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

7.0 I've explained myself on different forums way too many times.



Around the Network
pezus said:
yo_john117 said:

My score: 9

 

Pros:

- Some of the best graphics (and especially lighting) I have ever seen in a game.

- The sound is incredible...especially guns, vehicles and explosions.

- Singleplayer campaign was surprisingly fun and had a decent amount of variety

- Vehicles are completely awesome

- All the different classes and weapon upgrades

 

Cons:

- Multiplayer can be kind of buggy sometimes

- There aren't enough people for Conquest (should be at least 24 v. 24 not 12 v 12)

I was playing a 32 vs. 32 conquest today in Operation Metro and I tell you it was way too much lol! Could barely move

32 vs. 32 probably would be a bit much. But I think 24 vs. 24 for Conquest would be perfect.



yo_john117 said:
pezus said:
yo_john117 said:

My score: 9

 

Pros:

- Some of the best graphics (and especially lighting) I have ever seen in a game.

- The sound is incredible...especially guns, vehicles and explosions.

- Singleplayer campaign was surprisingly fun and had a decent amount of variety

- Vehicles are completely awesome

- All the different classes and weapon upgrades

 

Cons:

- Multiplayer can be kind of buggy sometimes

- There aren't enough people for Conquest (should be at least 24 v. 24 not 12 v 12)

I was playing a 32 vs. 32 conquest today in Operation Metro and I tell you it was way too much lol! Could barely move

32 vs. 32 probably would be a bit much. But I think 24 vs. 24 for Conquest would be perfect.

you can play with 16, 24, 32, 48 or 64 players on pc so 24vs24 is there as well. 12vs12 is really not enough for this kind of game



crissindahouse said:
yo_john117 said:
pezus said:

I was playing a 32 vs. 32 conquest today in Operation Metro and I tell you it was way too much lol! Could barely move

32 vs. 32 probably would be a bit much. But I think 24 vs. 24 for Conquest would be perfect.

you can play with 16, 24, 32, 48 or 64 players on pc so 24vs24 is there as well. 12vs12 is really not enough for this kind of game

12 vs. 12 is fine for Team Deathmatch but for conquest you'll go around for a couple of minutes sometimes looking for anyone if the map is especially big.



yo_john117 said:
crissindahouse said:
yo_john117 said:
pezus said:

I was playing a 32 vs. 32 conquest today in Operation Metro and I tell you it was way too much lol! Could barely move

32 vs. 32 probably would be a bit much. But I think 24 vs. 24 for Conquest would be perfect.

you can play with 16, 24, 32, 48 or 64 players on pc so 24vs24 is there as well. 12vs12 is really not enough for this kind of game

12 vs. 12 is fine for Team Deathmatch but for conquest you'll go around for a couple of minutes sometimes looking for anyone if the map is especially big.

i played it like 200 hours now and only conquest haha. i don't even know if there are maybe some other maps for rush or deathmatch^^



Around the Network
crissindahouse said:
yo_john117 said:
crissindahouse said:
yo_john117 said:
pezus said:

I was playing a 32 vs. 32 conquest today in Operation Metro and I tell you it was way too much lol! Could barely move

32 vs. 32 probably would be a bit much. But I think 24 vs. 24 for Conquest would be perfect.

you can play with 16, 24, 32, 48 or 64 players on pc so 24vs24 is there as well. 12vs12 is really not enough for this kind of game

12 vs. 12 is fine for Team Deathmatch but for conquest you'll go around for a couple of minutes sometimes looking for anyone if the map is especially big.

i played it like 200 hours now and only conquest haha. i don't even know if there are maybe some other maps for rush or deathmatch^^

Team Deathmatch on the 360 is just little pieces of the big maps from Conquest. Not sure about Rush though.



yo_john117 said:

Team Deathmatch on the 360 is just little pieces of the big maps from Conquest. Not sure about Rush though.


Rush is a corridor.



________________________________________________________________

Presentation - 6.5/10
+ 1st person mission intro's / ourtros are done well.
+ Setpieces, while directed well...
- just don't last very long and has no resonance with the gameplay.
- QTE
- Painfully Boring story, missions, objectives and characters

Design & Tech - 8.5
+ A well build game, a bit rought round the edges though.
+ Slick animations do improve gameplay.
+Some of the MP maps are the best in the business,
- Other maps have me scratching my head as to how they made it in the final game
- SP does not represent MP
- Servers suck as usual

Gameplay - 9.2
+ Innovative weapon customization and attachments
+ Very innovating lighting technology including lens glare and reflections
+ Well thought out recoil and balistic system.
+ Genre leading class loadouts. They are perfect.
+ Solid destruction
- Sometimes buggy hit detection
- sometimes buggy and sluggish controls
- knife as useless as always in a battlefield game

Graphics - 9.0
+ Textures look amazing from a distance, get a little blocky up close
+ Great particle effects
- Lighting can be a bit too bright
- Indoors can be a bit too dark

Audio 9.0
+ Outstanding audio design
- Generic music

Lasting Appeal - 8.5
+ Difficulty curve to weapons, vehicles and even map knowledge
+ Class leading in some aspects , maps, gunplay and graphics
- but
- Campaign is a 4hr borefest

Overall
8.9

Best MW game this gen since COD4



The thread will be closing in a few hours. Last call for votes!



i would say... a 9.3... have the platinum for it, so rule nº 1; check...



Proudest Platinums - BF: Bad Company, Killzone 2 , Battlefield 3 and GTA4