Battlefield 3 Review: With Bad Company Like This, Who Needs War?

Battlefield 3 is the most anticipated first-person shooter game to be developed by EA Digital Illusions CE and the wait has been in the aptitude of extraordinary vain for Battlefield 2 hardcore fans of the series and lovers of fulfilling first-person shooters alike. Battlefield 3 does try to holster its weapon into the satchel of justice, particularly besides the realm of disappointment. There are guns, vehicles, multiplayer modes, and even a single-player storyline haphazardly thrown in for good measure but sadly all of these things create a sense of disillusionment; The level of action and intensity is bland with every shot no matter what mode considering most are hardly differentiated, and the vehicles along with the storyline prove the dimensional analysis that a video game can be beautiful visually and still play out with a mediocre thump. While Battlefield 3 will find its solace in the hands of those who enjoy bad company with a little thrill, it will find itself sooner in the comforting embrace of a bargain bin come December.

Battlefield 3 is solely about the multiplayer aspect, and this is very translucently focused on by EA DICE. Players set off in the US Marines faction as Staff Sergeant Henry “black” Blackburn of 1st Recon, intermittently changing the protagonist per mission. Set in 2014, players fight off against the People’s Liberation and Resistance through a mission structure that has no real purpose or form. While EA DICE has added what can be perceived as a cinematic camera cue journey in the single-player mode, there is hardly any substance in a single-player with mission mechanics which are thrown together and appear to be very last minute in addendum.

Multiplayer has been stated by many EA DICE developers we have come in contact with to be influenced off of Battlefield 2, but it is very clear that there is a translational stage directly from Battlefield: Bad Company 2. Disparagingly, EA DICE did not stick to their roots and instead tried to create a title which aimed to be close quarters combat than huge scale battles. These close quarters fights whether on ground or in the air suffer from the overall gameplay design or lack thereof. While the PC version has 64-players, the console versions themselves are dwindled to a mere 24. Regardless, this was clearly a quality call from EA DICE to manage the online servers. Regardless of this fault, the true foibles in Battlefield 3 lay with not just the maps but also with class distribution. While less is more, Battlefield 3 is just too simplistic when it comes to its variety. The classes, while more streamlined, are generally weaker seem to dissuade the intensity of action. There are simply four classes: Assault, Recon, Support, and Engineer.  Assault classes carry a primary weapon such as the AK-47 or the M-16, Support class is an infused medic-like class with an ammo pack and light weapons usage, Engineer class dabbles in tank debauchery with SMAW or RPG-7, and lastly Recon carries a sniper rifle with laser designators to bring back more roles for prone annoyances and camping misfits.

After choosing one of the two factions, either U.S. Marine Corps or Russian Spetsnaz, players must make the generic decision of choosing one of these four classes to begin the battle which carries many problems in the road ahead. These four classes each are distributed into their own rewards classes based on XP gained after a match, which also attributes medals for the Battlelog profile. The modes themselves are not intuitive or creative, containing Squad Rush: base match team mode with no vehicles; Rush: base match team mode with vehicles; Team Deathmatch (no vehicles); Deathmatch (no vehicles); Conquest (flag takeover with vehicles). Clearly these reused and unintuitive modes aside come with not only the folly of a lack of creativity but also limited vehicle usage which cannot be purposeful despite reason. The reason there should be no vehicles in these modes is clear enough: not only are vehicles terrible to control and feel dreadful, but they serve no real purpose in the mode. Half of the time, tanks are too controlling for Rush or Conquest for ground-soldiers, while jet battles lack a finesse in terms of flight control and believability. While players can carry other soldiers on helicopters similar to the Battlefield 2 style, the importance of the transit degrades immensely considering the maps hardly require helicopter transport to the battle.

Battlefield 3 has only one true prize in terms of its gameplay or design, and this is the Frostbite 2 engine and Destruction 3.0. The visuals are unbelievably realistic and the color temperature of the scenes is believable in blue/white tone.  Unfortunately, most of the beauty is seen in the explosions of the unbalanced vehicle gameplay to ground action, where the explosions are at an all-time high. The console version looks decent, but the PC version is really for visuals (and hackers with aimbots).

Battlefield 3 showed a lot of promise in its development stages. EA DICE took on a heavy project on its shoulders when it termed the next Battlefield with a ‘3’ at the end, promising a long development cycle and undoubtedly fermenting a level of unaltered excitement from veterans and new gamers alike. While Battlefield 3 has amazing visuals, it provides the basic amount of warfare experience. Battlefield 3 thereby serves as a general disappointment in the veins of a mediocre warfare title that will soon find its covers in the bargain section of your nearest stores soon.




Posted By: Usman Ihtsham
ON Sunday, October 30th, 2011
2:50 AM