Review

Battlefield 3 review: Pure multiplayer beauty

Battlefield 3. A lot is riding on the release of this one game this year, and whether it will really be a true opponent to the long running Call of Duty series. I’ve played a lot of Call of Duty, and I’ve played a lot of Battlefield as well, so I was really excited to get my hands on the game and see just how good, or bad, Battlefield 3 really is. Will it be better than Modern Warfare 2, or even 3?

Now for future reference I played this game on Xbox 360, as my PC is simply not powerful enough to run the game with reasonable graphics. That said, I was astounded by the graphical quality of Battlefield 3 after I installed the high-resolution texture package, even on a relatively old console like the Xbox 360.

The lighting used in this game is simply beautiful. Objects, scenery, people; everything simply pops and shines with the fantastic lighting engine used in the game. Shadows are really good, dark scenes look fantastic, bright desert environments are highly detailed and even faces and guns look outstanding. The textures and fidelity of the scenery helps as well, but I truly believe the lighting engine is out of this world.

Of course, this is all thanks to the brand new engine used in Battlefield 3: Frostbite 2. I loved the destructibility that was present in Bad Company 2, and to a degree this is back in Battlefield 3. While it’s not as destructible in singleplayer, I think this is made up for by stunning visuals that match, and then outstep what I regarded as the best looking game of this year: Crysis 2. You definitely won’t be disappointed in the graphics department with what DICE have concocted in BF3.

On to the actual gameplay, and first off I tried the single-player campaign. There is some story going on here that I don’t really want to rehash, but it’s not particularly good as you would expect from a multi-player focused game. It’s not bad, and I am glad there is a story, but it’s pretty clichéd with the whole “terrorist/WMD threat” type scenario.

Despite this, on the whole I found the campaign to be enjoyable. When I say it’s enjoyable, that’s due to both the fantastic gunplay and the variety of tasks you have to complete. There is a wide variety of guns to play around with, all that act and feel different to one another which give you a sense that you are actually using different weapons. They sound great too, which is always a bonus.

It’s the difference in tasks, however, that I enjoyed more out of the two great components. In one seen you might be defeating a sniper on foot and through buildings, the next you might be driving tanks in an open environment, followed by a stealth scenario. It keeps the campaign flowing and you on your toes as you progress, along with preventing boredom from repetitive tasks. You have to try it out to see what I mean.

I played through on hard, which is hard, and it took around 8 ½ hours to complete with numerous scene failures of mine; I reckon it’s easily doable in 7, however, as long as you play on an easier difficulty level. It’s too short, damn it. I wanted more when I got to the end, which was the same feeling after I finished Modern Warfare 2. The campaign was intense, just too damn short. Please, first-person shooter developers, make your campaigns at least 10 hours.

Unfortunately there is one other area I have to complain about, and that’s the bugs. I downloaded a whopping 167 MB day-one patch as soon as I put in the disc, but even that didn’t fix everything. At first I couldn’t even play the campaign and I spent a frustrating hour trying to work it out. One I achieved success I still found occasional out-of-sync audio in the campaign, weird collision things like NPCs walking through walls and even flying bodies. Oh, and there was also some noticeable framerate issues at specific points in the game, no doubt due to the amazing graphics engine taking its toll.

A final mention before I move on to multiplayer has to be to the sound. I have a surround-sound setup, and I was immersed in warfare as quickly as the first scene. I heard bullets flying from one speaker to the next, earthquakes that rock the subwoofer, people shouting from all directions and a dramatic orchestral score where appropriate. Needless to say I thought the sound was very, very good in Battlefield 3.

The singleplayer I generally found to be good, but the multiplayer is where Battlefield 3 really shines. You start off with basic weapons (depending on your team) in four classes. As you use each different class for different uses (eg. the engineer class has a rocket launcher; medics can revive people) they level up, rewarding you with new guns and equipment.

The levelling up doesn’t stop there. You also level up your main level to gain new ranks and dog tags to show off your rank; you level up weapons and equipment to gain new attachments and modifications to the weapons. It seems like every match you are unlocking something new, like a holographic sight for your SCAR-H or a silenced pistol. How far you level up weapons depends on how much you use them, which is a great system.

Having so much levelling can get confusing, especially as you start with different weapons per team, but when you unlock weapons you can use them on both teams. It’s also initially unclear what exactly you need to do to get weapon mods, but again you eventually figure it out. As you don’t get a manual in the box and most people won’t read the online version, I think DICE should have incorporated basic in-game instructions for newcomers to multiplayer.

What I found particularly awesome about Battlefield 3’s multiplayer is that you can switch classes, change guns in your class and even add modifications to your guns while playing a match. When you die you are presented with the option to do this, and depending on the match type you can choose where you spawn: again, an addition over Call of Duty that I really like. Oddly you can’t modify classes or exit the game between matches, but this isn’t a killer.

When it comes to match types, they are as follows. Team Deathmatch is your basic team play, with teams of 12 pitching against eachother for the most kills. Inside these teams are squads of 4, which can consist of your friends or random players, and are highlighted on the map. Conquest makes use of these squads as you attempt to capture various locations on the map. In this mode, you can spawn directly to your squad-mates and you really need to use tactics to avoid campers and things like that.

Rush is a bomb-type game where one side attempts to destroy the others control panels, while advancing up the map; there is also a Squad Rush where instead of 12 v 12 you play 4 v 4 in intense and shorter battles. Finally, there is Squad Deathmatch which pitches four teams of four against eachother and is perhaps my favourite game-type.

Unlike the Call of Duty series where there are some terrible gametypes like Sabotage, I found all of the Battlefield 3 types to be fun once you get the hang of how they work. I thought initially I might be disappointed by the small selection of game modes but the opposite ended up being the case.

As I kept playing Battlefield 3’s multiplayer and kept getting addicted, the one thing that struck me as being the major attraction are the huge, destructible maps. Where Call of Duty feels like you’re playing in confined scenarios, Battlefield 3 has you playing in expansive war zones that give you the sense you are in a real battle rather than a small replication.

What’s even better is that if a player is annoying you, continually sniping from a building or something along those lines, simply fire a rocket launcher into the building and watch the walls crumble, revealing your enemy. This is really more like what a war would be: you can’t expect to hide behind a wall or in a tower without the chance of it getting blown up. Bad Company 2 used destruction to great effect and Battlefield 3 again makes fantastic use of a great engine to provide dynamic, gigantic maps.

Along with multiplayer you do get a co-op “campaign” of sorts, which uses some environments from multiplayer maps and the campaign to deliver short missions you can play with a friend. It’s not a fully-fledged storyline, but it does deliver some satisfaction and if you play it enough you unlock some guns to use in the standard multiplayer.

If someone asked “would you like to play Call of Duty: Black Ops or Battlefield 3?” I would hands down choose the latter. As it stands right now, Battlefield 3 is so much better than Call of Duty. It feels more like a war should feel like and the levelling dynamics are just top-notch. Singleplayer is good, if not a bit short; co-op is included if you like; but again it’s the multiplayer that will keep you coming back for more.

Modern Warfare 3 has yet to come out, and in all honesty I don’t think it will be better than Battlefield 3, so as it stands right now this game is the multiplayer experience everyone should be having.

Thanks to BF3blog for the images. These are real, in-game screenshots that I couldn't take because I don't have a capture card. I'm working on getting one for the future though.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

This week's highlights in new game releases: Oct. 31-Nov. 6

Next Story

Giveaway: Sony Ericsson Xperia ray (winner announced)

67 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

DerpDerp said,
You reviewed the 360 version? And Neowin put it on the main page? Pathetic. Grow up.

I'm with you here, having played it on my Mac, this is somewhere where my 360 can't travel to.
The graphics are insane and you feel how it was coded FOR the PC platform and then ported to the consoles.

It's butter with special effects!

How can you leave that by side and review the 360 version?
Then again, better this than nothing, so I guess big thanks anyways, cause apart from the graphics the general feel should be similar.

GS:mac

camperfield, pronefield, searchfield, whatever you call it... keep on failing so hard in single player campaign and the multiplayer just get better graphics.... want to beat COD? not this year neither maybe medal of honor 2 next year....

Wiked game, best game I've played since the BF 1942 etc games. They've hit their roots with BF3 all while engaging new ideas, love it!

One question. Anyone else kinda dismayed that Hardcore Mode isn't selectable in Quick Match like it was in BC2 ? And the fact I went into it with my brother and he could see kill cams and I could for the first three deaths, but not after ... !!!

They had some trouble at launch (what online game doesn't anyway) but since friday, it's all good. They were so many people playing yesterday on the PC version that i coudn't even join a game with my friend in a Party because all the server where full or only had 1 spot left. I ended up playing against him LOL!

I played Caspian Border for the first time last night... and WOW. I literally spent 2 mins looking up at the sky and watching fighter jets take each other out. So far, I am very impressed with BF3! I had some lag issues, but my internet setup is not ideal right now (basement on WiFi).

And knife kills are awesome

What makes it so much fun for me is the scale. It actually feels like I'm in a war with vehicles zooming by and people firing rocket launchers to shoot down helicopters or jets. The lighting really adds to the realism. Some of the maps that take place during the night are simply breathtaking. I can't wait for the Back to Karkand expansion pack. I've been dreaming of what Gulf of Oman would look like in the Frostbite engine since the release of Bad Company 1.

Anaron said,
What makes it so much fun for me is the scale. It actually feels like I'm in a war with vehicles zooming by and people firing rocket launchers to shoot down helicopters or jets. The lighting really adds to the realism. Some of the maps that take place during the night are simply breathtaking. I can't wait for the Back to Karkand expansion pack. I've been dreaming of what Gulf of Oman would look like in the Frostbite engine since the release of Bad Company 1.

The Back to Karkand Map Pack is out, it's included in the Limited Edition.

neo158 said,

The Back to Karkand Map Pack is out, it's included in the Limited Edition.
Pretty sure its not. It's just a code you enter on the PS3 version which will automatically unlock once the DLC is released.

neo158 said,

The Back to Karkand Map Pack is out, it's included in the Limited Edition.

It isn't out yet because the maps in it are new as well as separate from the launch maps. Owners of the limited edition are entitled to it for free and others will have to pay $10 when it's out in December.

LaP said,
BF3 >>>>>>>>>> COD MW3

Just stop it. I'm tired of people trying to compare these games. Battlefield is about teamwork and working with your squad to achieve an objective. COD is about just running and gunning. Yes, they have similar overlap in a lot of areas, but they are a completely different experience. If you have a good group of buddies, grab Battlefield and play together. If you just want to shoot some guys alone, grab Call of Duty. I'll be grabbing them both.

If you want to just shoot some guys, you can play all the other CoDs for that matter. Nothing about MW3 looks impressive to me, in fact some of the gameplay videos I saw looked rather poor with the guy jumping around like as if the game was a joke... That's just weak!

dead.cell said,
If you want to just shoot some guys, you can play all the other CoDs for that matter. Nothing about MW3 looks impressive to me, in fact some of the gameplay videos I saw looked rather poor with the guy jumping around like as if the game was a joke... That's just weak!

single player campaign its still crap in battlefield compared to modern warfare... multiplayer the game as whole its a camping paradise its even worse than halo and CS

eilegz said,
single player campaign its still crap in battlefield compared to modern warfare... multiplayer the game as whole its a camping paradise its even worse than halo and CS

If you can't find your way around campers, you're doing it wrong. And I don't speak for just Battlefield, but FPS games in general.

I spent all weekend with this game and I can proudly say that the campaign is probably one of the worst I've ever played. The story is boring, the game is so scripted that you randomly die if you try to deviate, and there's bugs everywhere. It was just awful.

However, the multiplayer is much better, but it too still suffers from bugs and annoyances. Overall, BF 3 is superbly fun when its not breaking and I'll be playing multiplayer for a while to come.

Chrono951 said,
I spent all weekend with this game and I can proudly say that the campaign is probably one of the worst I've ever played. The story is boring, the game is so scripted that you randomly die if you try to deviate, and there's bugs everywhere. It was just awful.

However, the multiplayer is much better, but it too still suffers from bugs and annoyances. Overall, BF 3 is superbly fun when its not breaking and I'll be playing multiplayer for a while to come.

Proudly? LOL. I enjoy the campaign so far I'm not bored at all, and scripted? Well, MOST games, including the biggest selling one, are scripted quite heavily, as it keeps the action flowing. I have no problem with it. It's like an interactive movie

Chrono951 said,
I spent all weekend with this game and I can proudly say that the campaign is probably one of the worst I've ever played. The story is boring, the game is so scripted that you randomly die if you try to deviate, and there's bugs everywhere. It was just awful.

However, the multiplayer is much better, but it too still suffers from bugs and annoyances. Overall, BF 3 is superbly fun when its not breaking and I'll be playing multiplayer for a while to come.

Never had one single bug in the campaign, although yeah it is scripted, but I see it as an extended tutorial, the real fun is online, but due to my inexperience I feel I'll get slaughtered without some practice

burnsflipper said,
Never had one single bug in the campaign, although yeah it is scripted, but I see it as an extended tutorial, the real fun is online, but due to my inexperience I feel I'll get slaughtered without some practice

One of the biggest problems is that the campaign does nothing to actually prep you for multi. Online is all about freedom, teamwork, and improv. You learn nothing about that from campaign. You can't use most of the vehicles, you can't have a class or even most of the items (med packs, etc), you can't work with your squad (they just leave you behind), and you just charge down the linear path.

As far as scripted, probably a good 75% of my deaths were random. At one point you are taking cover from an enemy jet and I died 3 times while taking cover right next to my allies. No red screen, no hits to my body, nothing. Just death. Another time I was on a roof being shot by a sniper. If you don't do exactly what the game tells you, at exactly the time it wants you to, you will die. I died 2 times because my allies pushed me out of cover. Another 2 times because I moved up too early. Another 2 times because I didn't move up fast enough.

Lets not forget the checkpoint I got where an enemy would spawn right behind me and riddle me with bullets as soon as I spawned. The game entered an infinite loop of spawn - die - load - spawn for 10 minutes. Finally the enemy glitched and I was able to move on.

I can go on and on with examples of the problems I had during the campaign. Just look at any review and you'll see they encountered many of the same issues. It just a mess.

Chrono951 said,

One of the biggest problems is that the campaign does nothing to actually prep you for multi. Online is all about freedom, teamwork, and improv. You learn nothing about that from campaign. You can't use most of the vehicles, you can't have a class or even most of the items (med packs, etc), you can't work with your squad (they just leave you behind), and you just charge down the linear path.

As far as scripted, probably a good 75% of my deaths were random. At one point you are taking cover from an enemy jet and I died 3 times while taking cover right next to my allies. No red screen, no hits to my body, nothing. Just death. Another time I was on a roof being shot by a sniper. If you don't do exactly what the game tells you, at exactly the time it wants you to, you will die. I died 2 times because my allies pushed me out of cover. Another 2 times because I moved up too early. Another 2 times because I didn't move up fast enough.

Lets not forget the checkpoint I got where an enemy would spawn right behind me and riddle me with bullets as soon as I spawned. The game entered an infinite loop of spawn - die - load - spawn for 10 minutes. Finally the enemy glitched and I was able to move on.

I can go on and on with examples of the problems I had during the campaign. Just look at any review and you'll see they encountered many of the same issues. It just a mess.

Sounds to me like you're just rubbish at FPS games I never had half the issues you're complaining about And I AM rubbish at them! hah (I'm kidding about your skill level ... I have no idea obviously).

Chrono951 said,

...

The bug that annoyed me the most was on the level where you are the sniper covering the marines going after a guy in a building. there is a part where you have to switch buildings, in the process you end up in a hallway and are suppose to sneak up and knife a guy. if you get to close to a wall, you instantly die. No idea why, maybe a mob on the other side?

Also had a few times where the game freezes while saving.

I don't get it ... why does there have to be a high res pack? The 'high res' texture screens and videos look like the normal PS3 version.

Never mind. Just did some research. It makes it the same res as the PS3 one The PS3 doesn't have a hard drive less option. The Xbox does. Which means, you couldn't run BF3 in high res on an Xbox without a hard drive. So they did it as optional. Considering the size of it, maybe it didn't fit on a DVD, which are tiny. Whereas it comes as standard on the PS3's Bluray disc. Ah well. At least I found out what it was all about Looks CRAP without the pack installed!

I had this preordered for the PC. Amazon has let me down as I STILL don't have it. I hope it's there when I get home tonight!

Bought the PC version. I was soo excited before it came out and it didnt disappoint. I was really chuffed with the MP soo much so i havent touched the SP yet. Crazily addictive and i really do feel like im at war sometimes. Its not until the round finishes n your like shiiit that was intense!

Superb game

I liked bad company 2 but I will buy modern warfare 3 this year because I don't have spare money to upgrade my computer. Beside the new horde mode and the point streak system sound great.

PS3 user here and was slightly underwhelmed by the multiplayer at first, although it does take some getting used to so i am now starting to enjoy it more. I am a massive COD fan and as far as realism goes this wins hands down, however... for me personally realism isn't the be all of games and i think i do have more fun playing Black Ops...with Goldeneye released tomorrow and MW3 next week i'm not sure how much i'll play Battlefield.

Uplift said,
PS3 user here and was slightly underwhelmed by the multiplayer at first, although it does take some getting used to so i am now starting to enjoy it more. I am a massive COD fan and as far as realism goes this wins hands down, however... for me personally realism isn't the be all of games and i think i do have more fun playing Black Ops...with Goldeneye released tomorrow and MW3 next week i'm not sure how much i'll play Battlefield.

MW and BF are different styles of play. Personally, I think BF style of play is far more involved in winning as a team. MW is more of a personal glorification game. I levelled up to 66 on MW2 and got bored. I'm still not bored of Battlefield Bad Company 2 ... and now I have BF3, I'm happy with the knowledge that I'll probably never get bored of it either. I will buy MW3 for the story campaign, but I will barely even bother with multiplayer.

Tekkerson said,

Name on BF3?


I'm not online this weekend, but go ahead and add me:
Glassed_Silver

send me a PM or email with your nickname, so I know you'll add me, cause I only accept requests from people I hang with somewhere.

GS:mac

Edited by Glassed Silver, Nov 4 2011, 8:14am :

Can anyone of the editors add some thoughts to the review on the Battlelog system for PC?

I myself had my doubts it would be good, after using for a week, I find it is really useful. Yes, it has problems like connecting to servers, but the functionality it has is groundbreaking.

Setnom said,
Can anyone of the editors add some thoughts to the review on the Battlelog system for PC?

I myself had my doubts it would be good, after using for a week, I find it is really useful. Yes, it has problems like connecting to servers, but the functionality it has is groundbreaking.

Agreed, I have two monitors and keep battlelog open on one and play on the other one.

Setnom said,
Yes, it has problems like connecting to servers, but the functionality it has is groundbreaking.

I also do like Battlelog, but the problem "like connecting to servers" is just too huge. Makes the whole game crap for me.

cleverclogs said,
Hmmm I'm half tempted, but I'm a big COD:MW fan, really, it's 'all' I play.

I loved Call of Duty series and played them all up to Modern Warfare 1. Never really got inside the Battlefield series and didn't see much point trying them.

Until BF3. I have to admit I've been in the wrong because I'm having so much more fun than I ever had in CoD. I've probably played BF3 more than any of the CoD's I own. That's how much more fun I have in multiplayer. So if you can get it without breaking your budget, I suggest it. At least try to try it at a friend if you know anyone with it. Totally worth it.

cleverclogs said,
Would an AMD Radeon 6870 run it decently at 1920x1200 I wonder I wonder if they'll release a demo...

My 6950 runs 1920x1200 on Ultra with barely any breathing room. It hits 50 fps from time to time, but it sticks around the 30-40 range typically.

Zkal said,
I've probably played BF3 more than any of the CoD's I own.

After only a few days after release? It seems you never really liked CoD

woudn't call it multiplayer beauty. it lacks so many basic multiplayer features.
- no voip
- no after game chat lobby
- poor list of gamers by tab (no ping, type of soldier icon and squad letter)
- unbelievable lags even with 1ms latency, because of poorly written code
- half games won't appear in battlelog reports
- no wait for free slot option

coth said,

- no voip
- no after game chat lobby
- poor list of gamers by tab (no ping, type of soldier icon and squad letter)
- unbelievable lags even with 1ms latency, because of poorly written code
- half games won't appear in battlelog reports
- no wait for free slot option

All your points are typical coming from a consolenoob.
This game has been made for the PC and PC doesn't need all this and there is no lagg on the PC version because of dedicated servers etc.
Who wants VOIP ingame anyway, to much screaming kids.

If you wanna play serious , get friends to play and get on your own ventrilo/teamspeak server.

etc etc etc console blabla crap.

Yinchie said,

All your points are typical coming from a consolenoob.
This game has been made for the PC and PC doesn't need all this and there is no lagg on the PC version because of dedicated servers etc.
Who wants VOIP ingame anyway, to much screaming kids.

If you wanna play serious , get friends to play and get on your own ventrilo/teamspeak server.

etc etc etc console blabla crap.

I play on PC and there's loads of servers with rubberbanding (and I'm only joining servers under <100).
VOIP would be excellent for squad play.
It'll be good to be able to wait to join a server if you have a friend or something in it (infact, it'd be good if battlelog showed all servers instead of showing the fixed amount that there is right now).
I would definitely like to know what sort of kits people are playing (what we're on a team full of assaults and recon but it's a tank map?! needs moar engineers)

coth said,
woudn't call it multiplayer beauty. it lacks so many basic multiplayer features.
- no voip
- no after game chat lobby

- There is in-game chat with randoms (it could be squad only) in fact I can see the VOIP setting in the pause menu under Squad & Team... it's set to Squad by default
- How is no after game chat lobby a "basic multiplayer feature"? I thought the actual gameplay was the highlight of MP, not chatting with people after a game

Also, I didn't experience "unbelievable" lag, it was quite fine here on my end

Yinchie said,

All your points are typical coming from a consolenoob.
This game has been made for the PC and PC doesn't need all this and there is no lagg on the PC version because of dedicated servers etc.
Who wants VOIP ingame anyway, to much screaming kids.

If you wanna play serious , get friends to play and get on your own ventrilo/teamspeak server.

etc etc etc console blabla crap.


Never played consoles. And never had a one. Playing PC only for over 15 years since mid 1990's.
There are lags pretty much everywhere. Some server even completely unplayable. And that is not because they are poorly connected to inet. That's because of server game software.

With no VoIP it's indeed becoming kids-consolenoob. Everyone just runs around the map without any real strategy. And no one will tell that there is an enemy behind you, even seeing it. You need to play Quake Wars or to go Moscow Metro (LU rejected once to build mobile network because of strong believe that people will annoy each other). They both well proved that having access to voice services doesn't mean everyone will scream all around.

Type of soldier icon is also highly important to strategy. You should know what kind of soldier your team lacks.

PaulCabby said,
infact, it'd be good if battlelog showed all servers instead of showing the fixed amount that there is right now).

well, there are thousands of servers. there is ajax that gives you an ability to see little bit more servers. but you will never scroll to the end if it will be infinite.

that's why you have filters. you can even enter full or part of name of server (the only of two things better than steam, second is speed of origin servers. everything else worse). and it will remember it.

Scorpus said,

- There is in-game chat with randoms (it could be squad only) in fact I can see the VOIP setting in the pause menu under Squad & Team... it's set to Squad by default
- How is no after game chat lobby a "basic multiplayer feature"? I thought the actual gameplay was the highlight of MP, not chatting with people after a game

Also, I didn't experience "unbelievable" lag, it was quite fine here on my end


May be you are on console, but there is no any VoIP in PC version. But at least squad VoIP would be good and a HUGE improvement to gameplay..
But all three-way VoIP like in Quake Wars would be even much batter. You have three binds in there - one os to speak your squad, second is to speak your team and third is to speak all player.

There are 45 seconds after game when you can check out your awards, unlocks etc. Chat during that time would be good to discuss ended game and what to do on next, what to fix in strategy.

coth said,
- poor list of gamers by tab (no ping, type of soldier icon and squad letter)
- unbelievable lags even with 1ms latency, because of poorly written code

I haven't played the game, but I am just wondering how you know you have 1ms latency when you also complain that the game doesn't give you that in. By the way 1ms ping is almost impossible over any internet connection, best I have seen is about 4-5ms pinging over the internet, and that was using dedicated fiber.

Also, lag really has nothing to do with latency. Consistently high latency will make the game slow or unplayable. When then game freezes for a second or two and then resumes that means someone had an interruption in their internet connection. Problems like that can only be detected over long periods of testing.

coth said,

Type of soldier icon is also highly important to strategy. You should know what kind of soldier your team lacks.

Most of the time, I can't even see what classes are in my own squad. Everyone appears as suppport.

coth said,

May be you are on console, but there is no any VoIP in PC version. But at least squad VoIP would be good and a HUGE improvement to gameplay..
But all three-way VoIP like in Quake Wars would be even much batter. You have three binds in there - one os to speak your squad, second is to speak your team and third is to speak all player.

There are 45 seconds after game when you can check out your awards, unlocks etc. Chat during that time would be good to discuss ended game and what to do on next, what to fix in strategy.

Sounds like you just need to go back to Quake Wars to be satisfied. You need to remember that not everybody wants to follow others around and act like a team. In fact, it would be boring if everybody were to stick together. It's a hell of a lot more fun running solo and doing the work on your own. And I'm seriously relieved that there is no team speak. The last thing we need is a bunch of stupid kids singing on the mic and/or people raging when they die or somebody doesn't help them.

Lastly, I've had no problems with any serious lag. Sure there is an occasional blip, but that happens in every game, PC or console. So you shouldn't be so quick to brush the problem off on "bad software" because that's complete non-sense.

How about less complaining and more enjoying the game? It is a game afterall...

sphbecker said,

I haven't played the game, but I am just wondering how you know you have 1ms latency when you also complain that the game doesn't give you that in. By the way 1ms ping is almost impossible over any internet connection, best I have seen is about 4-5ms pinging over the internet, and that was using dedicated fiber.

Also, lag really has nothing to do with latency. Consistently high latency will make the game slow or unplayable. When then game freezes for a second or two and then resumes that means someone had an interruption in their internet connection. Problems like that can only be detected over long periods of testing.


Most ISP (including mine, Beeline) utilize fiber here with PPTP DualAccess or L2TP DualAccess. Buildings connected by fiber with ethernet as user backend. DualAccess is Russian PPTP and L2TP extension allowing to concurrent WAN and MAN/LAN connection. I have 50mbit unlim with no caps WAN and 100mbit MAN connection. Beeline is second in Moscow, largest in Russia and 6th larget telecommunication company in the World. Unfortunately they don't have full city peering on MAN, like qwerty and NetbyNet. But they have city divided into zones with several districts within zones. So peering is with several district. Anyway main services - game servers, torrent retracker, tv etc etc can be accessed from all over the city. Additionally i have 3 mbit backup channel MTS ADSL, which is largest ISP in Moscow. It's cheap, reliable with 24/7 and no disconnect since 5 years and offers free good wifi router with free FON support. There i have 20-25ms to Moscow servers.

Back to Beeline (former Corbina). Ping to server is showed in battlelog matchmaker. Battlelog shows 1ms, VisualRoute says 0.8ms in average.
http://s017.radikal.ru/i443/1110/fe/baf35a21765c.png
http://battletracker.com/bf3server/85.21.79.130:25201/

Lags has nothing to do with latency. That's for sure. That's server freezes. No matter where i connect - Russian official EA servers, 4netplayers.de or anything else. And all people on those servers where i have been complains on significant lags every few seconds. That's server software.

Astra.Xtreme said,
Sounds like you just need to go back to Quake Wars to be satisfied. You need to remember that not everybody wants to follow others around and act like a team. In fact, it would be boring if everybody were to stick together. It's a hell of a lot more fun running solo and doing the work on your own.

To play alone there is a deathmatch. Rush and Conquest could be won only by team.

''Modern Warfare 3 has yet to come out, and in all honesty I don't think it will be better than Battlefield 3, so as it stands right now this game is the multiplayer experience everyone should be having.''

Noted and agreed
Now excuse me, I gotta capture a flag in Conquest.

Chicane-UK said,
I need to get it for the PC. I'm massively underwhelmed on the PS3 version!

Do it, you won't be disappointed. Whatever your feelings about Origin, Battlefield 3 is the best game I've ever played on the PC this year. Caspian Border with 64 players makes a big difference compared to the console versions 24 player cap.

Off topic, has anyone read Battlefield 3: The Russian by Andy McNab yet?

Chicane-UK said,
I need to get it for the PC. I'm massively underwhelmed on the PS3 version!

Why do you think the PC version is better?
If you want to get the PC version, I'd say wait until they have fixed their major ****ups like endless "connecting..." and kicked out of the match after a few mins.
For me, it is unplayable right now.
Compare the reviews on Amazon, PC version gets much worser ratings. because people are upset about all the issues.

dodgetigger said,

Why do you think the PC version is better?
If you want to get the PC version, I'd say wait until they have fixed their major ****ups like endless "connecting..." and kicked out of the match after a few mins.
For me, it is unplayable right now.
Compare the reviews on Amazon, PC version gets much worser ratings. because people are upset about all the issues.

Try updating punkbuster manually, it worked for me.

neo158 said,

Caspian Border with 64 players makes a big difference compared to the console versions 24 player cap.


This is definately one of the things that sets it apart - not just from console, but from almost any other mp game out now. It does seem to get a bit laggy, but when it is not, 64 players on most of the maps is just outrageously good.