FRONTPAGE Battlefield 3 Gameplay Review

[Overclockers.com]

​

Battlefield 3 (BF3) is a game that needs little introduction; developed by Digital Illusions CE (DICE) and published by Electronic Arts (EA),it is one of the most hyped and highly anticipated games released in 2011.

... Return to article to continue reading.

 

[Janus67]

My second article

I hope you guys like it! Let me know what you all think!

 

[hokiealumnus]

IIRC, this is the first game review since we've moved to the new frontpage over two years (I think) ago now. Excellent review Janus!

 

[Janus67]

First time for everything!

If enough people like the writing (and feel that it fits) I would be happy to write more game reviews, although I'm not an expert in every game/genre I feel I can give a game a fair shake after doing a bit of research. Thanks again for your help Hokie!

 

[Mr Alpha]

I've seen a lot of people complaining about too many people. I just don't get that. On those big maps with 5 flags 64 players feel like a bare minimum. With 32 players the whole thing becomes silly, with people constantly running circles around each other grabbing flags behind each others backs.

Otherwise great review.

 

[Janus67]

Thank you for your feedback.

My reasoning is that there were (arguably) only a couple maps that were big enough to hold 64 players. If they want that many players to fit onto a map they should have more than 4-5 flags - just think that means to win (by controlling 3/5 flags in order to make the opponent's tickets go down automatically) you can have 10-11 people at each flag defending (assuming you have a team of people working together and not almost everyone running around like chickens with their heads cut off). And rush is near-impossible to play as an attacker with 64 players, and 32 can be difficult enough when you only have to defend two points.

 

[SteveLord]

Great review indeed. The visual aids from previous BF games were a great addition.

 

[MIAHALLEN]

Thanks for taking the time Janus
I've enjoyed playing with you a few sessions and look forward to more (even though you probably don't )

 

[Janus67]

Nope, I had a great time playing with you Miah! The stupid rubberbanding is limiting my playtime, but if I see you online tonight I'll hop on with you guys!

 

[Mr Alpha]

Thank you for your feedback.

My reasoning is that there were (arguably) only a couple maps that were big enough to hold 64 players. If they want that many players to fit onto a map they should have more than 4-5 flags - just think that means to win (by controlling 3/5 flags in order to make the opponent's tickets go down automatically) you can have 10-11 people at each flag defending (assuming you have a team of people working together and not almost everyone running around like chickens with their heads cut off). And rush is near-impossible to play as an attacker with 64 players, and 32 can be difficult enough when you only have to defend two points.

Well, I agree that 64 player rush is insane. The two problems are that the numbers of vehicles don't increase from from 32 so the attacker can't bring enough firepower to bear, and the coordination problem where you need to get enough of the 32 players on the attacking team to attack at once.

But 32 players in rush is barely enough. And that is even after one of the mcom stations have been blown up where you have 16 vs 16 on one point. But with 5 flags and both teams attacking and defending you generally end up with simply with squad on squad battles at the flags most of the time.

Now, true, there are some maps that don't scale to 64 players, like Metro or Seine Crossing.

 

[pwnmachine]

Nice review Janus, I look forward to reading more

 

[spiritedandy]

Thanx for reveiw very good indeed all taken onboard