HIGH Exceptional multiplayer. 

LOW Lackluster campaign. Some slow progression.

WTF Staying up late during work nights to try and end on a win.

Within the storied history of multiplayer shooters, few contenders can carry the weight of something like DICE’s Battlefield. This long-running military series has been a major staple in the online space, offering large-scale battles across different settings ranging from World War I to the far-flung future. 

Over the last decade or so, players have experienced some highs (Battlefield 1) and lows (Battlefield 2042), but nothing has truly brought the series back to its peak. The best installments, Battlefield 3 and 4, seem like distant memories now, but over the last couple of weeks with Battlefield 6, I’ve walked away telling myself something I never thought I’d say — Holy shit, Battlefield is back. 

Developed by the newly-formed Battlefield Studios (comprised of developers DICE, Criterion Games, Motive Studios, and Ripple Effect Studios), Battlefield 6 is a first-person shooter comprised of two main game modes — a story-driven, single-player campaign and an online multiplayer suite. The latter is the obvious star of the show, with multiplayer being the bread and butter of any great Battlefield experience, but the campaign deserves mention. 

Being the first Battlefield campaign since 2018’s V (and the first non-episodic entry since 2013’s 4) I was surprised at its inclusion at all, given the series’ history as a multiplayer-first experience. Taking place between the years 2027-2028, players control a series of US Marines who are fighting a private army known as Pax Armata. Set across locales like Brooklyn, Cairo, and Tajikistan, gameplay in the single-player is largely linear. 

Most levels have players shooting enemies, running from one point to another, and ending each chapter on a major setpiece. Certain levels feature elements that shake things up, like giving light commands to AI squadmates — telling them to scout enemies ahead or to fire on a large group of hostiles. 

Overall, Battlefield 6’s campaign felt like a ‘best of’ collection comprised of various military shooter bits. There are dedicated sniper missions where players sneak around the perimeter of an area and take enemies out from afar, there are plenty of vehicle sections where players either drive large trucks or man turrets, and there are even some sections that play out in a neat night-vision mode focused entirely on stealth. Those who have fond memories of playing things like Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (2007) might get some enjoyment out of the campaign’s short length and ease of play. 

While the narrative itself is not the most interesting, the main reason to play is that it essentially serves as an extended tutorial to the mechanics. Things like squad commands, different weapon types, vehicles, and even the destructibility of certain levels all come into play when players take to the online modes. The offline adventure is a good way to ease into it, even if it’s not a dramatic extravaganza. 

The campaign is gorgeous in terms of presentation though, with Michael Bay-esque set pieces and Hollywood-level sound design coming together to create something cool. Playing with some decent headphones elevated this experience and added to the immersion. However, with all that said, the real meat of BF6 is the multiplayer. If the campaign was less than impressive, the chaos that comes from any given multiplayer match more than makes up for it.

Spread across several different modes, the main offerings in rotation are Conquest, Breakthrough, and Rush. All three revolve around a mix of defending and attacking certain objectives or sectors on the map. Up to 64 players across both teams can play in these modes, with each team being separated into groups of four called squads. 

From the jump, the gameplay loop is exceptional thanks to these large-scale battles, ensuring that no two matches are ever the same. The tension that comes from dealing with enemy snipers, constantly trying to revive fallen teammates, or using a sledgehammer to tear down walls and create new perches was all exciting. Most matches last between 30-40 minutes, and the hours flew by as that “one more game” feeling kept hitting.

While the gameplay structure of each mode is largely unchanged from prior BF titles, there are some smart tweaks to the formula and refinements that I can appreciate. The overly large, sprawling maps from 2042 are gone, replaced with smaller (yet still huge for an online shooter) arenas that feel more dense. Navigating these zones no longer feels like a drag, and the annoying weather events from the last installment are also gone. The experience has been refined down to its purest elements.

Also returning from prior BF games is the class system, with each offering different advantages and weapon specialties. I mostly ran with the assault class, which primarily uses assault rifles and has faster health regeneration thanks to an adrenaline shot. BF6 clearly labels which guns work best for each class, and leveling up is a straightforward affair. Killing with specific guns levels them up and unlocks slots for attachments, while raising the overall level of the player unlocks more weapons. There are also class-specific assignments that unlock gadgets and secondary items ranging from simple feats like getting kills with a shotgun, or something more specific like getting kills while on adrenaline. 

I like the progression here, as everything is telegraphed clearly, and I’m always working towards something — even bad matches that end in a loss feel like they get me closer to my overall goals. I do wish that leveling up were a bit faster, though — it does feel like a slight grind when it comes to reaching the next level, but it didn’t impact my enjoyment of multiplayer. 

At launch, there’s a lot to love, and I was especially surprised by how smooth the experience has been. I had no major connection issues to impede progress, and I was unaffected by long server queue wait times. Connectivity has been stable, and being able to squad up with friends via crossplay is nice.

Playing Battlefield 6, I was transported back to a time when I enjoyed online multiplayer. I hopped off the competitive shooter train a while ago, trading my regular Call of Duty sessions in for sports and racing titles. However, in the last couple of weeks, I’ve spent all my free time here, and as dangerous as this might be to a full-time student with a demanding full-time job, the quality of that time spent rests heavily on the fact that I’m going to stick with it after my review is complete. While the campaign might be little more than a glorified tutorial, this remains a war worth fighting.

Rating: 8.5  out of 10

Buy Battlefield 6 – PC – PS – XB 

Disclosures: This game is published by EA and developed by Battlefield Studios. It is available on PC, XBX/S, and PS5. This copy was obtained via publisher and was reviewed on PS5. Approximately 30 hours were spent across the single-player and multiplayer.

Parents: According to the ESRB, this game is rated M for Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, and Strong Language. According to the site: Battlefield 6 is rated M for Mature 17+ by the ESRB with Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, and Strong Language. Also includes Users Interact and In-Game Purchases. This is a first-person shooter in which players command a NATO squad against a private military faction during a war. Players engage in military missions, firefights, and battle mode with enemy soldiers/other players. Players use pistols, machine guns, sniper rifles, and explosives to kill enemies in frenetic combat. Battles are highlighted by blood-splatter effects, realistic gunfire, cries of pain, and large explosions. Players can perform stealth attacks on enemies, using knives to stab them from behind. One cutscene depicts a character getting his thumb cut off close-up. The word “f**k” appears in the game.

Colorblind Modes: Colorblind modes are present in the options menu.

Deaf and Hard of Hearing Gamers: There are plenty of visual cues during gameplay, in the form of markers and map icons. All of these can be adjusted in the menu. Subtitles are present and can be resized. As no audio cues are needed for gameplay, I’d say this is fully accessible.

Remappable Controls: The controls can be remapped.

The post Battlefield 6 Review appeared first on Gamecritics.com.

HIGH Portal seems like a game-changer in user-generated content.

LOW I kind of want to play something else now.

WTF This will probably be my favorite game of mid-2022.

It’s hard to put a finger on where competitive shooters are these days. While the variety out there is interesting, there’s just no way to know what’s going to stick. The rise of the battle royale subgenre with titles like Fortnite and Call of Duty: Warzone have been prominent lately, generating the most revenue and attention. This year, however, has seen the return of smaller-scale arena shooters harkening back to the PC’s earlier days with releases like Splitgate and the Halo Infinite. This then begs the question, does a large-scale experience like Battlefield 2042 have a place among these distinctly different styles of shooters?

The answer is a resounding yes, though there are a few caveats…

The latest in EA and DICE’s first-person shooter series comes off the lukewarm reception of 2018’s Battlefield V. Ditching the World War II trappings of that entry, 2042 takes players to the near future. Despite not having a single-player campaign, bits of story and lore about a conflict between the US and Russia make themselves present through gameplay. It’s all cliché and certainly feels like past Battlefield entries, meaning that I was never that invested in what the script was trying to say, and the attempts at storytelling fall flat. 

However, I ultimately don’t mind the lack of a strong campaign. To me, Battlefield is first and foremost about gameplay and multiplayer, so seeing DICE focus on those strengths was a great thing. 

Gameplay-wise, BF 2042 takes place across large maps where players engage in one of two main modes — Breakthrough and Conquest. Breakthrough involves one team trying to take over the other’s control points on a map. The defending team must try to maintain supremacy. Conquest has players from both teams trying to take over every control point on the map at the same time, competing with each other for entire sections. 

These modes are nothing new, but the moment-to-moment gameplay is still exciting. Shooting and mobility feel drastically improved as the devs have opted for a lighter feel that makes moving around much easier. In a way, it feels more accessible than past iterations, opting for something akin to modern arena shooters rather than a full-blown military simulator. I liked these changes, as it made navigating the gargantuan maps a bit more palatable. Sure, I’m not the best at most multiplayer games, but the shooting feeling as good as it did made it seem like I had a fighting chance.

Every map is gargantuan, feeling dense and as 120 players populate them. The lush vegetation in jungle-themed areas looks incredible, as do smaller details like the sand on a highway in the Middle East. Each location also has a different weather event, like an elaborate sandstorm that can completely obscure most of the action or a tornado that can sweep almost everything up in its path. While I do miss the amount of destruction present in a game like Battlefield 4 (in which players could level skyscrapers) I understand wanting to focus on something new and exciting like natural disasters, or even the spectacle of a giant rocket blasting off in the middle of a match.

While these elements are cool, they get old fast. They seem to follow a pattern every match and become less of a spectacle and more of an annoyance. I kept thinking to myself “Oh great, another tornado” as the warnings would pop up on the screen. I would have liked more variety in how these events played out and more ways they could incorporate into the gameplay.

Thankfully, the maps are large enough to avoid any undesirable elements. Players can drive tanks, jeeps, hovercrafts, jets and even regular civilian pickup trucks to get around. While the driving feels a bit floatier than I would like, it offers options for interesting strategies. Players can also summon them after earning enough points in a match, so being able to summon a tank while on the roof of a skyscraper becomes a viable strategy in the heat of battle.

However, the most meaningful change in the formula comes from the “specialist” system. Building upon the class system from past games, players select a character with a customizable loadout and special abilities. My personal favorite, codenamed “Sundance,” has a grappling hook and a glider that allows her to catch some air if she needs to bail from a helicopter or from the top of a building. Weapons can be customized either in the menu or in the middle of the match. Arguably my favorite feature, players are given a cross-shaped HUD that lets them completely change gun attachments whenever they want. It offers a large degree of freedom, which I like.

I enjoy playing Battlefield 2042. Several late nights were lost to playing with friends, wrecking tanks, losing matches, and cracking the absolute worst jokes ever to grace a headset. Unfortunately, the amount of enjoyment is undermined but how incomplete the package feels. There aren’t a lot of maps included and the matches soon start to feel the same.

BF‘s saving grace comes in the form of the Portal, a new mode that has more potential than the mainstays. Here, players can use elements from past DICE games like Battlefield 1942, Battlefield Bad Company 2, and Battlefield 3 to create their own maps and modes. It’s like a sandbox of sorts and completely shakes things up, not only for the series, but for large-scale shooters in general. I’m excited to see what players can come up with, and just being able to mix-and-match modern weapons and World War II-era vehicles is way more exciting than any other shooter out these days.

While the repetition and lack of content cooled my enthusiasm a bit, I am excited to see where DICE can take Battlefield 2042 from here — if current industry trends hold, I’m confident this will be a strong addition to my already-full shooter rotation after a few months of additions and updates.

Disclosures: This game is published by Electronic Arts and developed by DICE. It is available on PS4/5, XBO/X/S and PC. This copy of the game was obtained via publisher and reviewed on the PS5. Approximately 35 hours were spent in the multiplayer. There is no single-player

Parents: According to the ESRB this game is rated  M for Blood, Strong Language, Violence. The official description reads as follows: This is a first-person shooter in which players command a military squad caught in a fictional war between the US and Russia. Players engage in military missions and skirmishes against enemy forces. Players use pistols, machine guns, sniper rifles, and explosives to kill enemy soldiers in frenetic combat. Battle sequences are highlighted by blood-splatter effects, realistic gunfire, cries of pain, and explosions. During the course of the game, players can perform finishing attacks, using knives to stab and/or slit enemies’ throats at close range. The words “f**k” and “sh*t” are heard in the dialogue.

Colorblind Modes: There are colorblind modes available. 

Deaf & Hard of Hearing Gamers: Subtitles are available for certain cutscenes but not during actual gameplay. The minimap that is displayed during gameplay will show things like vehicles on the map, player movement if they are firing weapons and other large-scale events. However, even with those indicators, it’s not that helpful if players can’t hear what’s going on. This game is not fully accessible.

Remappable Controls: No the controls are not remappable but there are presets.

The post Battlefield 2042 Review appeared first on Gamecritics.com.

HIGH Watching a massive tower collapse in multiplayer.

LOW The uninspired, bland single-player campaign.

WTF Seriously, why do I have to launch this game from my browser?

As a franchise, Battlefield has always been a multiplayer-centric first-person shooter. This changed slightly when the Battlefield: Bad Company spin-offs were released, both of which contained entertaining and humorous story modes that actually felt like some effort was put into their writing. Battlefield 3 was a huge step back in this regard, and Battlefield 4 is no better.

The solo campaign is a formulaic military “epic” in which America fights (of course) China and (of course) Russia. Why they’re at war, I have no idea. There's some sort of rebellion in China against the current regime, and Russia somehow plays a role, but I started losing interest after the second mission. Honestly, the narrative is littered with so much yelling, so much jargon, and so many forced, melodramatic “emotional” scenes, that it's pointless to even attempt to follow along.

Each mission is standard cinematic fare found in games of this ilk. There are stages on ships, on-rails segments, urban warfare, timely escapes from submerged vehicles, a forced-stealth level, and shootouts on snow-covered mountains. Basically, anything the developers could think of to show off their shiny new physics engine is present.

These areas are generally fine in design, and many have plenty of places that can be explored or used to engage the enemy from a different angle. There's nothing absolutely awe-inspiring here, but they suit their purpose. The problem? The other squad members.

I entered a jet hangar with my team fully expecting it to be filled with Chinese soldiers (and it was) so I began “spotting” all that I could find with my camera, then gave the order for my squad to attack. They did, but it was a shameful performance.

None of them attempted to flank or find better vantage points, and they stopped firing when the “engage” meter stopped flashing. Of course, I couldn't tell them to start shooting again until the gauge refilled, so the combat became more hectic since every bad guy turned their sights on me in the interim.

Mechanical scenarios like this happen often, and they become even more frustrating when running to find more ammo or a safe place to recover since the squad immediately quits fighting and tags along. To be fair, there are instances when the friendly AI decides to be helpful and attacks without being given direct orders, but they're awful shots and I found it was easier to ignore them half the time.

The silver lining here is that the Frostbite 3 engine makes all of this, including the multiplayer, absolutely stunning to behold. I was spellbound by how water flowing from a drain pipe looked, or rain running down the characters faces. My jaw dropped when I a witnessed a skyscraper collapse. There's a fantastic amount of detail here, though it’s best experienced on a high-powered gaming PC.

As with the majority of the Battlefield entries, Battlefield 4 is truly intended to be played online with friends. DICE's brand of squad-based multiplayer is strategic, balanced, thrilling, and allows for more customization and creativity than most other games in the genre.

While all of this is still present, there are some problems. The biggest? Not much has changed from Battlefield 3. The classes (Assault, Engineer, Recon and Support) have been tweaked, but the only major additions are the new Obliteration mode, which has teams scrambling for a randomly placed bomb to blow up objectives, and the heavily advertised “Levelution” gameplay.

What Levelution means is that instead of the maps remaining static, most of them go through changes as a match progresses, or when players trigger an event like blowing up a dam, or toppling the aforementioned skyscraper. They do look nice, but they don't have much of an impact on how a session plays out.

Disappointingly, old issues remain. The large maps are an absolute bore to traverse when running between objectives, and most of the weapons and gadgets are locked in the beginning. It’s rewarding to gain experience points in order to unlock a snazzy gun, but there needs to be a wider selection available from the outset in order to keep it from feeling like too much of a chore.

Even so, riding around in tanks and jets while destroying the opposition is a predictably good time… When the game is working.

Patches are on the way, but servers are prone to crashes and are plagued with bugs. Most are minor, like missing textures, but a few ruin the action and should have been fixed before launch–one such killed me instantly by tossing me out of bounds right after I exited a helicopter. Worse, I had trouble a couple of times when queuing up to join a server and had to reload the game, and in another instance the experience I gained during a match wasn't saved.

Even if multiplayer wasn't buggy, Battlefield 4 would still only be a barely passable installment in all respects besides the snazzy graphics. EA and DICE played it safe by providing the same thing they did the last time around, with another phoned-in campaign and only minor alterations to the online. Methinks it's time for a change. Rating: 6 out of 10

Disclosures: This game was obtained via publisher and reviewed on the PC. Approximately 6 hours of play were devoted to the single-player mode, and the game was completed. 7 hours of play were spent in multiplayer modes.

Parents: According to the ESRB, this game contains blood and gore, intense violence, strong language. This is a violent, moderately bloody experience that is definitely not designed for kids, especially considering the crude language and trash talk used by many of the players in the multiplayer portion of the game.

Deaf & Hard of Hearing: I attempted to play it with the sound off, but it was incredibly difficult. There are visual cues that show where shots are coming from when hit, but not being able to hear the shots can cause some problems, especially during multiplayer. Granted, enemies are displayed in red on the mini-map, but only if they've been “marked” by allies or are firing their guns. It's doable to play the game without being able to hear it, but it makes it so much more challenging that it may not be worth it.

The post Battlefield 4 Review appeared first on Gamecritics.com.

HIGH Kamikaze jet kills versus infantry never get old.

LOW Someone stole a nuclear device! Again!

WTF Where is everybody?

How do you topple the giant at school who stole your style? "How indeed?" asks Battlefield 3 looking glumly across the lunchroom at that other, more popular gaming franchise.

At its core, Battlefield 3 is a multiplayer military shooter that, in this day and age, stands as "the other Call of Duty," like it or not. Battlefield may have the age and pedigree as a multiplayer game, but I think it's safe to say that Call of Duty is what most modern gamers think of when they want to fire up this sort of thing.

Surely, this put EA in a funny position when it came to making their new game stand out, and from the look of the single-player campaign, they surely pushed developer DICE to do Call of Duty one better in every aspect. In fact, the single-player campaign is so Call of Duty in its cinematic ambitions, I'm sure Activision was simply blushing when they got their hands on it. Let's not forget, too, how the billboards that preceded the game's launch flew up all over my Los Angeles screaming, "Above and Beyond the Call." Not content to be seen as "the other" military shooter, they went all out in making sure that it was better.

That said, comparing the two games is probably the best way to review them, as–let's be honest–there's not a whole lot that is truly innovative here, or in these types of games in general. I hope that statement doesn't surprise you. Say what you will about the genre's ever-evolving system of on-the-fly evolutions (or perks), the military FPS is not only long in the tooth, it's also built to provide the same experience from year to year–it's Madden for shooters. There's nothing wrong with that at the core, but it certainly makes it hard to try and look any deeper into the game than its newest engine technology.

As Richard said, and as most probably already know, Battlefield is all about its multiplayer. Like Call of Duty, Battlefield has been brought up-to-date with its own share of myriad perks and expansions that improve player abilities as they earn experience points in battle. Of course, what sets it apart from Call of Duty is the addition of vehicles to the combat. Does this spice things up in the game? Absolutely. With huge playing fields, destructible buildings for a tank to tear into, and plenty of air space in which to cruise around in a jet, the vehicles' additions give the game a lot more variety than your typical Call of Duty session. In fact, I'm willing to bet that Battlefield's variety and more nuanced gameplay made possible by said vehicles will amuse more fans over the long haul than Modern Warfare 3's insta-high, feed-bar-hitting multi experience.

Unfortunately, the "real" Battlefield experience is most likely lost to those who would play it on a console, as I did. 64 players in one battle (as you find on the PC) would be pretty astounding if you could get a great squad together of truly dedicated fans. The 24 player limit on consoles is fine for the smaller maps (though none are tiny) but on the larger maps, the lack of players can lead to feelings of searching for squirrely nomads in a ghost town. This is, in my opinion, the game's most notable shortcoming–well, aside from the lackluster single-player campaign.

Richard was right-on when he said that the single player leaves a fair amount to be desired. It's the standard military run-n'-gun with checkpoints, squad-mates, and yes, a shocking twist.

DICE's Frostbite 2 engine is commendably capable of realistic character models and realistic destructible environments, yet they aren't able to make the game transcend the "realistic shooter" norms. As I said before, there are plenty of intensely cinematic roller-coaster moments and QTEs aplenty-even some well-acted cinemas with serious emoting. What it all adds up to, though, is just a sum total of the limitations of what can be offered by realistic military shooters. Double crosses and nuclear devices shouldn't be boring, yet it's just such well-worn territory by now.

Herein lies the big, big problem with these sorts of games: they're no more "realistic" than anything else out there. They're great at replicating some shooting with actual real-life firearms, but hewing so close to these tropes leaves unfortunate devs nowhere to go.

Let's not forget, too, that as exciting as we want these situations to be, the real life events that inspire these recreations are never something that actual soldiers would like to go back to. Perhaps it's reaching to take some moral high ground when it comes to war simulators, but I tend to think it's a little more respectful to create games that allow for a healthy patina of the unreal. With that in mind, I think more adventurous and risky games would result. At the very least, the powers that be should limit us to one realistic military shooter every five years, so that new technologies can give us true upgrades to this sort of experience.

Of course, I probably would have enjoyed this game much more if I wasn't so god-awful at online shooters. Wait, should that have come as a disclaimer at the beginning of this review? The author smiles slyly… Rating: 6.0 out of 10.

Disclosures: This game was obtained via publisher and reviewed on the Xbox 360. Approximately 8 hours of play were devoted to single-player modes (completed 1 time on Hard Mode) and 6 hours of play in multiplayer modes.

The post Battlefield 3 Second Opinion appeared first on Gamecritics.com.

HIGH Driving a tank, running into an enemy tank, frantically trying to shoot each other, and then getting out and destroying both tanks with rockets.

LOW I have to launch the game through a web page? Is this 1998?

WTF OH MY GOD GUYS COME LOOK I'M FLYING THE HELICOPTER I'M SO COOL *crash*

A game being split between a dedicated single-player and multiplayer experience is not new. In fact, it's becoming the standard if the previews of Mass Effect 3 are any indication. The problem with this approach is that usually one side of the experience suffers at the expense of the other. As examples, Metroid Prime 2's multiplayer was infamously shoehorned in where it was clearly not needed, but the single-player was still good, if a little lackluster. The campaign in Halo 3 was woefully short and unsubstantial, but the multiplayer was top notch.

Battlefield 3 falls into Halo 3's multi-heavy camp, and thus it presents an interesting dilemma in game evaluation: here we halve two wildly different games in one package. One half is a linear, droning single-player campaign that fails to stand out in any real way. The other half is a massive multiplayer romp that, while not particularly innovative, is still a blast for anyone who enjoys team-based online first-person shooters (FPSs). Is it fair to evaluate both halves together as one game?

I think so. If a game is going to be packaged as one product, then it must be evaluated as one product.

The single-player game is, as I said, a linear slog. Just like countless others in its genre (Homefront, Call of Duty: Black Ops, etc.) the campaign is a simple point to point journey interspersed with shooting and explosions. There is little to say about it, other than when playing I was constantly questioning why it existed. Run to the objective marker, shoot the thing/things in my way, run to the next objective marker. Repeat step three until finished.

Honestly, Battlefield would be better served by a freely accessible set of tutorial missions instead of having this sort of single player mode. Being able to practice things like basic tactics, learning the differences between the classes, and above all else, grasping how to fly the helicopter would have been extremely welcome. Instead, I was forced to find a newb practice server and just stand around waiting until the helicopters and jets respawned.

In contrast, the multiplayer is exactly what one would expect, which is a good thing. Taking part in a 64-player game of Rush was a great time, even without any kind of tutorial I found myself picking up the nuances of the game within a reasonable period. I stuck primarily with the Engineer class (which should not be a surprise given my Team Fortress 2 habits) and sticking to my role of healing the tanks and blasting rockets every which way. It's clear that Battlefield 3's multiplayer was the focus during development, and in this regard I enjoyed myself without question, even with the twitchy helicopter.

The PC is obviously the ideal platform for Battlefield 3, as dedicated servers and support for such a large amount of players would be impossible on a console platform. However, while I had some great sessions once I got into a game, the process of finding a game is far more troublesome than it should be.

In order to do anything online, players must use the Battlelog, a web-based interface for joining games and maintaining a friends list. The Battlelog is a pain to use, as simple things like adding someone to my friends list, setting up voice chat, or even just browsing for a server are hidden within a mess of unnecessary pages. It's mind-boggling to me why they chose to do something like this instead of having a simpler in-game system to handle it, because in the age of sleek infrastructure systems like Steam and Battle.net, this kind of mess is totally inexcusable.

I enjoyed my time with Battlefield 3's multiplayer, and I wish my thoughts about the game could end there. Unfortunately it also tried to force a totally unnecessary single-player game on me, and the browser interface looks like it came straight out of the 90s. It's a shame that the developers couldn't realize which half of their game was the better one, since ditching the single-player in favor of ironing out the problems with multiplayer might have resulted in something truly epic. Rating: 7.0 out of 10.

Disclosures: This game was obtained via publisher and reviewed on the PC. Approximately 2 hours of play was devoted to single-player modes (not completed) and 5 hours of play in multiplayer modes.

Parents: According to the ESRB, this game contains blood, intense violence and strong language. The level of violence and cursing is about on par with what once could expect in an average war movie, so kids should probably be kept away.

Deaf & Hard of Hearing: You should be fine, mostly. The screen is rife with visual aids and audio isn't a major gameplay factor. However, if you try to play multiplayer in hardcore mode (where visual aids are at a minimum) you will likely have some problems since you'll be far more reliant on sound in that situation.

The post Battlefield 3 Review appeared first on Gamecritics.com.