Campaign Review
I wasn't really expecting a masterpiece from Battlefield 3's campaign. This isn't Half-Life, where the multiplayer is tacked on and the focus is on crafting a good single-player experience. This is Battlefield; the single-player doesn't get as much attention, and it shows.
Through the entire campaign (which spans maybe 5-7 hours depending on difficulty), I was hoping to get to the end. I barely cared about the characters, most of whom had no backgrounds or development or personalities. I was only vaguely interested in the predictable story of nuclear terrorism which has been done and redone and overdone in other games (and movies and books and other media). The dialog was mostly straight-forward; not badly written, but not really well-written either.
The campaign is almost 100% serious, dark (in theme) and straight-forward. There is none of Bad Company 2's humor or "fun" or off-beat characters involved. Every character is wooden, just doing their job or their duty. Any attempted jokes generally feel forced ("I keep forgetting they don't have schools where you come from.") and fall flat.
The campaign is almost 100% serious, dark (in theme) and straight-forward. There is none of Bad Company 2's humor or "fun" or off-beat characters involved. Every character is wooden, just doing their job or their duty. Any attempted jokes generally feel forced ("I keep forgetting they don't have schools where you come from.") and fall flat.
I might have been willing to overlook all that if the campaign was actually fun. It isn't. Your character spends almost the entire campaign waiting for orders and then doing exactly what you're told. If you try to deviate from what the game expects from you, you will be killed. Early in the game, your squad is pinned down by a sniper. Try to peak out to get a look? Get shot. Try to move to a new position? Get shot. Try to lay down suppressive fire? Get shot.
See, you actually have to wait to be told to pickup an RPG, and wait to be told to fire it at the sniper to collapse the building in a pretty set piece. There is no other way to complete this section, and situations like these happen again and again and again. You'll go through the doors you're told to go through when you're told to go through them. All other doors lead nowhere or cannot be opened. Pinned down by some enemies? Go flank them through this specific door that we just ignored earlier! Want to try something else? Too bad, that will get you killed.
The vehicle-focused levels aren't much better. In the single aerial mission, you are nothing but the gunner/spotter in a jet. Your experience in a jet involves firing guided missiles at some enemy jets while the pilot makes ridiculous maneuvers, then marking some impossible-to-miss glowing objects for bombing runs. You never fly the jet. You never fly a helicopter. Later, when you get to actually drive a tank, you're simply following along with other friendly tanks. Halfway through that level, you get stuck as the gunner while someone else drives the tank down a straight highway.
I played through the campaign on Hard. This was a mistake. Hard isn't actually hard; the higher difficulty just introduces more frustration. The enemy AI remains painfully stupid: standing still too long or running out into the open, taking predictable paths, and generally offering as much tactics or strategy as shooting gallery targets. But this same AI will have no problem consistently shooting the player through minuscule holes in cover, or hitting you in the head the moment you pop out of cover, or instantly diverting their attention from your invincible teammates to all fire at you. On Hard, it isn't uncommon to walk into a new area and instantly die to a single shotgun blast, or a single rocket fired from who-knows-where.
Add to this the poor checkpoint system and Hard will cause you endless frustration. Checkpoints are commonly placed before dialog, before non-combat sections, before transport sequences, or before stupid quick-time events. Being forced to play through these portions of the game is purely the result of poor game design.
Oh, and yes, there are quick-time events...lots of them. Every time the campaign wants to show your character doing something "cinematic" or "visceral" or whatever the buzzword is, quick-time event! Get into a fight with an enemy who decides to ambush you (but not just shoot you, of course), QTE! Rappel down a wall, QTE! See a rat, QTE! Climb a train? QTE! The majority of these events are painfully simple; the only way to screw them up is if you aren't paying attention. Why even include them, then?
If I "lose" my fight with an enemy because I didn't press 'E' fast enough, reloading and hovering my finger over the E key this time isn't interesting at all. I'm perfectly fine with my character rappelling down himself without sitting around waiting for me to press Space. I don't want to press left-click, then E, then E, then E to have my character disarm an enemy. It contributes absolutely nothing to the gameplay and even distracts from whatever potentially impressive animations or visuals are going on at the time.
The campaign does have some good moments, but they're basically all just visually impressive set-pieces. Collapsing buildings, a HALO jump, the entire jet dogfight sequence, driving through the streets of Paris and New York City, etc. The actual gameplay moments I'll remember are rare. I enjoyed a firefight in a bank vault, watching money fly everywhere. Some parts of the tank mission were...okay. A chase on foot through Paris was tense. Exploring an amazing looking villa and its surrounding scenery was impressive, even with my less-than-Ultra settings.
There are also some flat-out stupid moments. Early on, your squad drives into an obvious ambush (after having a conversation about how there is probably an ambush). In Paris, you're warned about charging into crossfire moments before being made to do exactly that. And at the very end, when your character climbs out of a police car while wearing military uniform to fight quick-time event the generic evil bad guy terrorist villain in the middle of New York City, you can watch an entire crowd of bystanders do absolutely nothing while you press some keys on your keyboard.
I feel like the only redeeming qualities of the campaign overall are its sound and visual design. All the levels look and sound great. Paris and New York City are beautiful, the cities in Afghanistan and Iran are full of detail, the aircraft carrier and the jet mission feel almost "real." Bullets and rockets whiz by your head, suppressive fire is scary, and explosions are loud. When I put on my flight helmet in the jet mission and all the sounds were appropriately modified, I was impressed.
For the record, I play Battlefield 3 on somewhere around Medium-High settings. My desktop cannot handle Ultra. But even on these lower settings, the game looks amazing (it also runs quite well). The Frostbite 2 engine deserves praise.
When the campaign ended, I was relieved. The story was barely resolved, only one character was really wrapped up, and none of the aftermath was shown. I didn't care at that point; I was just happy to be able to put the campaign behind me and go back to multiplayer. That's not a good note to end on.
I can only recommend playing the campaign for the sake of...playing the campaign. Aside from the high-quality art and sound design, you wouldn't be missing anything by heading straight into multiplayer (or the co-op missions). The story, the characters, the dialog, and most importantly the gameplay are all forgettable. You'll probably get some enjoyment out of the campaign (especially if you avoid Hard mode), but the multiplayer is where the real fun begins.
Multiplayer Thoughts
Battlefield 3's multiplayer is where most players will spend most of their time, for good reason. Despite launch problems, balance issues, and some other serious flaws that need to be addressed, the multiplayer is a great experience. The combination of infantry and vehicular (both land and air) combat is really unrivaled, and the focus on objectives over kills (in most modes) is welcome, even if players don't always share that same focus.
The Conquest and Rush modes are the most commonly played, with Squad Rush, Squad Deathmatch, and Team Deathmatch available as well. Rush revolves around sets of M-COM (Mobile Command) stations that must be destroyed or defended, while Conquest requires capturing and holding flags at a number of control points. In Rush, the attackers have a limited amount of reinforcement (spawn) tickets; in Conquest, both teams have a number of tickets that can also be depleted if the other team holds a majority of flags.
Rush generally takes place in very linear segments of the maps (all modes can be played on all maps), with each successive set of M-COMs in a new area. I didn't particularly like Rush in the beta, when only Operation Metro was available, but with the full set of maps Rush has been growing on me a little. Some of the maps have far too many chokepoints, and some M-COMs are too easy or too difficult to attack, but I do occasionally enjoy a good round of Rush. Also, while 64-player Rush is possible, the mode really works much better with 32 or even 24 players.
Team Deathmatch is...bad, really. TDM is always infantry-only, the spawns are random and terrible, and the gameplay tends to be predictable and dull. At least it's there for the people that want that, though. Squad Rush and Squad Deathmatch are squad-based versions of the other modes; Squad Rush is 4v4 while Squad Deathmatch is 4v4v4v4. Interestingly, Squad Deathmatch does include a vehicle: one Infantry Fighting Vehicle (the BMP-2M or LAV-25).
Conquest is the "classic" Battlefield mode. While all maps support Conquest, the best Conquest maps are large, open, and non-linear: Caspian Border, Kharg Island, and Operation Firestorm (and to a lesser extent, Noshahr Canals and Tehran Highway). Maps like Grand Bazaar, Seine Crossing, Damavand Peak, and Operation Metro have somewhat more linear conquest setups, with one "central" flag where most of the fighting occurs. Operation Metro in particular usually ends up as nothing more than rocket and grenade spam down the chokepoints.
But on those large open maps, Conquest is the best and "truest" Battlefield experience. Players on foot capture and defend flags while vehicle users battle for land and air supremacy. Flanking is easy and necessary, and there are opportunities for both defense- and offense-minded players. With 5 flags on most of the large Conquest maps, the fighting is constantly shifting around the map. In good matches, flags end up switching hands multiple times, with the best matches decided by only a handful of tickets.
DICE has done of a great job at offering points for all types of actions. Kills and flag captures/M-COM plants/disarms are the main focus, of course. But you also get points for assists, suppression assists, saving or avenging allies, spotting enemies (if they get killed), reviving and healing, handing out ammo, disabling and destroying vehicles, following squad leader orders (or giving out followed orders), repairing vehicles, etc. It's entirely possible to top the scoreboards and contribute to your team's victory while getting barely any kills (or even none at all).
As for squad leaders, disappointingly, issuing attack and defend orders is really the only action they can take. In Hardcore mode at least, squadmates can only spawn on squad leaders (or controlled points), but in normal gameplay squad members can spawn on any other squad member. In that case, squad leaders barely have a purpose. I would love for squad leaders to get some additional features, but I'm not sure what those features could be.
Battlefield 3 multiplayer is not without its share of flaws, though. As I mentioned, some of the maps simply don't play well in some modes or player-counts. In Conquest, Damavand Peak and Operation Metro are full of explosives spam, Grand Bazaar's "Alleyway" flag is a meat-grinder, and Seine Crossing is generally decided by whoever secures the bridges early on. Both Damavand and Metro have central flags that are almost always reached by one team before the other. In Rush, there are M-COMs that get blown up one minute after they become active and others that are practically unassailable. 64-player Rush is almost impossible for attackers to win if the defenders are remotely competent.
There are some worrisome balance issues as well. Engineers are simply too effective, and I say this as someone who plays mostly Engineer. Equipped with a carbine and either anti-ground RPGs or anti-air rockets (or a Javelin), Engineers can hold their own in infantry combat but also have the best method of taking out vehicles, short of other vehicles. Add either a repair tool to keep your team's vehicles in action or anti-tank mines to take out enemy vehicles, and the Engineer is even more of a necessity on any vehicle-heavy map. Oh, and those anti-tank mines persist after death, have no known limit (in amount), and with the EXPL specialization you have 6 of them per "life." The EXPL specialization also gives you 10 RPGs; 2-4 can take out an unrepaired tank, and the RPGs are also very effective at taking out infantry or destroying cover.
On the other hand, Assaults have more effective assault rifles, can heal or use a grenade launcher, and can revive teammates. Supports get machine guns for heavy suppressive fire, can hand out ammo, and have access to a mortar, C4, or claymores. Recons have the sniper rifles, and can set down radio beacons for remote spawning, and set down a motion sensor or use a SOFLAM to laser-designate vehicles or use a MAV to spot enemies from the sky.
Those roles all have their uses, but on the vehicle-heavy maps, they're at a disadvantage. Assault players with the M320 grenade launcher can do some damage to vehicles, Supports with C4 can blow up vehicles if they get close enough, and Recons can...laser-designate vehicles and then run away and hide and hope someone destroys the vehicles. With the danger that tanks (and IFVs) pose or the worry that your team might lose the fight for air control, there's almost no reason not to have a majority of your team playing Engineer with a mix of anti-air and anti-ground capabilities.
Personally, as an Engineer player, I can only think of a few solutions. Carbines should be nerfed, probably with a reduction in their effectiveness at range, or RPGs should be nerfed with a reduction in ammo (10 with EXPL is absurd) and/or effectiveness against infantry. Anti-tank mines also need to be limited in some way; almost every flag in large conquest maps is literally surrounded by mines by the end of a round.
In the smaller maps with more close-quarters combat, the class balance is actually much closer to what it should be. Engineers are still useful (RPGs are great for clearing out chokepoints), but Assaults, Supports, and Recons all have more opportunities that suit them and not as many vehicles to worry about. Unfortunately, I don't like these maps very much for other reasons (linearity and chokepoints); I've started leaving servers almost every time Grand Bazaar comes up.
But these gameplay flaws pale in comparison to the worst aspect of Battlefield 3, the user-interface. To be blunt...everyone responsible for the interface should be embarrassed. The interface consistently fails in every aspect of good design. Style was given preference over usability, consistency is lacking, and you can clearly see where some UI elements were tacked on at the last minute. Below is a list of the most glaring issues.
Interface Issues
Minimap
I think the best description of the minimap I've read so far is "orgy of glow worms." It is disturbingly accurate. The background of the map is a mishmash of shades of blue, and friendly players are also blue (though squad members are green). Enemies are orange and about the only thing on the map that is clear. Terrain detail is non-existent, buildings and other objects are featureless blue blobs, and everything is a chaotic mess. You can switch zoom levels, but they aren't saved consistently across lives or maps or vehicles. You can make the map bigger with another hotkey, but this map's zoom is independent of the minimap. This map should never have made it into the full release.
Chat Box
Oh, the chat box. It's pathetic. Every message takes two lines; one entire line is devoted to nothing more than the player's name and the chat channel (All/Team/Squad). The chat box is huge, with a ton of wasted horizontal space that most messages don't reach. The box is just transparent enough to blend into the background but just opaque enough to get in the way (especially since it is of course blue, the same color as team icons and friendly flags...). The chat text itself has the same issues, ranging from clear to impossible to read depending on the background. The chat box quickly disappears when no messages are being sent. There is no way to bring it back up to see previous messages, even if you are typing one yourself.
The box needs numerous fixes. It should be generally smaller and customizable (size, persistence, position, opacity etc.). Bringing the box back up should be possible (even if just by starting to type your own message) and each message should be one line minimum instead of two (messages are already color-coded, we don't need to see "SAY TO: ALL" or "SAY TO: TEAM"). As little space as possible should be wasted. Oh, and whoever designed the original chat box should be fired. I am not joking.
Icons Everywhere!
Like on the minimap, allies are represented by small blue triangles (or doritos) over their heads, or green triangles for squad mates. Spotted enemies have a orange triangle, unspotted enemies have nothing. But your allies' triangles appear at all distances through all objects. This frequently makes your horizon a mess of multi-colored triangles everywhere. It's not uncommon to have an enemy that happens to be standing in a position where the blue triangle of a teammate on the other side of the map is over that enemy's head. You will get shot.
There is really no reason to show the player the locations of teammates that are across the map. You're too far away or your vision is too obstructed to get a good sense of their positioning. Really, this type of information is what the map should be for, but since the map is so poorly designed, someone decided to constantly clutter your field of view with it.
A similar issue occurs when capturing flags. Normally, the flag has an icon that hovers above it showing which team controls it (and your distance to it). But when you get within the capture range, the circular icon suddenly moves to slightly above the center of your screen. Why? There is no reason to put the icon there. The circle can block vision of enemies, which is especially bad when you're trying to capture or defend a flag.
Also, squad leaders can mark objectives to attack or defend. With flags, this is done by "spotting" the icon. But when the icon is in the center of the screen, you cannot do that. Instead of you have to physically spot the flag, which may not be possible depending on your position. This is sloppy design. Anyone who thought even briefly about this would put the icon up on the top of the screen or somewhere else non-intrusive, and implemented a method of issuing orders for a flag up-close.
I should also mention that this capture icon doesn't actually work properly or at least as most players would expect. A Reddit thread does a great job of demonstrating the error, so I won't try to explain it again myself.
Repair Indicator
I think whoever was responsible for the flags worked on the indicator for repairs too. When you are repairing a vehicle, a circle appears and fills up as you repair. The circle is centered on the vehicle, though, not on your crosshairs or above your repair tool. Depending on your position and where you are looking as you repair, the repair indicator may not be visible. More poor design.
Commo Rose
The Commo Rose was an admitted last-minute addition to Battlefield 3, returning from Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 2142. The Rose is meant to be a quick method of shouting out comments or orders to teammates. But in-game, it's nearly useless. The shouts can barely be heard, and are not transcribed to the chat box. "Need Ammo" and "Need Medic" don't exist on the Rose, but you can say GO GO GO! or Sorry or Thank You. Useful...
Of course, the Commo Rose isn't simply missing features, it's also designed extremely poorly. You can barely tell which option is highlighted, the controls for it always feel slow, and selecting a choice requires a mouse-click (or whatever "fire weapon" is bound to). The Commo Rose also occupies the same key as Spot (click to spot, hold down for Commo Rose), which ends up with the Rose being brought up accidentally all the time when spotting rapidly.
Loadouts
The loadout menu requires far too many clicks. Switching weapons/items can be done in one click from the general spawn menu, but once you're inside the loadout customization menu you can only scroll through weapons and items one by one. Selecting weapon attachments is even worse. Choose a weapon. Click another button. Click through attachments one by one until you find the one you want. Click again to confirm. This is silly. This may not be so bad for attachments slots with only 2 or 3 choices, but my G36C has 11 different scopes (plus the choice of "None"). Drop-down or slide-out menus or similar methods exist for a reason; in fact, they're already used elsewhere in the loadout interface.
Battlefield 3 also includes different camoflauge patterns you can select. Again, only a one-by-one clickthrough exists, but your selection is also rarely saved, if ever. Reselecting your choice over and over is tedious and shouldn't be necessary. There are similar issues with weapon loadouts, actually, but they're not as annoying (and also require more complicated solutions).
Killcam
Moments after you are killed, you are forced into a killcam (unless a server has this feature disabled) that tracks your killer around for a few seconds. During this time, inexplicably, you cannot quit (aside from Alt+F4 or similar methods). You cannot skip to the loadout menu to adjust your setup before the respawn timer is up. You cannot open the options menu. You cannot do anything except stare at your killer until the arbitrary time has expired. This is stupid.
I should also mention that in the beta, you could not adjust your options at all unless you were spawned and alive. This was luckily fixed for the release, but I find it ridiculous that anyone at DICE actually had to receive feedback to know that their implementation was flat-out stupid.
Squad Management
Squad management has thankfully improved a lot since the beta. But try to join a squad manually and you may be lost for a moment, because the "Join" button is poorly integrated with the rest of the squad interface. The "Join" button is off on the bottom of the screen by itself and blends into the background at times. The button is smaller than the relatively huge "Find a Squad" and "Switch Team" buttons. I have no idea why the Join button is not directly next to the squads, or near the member list, or below the "Find a Squad" button. Even better, a double-click could let you join the squad, but nope, you have to find and click the Join button.
Quitting
This is a minor but easily fixed issue. It is not entirely clear when it is "safe" to quit at the end of a match (to preserve your stats, progress, awards, etc.). For a start, there is no Exit or Quit button on the end screen. You can press Esc, but this brings up a potentially confusing message that refers to "unsaved content being lost" if you quit. This message appears even after your round progress is saved, thus the confusion. The fix is painfully simple: fix that message or add some sort of "safe to quit" icon or button.
Ping
This will be short. There is no in-game ping shown. This is dumb. That is all.
Back to the game...wait, not yet: VOIP
Hopefully some or all of these interface issues will be addressed in future patches. There is one more major problem with Battlefield 3 I want to touch on, though, that is slightly related to the interface. Battlefield 3 has no in-game VOIP. None. Nothing. At all. The only supported method for voice chat is to create a party of friends in Battlelog, and you can only chat with that party in-game. This will basically never happen spontaneously in a game with strangers, since it would require alt-tabbing out to Battlelog, finding the player, sending a friend request, waiting for them to accept, sending a party request, waiting for them to accept, and then initiating a voice chat in the Comm Center. This is fine if you're planning ahead to play with some friends, but it is a ridiculous process when it is the only one available.
For a game that (supposedly) emphasizes teamwork, having no in-game voice chat is absurd. The consoles have in-game VOIP, by the way. PCs don't. Why? Who knows. Maybe because the primary development platform switched to consoles mid-way through development and EA was not going to allow Battlefield 3 to be released after Modern Warfare 3. In the meantime, some servers are using TeamSpeak or Mumble and solutions such as TeamSync. But Battlefield 3 desperately needs its own well-integrated squad-level VOIP.
Back to the game!
Again, I just to restate that despite the flaws I have talked about, I still greatly enjoy multiplayer Battlefield 3. With Back to Karkand on the horizon and hopefully some patches incoming, I have high hopes for the game. If there is good post-release support from DICE and EA, I will probably be playing Battlefield 3 for a long time (uhh...between hours of Skyrim).
Co-op: I don't know yet.
I haven't played through the co-op missions yet. I've heard mixed things about them, including the fact that there is no chat. The chat box may be terrible, but there has to be some way to communicate in a cooperative game mode. You can unlock some weapons for multiplayer by playing co-op missions, so I'll get to them eventually. I'll make a new post at that time (and update this section too).
Oh, About Battlelog...
Battlelog, the browser-based server browser and stat-tracker, was the source of a lot of worry before the release, including from me. Now that I've had the chance to use it, I can say that most of the worries are unfounded. Battlelog, like Battlefield 3, still needs work, but after some issues at launch, it is actually working well now (for me, at least). Launching into the game is extremely and surprisingly fast, and so is switching back and forth between the game and Battlelog/your browser.
The server browser works relatively well and has useful filters (still needs more, though!), although DICE really needs to figure out how to make a functioning server queue. The queue feature has been introduced and then disabled for causing problems at least twice already. The Quick Match function is useless and broken (I've been "quick matched" to a passworded server, to a full server, and even to...the campaign), so try to avoid that.
Using a browser to launch a game, and leaving the browser up while you play, is a bit disconcerting at first, but I think I'm already used to it. I do think that Battlelog should be accessible directly from within the game as well as from a browser, but for now I'm okay with using the browser.
Battlelog's stat tracking feature is impressively robust, tracking pretty much everything down to individual weapon stats and progress and offering full "Battle Reports" for each match. The leaderboards are of course full of cheaters and boosters already, but you can compare yourself to friends instead. I know I'm going to be stuck trying to acquire every ribbon and every medal and every dogtag, just to get rid of the grayed-out icons in my profile. When I start working on the jets and helicopters, watch out! For jets and helicopters crashing.
On the other hand, Battlelog's Facebook-wannabe features are a sad joke that don't need to exist. I don't want to write status updates or "Hooah!" events or messages.
...and About Origin.
Battlefield 3 must be launched from Origin. Origin then launches Battlelog (or you can go to Battlelog first and that will launch Origin) and after that Origin basically sits around doing absolutely nothing. This is good, because Origin is useless, and bad, because Origin shouldn't be useless. Even DICE apparently knows Origin is useless; everything is done through Battlelog.
By the way, I run Battlefield 3 with Steam for the Steam overlay, mostly for chat. To do this, add Origin.exe to Steam (and rename if wanted). Launch Steam, launch Origin, launch Battlelog, launch Battlefield 3. This is getting silly, but that way I have access to the Steam overlay (and the Origin overlay but no one cares).
For the record, I play Battlefield 3 on somewhere around Medium-High settings. My desktop cannot handle Ultra. But even on these lower settings, the game looks amazing (it also runs quite well). The Frostbite 2 engine deserves praise.
When the campaign ended, I was relieved. The story was barely resolved, only one character was really wrapped up, and none of the aftermath was shown. I didn't care at that point; I was just happy to be able to put the campaign behind me and go back to multiplayer. That's not a good note to end on.
I can only recommend playing the campaign for the sake of...playing the campaign. Aside from the high-quality art and sound design, you wouldn't be missing anything by heading straight into multiplayer (or the co-op missions). The story, the characters, the dialog, and most importantly the gameplay are all forgettable. You'll probably get some enjoyment out of the campaign (especially if you avoid Hard mode), but the multiplayer is where the real fun begins.
Multiplayer Thoughts
Battlefield 3's multiplayer is where most players will spend most of their time, for good reason. Despite launch problems, balance issues, and some other serious flaws that need to be addressed, the multiplayer is a great experience. The combination of infantry and vehicular (both land and air) combat is really unrivaled, and the focus on objectives over kills (in most modes) is welcome, even if players don't always share that same focus.
The Conquest and Rush modes are the most commonly played, with Squad Rush, Squad Deathmatch, and Team Deathmatch available as well. Rush revolves around sets of M-COM (Mobile Command) stations that must be destroyed or defended, while Conquest requires capturing and holding flags at a number of control points. In Rush, the attackers have a limited amount of reinforcement (spawn) tickets; in Conquest, both teams have a number of tickets that can also be depleted if the other team holds a majority of flags.
Rush generally takes place in very linear segments of the maps (all modes can be played on all maps), with each successive set of M-COMs in a new area. I didn't particularly like Rush in the beta, when only Operation Metro was available, but with the full set of maps Rush has been growing on me a little. Some of the maps have far too many chokepoints, and some M-COMs are too easy or too difficult to attack, but I do occasionally enjoy a good round of Rush. Also, while 64-player Rush is possible, the mode really works much better with 32 or even 24 players.
Team Deathmatch is...bad, really. TDM is always infantry-only, the spawns are random and terrible, and the gameplay tends to be predictable and dull. At least it's there for the people that want that, though. Squad Rush and Squad Deathmatch are squad-based versions of the other modes; Squad Rush is 4v4 while Squad Deathmatch is 4v4v4v4. Interestingly, Squad Deathmatch does include a vehicle: one Infantry Fighting Vehicle (the BMP-2M or LAV-25).
Conquest is the "classic" Battlefield mode. While all maps support Conquest, the best Conquest maps are large, open, and non-linear: Caspian Border, Kharg Island, and Operation Firestorm (and to a lesser extent, Noshahr Canals and Tehran Highway). Maps like Grand Bazaar, Seine Crossing, Damavand Peak, and Operation Metro have somewhat more linear conquest setups, with one "central" flag where most of the fighting occurs. Operation Metro in particular usually ends up as nothing more than rocket and grenade spam down the chokepoints.
But on those large open maps, Conquest is the best and "truest" Battlefield experience. Players on foot capture and defend flags while vehicle users battle for land and air supremacy. Flanking is easy and necessary, and there are opportunities for both defense- and offense-minded players. With 5 flags on most of the large Conquest maps, the fighting is constantly shifting around the map. In good matches, flags end up switching hands multiple times, with the best matches decided by only a handful of tickets.
DICE has done of a great job at offering points for all types of actions. Kills and flag captures/M-COM plants/disarms are the main focus, of course. But you also get points for assists, suppression assists, saving or avenging allies, spotting enemies (if they get killed), reviving and healing, handing out ammo, disabling and destroying vehicles, following squad leader orders (or giving out followed orders), repairing vehicles, etc. It's entirely possible to top the scoreboards and contribute to your team's victory while getting barely any kills (or even none at all).
As for squad leaders, disappointingly, issuing attack and defend orders is really the only action they can take. In Hardcore mode at least, squadmates can only spawn on squad leaders (or controlled points), but in normal gameplay squad members can spawn on any other squad member. In that case, squad leaders barely have a purpose. I would love for squad leaders to get some additional features, but I'm not sure what those features could be.
Battlefield 3 multiplayer is not without its share of flaws, though. As I mentioned, some of the maps simply don't play well in some modes or player-counts. In Conquest, Damavand Peak and Operation Metro are full of explosives spam, Grand Bazaar's "Alleyway" flag is a meat-grinder, and Seine Crossing is generally decided by whoever secures the bridges early on. Both Damavand and Metro have central flags that are almost always reached by one team before the other. In Rush, there are M-COMs that get blown up one minute after they become active and others that are practically unassailable. 64-player Rush is almost impossible for attackers to win if the defenders are remotely competent.
There are some worrisome balance issues as well. Engineers are simply too effective, and I say this as someone who plays mostly Engineer. Equipped with a carbine and either anti-ground RPGs or anti-air rockets (or a Javelin), Engineers can hold their own in infantry combat but also have the best method of taking out vehicles, short of other vehicles. Add either a repair tool to keep your team's vehicles in action or anti-tank mines to take out enemy vehicles, and the Engineer is even more of a necessity on any vehicle-heavy map. Oh, and those anti-tank mines persist after death, have no known limit (in amount), and with the EXPL specialization you have 6 of them per "life." The EXPL specialization also gives you 10 RPGs; 2-4 can take out an unrepaired tank, and the RPGs are also very effective at taking out infantry or destroying cover.
On the other hand, Assaults have more effective assault rifles, can heal or use a grenade launcher, and can revive teammates. Supports get machine guns for heavy suppressive fire, can hand out ammo, and have access to a mortar, C4, or claymores. Recons have the sniper rifles, and can set down radio beacons for remote spawning, and set down a motion sensor or use a SOFLAM to laser-designate vehicles or use a MAV to spot enemies from the sky.
Those roles all have their uses, but on the vehicle-heavy maps, they're at a disadvantage. Assault players with the M320 grenade launcher can do some damage to vehicles, Supports with C4 can blow up vehicles if they get close enough, and Recons can...laser-designate vehicles and then run away and hide and hope someone destroys the vehicles. With the danger that tanks (and IFVs) pose or the worry that your team might lose the fight for air control, there's almost no reason not to have a majority of your team playing Engineer with a mix of anti-air and anti-ground capabilities.
Personally, as an Engineer player, I can only think of a few solutions. Carbines should be nerfed, probably with a reduction in their effectiveness at range, or RPGs should be nerfed with a reduction in ammo (10 with EXPL is absurd) and/or effectiveness against infantry. Anti-tank mines also need to be limited in some way; almost every flag in large conquest maps is literally surrounded by mines by the end of a round.
In the smaller maps with more close-quarters combat, the class balance is actually much closer to what it should be. Engineers are still useful (RPGs are great for clearing out chokepoints), but Assaults, Supports, and Recons all have more opportunities that suit them and not as many vehicles to worry about. Unfortunately, I don't like these maps very much for other reasons (linearity and chokepoints); I've started leaving servers almost every time Grand Bazaar comes up.
But these gameplay flaws pale in comparison to the worst aspect of Battlefield 3, the user-interface. To be blunt...everyone responsible for the interface should be embarrassed. The interface consistently fails in every aspect of good design. Style was given preference over usability, consistency is lacking, and you can clearly see where some UI elements were tacked on at the last minute. Below is a list of the most glaring issues.
Interface Issues
Minimap
I think the best description of the minimap I've read so far is "orgy of glow worms." It is disturbingly accurate. The background of the map is a mishmash of shades of blue, and friendly players are also blue (though squad members are green). Enemies are orange and about the only thing on the map that is clear. Terrain detail is non-existent, buildings and other objects are featureless blue blobs, and everything is a chaotic mess. You can switch zoom levels, but they aren't saved consistently across lives or maps or vehicles. You can make the map bigger with another hotkey, but this map's zoom is independent of the minimap. This map should never have made it into the full release.Chat Box
Oh, the chat box. It's pathetic. Every message takes two lines; one entire line is devoted to nothing more than the player's name and the chat channel (All/Team/Squad). The chat box is huge, with a ton of wasted horizontal space that most messages don't reach. The box is just transparent enough to blend into the background but just opaque enough to get in the way (especially since it is of course blue, the same color as team icons and friendly flags...). The chat text itself has the same issues, ranging from clear to impossible to read depending on the background. The chat box quickly disappears when no messages are being sent. There is no way to bring it back up to see previous messages, even if you are typing one yourself.
The box needs numerous fixes. It should be generally smaller and customizable (size, persistence, position, opacity etc.). Bringing the box back up should be possible (even if just by starting to type your own message) and each message should be one line minimum instead of two (messages are already color-coded, we don't need to see "SAY TO: ALL" or "SAY TO: TEAM"). As little space as possible should be wasted. Oh, and whoever designed the original chat box should be fired. I am not joking.
Icons Everywhere!
Like on the minimap, allies are represented by small blue triangles (or doritos) over their heads, or green triangles for squad mates. Spotted enemies have a orange triangle, unspotted enemies have nothing. But your allies' triangles appear at all distances through all objects. This frequently makes your horizon a mess of multi-colored triangles everywhere. It's not uncommon to have an enemy that happens to be standing in a position where the blue triangle of a teammate on the other side of the map is over that enemy's head. You will get shot.
There is really no reason to show the player the locations of teammates that are across the map. You're too far away or your vision is too obstructed to get a good sense of their positioning. Really, this type of information is what the map should be for, but since the map is so poorly designed, someone decided to constantly clutter your field of view with it.
A similar issue occurs when capturing flags. Normally, the flag has an icon that hovers above it showing which team controls it (and your distance to it). But when you get within the capture range, the circular icon suddenly moves to slightly above the center of your screen. Why? There is no reason to put the icon there. The circle can block vision of enemies, which is especially bad when you're trying to capture or defend a flag.
Also, squad leaders can mark objectives to attack or defend. With flags, this is done by "spotting" the icon. But when the icon is in the center of the screen, you cannot do that. Instead of you have to physically spot the flag, which may not be possible depending on your position. This is sloppy design. Anyone who thought even briefly about this would put the icon up on the top of the screen or somewhere else non-intrusive, and implemented a method of issuing orders for a flag up-close.
I should also mention that this capture icon doesn't actually work properly or at least as most players would expect. A Reddit thread does a great job of demonstrating the error, so I won't try to explain it again myself.
Repair Indicator
I think whoever was responsible for the flags worked on the indicator for repairs too. When you are repairing a vehicle, a circle appears and fills up as you repair. The circle is centered on the vehicle, though, not on your crosshairs or above your repair tool. Depending on your position and where you are looking as you repair, the repair indicator may not be visible. More poor design.
Commo Rose
The Commo Rose was an admitted last-minute addition to Battlefield 3, returning from Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 2142. The Rose is meant to be a quick method of shouting out comments or orders to teammates. But in-game, it's nearly useless. The shouts can barely be heard, and are not transcribed to the chat box. "Need Ammo" and "Need Medic" don't exist on the Rose, but you can say GO GO GO! or Sorry or Thank You. Useful...
Of course, the Commo Rose isn't simply missing features, it's also designed extremely poorly. You can barely tell which option is highlighted, the controls for it always feel slow, and selecting a choice requires a mouse-click (or whatever "fire weapon" is bound to). The Commo Rose also occupies the same key as Spot (click to spot, hold down for Commo Rose), which ends up with the Rose being brought up accidentally all the time when spotting rapidly.
Loadouts
The loadout menu requires far too many clicks. Switching weapons/items can be done in one click from the general spawn menu, but once you're inside the loadout customization menu you can only scroll through weapons and items one by one. Selecting weapon attachments is even worse. Choose a weapon. Click another button. Click through attachments one by one until you find the one you want. Click again to confirm. This is silly. This may not be so bad for attachments slots with only 2 or 3 choices, but my G36C has 11 different scopes (plus the choice of "None"). Drop-down or slide-out menus or similar methods exist for a reason; in fact, they're already used elsewhere in the loadout interface.
Battlefield 3 also includes different camoflauge patterns you can select. Again, only a one-by-one clickthrough exists, but your selection is also rarely saved, if ever. Reselecting your choice over and over is tedious and shouldn't be necessary. There are similar issues with weapon loadouts, actually, but they're not as annoying (and also require more complicated solutions).
Killcam
Moments after you are killed, you are forced into a killcam (unless a server has this feature disabled) that tracks your killer around for a few seconds. During this time, inexplicably, you cannot quit (aside from Alt+F4 or similar methods). You cannot skip to the loadout menu to adjust your setup before the respawn timer is up. You cannot open the options menu. You cannot do anything except stare at your killer until the arbitrary time has expired. This is stupid.
I should also mention that in the beta, you could not adjust your options at all unless you were spawned and alive. This was luckily fixed for the release, but I find it ridiculous that anyone at DICE actually had to receive feedback to know that their implementation was flat-out stupid.
Squad Management
Squad management has thankfully improved a lot since the beta. But try to join a squad manually and you may be lost for a moment, because the "Join" button is poorly integrated with the rest of the squad interface. The "Join" button is off on the bottom of the screen by itself and blends into the background at times. The button is smaller than the relatively huge "Find a Squad" and "Switch Team" buttons. I have no idea why the Join button is not directly next to the squads, or near the member list, or below the "Find a Squad" button. Even better, a double-click could let you join the squad, but nope, you have to find and click the Join button.
Quitting
This is a minor but easily fixed issue. It is not entirely clear when it is "safe" to quit at the end of a match (to preserve your stats, progress, awards, etc.). For a start, there is no Exit or Quit button on the end screen. You can press Esc, but this brings up a potentially confusing message that refers to "unsaved content being lost" if you quit. This message appears even after your round progress is saved, thus the confusion. The fix is painfully simple: fix that message or add some sort of "safe to quit" icon or button.
Ping
This will be short. There is no in-game ping shown. This is dumb. That is all.
Back to the game...wait, not yet: VOIP
Hopefully some or all of these interface issues will be addressed in future patches. There is one more major problem with Battlefield 3 I want to touch on, though, that is slightly related to the interface. Battlefield 3 has no in-game VOIP. None. Nothing. At all. The only supported method for voice chat is to create a party of friends in Battlelog, and you can only chat with that party in-game. This will basically never happen spontaneously in a game with strangers, since it would require alt-tabbing out to Battlelog, finding the player, sending a friend request, waiting for them to accept, sending a party request, waiting for them to accept, and then initiating a voice chat in the Comm Center. This is fine if you're planning ahead to play with some friends, but it is a ridiculous process when it is the only one available.
For a game that (supposedly) emphasizes teamwork, having no in-game voice chat is absurd. The consoles have in-game VOIP, by the way. PCs don't. Why? Who knows. Maybe because the primary development platform switched to consoles mid-way through development and EA was not going to allow Battlefield 3 to be released after Modern Warfare 3. In the meantime, some servers are using TeamSpeak or Mumble and solutions such as TeamSync. But Battlefield 3 desperately needs its own well-integrated squad-level VOIP.
Back to the game!
Again, I just to restate that despite the flaws I have talked about, I still greatly enjoy multiplayer Battlefield 3. With Back to Karkand on the horizon and hopefully some patches incoming, I have high hopes for the game. If there is good post-release support from DICE and EA, I will probably be playing Battlefield 3 for a long time (uhh...between hours of Skyrim).
Co-op: I don't know yet.
I haven't played through the co-op missions yet. I've heard mixed things about them, including the fact that there is no chat. The chat box may be terrible, but there has to be some way to communicate in a cooperative game mode. You can unlock some weapons for multiplayer by playing co-op missions, so I'll get to them eventually. I'll make a new post at that time (and update this section too).
Oh, About Battlelog...
Battlelog, the browser-based server browser and stat-tracker, was the source of a lot of worry before the release, including from me. Now that I've had the chance to use it, I can say that most of the worries are unfounded. Battlelog, like Battlefield 3, still needs work, but after some issues at launch, it is actually working well now (for me, at least). Launching into the game is extremely and surprisingly fast, and so is switching back and forth between the game and Battlelog/your browser.
The server browser works relatively well and has useful filters (still needs more, though!), although DICE really needs to figure out how to make a functioning server queue. The queue feature has been introduced and then disabled for causing problems at least twice already. The Quick Match function is useless and broken (I've been "quick matched" to a passworded server, to a full server, and even to...the campaign), so try to avoid that.
Using a browser to launch a game, and leaving the browser up while you play, is a bit disconcerting at first, but I think I'm already used to it. I do think that Battlelog should be accessible directly from within the game as well as from a browser, but for now I'm okay with using the browser.
Battlelog's stat tracking feature is impressively robust, tracking pretty much everything down to individual weapon stats and progress and offering full "Battle Reports" for each match. The leaderboards are of course full of cheaters and boosters already, but you can compare yourself to friends instead. I know I'm going to be stuck trying to acquire every ribbon and every medal and every dogtag, just to get rid of the grayed-out icons in my profile. When I start working on the jets and helicopters, watch out! For jets and helicopters crashing.
On the other hand, Battlelog's Facebook-wannabe features are a sad joke that don't need to exist. I don't want to write status updates or "Hooah!" events or messages.
...and About Origin.
Battlefield 3 must be launched from Origin. Origin then launches Battlelog (or you can go to Battlelog first and that will launch Origin) and after that Origin basically sits around doing absolutely nothing. This is good, because Origin is useless, and bad, because Origin shouldn't be useless. Even DICE apparently knows Origin is useless; everything is done through Battlelog.
By the way, I run Battlefield 3 with Steam for the Steam overlay, mostly for chat. To do this, add Origin.exe to Steam (and rename if wanted). Launch Steam, launch Origin, launch Battlelog, launch Battlefield 3. This is getting silly, but that way I have access to the Steam overlay (and the Origin overlay but no one cares).