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.