3 Replies Latest reply: Feb 10, 2012 2:45 PM by nuttin2say RSS

Okay so I played Battlefield 3, check out this review..


This is a non biased gamer review of Battlefield 3 and at the end I'll give you my final verdict on the better game (stressing here it's all IMO)


     Okay for the game I'd like to say not bad, not at all.  I started off having to download 2GBs worth of updates right off the bat not to mention I had to download from the first disc a better graphics system, then lastly in the version I bought I got the first expansion pack for free and I downloaded it to.  All downloaded time = around 45 min.  Overall the graphics didn't seem much better than MW3 but I don't have an HDMI cable so please excuse me there.

     Now for gameplay, I have to say that the game was a lot different in controls and feel than MW3 if any of you were/are hardcore Halo fans as I am you're gonna remember these controls alot easier.  The flow of your soldier through the battlefield (pun intended) feels more realistic and free of digital movements.  Also your man could sprint alot longer than his MW3 counterpart.  Buildings and walls can blow up and you can flatten a building with your enemies all inside if you feel so fit.  But it may not always work according to plan as it takes quited some time.  Weapon wise they don't have as many options as MW3 but you can customize your weapons a bit better than you can in MW3.  Some weapons like the Famas and UMP45 are there, obviously as a war game the M4 and M16 are too, the SMAW and RPG and some other familiar weapons you'll notice right off the bat.  To unlock these other weapons you have to complete certain challenges, which are kind of hard for the BF newcomer and the ranking system is kind of slow, but then again so was Black Ops.

     When I ran out in my very first match I didn't like the game, the game that I had originally preordered wanting it so bad, because it was so different and unusual.  But I soon changed my tune when I saw the environment,  large open areas and matches of 24 men killing each other to 100 kills (in TDM.)  The gameplay isn't as fast paced like MW3, which most of us including myself like, but if you find the firefight hot spots of the maps your quench for gunfire and mayhem is definately going to be filled.  There seems to be no lag in BF3 but I have a theory on why out of any of my matches it seemed "lagless."  You see there are no hit markers in BF3, if you shoot someone you don't know if you are actually hitting them, and from my genious mind(right? right?? ) came the idea maybe there is lag but I cant tell nor any of the other players, I know it's not exactly likely but this "ghost lag" might be true.  Oh one other thing, once you go to matchmaking you can't leave post game lobbies until the next match starts then you have to quit the game I don't have a clue why EA did that one.  But If you can get passed the no hit markers and slow gameplay then this game isn't a bad choice.  Myself I play it just for fun I didn't care that I kept dying so much at first, it was an all new fun experience.

All in all I'd have to say that MW3 is still the better game. It's more "attack friendly" and fast paced kill action is where I'm at.  I'll keep BF3 just for fun but I'm not leaving my love for the MW series for a few bipods and buildings that go boom (hardly ever go boom).


This was my first review which I tried to do professionaly guys could you give me some feedback? Any criticism would help.

  • Re: Okay so I played Battlefield 3, check out this review..

    I disagree, I don't think the two games can be compared, the only thing they have in common is they are both FPS's.


    Personnally I prefer it to MW3, but that's my opinion....


    Either way, this is a COD forum, so expect the Mod's to move this ot the OT section.

  • Re: Okay so I played Battlefield 3, check out this review..

    I do have an HDMI cable. IMO, the graphics are equal in quality, though there is a noticeable difference in how the appear on the screen (if you're into that kind of detail. If not, you won't really notice much difference at all).


    The pace of games in BF3 depend on two things, one of which you mentioned. If you want the game to be fast paced, you can find places to keep the excitement up.


    The other thing the pace depends upon is the game mode you're playing ... much like MW3. Some modes play faster - and some maps play faster, as well.


    Teamwork is critical to win-loss in BF3 --- much more so than in any COD game.


    As for lag, there is a way you can use hitmarkers as a benchmark in BF3 if you want to. Play a Conquest match and jump into one of the stationary AA guns. What you will experience does not happen in every match, but it is there nonetheless.


    Sometimes you can be wracking up enough hit markers on enemy aircraft that you will think there is no fricking way they are going to survive ... only to watch them make four more direct passes at you in the same manner before you get the vehicle damaged bonus.


    That's lag. Sorry if BF3 fans don't want to admit there is lag in BF3, but there is.


    Does BF have a live update system? I don't know. MW3 only recently started using a live update system and even that is not that often.


    In any case, I think both BF3 and MW3 are fun to play ... each for different reasons. IMO, they are really two different games.


    On the other hand, the fact that there are a good number of people that feel BF3 is on par with MW3 ... doesn't really bode that great for COD. It means the "competition" is catching up.