Quantcast
Vgchartz Ranking Game -- Battlefield 3

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Vgchartz Ranking Game -- Battlefield 3

Tagged games:

Did you like Battlefield 3

Yes 23 71.88%
 
No 5 15.63%
 
Maybe so 3 9.38%
 
Click here 1 3.13%
 
Total:32
yo_john117 said:
Chroniczaaa said:
5.5

2. The larger the difference between your score and the score on metacritic; the more I expect you to explain yourself. 

 

Metacritic score -- 86


Because it is in no way shape or form the "true" Battlefield 2 sequel that EA marketing made everyone believe. It is an utter devolution of the battlefield franchise and a tragic console port. If you want an even more in depth explanation go ahead and reply again.

5 was too harsh and 6 was too generous so i decided upon 5.5.



"Defeating a sandwich, only makes it tastier." - Virginia

Around the Network

9.4

I'm yet to finish the single-player but for multi-player BF3 is probably my favorite shooter I've played



 

 

        Wii FC: 6440 8298 7583 0720   XBOX GT: WICK1978               PSN: its_the_wick   3DS: 1676-3747-7846                                          Nintendo Network: its-the-wick

Systems I've owned: Atari 2600, NES, SNES, GBColor, N64, Gamecube, PS2, Xbox, GBAdvance, DSlite, PSP, Wii, Xbox360, PS3, 3DS, PSVita, PS4, 3DS XL, Wii U

The best quote I've seen this year:

Angelus said: I'm a moron

I clicked there but nothing happened.

I haven't played BF3 yet but my cousin is a huge battlefield fan so I thought I'd share his opinion. He played Battlefield 2 for a year and a bit and was leader of his competition team in BC2 PC (5th MR). He was supposed to head his team in BF3 as well but he has taken a break to play TOR. Anyways, he says he'd give it a 9. I'm not sure if this should be counted as it isn't my opinion but I don't have an opinion to give so...



trasharmdsister12 said:
I clicked there but nothing happened.

I haven't played BF3 yet but my cousin is a huge battlefield fan so I thought I'd share his opinion. He played Battlefield 2 for a year and a bit and was leader of his competition team in BC2 PC (5th MR). He was supposed to head his team in BF3 as well but he has taken a break to play TOR. Anyways, he says he'd give it a 9. I'm not sure if this should be counted as it isn't my opinion but I don't have an opinion to give so...

I vote for "Yes, his score should be counted"



Chroniczaaa said:
yo_john117 said:
Chroniczaaa said:
5.5

2. The larger the difference between your score and the score on metacritic; the more I expect you to explain yourself. 

 

Metacritic score -- 86


Because it is in no way shape or form the "true" Battlefield 2 sequel that EA marketing made everyone believe. It is an utter devolution of the battlefield franchise and a tragic console port. If you want an even more in depth explanation go ahead and reply again.

5 was too harsh and 6 was too generous so i decided upon 5.5.

Yeah I'd like to know more specific reasons as to why you think it's so bad.



Around the Network
yo_john117 said:
Chroniczaaa said:
yo_john117 said:
Chroniczaaa said:
5.5

2. The larger the difference between your score and the score on metacritic; the more I expect you to explain yourself. 

 

Metacritic score -- 86


Because it is in no way shape or form the "true" Battlefield 2 sequel that EA marketing made everyone believe. It is an utter devolution of the battlefield franchise and a tragic console port. If you want an even more in depth explanation go ahead and reply again.

5 was too harsh and 6 was too generous so i decided upon 5.5.

Yeah I'd like to know more specific reasons as to why you think it's so bad.


Maps are too small for 64 players ( and most maps are a straight line,clustered flags, or just poorly designed leading to boring gameplay), no voice chat options on pc, many pc-centric features present in (2,2142) got scrapped, feels like a direct sequel to bc2 not bf3, destruction worse than in bc2, no ground deformation, hardcore mode sucks, vehicle and player health regeneration, co-op sucks, singleplayer sucks,( they shouldn't have even wasted time on a coop or singleplayer ) flying vehicle physics sucks, buggy and glitched as fuck, console port, no footstep sounds present in earlier frostbite bfs, art direction fails hard, sun is too bright with annoying lens flare- makes me think my soldier has film cameras for eyeballs, requires shitty origin spyware to even play the god damn game, feels like this game is geared towards COD fans and not true BF fans, not a complex or deep multiplayer at all.

Mediocrity at its finest.Not a true BF2 sequel, hell not even a better game than BC2. Shall i say more since obviously you think i'm a troll at this point.

5.5 it stands, deal with it.



"Defeating a sandwich, only makes it tastier." - Virginia

My score: 9,5

Provided/provides some of the greatest graphics ever seen on the Xbox 360 and probably the most intensive online FPS experience. One slightly underestimated part is the sound that has been captured perfectly and makes it feel very real (here's what I'm talking about in case anyone cares).

The single player is what dragged the score down from a perfect ten as it featured several slow areas and some events that took a lot of retries to complete (Well, at least on "hard". Even the most experienced players know what I'm talking about.) and had rather few checkpoints. That's about all flaws I can think of though. The rest of the campaign was phenomenal both story- and gameplay-wise.


A definitive must-buy for all Call of Duty fans! (Trust me, you'll never look back :D



Chroniczaaa said:
yo_john117 said:
Chroniczaaa said:
yo_john117 said:
Chroniczaaa said:
5.5

2. The larger the difference between your score and the score on metacritic; the more I expect you to explain yourself. 

 

Metacritic score -- 86


Because it is in no way shape or form the "true" Battlefield 2 sequel that EA marketing made everyone believe. It is an utter devolution of the battlefield franchise and a tragic console port. If you want an even more in depth explanation go ahead and reply again.

5 was too harsh and 6 was too generous so i decided upon 5.5.

Yeah I'd like to know more specific reasons as to why you think it's so bad.


Maps are too small for 64 players ( and most maps are a straight line,clustered flags, or just poorly designed leading to boring gameplay), no voice chat options on pc, many pc-centric features present in (2,2142) got scrapped, feels like a direct sequel to bc2 not bf3, destruction worse than in bc2, no ground deformation, hardcore mode sucks, vehicle and player health regeneration, co-op sucks, singleplayer sucks,( they shouldn't have even wasted time on a coop or singleplayer ) flying vehicle physics sucks, buggy and glitched as fuck, console port, no footstep sounds present in earlier frostbite bfs, art direction fails hard, sun is too bright with annoying lens flare- makes me think my soldier has film cameras for eyeballs, requires shitty origin spyware to even play the god damn game, feels like this game is geared towards COD fans and not true BF fans, not a complex or deep multiplayer at all.

Mediocrity at its finest.Not a true BF2 sequel, hell not even a better game than BC2. Shall i say more since obviously you think i'm a troll at this point.

5.5 it stands, deal with it.

The rules are the rules, deal with it.



We need a few more reviews in order for this game to count in the official standings. I'm kind of surprised there are so few.



trasharmdsister12 said:
We need a few more reviews in order for this game to count in the official standings. I'm kind of surprised there are so few.


Well you keep doing games that came out somewhat recent or is not out in all regions, I would suggest only doing games that came out 6 months before the thread so Sept and before.



Former something....