 7, 2011 5:12 PM

            No, Garnett took the helicopter to the review event resort this year.

            • reply
              November 7, 2011 5:19 PM

              I like how the last few podcasts they've been talking about how they're totally going to talk about bf3 multiplayer and haven't bothered, and now it's going to get buried under MW3, or if it is mentioned, directly compared to MW3 instead of discussed on it's own merits.

              • reply
                November 7, 2011 5:21 PM

                I am surprised people still expect meaningful discussions about games.

              • reply
                November 7, 2011 5:21 PM

                I'd prefer if they focused on MW3 single-player. Talking about the multiplayer before the game releases is disingenuous, since they've usually only been able to play on 360 against other journalists with the press copy. That's not the same as going out on release and playing with other consumers. For this, I applaud Xav for getting real-world experience with BF3 multiplayer, and not just rushing to pump out a story at the 'bargo.

    • reply
      November 7, 2011 4:33 PM

      I think I have a love/hate relationship with the single player, which seems to match the polarized views that I've heard from reviewers and players. On the second mission, when the jet takes off of the aircraft carrier, I honestly felt like there was g-force pushing me back in my chair. But then the rest of the mission was as engaging as Cow Clicker with just locking onto highlighted points while my AI pilot drove me in a circle. It was the best and worst moments of what modern shooters are about in quick succession. The realism is so stunning that when the facade breaks, it's a huge letdown. I have no interest in COD for the same reasons, but I feel like Battlefield could have been so much better in these moments.

      However, I was surprised by some of the co-op missions and how much fun they were. When you or a friend is the pilot and there's real, non-scripted teamwork going on and the very real risk of crashing into a mountain, then those moments click much better with a genuine experience.

      And, of course, everything about the multiplayer is fantastic. And for a Battlefield game, that's really what we should be talking about.

    • reply
      November 7, 2011 4:53 PM

      You were disconnected from EA Online. .... FUUUUUUUU

    • reply
      November 7, 2011 5:03 PM

      Well I think the review is good and in line with other's opinions of the game.

    • reply
      November 7, 2011 6:41 PM

      "While DICE's experience in producing compelling squad-based multiplayer is unmatched, many of DICE's other efforts fall flat. Should you be willing to pay full price for that inconsistency?"

      I think this is the key question. $60 bucks. The Single Player and Coop in BF3 are not very strong. I can respect all the work and polish that went into them. But they fall flat... I had the exact same knife issue as Xav. Other issues as well... where I would just fail a mission, or it wouldn't be clear exactly what I had to do next. The coop missions were fun, but what ruins it for me is, the fact that you have to grind them to get unlocks. They DON'T have a lot of replayability, and you probably have to play them all (in total) 30 or 40 times to unlock everything, unless you exploit the respawning bugs.

      The multiplayer IS fantastic. But only when it works. I've had consistent Party issues, voice chat issues, server join issues, and map loading issues every time I've played. Sometimes a party doesn't show your friend online, even though you are chatting with them over the battlelog voice system. Other times they won't get the party invite even though they are online, or, even if they do get into you party, they won't get server invites.

      When it works, its great. And it works most of the time... but it needs some of the wrinkles ironed out.

    • reply
      November 7, 2011 7:34 PM

      Any deals for BF3? I think I'm finally giving in.

    • reply
      November 7, 2011 8:22 PM

      That's because you aren't playing Multiplayer with us. Get drunk on Thursday and join up

      • reply
        November 7, 2011 10:08 PM

        and this is why reviews of battlefield games are useless to me. ever since the wake island demo, battlefield for me is purely about the shackbattles.

        • reply
          November 7, 2011 10:20 PM

          This, exactly. I have it particularly good because I have six IRL friends with whom I play several times a week while we're on skype shooting the shit. So much multiplayer fun.

      • reply
        November 7, 2011 11:31 PM

        ^^^ 1000% this ^^^ Xav, I don't disagree with your opinion of BF3, and I think it's actually very measured and probably the right review for an average PC or console gamer. However, you really owe it to yourself to witness the majesty of a Shacker-filled server. It's very impressive how much this game has taken hold of the Shack. The most recent comparable game was Minecraft, and I don't think it even drew quite so many Shackers to it.

        At any rate, when you get the whole raucous crew in Teamspeak, whether it's a Thursday night drunken Shackbattle (which can be best described as "hilarious chaos") or one of the SRS BSNS Shackbattles where each team organizes in separate Teamspeak channels and works together for objectives, these games are a glorious thing. I've played a time or two on random public servers and frankly it just doesn't compare. Occasionally it's the skill that's lacking, or maybe the teamwork isn't what it should be, or sometimes it's just the lack of camaraderie. Anyway, don't miss this one, it's something special. If the only measure of a game was the number of hours played and the amount of attention the game gets among Shackers, this game would already be far and away the game of the year for the Shack.

        • reply
          November 8, 2011 12:34 AM

          I have played with Shackers; however, not on the password protected server.

          • reply
            November 8, 2011 5:50 AM

            Yeah man, stop by on a Thursday night, just make sure you have a few drinks.

        • reply
          November 8, 2011 3:09 AM

          STOP IT, you're making me angry that the squad chat voice system sucks again :( implemented properly, even pub games could have had significant better team play and coordination :(

        • reply
          November 8, 2011 7:04 AM

          SRS BZNS for the win, always the best and most fun games!

          • reply
            November 8, 2011 7:39 AM

            Yeah, if you're stupid and fat and gay.

            • reply
              November 8, 2011 9:16 AM

              Well thats me to a T so I guess it makes sense

    • reply
      November 7, 2011 9:13 PM

      Happy I waited for a review before getting this. I guess i'll see how MW3 is reviewed after a week.

      • reply
        November 7, 2011 11:22 PM

        Eyefinity HUD/IFF Tag Fix

        Fix I just did for getting the HUD and Player tag/overlay working in my Eyefinity set up:

        1. disable your eyefinity display group.
        2. Disable 1 of your monitors in catalyst (not the center one).
        3. Extend the 2 monitors to the disabled monitor.
        4. Setup a new eyefinity group with the secondary monitor (number 2).
        5. When this is all done and arranged en bezel compensated you should see that it is numbered 2 instead of 1.
        6. Set your preferred monitor to your center monitor.

        Then:

        Go to \My Documents\Battlefield 3\Settings
        Copy and save the file "PROF_SAVE_profile" somewhere else in case you need to redo your settings
        Then open the file
        "PROF_SAVE_profile" with word pad or whatever editor you like
        Locate the line that reads
        GstRender.ScreenSafeAreaWidth and set it to a setting that is good for you mine is set at
        GstRender.ScreenSafeAreaWidth 0.300000
        I see that Hafen Toni is at 0.600000
        default is 0.950000
        Which ever you like to get the hud to display more to the center for you
        Then Save the file.

    • reply
      November 7, 2011 10:13 PM

      i notice a lot of battlefield reviews are like, "here's the single player! here's why it sucks! here's the co-op! it's okay! also there is a great multiplayer mode if you're into that, i guess. 7/10."

    • reply
      November 7, 2011 10:24 PM

      Honestly who the fuck needs a review of a BF game? You either like the BF style or you don't. It's the same fucking game with modern improvements. Fuck, it's like buying Madden 2004 through 2010 and skipping 2011 because it got a less than stellar review.

    • reply
      November 7, 2011 10:31 PM

      I swear to fuck, people commenting on the single player for BF3 fucking SLAY me.
      This is the kind of stupid shit you would expect someone like me to whine about "but they INCLUDED IT so it's their responsibility to make it good!!!" only even I'm not fucking stupid enough to expect ANYTHING from the single player, how god - fucking - damned - stupid do you have to be?

      Techreport which was also stupid enough to whine about single player, actually worse so than this subthread and review - they had a made a point of an entire article dedicated to the SP.
      My comment there.

      "This is MADNESS!

      This is the second time I've seen people whine about single player for BF3, what is going on? Do I go out and buy Heavy Rain for the MP? You should know what you're buying the game for, if you want a compelling SP experience buy a single player game, Rage, BioShock, Uncharted, heck even Gears of War (for some) - Killzone even, but Battlefield? Battlefield? What is going on here.

      "Hi sir, I purchased this tractor and it's terrible at the 1/4 mile!!!"
      I'm seriously baffled by this."


      Seriously,... seriously - maybe I'm in the minority here but WHO FUCKING CARES about the single playr? and I'm almost exclusively a single player gamer! Seriously, BF has ALWAYS been an MP series and critisizing such an excellent MP game (and it takes a lot to fucking impress me in general, let alone for an MP game) is utter, utter stupidity.
      In conclusion, maximum derp, engaged.

      • reply
        November 7, 2011 10:39 PM

        Abrasion'd

        • reply
          November 7, 2011 11:18 PM

          I don't even know who these kids are anymore, it's meaningless.

      • reply
        November 7, 2011 11:01 PM

        The issue is they advertised BF3 as a legitimate SP game. Their previous Battlefield game Bad Company 2 itself turned out to be a legitimate SP game, despite being bundled with their MP component. By your logic that kind of coupling is just impossible, despite obviously already being disproven.

        They did months of PR on BF3's SP and created a strong expectation of quality and it turned out it's kinda crappy.

        Your argument "Well, of course it's shit - DICE has and will always be SP shit and if you bought the game expecting good SP you well deserve every dollar lost on it." is wrong at the core.

        • reply
          November 7, 2011 11:17 PM

          I guess I missed the marketing? all I saw was two very good YouTube videos CLEARLY showing huge, amazing mp battles. I am not joking when I say,I was legitimately surprised when I saw campaign and coop in the menus /after/ purchasing the game.

          • reply
            November 7, 2011 11:21 PM

            I guess you missed the whole 10 min E3 presentation they did that showed off the Single Player?

          • reply
            November 7, 2011 11:29 PM

            you missed a lot of videos. yes, those two multiplayer videos came out recently and were very well made, but the majority of the media was about the single player.

        • reply
          November 8, 2011 10:47 PM

          Point taken, but the SP was not that bad and everyone fawns all over COD SP, but it is shit too. I think people were hoping for a more inspired SP and that is why they are not being kind. Objectively it is not a horrible campaign. Neither is it amazing.

      • reply
        November 8, 2011 5:40 AM

        I agree to a large extent - anyone familiar with the series knows what they get. Maybe if you are new to the scene I could understand, and I'd love for an extensive singleplayer mode a la Operation Flashpoint, but everyone I game with knew what they were getting.

      • reply
        November 8, 2011 6:04 AM

        I get where you are coming from, but yes, people care about the SP. and I saw a lot of marketing on TV and in the stores (Gamestop and BB) about the campaign. I know the hardcores like us could care, but they dont put all the money into the SP just to be a throw away.

        BF3 was created to go head to head with the CoD series - and specifically MW3. The publisher, studio, and the marketing all made this clear. They want to take the crown away. And to do that, they have to have an over the top SP event to do that.

        This is like when games added SP to the Doom and Quake model that was very different to the MP flow for me. I could have cared less back then. MP maps without monsters on them? WTF was that ... time moves on and moves past all of us.

      • reply
        November 8, 2011 6:56 AM

        Talking about SP an easy cop-out for reviewers since it's a much easier experience to quantify. If they wanted to properly review multiplayer they'd have to spend more than 15 minutes with it.

        • reply
          November 8, 2011 7:25 AM

          Even the multiplayer isn't rocking my world. It's okay, but even when I've played extended sessions I don't et the rush I used to get from BF2.

      • reply
        November 8, 2011 7:08 AM

        I liked the BF3 SP game. It's pretty much exactly like the CoD single player formula, except it looked better and was appropriately challenging.

        The only downside is the QTEs. I'm not anti QTE at all, I just think they need to be a little more engaging or just abandon them for in-game cut scenes. Pressing B one time for a 15 second event is not enough to make it feel like I had anything to do with the outcome. If my guy had to make 3 punches and a choke, give me 4 things to do.

      • reply
        November 8, 2011 10:43 PM

        + A BIG FAT FUCKING 1

    • reply
      November 7, 2011 11:20 PM

      All I know is that this game lets me shoot at a guy's SPAA tank to scare him out of it and then kill him. Then I fix his SPAA tank and take it back to my team. Denying them of AAA and making life for their Aircraft terrible.

      • reply
        November 8, 2011 4:55 AM

        When I manage to do this, I wish for longer rounds :D

    • reply
      November 8, 2011 3:19 AM

      Is is review for real? Feels like random thoughts, without an meaningful comments on much of anything, and from what I can tell very premature if it's supposed to be even partly a commentary on the game's multiplayer after only a handful of hours. I am 12 hours in and wouldn't feel comfortable reviewing the game yet, having barely played all maps / classes / modes. Sigh. Anyways, for me so far the game is fantastic, no more server or battle log issues either.

      • reply
        November 8, 2011 3:21 AM

        It also bugs me that the review has a very negative tone overall, based on the single player - this is mostly a multiplayer title.

        • reply
          November 8, 2011 5:32 AM

          What if he had to poop...but also had to write the review?

          • reply
            November 8, 2011 10:49 PM

            Then you would get the review presented here ... GREAT OBSERVATION! Maybe he was constipated too!

    • reply
      November 8, 2011 5:46 AM

      A number of other publications have entirely separate reviews for SP and MP. PC Zone were doing this years ago. I'd like to see that on the shack to be honest.

    • reply
      November 8, 2011 6:12 PM

      First and foremost for disclaimer, I have to say I work at Raven Software/MW3... and I really tend to be not biased

      As a person who plays lots and lots of single player shooters, I had such high hopes for Battlefield3, but in the end I was really disappointed and let down... As soon as I saw the first completely out of the context QTE I was just pulling my hair (QTE vs. a rat??!!! Are you serious? Are you gonna die out of a rat bite? rabies?)
      I personally loved last years Medal of Honor and its ending was one of the boldest finales in any form of entertainment last year. But now, it's such a step back! Yes the visual fidelity of the game is stunning... but that's pretty much its all going for it
      (I really feel bad for Crysis 2, since comes end of year time, just because of release date, nobody is gonna put them in any GOTY categories... hell, even as bad as the shooting mechanics were on Homefront, that game had so many high points in its narrative structure that still resonates with me)

      This might be a really minor thing and might get flak for it, but coming from Iran (and being able to differentiate between Arabic and Farsi) I can't believe neither DICE or EA LA could not find a single person to translate the signs all over the game... Just look at the bottom of the review...
      (I kid you not there was a sign for "child care" and next to it the translation is the dirtiest word we use for "penis")

    • reply
      November 8, 2011 11:41 PM

      guys... guys,.. Xav just wanted to rush out a review based on the 1/3 of the game's weakest points before playing every map from both sides and playing all the vehicles and unlocks etc. he wanted to pass judgment on it.. just not from any accurate fundamental experience.

      there. i cleared it up.
      lets go back to our game, guys.
      gg
      next time maybe do what shack does best with their reviews, actually go into detail and give a balance and flow.. not random excerpts that spring into your head whilst ignoring major portions of the experience. k thx.

    • reply
      November 9, 2011 4:50 AM


      I'm not going to chime in about how bad or shameless i think posting a review like this is, esp 2 weeks after the games release and the day before its rival game is released(which got a release day review), However i will say this, Dear Shacknews ...please, PLEASE, stop writing reviews, please. If you could just stick to press release material and previews, it would be greatly appreciated...but please, never a review on anything ever again. thank you.

    • reply
      November 9, 2011 12:59 PM

      No mention in the review that Origin is spyware that can (and does) send info about what software you use to EA at any time. That was the reason I didn't buy the game, and although I'm a bit sad to miss out on the multiplayer, I'm glad happy to hear I'm not missing out on anything but eye candy in single player.

    • reply
      November 10, 2011 10:12 AM

      I've owned 1942/BF2/BC2 and liked them all, but I don't like anything about BF3. The SP is as bad as BC2's, and the MP isn't very fun for me. Maybe it's the maps, but I have no urge to play it any more.

      And with the PC version coupled with Origin/Battlelog, it's truly an awful experience.