Battlefield 3 - The Review

This is a true review. It may sound a little narcissistic, but as I stated in the prelim review, you all should know that the professional critics on top gaming sites are paid off, and it shows statistically when certain game titles get high marks on title alone even though they noted some significant issues, while another title gets slightly lower marks for having the same issues (i.e latency, glitches, washout, etc). BF3, having high to extremely high scores, still suffers that kind of stigma. I'm typing up this FULL review to praise and expose features for what they are. I will be breaking this down into sections, and sub-sections since I'm reviewing the PC and console version.

GRAPHICS

Praises

• PC - BF3's hometurf is where the graphics shine. It is a true DX11 title complete with all the bells and whistles such as Ambient Occlusion, and Tessellation. Things like the ground sprout up and look more like a rocky surface, while wall surfaces such as brick walls, and bullet holes pop out (or cave in). BF3 is also somewhat optimized for an array of different rigs, with little reduction in overall picture quality. Anti-Aliasing (or the reduction of jagged edges on a rendered object) is also very optimized even at low settings. Even at rig-straining settings and a resolution of 1920 x 1080, BF3 runs anywhere between 30 to 70 frames per second.
• Console - Dice tried extremely hard to keep the look of the PC version in the console version, and it somewhat worked. Of course, the console version has taken a hit, but despite that, BF3 on the console is a work of art. Much of the lighting in the PC version remains in the console version. The PS3 version also has slightly optimized features (MSAA, slight HBAO.. technical mumbo jumbo) which would make it the more superior version when compared with the 360 version. I don't think that's the case though. The 360 version has a default resolution of 1080p for all of it's game, and while that shouldn't matter as far rendering and textures are concern (i.e the game is rendered at 1280 x 704), the upscaled resolution makes a difference that places the 360 version as more graphically pleasing over the PS3 version. Regardless, Dice did a nice job reversing the order and porting BF3 from the PC to consoles, but it's not perfect by any means.
• Both- One word: Destruction. Now before the crybabies start saying that there isn't enough, you have to realize that because this game was built for both platforms, the limitations of said destruction is very obvious. You can't just expect to blow away an entire building because YOU thought it was possible. Remember, the hardware for the 360 and PS3 are 6 years old! You're looking at RAM and vRAM sizes of 256MBs - 512MBs as well as pretty dated CPUs. Now compare that to a quad core (or in AMD's case, 8 cores) CPUs with multiple GB's of RAM and a separate GPU with it's own set of RAM... Even slightly older PC builds are still more powerful than consoles. Before I get carried away, I'm just gonna narrow it down to the fact that consoles are holding multi-plats graphic potential, and this is no exception. Get that out of your head so you can actually see how this game engine shines.

Issues

• PC - Right now, the PC version has green screen tearing on several maps. This is quite annoying, but it's managable. The only case of going into (or under) a map that I have seen is at Damavand Peak (conquest) when you're fly a chopper through the mountain. Now that's a class A screw up right there. Originally, the game was littered with stuttering and it almost made the game unplayable for me. Luckily, a large part of that had to do with the servers back end and was nearly fixed after about 2 or so weeks.
• Console - Dice's efforts to keep much of the games bells and whistles may be commendable with the kind of hardware at their disposal, but it may have been too much. For instance, the foliage littered throughout a number of maps takes away from how the rest of the map looks. Add into the fact that the textures and resolution are rendered at 1280 x 704, and the experience is rather degraded. I may have spoiled myself by having both PC and the PS3 versions because the graphic differences are night and day. MSAA can only do so much as far as smoothing the textures are concerned. Another thing is that the games frames were capped at 30 frames. Again, hardware limitations considering how immense Frostbite 2 is. It does suck for someone who is used to seeing this game running between 50  to 70+ frames and even the likes of MW3 (that is another story for another day). 

The following are equivalent settings parallel to the Console version as told by Nvidia. 

SOUND
Sound is top notch! It is unbelievably detailed. If you have a good surround system, or surround headphones, make use of it! from shots cracking from a distance, to CQC situations, you're always going to be blown away by the sound engine. There are a number of output options that suits your current setup whether you want Hi-Fi, headphones, or even "War Tapes," be sure to cycle through your options. There is also a setting to enhance the sound even further for people who are using TV speakers, or your current speakers are made of doo doo or equivalent. All in all, I can't further describe how good the sound is, and YouTube can only preview what I said about it. You have to experience it for yourself.

Watch this in HD... listen to crazy ass sounds

SINGLE PLAYER CAMPAIGN
In this day and age, it seems that the community just loves flashy explosions, flipping cars, and basically the same format as Michael Bay creates his movies. The folks at Activision is the master of that art no doubt, but does it make it any better? Yes and no. It's a yes because it keeps things visually pleasing, and it's a no because it also requires a good story.
What does that mean for BF3? Well, the flashy stuff wasn't as epic as you see in MW3, and the story sounds and looks familiar. Generally, the story is lackluster. It also has a bunch of quicktime events and rail play sequences that take away from the experience. What this game does well is show off the visuals as well as give the player a general rundown of the play mechanics. You also want to keep in mind that BF games are remembered by it's multiplayer aspect and not the singleplayer. If you observe previous BF games (before Bad Company), like BF2, single player was no more than 16 player bot matches. My thoughts on this recent emphasis on singleplayer is the simple fact that the publisher demanded they have an actual campaign to go after the likes of you know who.
If you're still interested, the story is about a typical terrorist bringing a WMD into the US with the plans of using it. You mainly play the role as Marine SSGT Blackburn who is being interrogated by a pair of government agents. You play his flashback missions to understand the background, and then you move onward and the like. Kind of sounds like a mix of Spy Game and The Sum of All Fears. I enjoyed both of those movies, but I definitely didn't feel it in BF3. Personally, I blame the industry for over saturating FPS games.
Another plus for the SP is the more realistic approach it takes. I find BF3s campaign more plausible than MW3s. It also can present a problem though because some people look for escape rather than reality. That is something MW3 brings to the table. In the end, you have to be into the premise to really enjoy the campaign.

MULTIPLAYER
Ah yes. The staple of this franchise is the multiplayer, and with BF3, it's really a complex situation. This is why it's broken down as such. Another thing is that I only have the PC and PS3 versions, and I know that the 360 version is generally the same, but they're also seeing different problems and play styles. Obviously, I won't cover those issues.

• PC - 64 players. More vehicles. More base caps. What's not to like? It felt like that over the past 4 years, the industry has been taking steps backwards with the player count per server with BFBC2 maxing out at 32 players, and MW2 maxing at 18. For some games, it works to have less players (like Gears and Rainbow Six Vegas), but for games like COD and BF, I don't think that the player count should be lower than 32 at the least! Folks who played COD 1 at Caretan and Brecourt will know my pain. Same for BF2 maps like Wake Island, and Gulf of Oman. 64 players work. Map sizes shouldn't even be a problem (considering Caretan is no bigger than Village on MW3), yet some genius thought that 18 players is enough even for the PC version? F*** that! And the publishers wonder why the PC community still plays COD 1, 2, 4 and BF1942, 2, and 2142.. Anyway, the 64 player limit is a welcomed re-addition. The only minus I seen is the fact that some areas are extreme bottlenecks of death. Grand Bazaar for instance where CP B is located (and Alleyway) is basically Rocket Arena. Imagine the scene in Immortals when Theseus and his band of Greeks was fighting in that main entry of the Great Wall... but with snipers, LMGs, and rockets. The player count also accommodates for the amount of vehicles that are present on the map and the amount of CPs.  Another PC related issue I seen (aside from bottlenecking) is the stuttering and artifact flickering that plagued several maps. My case in particular is a case of green flickering that happens more often than I want, but it wasn't game breaking. Fortunately, a new set of Nvidia, and AMD drivers was released recently, so keep a lookout for that. Absent from the retail build is the ridiculous giraffe prone glitch that plagued the beta, mainly because it was funny to see (google BF3 giraffe.. collect lolz).

• Console - Is the opposite of PC. 24 players. Less vehicles. Less CPs. Of course, this can't be helped because of the limitations. Before someone cries M.A.G and Homefront, compare those graphics and netcode to the likes of BF3... it's night and day. For M.A.G in particular, Sony made exceptions for it's bandwidth limits for obvious reasons (it was a PS3 exclusive). Another big reason for the reduced player count is the fact that Microsoft wouldn't accept a multiplat title if the PS3 version had more stuff. The hardware limitations of one system over the other was another factor of a reduced player count. Aside from that, the play count to map size ratio was balanced somewhat. Sometimes it works, and other times it felt like the maps (like Caspian) were still too big for the player count. Also take into account that the play style is also different. We're always going to see campers doing absolutely nothing for the team, but in general, other players are playing more like a team, rather than boosting their KDR. Ultimately, the fact of the matter is that every player counts. You only have 12 players on one side, and if one or two are camping on a rock overlooking  the opposite end of Caspian border (Definitely saw that), your team is going to lose plain and simple. Obviously, if you have 32 players on one side, it's not going to be as big of a deal, so it definitely is a console problem unless you're just playing TDM. Another issue with the PS3 version is the spotty chat. It always seem to cut in and out.

• Both - Customization, awards, leveling up and game modes make it to both sides (obviously). Awards range from class specific ribbons for doing their job (like reviving, or resupplying), to leveling up your weapon and receiving attachments, to medals for winning conquest matches a hundred times. Customizing comes down to how you set up your class, weapons, and vehicles. For instance, Assault and Medic are in the same class (like 2142). You can setup your class to be either dominate Assault (equipping an M320 grenade launcher over the medic pack), or dominate medic. Support class can either supply ammo to other teammates or be a demo man with C4. Engineers can either be anti-tank or anti-air. Recon can either be dominate sniper along with using an MAV drone to spot enemies at a distance, or go into the map using a PDW or sub machine gun and lay enemy warning devices or mobile spawn points. Customizing can be used according to situational awareness (like using a ranged weapon in a open field and switching to a shotgun in  a subway or alleyway). You can even change your uniform scheme based on what you like or if the environment calls for a certain pattern to be used. Leveling up consist of an array of aspects. Of course, there is just leveling up your account in the form of ranks. These ranks typically unlock new uniform patterns, dog tags, and general weapons to be used for all classes. The next aspect is leveling up your class which unlocks class specific weapons and equipment. The next one is vehicles which gives upgrades as you use a certain vehicle. The last aspect is the weapons. Not every weapon has an level system, but for those that do, it unlocks new accessories for every kill that you make. With the exception of Conquest Large (which I have no idea what the difference is), all the game modes are the same throughout the board. Of course, CQ makes it way into the game as well as the console born Rush and Squad Deathmatch. New to BF3 is Squad Rush, and Team Deathmatch.

• Battlelog - Let's get one thing straight. Battlelog is the EA FPS equivalent to Need for Speeds AUTOLOG and NOT Call of Duty's Elite service. For everyone, it's a social networking hub where you can add friends, chat with them, and brag about whatever. It comes with a forum board for posting issues, praising, or writing off the game. Unfortunately, these forums are plagued by Generation Derp who really use the forums as their personal bitch box. Aside from that, Battlelog posts your stats, unlocks, and reports on your last matches played. For the PC, Battlelog is used to launch the game. You use the server browser to search for a server and it activates EA Origin to start the game. The Same goes for Co-Op mode, and Campaign. I never had a real problem with Battlelog. Originally, it didn't list the ping of a server, and display the correct amount of players in the server, but has since been fixed to update in real-time. The com center is also another welcomed edition. If I see my friend online, I can either jump into his match, or we can form a party by dragging and dropping. Battlelog is shaping up more better than I originally thought it would be. I had my doubts about whether it would just work, but it did since the Alpha trial and has improved immensely. I wish I can say the same for MW3 and Elite, but I have NOT been able to log into the page through a web browser as well as the app from within my PS3 (one of the main reasons why I haven't posted a MW3 review).

• Console Server browser - While the PC has Battlelog for listing servers, the consoles have a specific server browser. This is a godsend for the console realm of random quick matching and not knowing how far that server is to you. The main point of having such a feature is so you can make the most of your distance to a server. Unlike the hosting method that MW uses, the server is dedicated and not bound by a host or his connection. Like Battlelog, you can filter your search based on region (keyword, REGION), game mode, amount of players in the server, gameplay rule type (regular or hardcore), and maps. I know that 360 users were reporting problems with the browser, but as far as what I seen on the PS3 version, I have not seen issues with it other than sometimes, there isn't enough servers online. It's not to say that there is a low amount of servers in general, but rather, my filter is too narrow. In the end, this is a welcomed addition to the console version and I encourage every console player to make use of it. In other words, unless your internet connection sucks ass, lag shouldn't be an excuse.

• Gameplay - I can't emphasis this enough: gamers are never satisfied. They either want more, or they want something to be more like a previous game. BF3 is no exception with a following of players who would rather see this game play more like BF2. Ironically, the very same people also use the argument of MW3 being a rehash of MW2 against people who only play COD. Now I agree that MW3 is a rehash. It is. Face the facts. What I also say is that BF3 shouldn't be BF2.3. I don't want that game. I have it already. It's called BF2 and BF2142. MW3 may be a rehash, but it's not to say that it's a bad thing. It's not. So how does BF3 stackup gameplay-wise? It plays a lot more like Bad Company 2, with elements of BF2. The gunplay is based on the type of weapon and how you fire said weapon. Sometimes, spraying and praying works and at other times, controlled burst shots will help you. There is also the option of firemodes for guns such as the M416 which can be used for sniping if the distance permits. Muzzle climb depends on what kind of accessories are equiped and how you fire at our enemy. Vehicles are actually well balanced, with a few minor gripes. For instance, the jets are very noob-friendly and are rather useless unless you have items that actually do damage on the ground. As of right now, I don't see anyone with enough experience to have laser guided ground munitions, so unless they know how to use the rocket pods, jets are only useful for shooting helos or keep opposing jets busy. Another factor is your aim and the presence of physics. One person argued that it takes too many bullets to kill someone. As much as 6 bullets! Now that's a waste if you ask me. If that person knew how to control their shots correctly, you can drop some one in 2 - 3 shots. Remember, headshots count! Bullet drop is also in effect! It's not laser tag! It's not a hard concept. It's as easy as gauging your distance and adjusting your shot. I mean, the numbers and distance notchs are already on the ACOG or ballistic scope. Another thing is that people make use of the buildings in ways that aren't just for camping. Blasting a side of a building with a rocket or tank shell will cause rubble to crash onto the street. people use the rubble to not only blow away potential camp sites, but to kill people with the rubble. It's a minor detail, but it keeps the games dynamic. Camping is possible, but not recommended in urban maps because chances are that the wall or pillar you're hiding behind may no longer be there when rocket gets shoved up your ass. Again, there is a bottlenecking issue on the PC version especially on linear maps like Op Metro in CQ, but it makes an opportunity to build up some of your classes.  Gameplay as a whole mainly depends on the team you're on. If the team is actually acting as a team, it's going to be a much more enjoyable experience. Kill/Death Ratio is considered secondary in BF, so you can have a KD of 1/10 and still have a chance in placing as the number 1 player just because you were resupplying, reviving, healing, or spotting. If your team setup their tents at Camp Campfield, then you might be a little overwhelmed by the other team. 

• Replay Value - Simply put, it has the potential of be just like BF2. BF2 has been out for 6 years, and I still find maxed out 64 player servers. The same goes for COD 1 and United Offensive. There are several factors that hinder the replay value. The big one is the fact that EA and Activision are over saturating the market with FPS titles, the chances of seeing a new BF title in the next year or two is high. Another factor is the absence of mod tools. Mods have kept games like BF2, Crysis, and COD alive on the PC. BF2 has excellent mods like AIX, and Project Reality, while games like COD 4 has the very excellent Star Wars mod. The mod community is what keeping those games alive. BF3 is currently setup so mod tools are a near impossibility. The console version will suffer heavily because when a new title comes out, the majority will flock to it. It can be the same for PC, but it hasn't been a factor for the likes of BF2 and COD4. I hope it will be the case for BF3, but don't count on the majority replay value lasting more than 2 years tops.

SUMMARY

• PC - Battlefield has returned... somewhat. It hasn't been a smooth transition and people need to face the realities to the fact that gaming industry and it's state dictated what the game is and is not. The visuals are top notch and unrivaled by other titles within the genre. The folks at Dice used DX11 to it's full potential. The singleplayer may have been lackluster, but that's not what BF is all about. Any long time BF player would know that this is a multiplayer game, and it shines beyond any level of gameplay that other games in the genre possess. If you have the hardware to support it, BF3 has to be part of your library. 

• Console (PS3) - While its a graphic marvel under technical grounds, It didn't have to have all the details and bells and whistles. IMO, if the console version had at least 32 players with the sacrifice of some foliage and rocks popping up from the ground, I think BF3 could have been a better game on the consoles. Generally, it doesn't take the overall experience away. It's still fun, especially when you're playing in a party. Gamers are getting into the mindset that this is an objective based game rather than a lone wolf game even though you can do it if you want. Don't fret too much console only players. There is still word that Nintendo will be releasing BF3 for the Wii U, so if you're planning on getting that, expect to see better visuals, and hopefully higher player count, and other bells and whistles that may be added to that version.

SCORE (based on a 10 point system. Overall score consists of adding the 5 category scores together and dividing it by 5. )

PC

• Gameplay: 9 / 10
• Graphics: 10/10
• Sound: 10/10
• Singleplayer: 7/10
• Multiplayer: 9/10
• Overall: 9

PS3

• Gameplay: 9/10
• Graphics: 8/10
• Sound: 10/10
• Singleplayer: 7/10
• Multiplayer: 9/10
• Overall: 8.6

And a preview of what's to come...

COD folks! A MW3 review is in the works! As soon as Elite becomes accessible, I'll be able to start it.

Thoughts: MORE BF Vs. COD + [Preliminary] Review: Battlefield 3 (PC & Consoles)

FREEZE! SCROLL DOWN FOR BF3 PRELIM REVIEW! FOR THOSE CRYING LIKE LITTLE BITCHES AND CALLING ME A FANBOY...READ ON (IF YOU CAN)


THOUGHT
So here we are. It's been nearly a month since I posted my first impressions regarding the beta, and now that the final build is out, what do I think about BF3? Well, I have to be real when I say that this game needs to grow on me a little more. This is by no means a bad game. On the contrary, it a pretty good game. There are elements that I seen right off the bat that makes me shake my head. A lot of it has been somewhat stated by professional critics, but their profession is often left with suspicion that a publisher has "paid off" the editors (of IGN, Gamespot, etc, etc) to praise their title or diss the other. I find their judgements clouded and irrelevant.

I have an obligation to say how this game really is without bias. Yes, I been hyping BF3 up religiously over the past month. Yes, I'm more of a BF fan over Call of Duty, but some of you know that I still play COD anyway (G, Ian, Bird, FBGM..). Today, they're both 2 different games suffering an identity crisis. For MW3, they're trying to hook BF fans with the changes of the perks, weapon experience system and more team oriented modes. IF anyone played the best COD games in the franchise, COD 1 and COD United Offensive, you would know of a little mode called Base Assault. This game mode was directly aiming to score BF 1942 fans with large maps, vehicles, and of course, 64 players. Overall, the direction Activision wanted to take was the fast paced, yet casual, arena-type. Obviously, it works! I still find myself playing COD1 (PC), COD4 (PC), and Black Ops (PS3). The formula is still relevant, but I wish that MW3 had things like 64 players... at least. For BF3, they're trying to lure in the COD fans with modes like Team Deathmatch, and as far as I can tell, it's really a sniper's paradise. I don't know if it's the COD fans attempt to quick scope (to which they're doing it wrong), or the map is way too imbalanced for run and gun, but as of right now, it's not working.

All complexities aside, the fact of the matter is that BF and COD are different games. They both have their unique skill set so that whole "BF requires skill" deal is irrelevant simply because I'm able to play decently for both games. The ideology in what's pro or not is also different. If you haven't noticed, BF awards on the level of getting objectives done and supporting your teammates (Dropping ammo, health, reviving, etc). Your score and your win/lose ratio is important. COD is also about win/lose, but your Kill/Death ratio counts a whole lot. Keep that in mind.

Another big thing that I wish IW/Sledghammer/Treyarch did for MW3 is create a new engine! IW4 has been used since COD2, and even that variant was a heavily modified version of Id's Tech III engine used in Quake III Arena. Personally, and word from various forums, the game just looks like more of the same thing. It didn't jump out like COD 4 did back in 07 (and I was hyped, Hyped, HYPED for it!). While it's not prefect, at least Dice has the time to develop the a new engine, and the results were still a beautiful outcome. It's nice.

I can easily say that the worse part of these two franchise is the fans. In particular, the most vocal of fans... the fanboys/girls/trolls. They are the loudest, narrow-minded, and ignorant of fans. They habitually support their franchise and/or gaming platform, and the worse part is that everyone is somehow guilty of being like that. I'm a little more reformed these days, and that's only because I reunited my 360 with my PS3, and my PC. I tend to still poke a little fun at folks from time to time, but all platforms seem to have it's merits and flaws. I also love to let these folks speak their newspeak and whatever witty remarks they may have. They're just so easy to put in Cloud 9 only to yank them by the eye socket back to Earth. Personally, I think game franchises are the worst when it comes to fanboyism, ESPECIALLY when it comes to BF and COD. It's horrible, and it's worse this generation because we are so net-connected to the world, EVERY ONE  has an opinion. Even I have an opinion (I love BF), but how can you be a fanboy if you end up buying the products of both sides and put some hours in said product? Anyway, a lot of these fantrolls also impose their opinions to dissuade, or piss off the opposite crowd. This may seem like typical behavior throughout the years, but it's especially noticeable because of internet outlets that seem to give everyone a chance to speak on a soapbox.  Compared to the last 3 generations of games and gamers (PSX/N64/Saturn, PS2/Gamecube/Xbox, PS3/360/Wii) the current generation is by far the worse batch. It begs the question about if a gamer is ever satisfied. Maybe my standards are too low, but despite that, I still stand by the fact that the Fanboy Generation (or Generation Derp) has damaged my perception of the majority of gamers.  I thought that people played games because it was fun. I didn't think that a cult following had something to do with gaming. Sadly, those folks who have been playing for 5 generations (and beyond) are always part of the demographic, so there really is no way to distinguish who is a part of this generation. Sadface is sad. :(


SO WHAT ABOUT THE BF3 REVIEW?

Jeez, alright! This is a first impression, preliminary review. As you may know, I bought both the PS3 and PC version. There was no way that I was going to miss the eye candy, large map, 64 PLAYER carnage on the PC. I also am also catering to the friends who won't make that step and build a PC, so the PS3 was also a must. Figuring that I have both, console and PC versions, this is great in the future when I have enough playtime, and time in general to muster up a full review. In the meantime, I put in about 3 hours on the PC version and close to 6 on the PS3 (as of 26OCT).

GRAPHICS/SOUND
For the PC, I was mainly trying to load test my CPU/GPU, and I was able to crank out 40 - 50 frames on a mix high/ultra graphics setting and all the bells and whistles enabled. The game looks incredible! I couldn't believe how it looked. I was impressed by the detail and optimization. So how did the PS3 (or consoles) fair? Well, if you turn the settings on the PC version to low, that's what the consoles look like. Is that bad? It's a yes, and no because Dice wanted to add as much detail and foliage in to maintain the looks of the PC version. The effort is great and all, but they had to sacrifice a lot, and the end result is so-so. It's not to say that it's not inferior, but the effort may have been a bit too much for the consoles. Another thing is the fact that the console version is rendered in sub-HD. Yes, SUB-HD! The game is displayed at 1280 x 720 (aka 720p) for the PS3 and upscaled to 1920 x 1080 for the 360. In reality, the game for both versions are rendered at 1280 x 704. Dice did that to reduce memory usage while maintaining the foliage. It doesn't incredibly hurt the visuals, but I think I would rather sacrifice some foliage and random objects for a high overall appearance.

The following 3 shots are PC shots emulating Console specs according to information released by Dice and Nvidia. The resolution is @ 1280 x 720 and the overall settings are set to Low. Keep in mind that the actual resolution for consoles is @ 1280 x 704. Basically, 8 lines of pixels were eliminated. Click for better detail.

That issue is just where it starts. We have to break it down to specific consoles, and while the difference is really minor (and I mean REALLY minor), it is still noteworthy. Playing the PS3 version, I have noticed texture loading is slow. Not really slow, but if you're looking for it, you can see it. Based on what I heard about the 360 version, textures load much faster, and the clarity is slightly better.

There is one thing that all versions are currently suffering from and that's graphic tearing, artifacts, and floating objects. My advice is to just standby and wait for a patch. Believe me, the same thing happened when Battlefield 2 released back in '05 and even COD United Offensive when it released. Things got better, and this is no exception.

As far as sound is concerned, it's probably one of the best experiences I ever heard for a video game. From bullets flying, to buildings crumbling, it's a symphony. I highly recommend that you have surround headsets (at least 5.1), or a surround system.

These shots are PC @ 1920 x 1080. The settings were a mix between Ultra and High and with the 560 Ti, it was running anywhere between 30 to 70 fps. Click for better detail.

GAMEPLAY (SINGLEPLAYER & MULTIPLAYER)
What can I say? It's still feels like the same ol' Battlefield to me. Yes, there are new tactics, but I think I'll go into that in the full review. We do have some issues that I noticed off the bat.

For the single player campaign, I highly recommend that you go through it once even though the professional reviews say that the singleplayer is dookie. It'll give you most of the play mechanics for the folks who never played a BF game. Another thing, believe it or not, is interaction with the enemy AI. The AI is rather....bad, but it's mainly bad because they're overpowered. There are random moments in the game where you just die out of nowhere. It's annoying, but a lot of it reminds me of run and gunners on MP who would do the same, only to get a random bullet to the dome. All in all, the campaign should run you about 8 hours, and it kind of feels like The Sum of All Fears. Is that a good thing? Well, the concept is rather stale these days.  It's really down to playing either a gritty, yet boring story.... or Michael Bay on Ice (MW3).

This is also a game of discipline. Someone cried about popping 6 or so rounds before dropping someone. Muzzle discipline is in effect! Especially for the console folk who have to use the statistically slower thumb stick to control things like muzzle climb. Yes, there is more emphasis on controlling your weapon, but for those who played games like COD 1 or BF2, controlling your guns muzzle shouldn't be a problem. It's really a matter of who fires first and how good your latency is. Another thing that will help is the fire mode toggle. If you're tucked in pretty good and fast with sending rounds downrange in semi, do it. It's very effective, especially if you're playing Support.

The multiplayer maps are of varying size and tactics. From the vehicle dependent Caspian Border, to the infantry focused Seine Crossing, there is something for everyone.  More to come in that department.. but be aware that buying the game now will give you access to 4 additional maps from previous BF games (among other things).

From the looks of things, there are many unlocks that keeps the replay value. From guns, to accessories, to class enhancing equipment, I have a long way to go before I have my classes all setup the way I wanted.

So far, Battlefield 3 is shaping up to be a game of it's own. It's a fusion of BF2, and Bad Company 2, but it really stands out on it's own. It's not perfect by any means, but as the critics are already saying, you're not going to find a more in depth game than BF3. As the server backend gets fixed, and more patches are released, I can give a much better and full review of the game.

THOUGHTS:BF vs COD & Battlefield 3 Beta

STOP! IF YOU WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THE DETAILS OF THE BATTLEFIELD 3 BETA AS WELL AS OVERALL BF TIPS, SCROLL DOWN!

October is here.. and aside from the awesome festivities that this month brings --like Oktoberfest, Halloween, and midterms.. Ok, not midterms-- It is also a time when blockbuster games release. Think of the fall season as what the summer season is to movie releases. Yeah, one can also count the winter holiday sales as part of this, but nothing really releases during the holiday season. Obviously, it's an important time for companies, but typically, blockbuster and hyped up titles tend to release before Thanksgiving and after the New Year. October in particular has many returning franchise titles as well as some new ones. The 4th sees the release of Ubisoft's Ghost Recon Future Soldier, 2K Games NBA 2K12 & The Darkness 2, and Id's Rage. Namco-Bandai's Ace Combat Assault Horizon drops on the 11th as well as Turn 10's Forza Motorsport 4, and Ubisoft's Just Dance 3. The 18th has Rocksteady's Batman Arkham City and Sony's Rachet and Clank: All 4 One releasing. Out of all these games releasing, the most anticipated and extremely hyped up game coming this month (and probably all year) is none other than EAs Battlefield 3 (October 25th). Not to be confused with Battlefield Bad Company and BC2, BF3 is a sequel to 2005's BF2 which was only released on the PC (with the exception of the spinoff Battlefield 2: Modern Combat..which paled when compared to BF2).

EA has been relentless with it's aggressive marketing campaign which aims to dethrone the current king of shooters, Call of Duty. They even stoop to extremely low levels by calling out the validity of Call of Duty and their very recent TV spot trailer with Jay-Z's 99 Problems and the rather humorous tagline "Above And Beyond The Call." Despite the low blows, it's only natural for EA (or any other contender) to go toe to toe with Call of Duty.

EA: trololo

Activision: okay...

On the flip side, Call of Duty has not changed it's core formula since Call of Duty 2. In fact, in terms of gameplay, it took a step back since the best COD game, United Offensive on the PC, had vehicles, and every COD game until MW2 had 64 players and full control over the servers. By the time MW2 released, the games lead development platform switched to consoles, in what was to become the best move Activision made. MW2 and Black Ops sold like hotcakes with Black Ops in particular becoming the highest grossing video game in history. A number of things went wrong with this.. the first thing is that they just about alienated the entire PC community with the removal of 64 players, and dedicated servers in MW2. The PC community retaliated by relentless circumvention of the security measures that were put in place to prevent cheating in multiplayer matches. Activision and developer Treyarch attempted to fix this in Black Ops with the re-introduction of dedicated servers, but because the code was so terribly written, and the account that Activision must control some aspect of your gaming experience on the PC side, the dedicated servers were all but broken. Another thing that places the validity of supremacy was the return rate of Black Ops. Yeah, it sold like no other, but a large number of customers also returned or traded their copies in for whatever reason.

EA and developer DICE took another approach and used their console developed Bad Company series as a testbed for a new engine called the Frostbite Engine. The main purpose of the engine was to create a destructible environment potentially eliminating a potential campers hiding spot (i.e sniper in the attic of a building? Blow a hole on the roof, or just take the entire building down.). With the amount of data and feedback from the Bad Company games, DICE started to create the 2nd generation of Frostbite to use in their next title, Battlefield 3. The result? Well, This:

Unlike Activision and developers Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer Games, who continues to use the same IW 4 engine (since Call of Duty 2) for MW3, EA and DICE used a completely new engine for BF3, and it's a technical beauty to say the least and it doesn't stop at my opinion. At E3 (aka game nerd heaven), BF3 was nominated for 81 awards and won 47 while MW3 won none. At Gamescom (aka European game nerd heaven), BF3 won best in show and had an average play booth queue of 3 hours as opposed to MW3 (no line). BF3 is a technical marvel that captured the hearts of critics and end-users well before release. In fact, Activision attempted to circumvent EA's fun by hosting a convention dedicated to Call of Duty, and while new information about their upcoming title was released, the attendance never sold as well as they wanted to. Despite that and all the praise from the community, I think that BF3 will not be enough to kick Call of Duty off it's high chair. The fact that Call of Duty is easy to pickup and play is reason enough to outsell BF3 this holiday season. The name alone prompts sales. Another reason (and a new development) is how DICE is currently running their highly advertised Open Beta (I'll get into detail about that one in the Beta section). It's should have been an extremely limited and closed beta. First impressions are lasting impressions and they failed to address that to the ignorant community (which is quite a few gamers).

Gamescom In Cologne

Despite what happens, these two games pretty much sealed the deal as to what defines this generation and it's fan base, and it's rather grim to tell you the truth. This generation showed a relentless amount of allegiances, fanboy-ism (blind and utter support for a game, franchise, or platform), and overall stupidity. If you play on Xbox Live, or PSN, you hear it every time you hear a screaming 8 year old kid on your headset (what are you doing playing a game like this anyway?). This generation also thrives on what is known rather than looking for innovation. Take Call of Duty for instance. Same formula since COD2, and they took steps backwards, yet everyone eats that shit up. It's ridiculous. I stopped playing habitually after Call of Duty 4, because nothing has changed since then. Yeah, you'll see on Black Ops every so often, but I can only take so much ugliness, jagged edges, and people who shouldn't be allowed to speak before I have to just turn it off (although Combat Training on Hardened is insane... trust me. I recommend regular unless you have the speed and accuracy of a mouse). 

This generation shall be forever dubbed Generation Derp.

Battlefield 3 Beta

Before I begin, do any of you even know what a Beta is? No? Well then, a beta is second stage in a software development phase and it is used as a testbed for a variety of different aspects of a program. The idea is to provide a source to layout the likes and dislikes of the program as well as glitches, and bugs so the developers can act on it. In the BF3 Beta's case, it's older build of the code (about a month old), and the technical purpose of this beta was to test the server backend and stress test the servers. Another thing to take into account is the fact that a lot of beta's are bound to have major graphic issues such as screen tearing, flashing, going into the map, etc. It happens. So what does the Average Joe think what a beta is? It's a demo. WRONG! Demo's are limited representations of a final product (code). Such examples would be the Forza 4 DEMO or if any of you remember, the Battlefield 2 DEMO. Demo = limited representation of final code. The BF3 beta IS NOT final code. This was stated well before the beta released. This was also restated today (3 October 11) on the official Battlefield blog and reposted on Battlelog forum.

So What's In The Beta?
Initially, the beta supplied 2 maps: Operation Metro and Caspian Border. Operation Metro is a linear style objective based map (or Rush) in which one faction has to destroy these objects called MComs. MComs just look like a piece of electronic equipment with a screen. The other faction has to defend the MComs from being destroyed. Failure to do so will result in the attacking faction advancing the map to another area and they have to jump that hurdle to get to the next, so on, and so on. Both sides are subject to ticket counters and the tickets represent how many respawns the attacking team uses. When the ticket counter reaches 0, the defending force wins the round. In this case, Op Metro has 4 different sections. Rush mode, in my opinion, is more of a console-centric mode which played well into the Bad Company series. Don't get me wrong, it's a fun mode to play, but I prefer playing the staple mode  of this franchise, Conquest. Conquest places two factions on a huge map, and the objective is to obtain and hold different bases (or flags) spread throughout the map. Obviously, the more bases you hold by the end of the round determines the winner. To be more technical, this is also ticket base, and it takes into account how many bases you're holding. You don't necessarily have to control the most bases by the end of the round, but if you held the majority of the bases for most of the match, you're going to win because of the ticket count.

Operation Metro (1st Section)

Operation Metro (2nd section)

While the console player is stuck with only Operation Metro to play (for now anyway..who knows), the PC players, and the early beta testers in particular, were graced with Caspian Border. Caspian is a Conquest map with 64 players, vehicles, helicopters, and jets. This is the way the REAL Battlefield is supposed to be played (of course, IMO). 

Caspian Border

So as I said, not many people got a chance to play Caspian. They only had 10 servers up in total (4 in the US only!), and everyone around the country was trying to get in. Because of that, lag was heavily present at certain times, but I was able to get some playtime in without much hiccup. This map is HUGE! player clutter was to a minimum and there were plenty of action to be had. During my playtime, I was just exploring and testing things like mowing down a concrete building with the AA guns, attempting to destroy the massive tower that was in the middle of the map (failed to), and shooting down aircraft. It's sad that EA/DICE didn't just leave this map in the open beta because this better represents what's in store for us come October 25th. Anyway, I'm going to let some of these pics speak for the map. It was a blast to play while it lasted.

Caspian Border

For you aircraft savvy type, that is a F/A-18E Super Hornet

A building used to be there..

My LAV AA, and a AH-1Z Cobra

Water..just water.

Comparing..

So you may be thinking that I'm dominantly PC, right? Well yes, but that doesn't mean that I won't play on console. For the purpose of comparing multiple aspects, I downloaded and played ALL versions of the game. So how did it all stack up?

Graphics

Of course, the PC version dominates this category. It's using DirectX 11 and it shows well in my pics, as well as the videos that Dice released. Many technical aspects are very present (I won't go into it, but any tech savvy folk would know what comes with DX11) and surprisingly, it doesn't hit my frame count that bad. I can run Ultra settings at 30 - 40fps (1920 x 1080 or 1080p) with my first gen Intel i7 CPU, but I know i'm going to keep it on High setting since I have about 60fps. As for the console version, comparing them to the PC is futile. Face the facts, fangirls. It's futile. Unfortunately, Battlelog doesn't have a screenshot feature like it's older cousin Autolog (for Need For Speed), so I couldn't do side by side comparing. My comparing is solely based on what I seen when I played and what was used to render the game. Technically, the PS3 is the dominate version over the 360. It wasn't by much, but it is the dominate version. The PS3 version is using more PC-centric post processing that may not be noticeable when you're casually playing, but they are there (tech stuff such as MLAA). I haven't seen too many frame slowdown, but I have seen graphic glitches for both versions. As far as which version is sharper, it would be the 360 version, but that's only because they upscale all their games to 1080p. Now before you rant to me that the 360 version is better because of that, hold your tongues, because both versions are rendered below 720p. Yeah, you heard me, BELOW 720p. In order to keep all the foliage and other items in the game, Dice had to take about 8 lines (4 on the top, 4 on the bottom) of rendering off of both versions to keep it running fine for the consoles. Remember, Battlefield 3 is a PC developed game, and it had to be ported to the consoles (not the other way around like Bad Company, MW, etc). Things were sacrificed in order for the game to run decently on the consoles. Another issue with the 360 version is how heavy the contrast is. I don't know if it's just the HDR, but it's extra dark in some places. This is only a minor issue since the end user (that's you) should be adjusting their screens accordingly. Overall, both versions are fine...unless they're compared to the PC version. 

Nope, you're not getting this clarity on the PS3/360 version. Fact.

UPDATE! Here is a comparison video of all 3 versions! TO SEE THE FULL CLARITY, HIT THE FULL SCREEN BUTTON AND SET IT TO 1080P

 

Gameplay / Experience

Comparing the gameplay is merely based on the community, and all three are different. All 3 have problems.. If you are playing on the PC, it's typical BF antics. Elitists. Glitchers. Hackers. It doesn't take away from the experience, but they are present. Sometimes the best solution is to just Alt+F4 and not deal with it. We have 100 servers to choose from. The PS3 and 360 versions are heavily (but still manageable ) filled with Call of Duty style players. You also have to deal with people in your squad talking. Unless you're playing in a party, I typically plug in my headset and set it aside. It's not so much the annoying little kids that ruin my experience. In fact, I haven't heard too many of them. It's the little older teens and 1st year college folk that ruin it. They complain and cry just as much as they post crap on the battlelog forum. Anyway, a number of players play Op Metro as if they're playing Nuketown on Black Ops. They don't arm any MCom's, they camp in the bushes, and did I mention that they whine over the mic/chatbox? Typically, I have to live with it on consoles, but for the PC, it's not too much of a problem.

Now here is something that plagues all 3 versions: Recon. First of all, many folks don't know how to play recon. They don't spot. They don't cover folks going for the MCom. They always try to quickscope. THIS IS NOT CALL OF DUTY! STOP IT, NOW! This is team objective based. You're not an Army of One. Quickscoping doesn't work. It's not laser tag either. Gravity is accounted for! Camping in the bushes as an attacker doesn't help the team....at all.

Tips and Advice

So, this is for you Call of Duty players jumping ship. Follow them and you can dominate while winning the objective:

• As I said up top, stop trying to quickscope! It doesn't work here. 
• If you're a Recon in the attacking team, move up! Especially if your team has armed an MCom. You become an asset when you're in a position to send bullets downrange and defend the MCom from being disarmed.
• You can't hide no more. Notice the glare downrange... that's you through an opponents eyes. Another reason why this is not Call of Duty. There is actual skill required to dominate with a sniper rifle
• Learn to use iron sights. Hitting the Customize button will send to a menu where you can set up your weapon. Take the scope out of the equation. Use the iron sights. Not only will that eliminate the glare you produce with a scope, it forces you to keep moving and get close, if anything, arm the MCom.
• Recon's have Mobile spawnpoints. Use them, if you can get close to an MCom. Drop one, and your squad can spawn with you. Place them in an obscured area and a covered area because you'll be spawning standing up.
• For Assault, remember, you're the medic too! If you're not rushing or defending the MCom, you can drop health boxes and heal everyone around you.
• If you Assault folks have defibs, don't be a dumbass and revive folks in the middle of a corridor with 3 enemies shooting downrange. You'll probably give that guy another notch in their k/d as well as you dying yourself. Be smart about reviving.
• Engineers! You can cause the most havoc in the game! The setup makes you extremely mobile and you carry the rocket launchers If you see 3 enemies down a corridor, snap shoot an RPG downrange! If someone is hiding in a building, or behind certain walls, chances are that the wall is destructible. Take the cover out of the equation.
• Support. Use the bipod on your LMG. It's not there for looks. Using it can significantly increase accuracy. 
• Unless you're suppressing a target, send short bursts down range. Infact, if you're able to, switch the fire mode to semi. More control = more kills (press V for PC, Down on the D-Pad for console).
• Every situation is different. Check and change you configuration as you see fit. i.e close quarters may be grounds for using guns like a UMP, PP2000, or M870.
• While we're on configurations, accessories within the gun should also change according to the situation. If you're in a wide open field, use a laser sight to keep your position low-key, but you're still able to hinder your enemies vision. If you're in dark areas, equip a tact light or use a pistol with a light. The lights are blinding and you can get your kills that way.
• Suppressing is not just a term in this game, it's an actual effect. Send bullets downrange and you can blur the opponents vision and if used correctly, another person can rush that position and take out those pesky campers who won't move up.
• Some buildings can be used to your advantage. if you have someone on the ground level of a destructible building, shoot above (Engineers) the person and watch the rubble crash onto the enemy. 
• When knifing, you press and hold the fire key to see the super funny and satisfying knife kill (and dog tag yanking).
• For all classes: Gravity is present in this game. This is not laser tag like Call of Duty. You have to account for bullet drop:

Bullet drop....learn it, noob!

• Lastly, DON'T WORRY ABOUT YOUR KILL/DEATH RATIO! That doesn't matter in Battlefield games. Getting the objective done will win you the match.

Have fun! The beta runs into the 13th, and it's open and free. Download it, play it, report the bugs.