Battlefield 3 Video Review

Posted: November 1, 2011
Battlefield 3 Video Review
Adam Sessler and Blair Herter tag-team our big two-part Battlefield 3 review, first weighing in on the single-player campaign, and then the multiplayer.

Comments are Closed

  • Phased

    Honestly I never play the campaigns on this or Call of Duty. I play purely for the multiplayer experience, and this game delivers. This game is fast paced and amazingly realistic unlike call of duty. Most likely they were paid to make sure the CoD review trumped this one, as money is a great motivater.

    Posted: November 14, 2011 1:52 PM
  • DerickM

    This is a pretty poor review for this game. The single player was not great, but it is nowhere near as bad as they are saying. The graphics are BREATH TAKING and they didnt even talk about the different modes you can play in Multiplayer. This review makes me feel like they just wanted to get it out of the way so they can hype up MW3, which is just more of the same crap we've seen for the last 4 years. Dont get me wrong, Modern Warfare games are not crap. I've loved all of them and I'm sure MW3 is no exeption to this. But Battlefield 3 deserves a 5 out of 5 just as much as any COD game. People need to realize that BF3 is all about objectives and team work. Not run and gun deathmatch like COD. Its two different types of game play. Its almost like comparing Apples to Oranges really. In my opinion, BF3 is a better online expierence because it feels new, you can choose to operate a tank, jet, helicopter, or other vehicles. MW3, its just you and your gun. No vehicles.. Boring.. MW3 feels just like every other COD game i've ever played. Thats not a bad thing, but Its definitly no where near as impressive as BF3 and its not going to hook me like BF3 has. MW3 will be my backup game to BF3, as it should be.

    Posted: November 9, 2011 7:50 PM
  • Storieman

    what a load of crap the single player was brilliant I loved ill never be listening to your reviews again how much is Activision paying you and dont tell me nothing because for you to bag the singleplayer so much proves there is a bit of biased crap coming from this web sit. COD is a great game ill always admit that and I find the singleplayer in this is on par its just different.

    and as for multiplayer im in awwh with it as soon as you load into a sever with the battle full on you know that Dice has created a masterpiece. no body dose MP like the BF searies and there is a way to learn how to fly a plan by hoping in to an empty server.

    people come here to listen to a review on what a game is like not to be told what sell out are told to say after listening to your review the only thing that kept me from not buying this game is my love for the BF seiries and thank god i didnt listen to you because the game is a much better game then the way you made it out to be its easily a 5/5 id like to see you create a better game.

    you really made me angry with this review and thats putting it nicely

    Posted: November 9, 2011 6:28 PM
  • Galaga

    DICE added a campaign to satisfy the offline console p[ayers. The 64 player ( on PC) multiplayer is why you want thise game. Frostbite 2 engine allows true combat with maps that inlcude open fields and total distructive realism. You will not get that withthe new COD MW , the old graphics engine is not cable of rendering open draw distance. I just watcehd the the latest multiplayer trailer (tight corridors and enclosed rooftop environments).

    Posted: November 8, 2011 6:29 AM
  • GabboT

    What Sessler/Herter say about the game is completely true. The single player campaign is only just average. All it does is work as a tutorial for the actual game itself. And they are right. that I fly the planes like complete crap and definitely need a primer. But if you love 24, then hearing the actor playing Aaron Pierce monologue is great fun.

    However, the multiplayer, realism, and technical aspects of the game are brilliant. I think it will easily outshine CoD. Sure, they gave this a tough review, but nothing they say is wrong. They just wanted a better campaign.

    Posted: November 5, 2011 2:28 PM
  • warman58

    http://battlelog.battlefield.c om/bf3/forum/threadview/283265 4347728425512/ worst review done by g4tv on xplay on bf3..

    Posted: November 4, 2011 1:04 PM
  • warman58

    battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/ forum/threadview/2832654347728 425512/ this topic i posted on battlefield3 why xplay did a bad review on battlefield3 because adam did a bad review on game..

    Posted: November 4, 2011 1:00 PM
  • warman58

    what a poor review what they did on xplay.. http://battlelog.battlefield.c om/bf3/forum/threadview/283265 4347728425512/last/#post_28326 54347728546728

    Posted: November 4, 2011 12:55 PM
  • UselessSniper

    This guy is an incredible idiot. He has no idea what Battlefield is about.

    Posted: November 4, 2011 12:25 PM
  • ilovemyjeep

    I'm glad Adam and Blair can review a game honestly. Too often the press disregards these shoddy single player experiences because of society's overemphasis on multiplayer. If gamers are spending their money in hopes of experiencing a quality title, all aspects of the game should be good. Tacking on a single player campaign for the sake of merely having it is a disservice to gamers. In fact, it might be better to not include the campaign at all (especially when the skills used in single player do not transfer over to the multiplayer mode---the fighter jets, for example). Military shooters are not about character development, clever dialogue, or detailed plots. They're about blowing other players away on the internet so stop insulting us with these forgettable single player experiences.

    Posted: November 4, 2011 5:30 AM
  • warman58

    the game is not like COD.... plus mw games are diffrent i don't adam sleep doing battlefield3 or he not a battlefield fan. i think they should redo another review on battlefield3 they should waited for 2weeks to review game..

    Posted: November 3, 2011 6:33 PM
  • warman58

    adam just makes gamers mad it should'nt be that way.......

    Posted: November 3, 2011 6:28 PM
  • warman58

    wait adam trys do adam cod mw3. i think everybody should enjoy mw3 and bf3 but i think both games get 5 out of 5. adam needs stop doing sessler soapbox.. plus battlefield3 there's nothing wrong with it's good for all kinds of players and great for 31 year old dudes and good for gamers but i hope the game goes MLG pro circuit event......

    Posted: November 3, 2011 6:27 PM
  • warman58

    Thats i post on battlefield facebook..
    you guys made good game on battlefield3 i don't know whats wrong with person check out link. but when i played battlefield3 last night i loved game very well it's alot better than cod. I think xplay at g4 did a poor review even adam soapbox i think it was piss poor review you guys at ea and dice i think you need talk to g4tv and attack of the show and xplay they need redo another review on game again. http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/bl og/tag/301/sesslers-soapbox/

    Posted: November 3, 2011 6:23 PM
  • warman58

    adam got be a COD fan.. but sessler soapbox it really piss me off the way explain about battlefield3 but it took since 2007 make this game.. that game should got 5 out of 5..

    Posted: November 3, 2011 6:22 PM
  • warman58

    if adam don't like battlefield3 just don't review anymore fking first shooter games let morgan web do it.....

    Posted: November 3, 2011 6:21 PM
  • teac77

    I'll try it and see if I like it. I hated Homefront until I had some practice with the demo.

    Posted: November 3, 2011 12:47 PM
  • rhinofever

    Fair review. just pissing me off how much adam is bashing the danm game.

    Posted: November 3, 2011 9:55 AM
  • Sabian187

    Totally agree. Dice really need to stick with what their good at...Multiplayer.
    Campaign was boring and overall just bad.
    The whole flashback thing has been done and done better. Black Ops anyone.
    G4 must base their score on the whole of the game and not just the best parts.
    Multiplayer 5/5
    Campaign 3/5 (just because it was pretty.)
    4/5 overall. Good Job

    Posted: November 3, 2011 5:58 AM
  • TheBeetle

    Um...the last core Zelda game came out almost six years ago, and Spirit Tracks got a 4/5.

    I don't know if you can call them supremely biased, or biased at all. If you keep up with the web shows, then you know that G4 staffers, including Sessler, have expressed both interest in Battlefield 3 and fatigue with the COD franchise. Also this idea of a hidden bias or agenda seems to be based on the idea that Adam and Morgan maliciously tear apart games, when in reality the in-depth reviews are often written by different staffers (in this case Matt Keil). If it was just one dude scathingly reviewing things, like Yahtzee, then you might have an argument, but since there are many different people and perspectives involved in each episode of X-Play, I really don't see there being a collective bias of thought.

    If you honestly feel that the review is unsound, correct it. Type out an in-depth counter review, refute their argument, provide some support for what you believe are the merits of the game. Accusing a writer of bias is sort of a big thing.

    4/5 doesn't scream failure to me, and all you can complain about is the number? Weak sauce bro.

    Posted: November 2, 2011 9:28 PM