Something went wrong. Try again later

Giant Bomb Review

196 Comments

Battlefield 3 Review

4
  • PC
  • PS3

A short, derivative campaign does little to get in the way of the best version of multiplayer Battlefield yet.

It took more than five years for the Battlefield franchise to move from 2 to 3, but that's not to say there haven't been plenty of other battlefields to visit in that time. Giant mechs, cartoonish heroes, and comedic misfits have all gotten their chance to duke it out in traditional, download-only, and free-to-play versions of the series. For good or bad, almost all of them operated on the belief that the Battlefield you knew needed to be changed in some fundamental way. Battlefield 3 instead feels like a return to the series' roots, with most of the effort put on the large-scale multiplayer action and impressive visuals that made the series popular in the first place. And that's totally OK, because Battlefield done this well is still a total blast to play.

You'll spend a decent portion of the campaign in bad QTEs.
You'll spend a decent portion of the campaign in bad QTEs.

That's not saying Battlefield 3 doesn't make any mis-steps of its own. A mediocre, me-too single-player mode feels overly serious and almost feels bolted onto the side of another, better multiplayer game. It doesn't help that the six-hour campaign plays like a direct reaction to the popularity of the Modern Warfare series, emulating that game's tone and pacing. Heavily scripted sequences are the focus here, and you'll spend a good bit of your time unable to do much but watch the game play itself. This happens in both a number of on-rails levels and a disturbing number of Quick Time Events that often begin and end with the press of a single button. The QTEs happen so often that when even a rat in a sewer pipe triggers the mechanic, you'll begin to wonder if the developers at DICE were purposefully making fun of themselves.

The actual plot involves a small group of American and Russian soldiers trying to prevent nuclear attacks by a group of terrorists called the People's Liberation Resistance and a man named Solomon. The events unfold through a series of globe-trotting flashbacks as the main character, Staff Sergeant Henry Blackburn, is interrogated by a good-cop-bad-cop intelligence duo after the fact somewhere in New York. The writing is easy to follow, but the high drama and always-on-the-go pacing feels a little tired when compared to its modern military peers. It doesn't help that Battlefield 3's campaign very much wants you to go where it wants you to go, providing warnings anytime you stray too far off course. This can be annoying when you think a side street might offer a better flanking position or when you try to get the jump on enemies before the scripted sequences begin. Still, the action flows fast throughout and introduces you to the weapons and vehicles you'll encounter in the hectic multiplayer modes.

Taking off from a carrier is one of the campaign's biggest thrills.
Taking off from a carrier is one of the campaign's biggest thrills.

What Battlefield 3's main campaign does well is show off the game's beautiful, varied level design and set pieces. You'll fight through city streets, jungles, corridors, deserts, open skies, and office buildings with very little motive other than for DICE to show off how impressive its Frostbite 2.0 engine is. Early in the game you'll walk out onto the deck of an aircraft carrier in choppy seas and seconds later move seamlessly into a cloud-filled sky as a jet pilot. It's gorgeous stuff and feels like a noticeable step forward in terms of graphical realism on both the console and the PC. Of particular note are the lighting, rain, and fog effects, which give these environments a real sense of depth. Your surroundings are lit up with the addition of realistic flashlights that not only pick up the dense air around you, but can be used quite effectively to blind your assailants. You'll also find streetlights and lamps that, depending upon the angle, can either hurt or help you. Combined with the engine's destructible environments, this provides an ever-changing landscape that play a little differently depending on how the battles continue.

This sense of realism transfers over to the multiplayer maps, which are inspired by the campaign but seem grander because of their immense scale and the removal of invisible walls. Previous Battlefield level design always felt a little sparse to me, letting fast vehicles do much of the work to hide the often empty areas between contested zones. By contrast, Battlefield 3 feels saturated with minute detail. You'll find giant radio antennas that peak out of hilly outcroppings and crowded Parisian streets that run parallel to rushing waterways, to mention just two examples. One map called Damavand Peak even features a thrilling base-jumping portion where the attacking team skydives off a cliff into the opposing team's stronghold. You'll find yourself waiting until the last possible moment in a 10-second freefall to deploy your parachute before enemy players shoot you down. That feeling of naked vulnerability is a constant throughout the multiplayer, and the brief relief of cover and shade becomes your chief strategy as you try to outposition your opponents. You'll also lose visibility if the sun is low and in front of you. At night, the opposing team's flashlights are either a dead giveaway from afar, or a deadly strategy up close.

The multiplayer modes themselves are nothing terribly new, and are instead refinements and tweaks of the previous games in the series. While most players will jump straight into Conquest mode with its 64-player (or 24-player for consoles) point-to-point action, the attack-and-defend Rush mode from Bad Company returns and feels the most improved. Teams can no longer destroy stations with brute force and must now physically place charges when outside vehicles. That gives the mode the tension it previously lacked, and provides for longer firefights where the defenders have just a bit of an advantage. Small changes like this abound and are mostly for the better. Battlefield commanders are gone, making the game more squad-oriented and easier to grasp. That's good, because most players will only bring one or two buddies into their matches and just want to be able spawn and support each other without having to worry about completing objectives.

The four-class system has also received a bit of a makeover in a few key ways. The medic has merged with the assault class and can now deploy health packs. Sniper-based scouts have to deal with scope sway, and will give of glint from their scope if they sit in a position for too long. While that glint does help identify campers, the large areas of engagement still tend to reward patient players who attack from cover. The addition of secondary scoring and bonuses for spotting enemies helps with obscure enemies, and gives players a real incentive to keep their teammates aware of incoming or obscured attackers. With these tools, a group of even two voice-chatting opponents can really dominate the battle if they work together and provide spotting for each other.

The smoke effects really stand out in the desert maps.
The smoke effects really stand out in the desert maps.

Vehicles are still a big part of the large battles, and you'll normally spend about half your time cruising in a tank, boat, plane, helicopter, or whatever else spawns near your base. Tanks can now be disabled, which gives you a few quick moments to exit before certain doom. That doesn't always do you much good, since you're most certainly in bigger trouble by the time your tank explodes, but it beats the instant deaths that were so common in the previous games. I won't lie, I still find the helicopter and jet mechanics a tad tricky, especially when using a mouse, but this seems more a fault of my own as my teammates were more than willing to take the driver's seat as I took over the guns. You can also unlock abilities for your vehicles similar to the way you unlock accessories and weapons for your base soldier class.

Outside the team-based multiplayer, two-player co-op provides a third mode of play for those willing to take on missions with a friend, and I'd highly recommend you communicate with mics if you want to get through these quickly. The co-op missions are substantially harder than the campaign mode and usually require some level of teamwork to get things done. There are six scripted missions that unlock in order and usually require multiple playthroughs to learn the scripted events. The "Drop Um Like Liquid" level seems to suffer from this the most, where you have to snipe several targets with a buddy extremely quickly before hostages are killed. Since the spotting mechanic will often target two enemies when grouped together instead of one, you and your teammate might get confused on who's attacking who. With no checkpoints, that means patient gamers will need to replay the 15-or-so-minute levels a few times to learn exactly when certain scripting triggers are going to happen. Other than the repetition, the co-op levels are pretty exciting and provide a much better experience than the campaign missions they support.

In addition to the PC, I played through the campaign on the PS3 version, and it seemed to be a smooth experience that mostly mirrored the high quality and visuals of my beefier home PC. The console version does come with a slight bit of pop-in for the larger levels, but is certainly still a looker. The difference between the versions then mostly lies in the online and social networking Battlelog service that the PC version requires to play. Although your console and PC soldiers will both display stats and info on Battlelog similar to something like Bungie.net, the PC version actually does its matchmaking, party management and voice control through the browser itself. I went into Battlelog worried and a little confused at this different approach, but after a half dozen hours of online play I'm now convinced it's an altogether better way to manage your game sessions. Although I did have some problems importing my friends list from other services, once I got Battlelog running it was pretty seamless to start up games with friends and chat with buddies. The best advantage to the system is that you spend less time looking at connection screens and can instead peruse your own stats and snoop on other platoon members between games.

Battlefield 3 is exactly what Battlefield fans most likely wanted: a chaotic, gorgeous multiplayer game with small, but important tweaks to what already worked in past games. That it includes a short, somewhat mediocre solo campaign and some hit-or-miss co-op action does not detract from the fact that, online, this is the best Battlefield game yet. The PC version's online matchmaking tools are way ahead of the curve and a good example of how to do social networking in video games the right way. For those who didn't enjoy Battlefield before, the extra features likely won't be enough to bring you over, but those who just want to play a much-improved Battlefield--mixed-up, crazy, "I can't believe that just happened" Battlefield -- should feel right at home.

Dave Snider on Google+

196 Comments

Avatar image for mikey87144
mikey87144

2114

Forum Posts

3

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By mikey87144

I agree with your assessment Dave. Fantastic multiplayer and other features that are meh. I agree with a lot of other people that the game probably would've gotten 5 stars if it removed the single-player.

Avatar image for enai
enai

266

Forum Posts

543

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By enai

They seriously should not of done a singleplayer and just spent those extra man-hours building more multiplayer maps - I suppose that will be DLC....

Still, a great multiplayer game. Well worded review too!

Avatar image for zaglis
zaglis

912

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By zaglis

Stopped reading after ''best version of multiplayer Battlefield yet.''

Avatar image for dalfiuss
Dalfiuss

32

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Dalfiuss

This is far from the best version of multiplayer Battlefield. I think you are on crack Dave. This game is Bad Company 3, plain and simple, every aspect of the game functions exactly like Bad Company, not like the old Battlefield games.

The game isn't terrible, unless you are including the single player that is so riddled with bugs and cliches, that it does actually tarnish the entire experience, but straight Battlefield it is not.

Avatar image for fuga
Fuga

207

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Fuga

4 stars? flop of the century

Avatar image for professoress
ProfessorEss

7962

Forum Posts

160

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 11

Edited By ProfessorEss
@Dr_Rofl said:

They seriously should not of done a singleplayer and just spent those extra man-hours building more multiplayer maps - I suppose that will be DLC....

Still, a great multiplayer game. Well worded review too!

I agree. It would've been ballsy and risky in today's market but I think it may have been a risk that would've paid off. 
 
Hell, or just make the single player a series of skirmishes, like a tutorial/practice area a la Battlefield 1942.
Avatar image for sammo21
sammo21

6040

Forum Posts

2237

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 18

User Lists: 45

Edited By sammo21

So far my launch experience with BF3 has been the worst of any game in the series by far (and I have played since 1942).  So many bugs and glitches have hampered my experience...not to mention that 3-4 times out of every 10 spawns I am dying from a spawn camper or the fact that there is an enemy literally 2 feet from me.  I don't think the game sucks by any means, but this is definitely not the best the series has seen...on consoles especially.

Avatar image for joey_ravn
JoeyRavn

5290

Forum Posts

792

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 3

Edited By JoeyRavn

@ProfessorEss said:

@Dr_Rofl said:

They seriously should not of done a singleplayer and just spent those extra man-hours building more multiplayer maps - I suppose that will be DLC....

Still, a great multiplayer game. Well worded review too!

I agree. It would've been ballsy and risky in today's market but I think it may have been a risk that would've paid off. Hell, or just make the single player a series of skirmishes, like a tutorial/practice area a la Battlefield 1942.

Yeah, but remember what was the main focus of EA's campaign for this game: taking down Call of Duty. And whether you like it or not, the CoD games have always had very relevant singleplayer campaigns. Maybe they're not what people get the game for anymore, but, truth be told, Activision has been consistent in that respect.

Avatar image for tesla
Tesla

2299

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By Tesla

Nice review Dave. I can't wait to get my new gaming PC set up.

Avatar image for professoress
ProfessorEss

7962

Forum Posts

160

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 11

Edited By ProfessorEss
@JoeyRavn: True, but still, I think there may have been potential for them to take on CoD by sending a message along the lines of: 
 
"This is a MULTIPLAYER game people! You wanna mess around in some scripted storyline, go for it. You wanna get right down to business, get right to the BATTLEFIELD!"
 
Again, this could easily backfire, and critics would probably still ding it for a lack of single-player but hey, if you can't make a campaign as good as CoD leave it out and act like there was some greater purpose behind the decision :)
Avatar image for lordofultima
lordofultima

6592

Forum Posts

25303

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 9

Edited By lordofultima

@kingando420 said:

@rmanthorp said:

I almost wish you didn't have to attach a score...

I agree.

Yeah but we've all seen where that leads. Big ol' catch 22, people complaining there's no score.

Avatar image for jetsetwillie
jetsetwillie

882

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By jetsetwillie

i built my new PC to play this, so im a little disappointed the SP is not as good as it could of been. i know BF is primarily a MP game but even so its no excuse.

can't wait to get balls deep in some MP action though.

Avatar image for kollay
kollay

2170

Forum Posts

49

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

Edited By kollay

The campaign for me is simply an extra "bonus" in the disc. That way it's easier to dismiss it. You wanted a good MP and you got it, but hey! they gave you a SP in case you wanted to run through it!

Avatar image for ucankurbaga
ucankurbaga

182

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By ucankurbaga

I had the best singleplayer and multiplayer experience ever in this game. This is from someone who played all CoDs and previous battlefields.

Avatar image for falling_fast
falling_fast

2905

Forum Posts

189

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 6

Edited By falling_fast

have we gotten aother Dave review since Empire: Total War?

also, I don't care about multiplayer, so this review is somewhat relevant to my interests.

Avatar image for mnzy
mnzy

3047

Forum Posts

147

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By mnzy

@ucankurbaga said:

I had the best singleplayer and multiplayer experience ever in this game. This is from someone who played all CoDs and previous battlefields.

Ever? You should play more games then.

Avatar image for mezmero
Mezmero

4107

Forum Posts

420

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 16

Edited By Mezmero

You're review makes me sad that I can't afford a new PC. Very insightful nonetheless.

Avatar image for chris2klee
Chris2KLee

2402

Forum Posts

1090

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 13

Edited By Chris2KLee

Great review Dave. Totally gonna get this, multiplayer alone makes it worth the purchase. Everything else is just neat stuff that comes with that,

Avatar image for wardcleaver
wardcleaver

604

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By wardcleaver

While the SP is starting to grow on me, I have to agree with Dave's review.

I realize that it would have been difficult in 2011 to release a MP only game, but what about an off-line MP mode with bots? They could use some of the scenarios from MP, with different challenges thrown in as a way to prepare you for the chaos of the online MP. I think this would have been a good way to ease some people into the MP who are currently intimidated by it.

If MP is going to be your focus, why not have the other portions of your game geared towards that?

Avatar image for deactivated-5f90eabee6bba
deactivated-5f90eabee6bba

584

Forum Posts

415

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

FUCKING A COMPANY!

Avatar image for hef
Hef

1239

Forum Posts

486

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 7

Edited By Hef

@lordofultima said:

@kingando420 said:

@rmanthorp said:

I almost wish you didn't have to attach a score...

I agree.

Yeah but we've all seen where that leads. Big ol' catch 22, people complaining there's no score.

You mean...then they'd actually have to READ the review?! That's crazy talk sir.

Avatar image for bybeach
bybeach

6754

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By bybeach

@Aonarach said:

Fail the QTE with the rat. It's actually pretty funny and I'm sure it's why the stupid ass QTE for a rat was even in there.

I too would not have done a minus check for just the rat scene..Sometimes fails are glowing successes. I laughed really hard! What an aggressive little twit! Ironically it reminded me of my cat Maggie.

Avatar image for jmrwacko
jmrwacko

2537

Forum Posts

50

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By jmrwacko

Stopped reading after 4/5 stars.

Dave, I had faith in you. I didn't know you'd turn out to be a MW3 fanboy like Jeff :-(

Avatar image for jmrwacko
jmrwacko

2537

Forum Posts

50

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By jmrwacko

@gladspooky said:

@Vodun said:

@gladspooky said:

@Sooty said:

Good review, I dunno if the campaign should necessarily knock off a star if the multiplayer is this good but each to their own right?

In the old days it would have knocked off three stars.

So the multiplayer would've been worse "in the old days"? You're talking out your ass.

The fuck are you even talking about? Single player was more important in the old days. How do you even get to "the multiplayer would have been worse"? Christ. People can't read anymore.

Battlefield 2 got universally positive reviews, and it didn't even have a singleplayer campaign. Stop being retarded.

Avatar image for funkydupe
Funkydupe

3614

Forum Posts

5978

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Funkydupe

@Fuga said:

4 stars? flop of the century

I'm sure a lot of people won't taint their computers with a 4 stars of out 5 game. Ah well.

Avatar image for korosuzo
Korosuzo

231

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By Korosuzo

@masterpaperlink said:

I'm not worried that this game deserved more than what it got, im worried that this game is worse than BFBC 2 and is only impressive because nobody played more than 5 hours of BC2's multiplayer.

anyway good review

I've played over 100 hours of BFBC2 online and although it isnt a giant leap better like it was from Bad Company to BFBC2 it is indeed a better multi-player experience. Granted it's mostly the little things such as not being able to "destroy" M-Comm stations with tanks and explosives, assist points granted on missed kills, medic/assault combination, squad switching mid-battle, server browsers (when they are up), and vehicle disables. In all, they add up to a multi-player FPS that I'll be happy to play for the next few months if not longer.

Avatar image for mikkaq
MikkaQ

10296

Forum Posts

52

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By MikkaQ

@jmrwacko said:

Stopped reading after 4/5 stars.

Dave, I had faith in you. I didn't know you'd turn out to be a MW3 fanboy like Jeff :-(

If that isn't sarcasm, then who are you to accuse someone of being a fanboy with a comment like that? He said it was the best multiplayer Battlefield has ever had, did you want Dave to give each DICE employee a BJ on top of it?

Avatar image for fuga
Fuga

207

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Fuga

@jmrwacko: It's you, you're the fanboy.

Avatar image for gaspower
GaspoweR

4904

Forum Posts

272

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 2

Edited By GaspoweR

Come to think of it, i think DICE kinda shot themselves in the foot by trying to do a SP campaign in the first place. BF2 possbily was a better "product" because it was just a multiplayer game and it was great. Now DICE comes out with BF3 and now it has a single player portion that compared to other competing FPS games, wasn't as great. The product as a whole gets affected by the SP portion of it being mediocre as Dave pointed out. People should stop nitpicking on the score and just know that this game is probably gonna be a better experience for people who are just in it for the MP in the long haul.

Avatar image for davidjohnkeen
davidjohnkeen

72

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By davidjohnkeen

Great review Dave! I'd love to see a few more reviews from D Snider if schedules permit.

Avatar image for thephilatron
ThePhilatron

290

Forum Posts

1879

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

Edited By ThePhilatron

Well written. Good review Dave!

Avatar image for jayjonesjunior
jayjonesjunior

1148

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By jayjonesjunior

buying a DICE game is like actually rolling a dice.

Avatar image for dagas
dagas

3686

Forum Posts

851

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 8

Edited By dagas

"Teams can no longer destroy stations with brute force and must now physically place charges when outside vehicles."

Isn't this how it works in BC2 as well? I've never seen anyone destroy those stations with brute force like in BC1.

Avatar image for ben99
Ben99

1199

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By Ben99

@AssInAss said:

After the campaign left a sour taste in my mouth, I went to multiplayer. Then I completely forgot about it after base jumping in Damavand Peak:

That video made my day.

Avatar image for andymp
andymp

257

Forum Posts

163

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 4

Edited By andymp

@Hef said:

@lordofultima said:

@kingando420 said:

@rmanthorp said:

I almost wish you didn't have to attach a score...

I agree.

Yeah but we've all seen where that leads. Big ol' catch 22, people complaining there's no score.

You mean...then they'd actually have to READ the review?! That's crazy talk sir.

Why even read the review. Play the game and judge it for yourself.

Avatar image for hef
Hef

1239

Forum Posts

486

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 7

Edited By Hef

@AndyMP: Then what's the point of having any reviews at all. Why doesn't everyone just buy every game ever and judge for themselves? Please.

Avatar image for dbz1995
dbz1995

4962

Forum Posts

3989

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 2

Edited By dbz1995

You're going to need that armour and shield, Dave.

Avatar image for cowswithguns
cowswithguns

219

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By cowswithguns

The game is a 4/5 but Dave is a 5/5 in my books.

PS: What's with all the jeff hattin?

Avatar image for harrysound
HarrySound

299

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By HarrySound

I tihnk it's amazing.

If it's marked down due to the single player? IF it is....Then will Uncharted get marked down for it's multiplayer?

I tihnk it deserves 5 stars personally.Just based on multiplayer. EA however can have no stars for their continued failed launch.

Avatar image for airborne2i5
Airborne2I5

8

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By Airborne2I5

Nice review sir.

Avatar image for norsedudetr
norsedudetr

467

Forum Posts

330

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By norsedudetr

Dave "Sniper" Snider.

Avatar image for katnipz
Katnipz

9

Forum Posts

19

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By Katnipz

QTE's make me want to stab my eyes out with a pen.

Avatar image for ntm
NTM

12222

Forum Posts

38

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By NTM

Although there are a lot of people saying the campaign isn't great, I feel like it was, to me. I didn't care too much about the story it was telling, it was just kind of cliche, but it didn't stop me from liking just about everything else. If they could get a story to tell that's told differently (I'm done with stories told from a person that's being interrogated) and is more interesting, then characters with a bit more personality, and add about five hours to the length, it'd be a much more memorable and enthralling experience.

Avatar image for chilipeppersman
chilipeppersman

1319

Forum Posts

4

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 26

User Lists: 4

Avatar image for meteora3255
meteora3255

683

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 2

@dany said:

@Vorbis said:

It's a shame to see a bad campaign dragging it down, the need to have singleplayer content continues to confuse me.

It is a video game being sold in 2011. You do not put a 60 dollar FPS on the shelf with ONLY MP

I was doing some research on this game as I was writing something on Battlefield 1 and this jumped out at me. How far we have come in 5 years!