Customer Reviews

Battlefield 3

5 star:		(429)
4 star:		(178)
3 star:		(92)
2 star:		(81)
1 star:		(148)

 

 

Let me start this off that I am not a fanboy of any specific shooter, just good games. I have both xbox 360 and PS3 and am unbiased in my reviews as I enjoy both for different reasons. On to the review...

First, I have no idea what all the negative reviews are for. The game isn't without a few flaws, but in no way warrants a 1 star review. This is EA's blockbuster shooter that's set to compete with Infinity Wards MW3 for the calendar year of 2011. A lot of time an energy went into the game (and they even released multiple betas on all platforms to ensure they were meeting their customer's demands). Here is what you need to know:

Game Specifications:
- The game ships on multiple discs.
- Disc 1: CO-OP/Multiplayer/High Resolution Textures (requires 1.5GB for the installation of the high resolution textures if you want them (THEY ARE OPTIONAL))
- Disc 2: Campaign

- Thoughts: The game is enormous and can't be fit onto one disc. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. You're trying to run a game on hardware that's 5-6 years old. Due to the restriction of DVD sizes, compromises had to be made. I'm OK with this and you should be too. If you have a 4GB console, you may have to opt out of using the high resolution textures. However, the game can still be played without them; it's just not as pretty.

Multiplayer Review:
Good:
- The main reason many people buy this game is for the multiplayer, which I can say as a Battlefield Veteran that this doesn't fall shy of expectations. It plays similar to Battlefield Bad Company 2, which is a good thing. The settings were tweaked from the initial beta release. It isn't call of duty, so don't expect it to play that way. It's slightly slower, meaning that decision have a greater impact to the game.
- There are 4 classes to play as, with each offering their own unique contribution to the battlefield (suited to fit multiple play styles). You don't have to be the best killer on the battlefield to contribute to the team and get towards the top of the leaderboards. I've seen people go 6-9 and get top rank by performing supportive actions and taking objectives.
- The maps are big and require thinking and tactics. They can easily accommodate the 12vs12 team sizes.
- The graphics are fantastic if you've installed the High Resolution Textures.
- EA utilizes dedicated servers and has a fantastic system in place that lest you choose the best server for you.
- The "Server Filter" is fantastic and robust. It permits you to filter by Game Type (TDM vs Conquest vs Rush etc..), Region (US vs Europe etc..), Desired Map, Number of People in game (VERY IMPORTANT, SEE BELOW) Etc... In addition, you can see your ping to the server, which will let you choose the best server for you.
- The vehicles are great and a nice addition to the big maps.
- Destructible environments make for some interesting gameplay. It's nice to be able to take out sniper cover, or collapse a building a troublesome sniper keeps using....
- Cannot collapse the M-Com buildings anymore, which will make for a better game.
- Can go prone, which is a nice welcomed back addition to the Battlefield series.
- The customization and ranking up is fantastic. Customization and unlocks work like this:
- Overall rank unlocks items available to all classes. This happens with each game regardless of class.
- Each class has its own unlocks, which comes with kills and objective taking, so you could easily have all the unlocks for one class and none for another. Experience only accumulates for the class type used in the game.
- Each weapon has its own individual unlocks. For example, ulocking the grip for the AK47 will only be available for the AK47. The grip for the M16 will require you to use the M16 and get kills with it.
Bad:
- The one major downside to the game is that the party system can be frustrating at times.
- You can have a max party of 4 to search for games.
- If you quick search, your party may be split up and put on different teams with the server being close to max capacity.
- Utilize the "Server Filter" to join a low number game (maybe 10 at most). This will decrease the chance of your party splitting up. If you are split up, watch when other parties join and just change teams to end up on the side with friends. Choose an open squad and all agree to join it. Problem solved.
- Once on the same team, the game will keep you together, so overcoming that initial obstacle is the hardest part. Not really that hard, but slightly frustrating.
- Although the environments are destructible, they aren't nearly as destructible as Battlefield Bad Company 2.

A Few Quick Multiplayer Tips:
- Having a few friends to chat and play with will have a large impact on the game, especially when utilizing the vehicles and one of your buddies is an engineer. If you don't have friends to play with, just make sure you join a squad so you can spawn on multiple team members. This is a tactical game and communicating can have a large impact.
- Use spotting by pressing the back button (once your crosshairs are on the target to mark) to mark enemies on the map. This will bring attention to enemies on the map in case you can't kill them or want help (think tanks, which will get your engineers to shoot at them with their rockets if your a medic).
- Don't run into the enemies base alone. This isn't call of duty and you'll die quickly.
- If you're the last man in your squad alive, STAY ALIVE. You'll get additional points for teammates spawning on you, plus if you die you teammates will be close to the action and you can respawn on them. Spend your time in the action, not running across the map.
- This game rewards objective players, not KDR fiends. Going negative is no big deal. It's a team game.
- Utilize your team. Stay with them for easily taking objectives and taking out enemies.
- When utilizing the vehicles, wait for other team members. Having someone on the gunner of your vehicle offers a lot of protection.
- If you're using the vehicles a lot, use the engineer class for repair points. If you have a teammate with you, they can cover while you fix.

Campaign:
- While this is a nice feature, this clearly isn't the main focus of the Battlefield 3 (BF3). From what I've played so far, it seems a bit more linear than Battlefield Bad Company 2 (BFBC2). In BFBC2, you could blow a hole through any building and make your own path. In BF3, there are less destructible buildings. In addition, the enemy AI doesn't move much from their initial spawn location. The single player isn't bad, but not fantastic either. I'm still working through this and will update later once I finish.

CO-OP:
- I have not had the privilege to try the co-op yet, but I will review once I do.

Closing Thoughts: This is a good game and I give it a 93/100. It's fun and enjoyable, in particular with a squad. I deducted points for the too linear environments within the single player and the frustrating party system in multiplayer. If you're one of those people that buy 1-2 games a year and like FPS, this is a must buy.

Not all of us are "gamers" (i'm an attorney in my late-20's). Those of us who play video games as light recreation and not "online careers" (e.g. rank, etc.) look at all the hype and wonder which games are critical/fan darlings and which are actually just fun. Well, Battlefield 3 for Xbox360 IS for us. It's like pick-up ball that's just competitive enough without being too serious for itself.

As a consumer of average video game consumption, i've shopped through the most oft-recommended/advertised multiplayer shooter series on Xbox360: Gears of War, Halo, and Call of Duty. All were fun, but with major drawbacks. Gears had mech-like sluggish characters. Halo was like one long frenetic ninja duel. And Call of Duty had poor graphics and an unbearable amount of eerily over-committed...students of the game. Battlefield 3 hits the sweet spot: just realistic enough that your actions actually have an impact despite lacking some gaming trick, yet maintaining a good pace throughout.

Most importantly, Battlefield 3's multiplayer makes, well, playing with multiple players fun. There's always someone to work in teams with. Your actions make a meaningful contribution to the team even if you're not individually a skilled killer. Other players are encouraging and, if you feel disheartened from dying many times, there is always someone on your team to deploy next to and follow their lead. There are fewer trash-talking cowards hiding behind their screen names here because--i'm guessing--they generally don't have the patience for a team effort.

And besides, it's a good game, pure and simple. Who cares about small glitches or whether it's better than other video games; no game is perfect. It's like complaining about receiving cash because it isn't stacked neatly. What matters is whether this game is fun as a video game, not some work of art. And it is fun, immensely. Personally, i believe you will enjoy this game: actually "enjoy", not just "appreciate". That is the best praise i have for a video game.

NOTE: I have not yet completed the single-player campaign, so i can only speak in regards to the multiplayer.

First off, I have no idea what all of the bad reviews for this game are all about. I've had much background with game developing and playing games for fun and competitively. Here's my defense for all of those bad review and if you just skim through them, you'll understand what's going on and not just whine and complain.

1) It was CONFIRMED that for Xbox 360 and PS3 that there would be a High Res Pack (1.5 and 2GB respectively) because the bandwidth for DVDs and BluRays are not fast enough to load all of the content in HD. (yes there are loading screens but that only loads the "basics" you then have to have real time loading for bullets and objects that the player walks to) And for crying out loud, its just 1.5GB, if you don't have HDD space, you can simply go to WalMart, Target, or heck if you knew about it, Amazon and buy a 2GB Flash Drive. You can definitely get them for less than $10 and if you check Fry's you can even get them for $0 after rebate.
2) BF3 and CoD: Black Ops were in development AT THE SAME TIME. If Dice was to copy Black Ops, they would have had to basically build the entire game in one year. They obviously did not because then BF3 would have come out next year or would have been impossibly rushed. And, they could not have just waited for Black Ops to release and then make the campaign. Multiplayer maps are based off of the campaign maps and the campaign would have taken more than just a year to build.
3) Bugs and glitches, BF3 is an ENORMOUS game. (I mean its on 2 discs for crying out loud) The maps are probably 10 times bigger than those of CoD and on top of that, you have to add in FrostBite 2, so you gotta code in every single piece of the game to fall apart when its shot at. This is VERY difficult to do. The game also pushes the hardware of the Xbox 360 (~6 years old now) to its max. So, if you've got a huge map, older hardware, and destruction going about everywhere, they're bound to be bugs. No game can be 100% bug free at launch, there simply isn't enough time and not enough man-power. This is why Dice has a team dedicated to fixing BF3 and adding DLC and enhancing the game along the road.

Now, on to the good.
BF3 offers gameplay that follows Dice's trend. Huge, realistic, "Battlefield" sized maps. Online, the game puts you in as a soldier on a real sized battlefield fighting alongside your squadmates and team. For Rush and Conquest modes, there's no one man army or lone wolf as many other First Person Shooters have built. You NEED teamwork in order to win and you're rewarded for helping your team, doing the objective, as well as getting kills. Also, the destruction of the Frostbite 1/2 engine is not seen in any other title. Battlefield is the only game where a rocket will actually BLOW UP A WALL! No more "explosion marks" but the wall actually comes down. Bundle this awesome soldier action with some vehicular action, and there's nothing else out there that comes even close. Tanks, Light Tanks, Humvees, Boats, and Jets all add another dimension to the game. Players have to work to take down enemy tanks and jets, which happens in a real battlefield. Sure, there are still some kinks to work out but Dice was only given a few weeks to fix up the game from the results of the Open Beta. That's not a lot of time to fix these huge maps. 1 Battlefield map is probably equivalent to 5 or 6 maps of other FPS's.

The verdict: sure, the campaign seems a bit like Black Ops, but when you get into the action, you can obviously tell that its a total different story. And yeah, they're are a few minor bugs in the game, but it is definitely NOT anything major. And yes, there does need to be a 1.5GB add on for HD textures, but that's simply because the game is pushing 6 year old hardware to match up with current day hardware. Try playing BF3 on your 6 year old PC and see what happens. Once you understand all of these minor issues and bugs, you'll understand why its there and know that it will obviously be fixed in a short period of time, I mean there was already a patch on day one telling us that Dice knows about the problems and is working on it. As a video game aficionado, Dice has supported and are proud of their games. If something's wrong, a fix will be out shortly.

Don't let these minor issues make you miss out on one of the most intense, realistic shooters ever developed.

I am absolutly amazed at the ammount of bad reviews this game is getting. Don't get me wrong I love the call of duty series but I personaly believe this game takes it to the next level.

I am a US Army veteran that has seen combat in Iraq & Afganistan and I can tell you that this so far is as close to a real firefight that you will find on a console. The game is intense, and very realistic.

I have played through part of the single player so far and I love it. On par with what you have been getting with COD or MOH over the past few years. Graphics blow the past iterations out of the water (if you install high def textures).

As most of us know the focus on these games is multiplayer, and all I can say is INTENSE!! There is a bit of a learing period and you do need to level up quite a bit before you will really get this game but it is sweet once you do. Hands down I would have purchased this day one if it was only multiplayer.

If your a fanboy and your stuck on the COD formula of killstreaks and unrealistic (However fun it may be) gameplay this may not be for you. If your into realistic combat simulations, I can tell you from experience this is as close as it gets so far...

First off, Battlefield 3 and the Call of Duty series are different types of games. To put it succinctly, BF games are about squad/team effort to win games and battles on a large scale. Call of Duty is about individual performance. Previously, I tried out the Battlefield Bad Company games (1 and 2) and they weren't really my jam. I wanted to like them, but just couldn't get into it. I picked up Battlefield 3 at the midnight release on Monday night, and have been loving the game since then. BF3 gets a lot closer in gameplay style to CoD than the previous Battlefield games, and for the most part this is a good thing. Controls are snappier, vaulting over cover and moving around the maps is responsive and enjoyable, and the spawning has been improved so it doesn't constantly feel like you have to run across the entire map just to get back to the action after you die.

One important thing to note is that the retail version is completely different from the Beta. The beta was janky and full of bugs, and the retail game is cleaner. You also seem to have significantly more health and it takes more bullets to kill you, which I really enjoy.

Mainly, though, BF games really enforce teamwork. There is a Team Deathmatch mode, but I found out early on that you miss out of the most fun elements of the game if TDM is all you play. Rush is where it's at. Those intense moments of frantically trying to stay alive so squadmates can spawn on you and help you protect an objective are just priceless, and it's something you really cannot get in Call of Duty.

So in short, CoD and Battlefield 3 are different games. Battlefield 3 is more about the big picture teamwork aspect and it has 12v12 games (on Xbox 360). CoD is about individual performance and killstreaks. In my opinion, both franchises are very enjoyable now that Battlefield 3 is in the mix. If you're willing to step outside CoD and attempt to break in to a different take on the shooter genre, definitely buy or rent Battlefield 3.

I have been playing COD games since the PS2 and most recently Modern Warfare and COD Black Ops. Battlefield 3 is in a league of its own. I dont think you can compare COD and the Battlefield franchises. The gameplay is way different from one another and honestly i am enjoying Battlefield 3 more. Online co-op is fun and allow players to unlock new weapons and attachments. I have played about 3 missions in campaign mode and they are very enjoyable. Online multiplayer is very fun. Many people are saying Battlefield 3 has a lot of campers but i have to disagree. This game you must play very strategic and thinking before rushing into the Battlefield. The online multiplayer is different everytime even when playing the same map. The destructive environment allows the same map to feel different every time playing online. There is about 8 or 9 maps i believe and the limited edition includes the first expansion pack when it releases in december. Battlefield 3 has become its own game and can not be compared to COD. Both franchises bring two different experiences. Since playing this game, i have now become a Battlefield fan.

I agree with some of the other reviewers that this game shouldn't have all the low rating. Yes the server has problems but that's no reason to give it a one star review.

Alright well on to my review, iv been a fan of battlefield since 1942 and of call of duty since the first modern warfare so ill try to give an unbiased option. This game imo is fun IF you have friends to play it with. Playing alone can get frustrating but when playing with friends, this game can give some VERY fun experiences.

Story review
Overall i thought the story was pretty good. Their are those who said that the story is like black ops story with the flash backs and stuff but i felt as if it was pretty unique. Out of a score of 10 for the story i would rate the story about a 9/10
Pros
+Very good graphics
+interesting story
+Amazing scenery

Cons
-The AIs are very accurate!(which is bad but gives more of a challenge!)
-Somewhat confusing for me on whats going on at first.
-A bit of lag at times

CO-OP review
There are 5 missions on the co op which you do different task and these missions aren't related to the story for those who were wondering. Just like the multiplayer this mode can give some pretty fun experience if playing with a friend. I suggest you also have your mic on to coordinate well with the other player. Out of a score of 10 i would rate the co-op about a 8/10.
Pros
+Very fun
+Neat missions
+It test your ninja skills :p

Cons
-Needs more missions then 5
-AIs can get annoying by their deadly accuracy
-A few AI spawning bugs?(A couple times there were a large group of AIs suddenly appearing very close to the players overpowering them)

Multiplayer review
Alright now to the main part of the game.The multiplayer from my experience has not disappointed me yet! As i said above the multiplayer is extremely fun when playing with friends, which i have most of the time i played multiplayer. There are different mode to play like conquest which you just capture points and kill the enemy until their respawn counts are 0. Rush which you must defend your base from the enemy or you attack the enemy's base to win. Then there's TDM which is self explanatory. Then squad rush which is a 4v4 mode of rush then squad TDM. Out of a score of 10 ill rate it a 9.5/10.The multiplayer is good but there a bit of problems that take the points down a bit.
Pros
+Fun!
+Different game modes
+Vehicles
+Different equipment for almost anything you use

Cons
-The servers going off issues(hopefully to be fixed soon)
-Snipers camping
-People hogging jets or just sitting there waiting for a jet just to get killed a couple mins later :\
-Would of love to see more sea vehicles

Overall i think this is a must have game! I can see myself playing this until the next battlefield.
Oh and don't let those one star reviews turn you away from this as most of the reviews are fake or were wriiten about the server issues which has gotten better!

I remember the day my dad brought home Pong. We played it for more hours that first week than I've ever logged into a game to date. So the following review is from a gamer who's been playing for a LONG time and just loves to "game."

What about BF3? Does it live up to the hype? Absolutely. As has been noted, you really must evaluate the game's single player (SP) and multiplayer (MP) components seperately.

Multiplayer:

5/5 Stars hands down!

In my years of gaming (and have been a huge fan of the BF family since day one on the PC) nothing comes remotely close to the realism and intensity of battle like this game. The visuals are spectacular, the characters movements are fluid and realistic (within gaming reason of course), and the gun handling characteristics are phenomenal. Sounds and lighting make this the greatest military simulator to date. Note that I call this a military simulator. I'm also a HUGE fan of the COD family of games but their MP fall more under the "arcade" style of play where it's just run and gun. Loads of fun, but hardly a simulatory experience. This constant comparison, while understandable, really has no place to true gamers. I think virtually all BF3 fans will buy MW3 but not all MW3 fans will buy BF3. You have to actually like a level of realism and strategy to enjoy BF3 and the young kids I hear playing COD (MW2/Black Ops) are hardly the patient, strategic thinkers requried for a game like BF3 to be enjoyable. It's funny how the only guys I hear griping about BF3 and saying that MW2 or Black Ops is way better are usually the ones getting pwned. Yes, that's an observation of one, but it seems to repeat itself. And that's all I say about COD as it relates to BF3.

My only advice for MP players: stop, look, listen. Do that and your gaming experience with BF3 will be so much improved.

Single Player:

3/5 Stars

Keep in mind that I haven't finished the SP campaign as of this writing. The SP is visually and intensly amazing. But I don't find myself anticipating getting home and loading that game to play the campaign. Batman: Arkham City and Assassins Creed were games that made me rush to finish whatever I was doing to get back to the story. What BF3 lacks in story, however, it MORE than makes up for in shear battle intensity. Again, it's a battle simulator and on that note it succeeds. Yes, it's lost the destructability and flexibility of BC2, but it's still an amazing game to experience. But honestly, for the intensity and then throw in the social aspect, I find myself calling my buddy and saying "game on."

Conclusion:

This is a game with the highest level of MP replayability because every experience will be completely different and you can mix up your contribution to your squad. Enjoy the experience. If you're going to play, however, please work WITH you squad. Chat! Perhaps I should say the secret to success is "stop, look, listen, chat." Work with your squad and you will be the one pwning. I promise you. Look me up when you're on: Boogerwood. I love helping folks new to the experience and we usually end up being the top squad AND having a fun time. You're sure to laugh as well. It's truly a great gaming and entertainment experience.

Take care!

Boogerwood

buy this game and buy MW3 and this totally opaque MW3, and not played either on a campaign but in multiplayer this is from another world. you do not understand the bad reviews that some people do. this game is more tactical not like call of duty, you have to go with your team and really think about what you do. do not hesitate to buy 100% recommend it.

I actually held back on writing anything about Battlefield 3 until I had some more time with it. While Modern Warfare 3 forced me, out of frustration, to feel the need to set it aside, so far since the first few days it was out, and immediately set my disappointment down in words, I just soaked up Battlefield 3. It's not like Modern Warfare 3 and, for some people, that appears to make it not worth any real examination.

Why? Well, Battlefield 3 is not obvious. You aren't locked into a tiny map, particularly looking at Modern Warfare 3 in this case, that's basically a tarted up paintball arena, where you are expected to stack up lag amplified no scope kills 'til your "team" gets to 50. That's pretty straight-forward... a "no-brainer" as they say in creatively bankrupt boardroom meetings the country over. Now, while it used to be lots of fun to do that, the maps in Modern Warfare 3 have certain, ummmmmm, design competency issues when compared to Call of Duty 4 and Modern Warfare 2. To put it plainly, the maps suck. So, if the maps suck, and it's no longer fun to rinse and repeat Activision style, what do you do?

I didn't start out with Dice's games until Battlefield: Bad Company. While the single player campaign was enjoyable enough, the multiplayer was a bit overwhelming for me at the time. The maps were pretty big and it was total chaos. There were vehicles blowing stuff up all over the place and it was hard to get your bearings. At that time I was probably playing Call of Duty 4, quite a bit, and didn't really care to deal with the learning curve of Bad Company's multiplayer.

Then, Battlefield: Bad Company 2 came out and I enjoyed the single player campaign even more. While it was lacking the grandeur of Modern Warfare 2, it had a more intimate feel... You and a group of guys, against everybody, so that really warmed me more to the game. The mechanics felt a little better than before, and I was ready to extend the experience. At this point I really dipped my toe in the multiplayer waters. I probably played Modern Warfare 2 multiplayer more, but not by much. I was starting to get annoyed with some of the consistent lag deaths, where you are a good deal under cover, but still die, seeing you hanging out in the open in the opponent's kill-cam. But, the maps were good, and I still had fun. Now, with Bad Company 2 multiplayer, I started to get the difference. Team Deathmatch wasn't the strength of Bad Company 2. It was the objective based games that felt good. Rush seemed to be the focus, where you sequentially attack or defend stations. It takes a lot of coordination and can be tough to not get frustrated when you're just getting started and figuring out the way you can best play it. But, the Conquest game, where you try to take, and hold, different points on the map, felt like the sweet spot to me. It was easier to ease into the play-style, and still make a noticable impact. Now, I got it. This was a really great multiplayer experience.

So, what exactly is great about it? I'll explain as it pertains to Battlefield 3. In Dice's style of console multiplayer, you are placed in a squad of up to 4, on a team of 12. You have 4 distinct classes that impact the game in different ways. Each one has their place and may appeal to different types of players. The Assault Class gives players the ability to heal and revive other players (armed with assault rifles). The Engineer Class gives players the ability to effectively attack armor & aircraft, with rockets & mines, and a repair tool to fix damaged equipment (armed with carbines - theoretically meant for close to mid range combat). The Support Class gives players heavy weapons, the ability to resupply ammo, and plantable explosives (armed with light machine guns). Finally, the Recon Class offers sniper rifles, spotting equipment, and deployable spawn points. Each class' specialties contribute to the success of the squad and greater team. Where Modern Warfare is more focused on individual kill-counts, at least in the mode most people play, Battlefield is focused on the objective, and doing what it takes to hold them the longest. You always get points for kills, but you also get points for healing, reviving, resupplying, repairing, spotting, destroying, disabling, capturing, and defending. There are a lot of different ways to be successful at this game. The points are what really shows your effectiveness. In addition, the players may also commandeer tanks, jets, helicoptes, troop transports, and various types of jeeps and buggies.

All of this adds up to a big experience. The maps are large. The approaches are varied. The scale feels epic. Anything can happen in Battlefield 3. It's not just a variation of gun/grenade/knife kills, it's...

> Jumping from a roof and dropping a tank busting charge of C4 on the back of a Russian T-90.
> Bailing out of your flaming jet to land on an occupied capture point to retake it for your team.
> Shooting down a helicopter packed with an opposing team with an unguided RPG.
> Luring a tank onto 2 carefully placed land mines.
> Sneaking up behind a camping sniper who is griefing your team, several hundred yards into the outer edge of a map.
> Collapsing a building onto several players from the other team, crushing them in the wreckage.

The list goes on and on. This is what makes Battlefield so much fun... the pure variety. It always feels different, and "wow" moments happen all the time, and you'll think back, often, to cool things that happened in the recent games you played.

To top it all off, the sound is remarkable. It's so intense to hear a jet streak by overhead, and the "braaaaap" of the chain gun as it strafes the roadway, or the sound of an RPG as it whistles inches past your head. It's really a huge addition to the immersion that Battlefield provides.

Now, there are problems, and addressing them will make the game even better. My biggest problem is with the range of certain weapons and how you'll find players using shotguns and sub machine guns, all short range weapons, very effectively from long range. I don't think it's very realistic when you get outgunned by a shotgun, when you have an assault rifle and nearly a football field of spread between the two of you. I've also seen people with sniper rifles get outgunned by light machine guns, from long distance. Spawn killing can also be a problem, but it's still not as bad as Modern Warfare 3. In the end, by just being a little careful, these problems can be addressed in-game, by taking advantage of the large maps and the many ways to traverse them, but the developers can fix them pretty easily with an update. Oh, yeah. The building destructability isn't as good when compared to Bad Company 2, but it appears the first expansion pack will better feature it.

In the end, Battlefield may not be for everyone, because it takes effort to get the most out of it. The player needs to engage with the map, the strategy, the teamwork, and the depth. Modern Warfare 3 is about as obvious as you can get, which worked when the maps were good, and the mechanics/rules of the game weren't totally frustrating, but it doesn't fly this time around. Try out Battlefield. Give it a real chance, and see the multitude of different experiences you can have on most of the maps. It's not perfect, but it feels a lot more fresh than the alternative this time around.

Other aspects: Honestly, I've barely touched the single player game, and haven't opened up co-op at all. The single player didn't really compell me, at this point, to keep playing. It doesn't have the same character, or unique feeling, that the Bad Company games have, but it's such a minor element when compared to the multiplayer, where I've already spent way more time than I care to admit. EDIT: After finally finishing the single player campaing, I can make some more comments on it. The campaign has some great visuals, seeming to try to compete with the bombastic set-pieces in Modern Warfare, but I feel more and more like they're completely wasted. The developers design these beautiful levels, with great environments, that the player just rushes through for a few minutes, and that's it... you never see them again. It would be different if the campaign was so compelling that you wanted to experience it multiple times, but the story is so convoluted, particularly with the manner in which the hero catches up with the big-bad in New York, that one and done is all it's worth, save for the possible achievement poaching. Again, the visual effort seems sorely wasted. It should have all been dumped into extra multiplayer maps at this point. Now, if they had a story nearly as fun, and somewhat coherent, like in Bad Company 2, I would say bring the single player on. But, Battlefield 3 should have just let it go with this beautiful, but ultimately empty, shell of a campaign.

Overall, I'd give Battlefield 3, combining the good and the bad, where the fun of the multiplayer becomes a driving factor in the score, a 9 out of 10. But, I'm basically ignoring the single player element to arrive at this score because the multiplayer has so much bang for the buck.