Talk:Battlefield 3/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

About plot section

I thought the SP Campaign ends in the nuke going off in New York and war starting between Russia and USA (which is obiviously played in multiplayer). The plot section in Wiki article claims that Blackburn recovers the last nuclear device but I think it blew up as it was beeping very fast when Blackburn opens the lid and the camera cuts out. If the nuke didn't go off why did USA and Russia go to war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.204.158.72 (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The Nuke was at the time, not on a timer, but a button trigger, as evident if one was to fail the last fight, the bad guy would drag you along, hit a button and the nuke detonates and you have to restart at the last check point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.207.46 (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I would also add a copyright warning at the beginning of the article via the corresponding template because the editor who wrote this article used the game's cover image without written permission from EA/DICE to do so. --Marceki111 (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea why you put this in this section of the talkpage Muskeato 14:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from , 26 October 2011

The release dates for Europe are not correct. It will be released in Europe on October 27, 2011. Only in some countries like the UK or Italy it will be released on October 28, 2011. Source(s): [battlefield3.fr] (french battlefield 3 website) an the UK website [battlefield3.uk]. You can see more release dates if you change the language of the website

Toru10 (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: A spot check of sources states the release date for Europe is October 28 (for example 1.) Because the UK and France are in Europe, I would assume that the release date is calculated by the date it is released last, which per this reference is the 28th October. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 09:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

i would like to point out that in australia the realease date is 27th. I live in Australia, that's how I know. just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The red penguin (talk • contribs) 11:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Who is Solomon?

Seriously, whoever wrote this plot section should never do so again. Who is Solomon? Why did Blackburn have to shoot his commanding officer? The plot gives so little explanation as to why, it just states what happens with no real plot. I'm at a loss as to why Blackburn needed to shoot his superiors, who Solomon is, and other facts. I am pretty sure these things are explained in the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.122.30 (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone didn't pay atention to the interogation scenes... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.104.105 (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone reading the article hasn't necessarily played the game. ferret (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Another thing: " find and safely return a US squad investigating a possible chemical weapons site, whose last known position was a market" that squad wasn't looking for chemical weapons. All they were doing was searching for a possible IED threat near that market. The whole section does need some cleaning up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.104.170 (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Have not played the game. Still, having read more than my fair share of plot summaries on wiki, this is one of the more poorly written ones.(That I've read, anyway) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.167.188.46 (talk) 07:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I've copyedited the plot section, hopefully everything is clearer now. If your still confused, tell me why and I'll expand on that section. He's Gone Mental 10:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hawkins's name

Her name is Jennifer Coleby Hawkins (vs Colby) and her call sign is "Wedge" (this is on the side of her F/A 18) http://battlefield.wikia.com/wiki/Jennifer_Hawkins Can someone correct this? 86.27.140.75 (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Dice is going to lose a load of players

People like me, who rent the games from gamefly, to try them out before we buy them, are calling it quits. The majority of people who play consoles games rent from gamefly, to avoid buying a bad game.

It's ridiculous that xbox live players pay for a subscription, then have to pay an additional charges to play the best features of a game.

Too bad though, I was going to buy this game, but I didn't even get to try out the multiplayer. So I bought Arkham City instead.

--HolyandClean (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)HolyandClean

And this is relevant here how? If you want to rant go to a forum. Muskeato 02:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It's relevant because the PLAYERS need to know what they are buying, and who they are buying it from. What is wrong with what I wrote? All i'm doing is letting people know how greedy dice is. This isn't a rant. You call it a rant because you disagree with it, or you work for DICE. Might as well erase all this other stuff too if you erase mine. I know what the rules here are on Wikipedia. Everything I said can be verified. Go on gamefly, and look at all reviews for Battlefield 3. A lot of people are pissed off. I didn't break any rules. Show me one rule I broke. You might as well erase that "Who is solomon" section as well. --HolyandClean (talk) 01:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)HolyandClean

I dont disagree with you at all, I am still mad I bought a 360 instead of a PSL. But this is an encyclopedia, not a forum.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. If you wish for people to know about the poor single player experience (Which I've seen several sites discuss), add it to the reception section with reliable sources. If there's other negative aspects, same deal. ferret (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly a rant. The fact that your opnion is that Battlefield MIGHT lose a lot of customers based on the fact that DICE is using a pay-to-play system for multi-player is irrelevent. It has already been mentioned in the artical for the play-to-pay in USED games, not new. -- Sleegi^[✆Talk] 03:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say I disagreed with it. I said it was a rant, which it was, regardless of whether I think you have valid point or not. Throwing around accusations that I might work for DICE just strengthens the fact that you are ranting. When did I say I'd erase anything? When did I say you broke any rules? What I meant was that your opinion on buying the game is not enough to edit the article. As others have said, reference reviews and put the information in the article if you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muskeato (talk • contribs) 19:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Please, instead of arguing about it, go on gamefly and look. Like I said, what I said can be verified. I'm only bringing attention to the players that renting the game or buying it used will make you have to pay to play. That's all. Sure, people who bought the game don't have to worry about this problem, but do they know about this tactic that DICE is trying to use? I bet the people who bought the game haven't even given it a thought when they put that passcode in. Why is DICE using this passcode anyways? Do you guys know? And no, the reason is not because people are going to buy it used, and the company not make any money. Think about it like this, you bought a brand new car. Well you sell that car, and someone else buys it. Do they have to pay extra just to drive it because it's "used"? Of course not. The company already made that money from the first sell. What's the difference between with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HolyandClean (talk • contribs) 02:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The article already covers the fact that Battlefield 3 uses an Online Pass system. It answers all of your questions already. It states pretty clearly that only NEW copies of the game come with SINGLE online pass code, requiring second hand purchasers (or renters) to buy their own code. DICE claimed the reason was to support the backend multiplayer infrastructure. This is referenced and sourced. ferret (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Well at least you've stopped having a go at me. I think the real point is that talk pages aren't a forum to discuss the a game, it's a space to discuss the article. As ferret states, the information is on the page. We're not going to give the information an anti-DICE slant just because the information might be annoying to some potential customers, and "no, the reason is not because people are going to buy it used, and the company not make any money.", really? There's a quote on the article stating exactly this. Do you think DICE are just trying to troll the world, thinking how hilarious this is? This is not the place to discuss the rights and wrongs of licensing in the games industry. Muskeato 15:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

this information is already in the article under online pass. and for your information FIFA games (EA) have used the online pass system for atleast 2 years now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.201.105 (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Plot Need Expanding

The current plot section is insufficent as it currently stands. It is very choppy, broken up, and hard to understand. Somebody needs to re-do it entirely, as it is not serving its purpose to infor others. -- Sleegi^[✆Talk] 03:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Critical Reception is quite biased

In the first two paragraphs, the scores are mentioned ( 92/100, 9.0/10, 4.5/5 ) and they are followed by multiple sentences of negative statements. This section makes the reader wonder why the hell the game gets such a high score when all the negatives are explicitly mentioned, and the positive aspects of the game get only passing mention. This should be fixed. Unflavoured (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

i agree, i was wondering whether to get this game and the critical reception section claimed the high reviews but then made the game sound terrible. perhaps it could say something like its priased because of this xxx(e.g. mulitplayer). however the game has been criticized for this (e.g. single player) obviously in more detail though — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.201.105 (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I have read some online reviews that give the game like 4/5, but then complain throughout the entire review. Really doesn't make sense; not sure if there is much you can do with the Critical reception part... Espicially when some critics are contradicting themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.104.170 (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but most of the reviews on BF3 critize it more than anything, and the recption section is only showing what the majority of what reviewers said, so there really is nothing we can do. -- Sleegi^[✆Talk] 00:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 29 October 2011

hello, I'm Richardfps and i came by you to tell you that the publisher for Battlefield 3 isn't Sega and please change it to only EA. put this to consideration. thank you

Richardfps (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: This reference seems to indicate that the publishers in Japan are Sega as well, though this was back in July. Could you please provide a reference that shows that this has changed? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 09:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Awkward Introduction

The introduction to the article is awkwardly short. There should be some basic information about the number of copies sold to date, date of release, summary of reviews, where the campaign is set, etc. ∑∆∏ 14:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Did the best I could, but it still needs touching up (as with the rest of the article). -- Sleegi^[✆Talk] 18:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hotel/Sniper picture

I noticed a problem with the hotel/sniper picture, taken from the trailer: The image has incorrect Arabic text, which was corrected by the release of the game. The Arabic word for hotel, فندق is displayed backwards with separated letters: ق د ن ف I suggest replacing the image with the actual (fixed) view from the game. 216.164.53.2 (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This seems a little out of the way to me. I don't see the need to fix such a trivial error, when the main point of the picture is taken. Almost all people who look at the article will not notice it, and it really has no importance to justify changing it. -- Sleegi^[✆Talk] 01:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Why was the picture showing first person mode (Dimitri) removed? I think it fits the article way better than an outdated beta picture with incorrect arabic letters in it. Ignoring the fact that there was a picture at all demonstrating the hud and first person once, I'd like to say I am FOR changing the picture to a new one.93.82.139.243 (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the editor who removed it answered that in his summary. Muskeato 20:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know rightly where to put this yet, but anyhow thanks to whoever updated the pictures.178.191.249.132 (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Controversy

The section is/was biased. It purported that the questionnaire actually does intend to discriminate against COD players, however it appears more to be one which could be used to compare between the two. I have toned it down a little, but it may need more work to correctly show events and intention in a netural light, especially as both parties mentioned in the report are saying they recieved theirs prior to the report.

The "quote" is also a little misleading as the original [1] is in Norwegian (Google translation [2]) Chaosdruid (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

In all honesty that section needs a complete rewrite. It's clearly plagiarised from the source, with minimal (if any) rewording. As such, I'm going to remove it. Here's the source that was provided - http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2011/10/19/ea-norway-limits-battlefield-3-review-code/ - feel free to compare that to what I'm about to remove. I'm removing the final line as well, because while it does actually seem to be ok, it would make no sense on its own. Why am I not rewriting the offending section myself? I had 3 hours sleep last night. Muskeato 19:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

American English

Just a bit confused as to why its been decided this article is in AE. Mainly because I couldn't find any instances of particular AE use. Muskeato 15:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to mention, I'm only looking for a reason, not a fight. Muskeato 15:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It uses AmE date style... Probably a number of reasons: including consistency with Battlefield (series), the fact that it is published by an American publisher (EA), the fact that USMC favours so prominently in the game, and probably simply because the article evolved that way. –xeno^talk 15:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The Battlefield series page hasn't been claimed by any particular branch of english and itself doesn't use anything besides dates which are specific to AE. I'm not sure the article really evolved that way, as the most frequent editor by a significant margin (me) is not American. I'm not saying we should state it's any other kind of english, I just don't see why it's necessary to state the article is AE. Muskeato 17:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is typically the subject, not the editor, that informs the variant of English used. But given that there's been no disputes about the variant, I've just removed the template as unnecessary. –xeno^talk 17:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Einshrek, 8 November 2011

In the Development section it starts with Battlefield 3's lead platform is the PC rather than a console.

While this was true a recent interview with DICE GM states that this was switched mid-production to the console as lead platform.

Einshrek 23:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: DICE has already stated that they developed Battlefield 3 for PC, and then converted it over to console. If you can find any other source that counter-acts this please present it. -- Sleegi^[✆Talk] 15:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Although this is probably outdated talk: I'm confused. Didn't he just present a source? Why would he need to add another one? Do we suddenly require two sources for any claim? Nczempin (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Wii U Version

I would change the title of that section to "No Wii U Version" or something indicative of their decision NOT to make a Wii U port. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.118.198.5 (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

As it isn't going to happen, I've remove it entirely. ferret (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

PETA reaction

do people actually care what this "group" thinks???  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.17.110 (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC) 

The point is that they made a noticible complaint which has attracted media attention. Therefore, people do care.He's Gone Mental 08:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat interesting to point out when you notice that nobody has responded, perhaps people are learning that if we ignroe PETA, they'll shut up. 66.59.49.88 (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the more significant controversy/complaint is that these games are obviously military recruitment tools, and at the same time desensitizing children to associating rewards to killing people. Am I totally out of line here, or what? No discussion on this? I guess this would be an overall issue for military shooters, and doesn't belong in a specific title review.. then again maybe it does as it is fully relevant. 72.224.189.211 (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There is some relevance here, the best page I can think of though would be Video game controversy. The reasons why there are age restrictions is to protect people from games, until they are 'mentally capable' of handling it. (Even though people play games that are rated for more mature people anyway). So, the games are not designed to desensitize children, and the makers aren't wanting the players to join the military. They'd lose revenue if everyone who played their games signed up. So, Yes there is some relevance, however it is not intended to have those effects. He's Gone Mental 12:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Please remember that this is not a forum. Besides, research is generally inconclusive on the effects of video game violence on people. Muskeato 13:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

gameplay: Why was the "Commander option" eliminated from version 3?...

gameplay: Can anyone tell us, why the "Commander option" was eliminated from version 3?... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.166.86.100 (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

With the changes to the maps and the ability for the support class to drop ammo crates, IMHO it was decided that there was no need for a Commander. Maps such as Metro are impractical for vehicle drops, artillery strikes and UAVs. Due to the Support and Assault classes, teams can be self-sufficient withou needing a Commander. He's Gone Mental 09:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Your reasoning is flawed. Have you played Battlefield 2142, the last true battlefield game ? In that game commander mode is still present. Support classes drop ammo and there are no vehichle drops. It was a valid aspect of the game which many players enjoyed. A more valid reason would be that the game was developed for consoles. The development team admitted half way through development that they were switching focus. On a console commander mode becomes clunky and unbearable without a mouse, so they dropped it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.41.34 (talk) 10:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 25 November 2011

EA is currently experiencing server side problems as it releases R10, the tenth patch roll-out in less than a month since its release. The game servers have been plagued with instability, crashes, 'rubber-banding', and lately, no one is able to join via the Quick Play server browser.

The last patch (R10) was supposed to prevent stat-padding* by forcing the minumum amount of players at game start to FOUR. Unfortunately, the result is that people join a server then leave immediately as there is no one to play against. Due to the design of the 'sadbox mode', a player is frozen until a miniumum of another 4 players start to join. This last patch is reported to be damaging the GSH (Game Server Host) relationships, as the end-user customers are paying to rent servers which they cannot populate.

http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/forum/threadview/2832654489481146055/

http://forums.multiplay.co.uk/gameservers/86108-bf3-performance-feedback

http://forum.i3d.net/battlefield-3-i3d-net-community-ranked-servers/179796-bf3-server-not-filling.html

• 'Stat padders' or statistic padders are dishonest players that exploit different methods for obtaining game points to increase their statistics, usually by killing a friend on the same side then reviving him so they both get points.

94.170.142.137 (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: I'm sorry, but forum posts are not reliable sources. You'll need to find a news article of some sort to cite. nprice (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Japan sales sources

I'll be adding them soon, unless objection starts. Ominae (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Misspelling

Under the Reception area it says Iranian "gammers" instead of gamers. - 75.4.238.0

Fixed. ferret (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit Suggestion for Introduction

The introduction section states that the player takes the role of a Special Forces soldier. This is a pretty big discrepancy as the US Army Special Forces are in no way involved in the game as playable characters. SSG Blackburn is actually a United States Marine Corps Recon Marine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.170.208.74 (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed that. Sincerely, He's Gone Mental 14:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Minor edit in plot

The first sentence of the plot says "...locate, find and safely return..." That's fairly redundant. Animalmenace (talk) 11:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed that Sincerely, He's Gone Mental 11:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Battlefield 3 Paris Image is low quality

Since it looks so low quality and is 720p I will asume it's a picture from the console version. It should be stated that it is in fact from a console in the description. Also if possible putting the same scenario or picture but its PC version which will show a comparison of the graphics in both which are very different. Douken (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

People keep changing the text to say that it is taken from console. First of all, what it is played on is fairly irrelevant. You can play it on almost any graphics settings on PC, and an identical image could be taken from PC version. Either stop renaming it, or I will take a screenshot of my own and upload it. Sincerely, He's Gone Mental 14:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with Akjar13. There's nothing relevant about the fact that it's from a PS3. It is a screenshot of a particular resolution with particular detail levels, nothing more. It may come from a PS3, but could be produced on a PC, and may not differ at all or much from an Xbox 360 image either. ferret (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

So wait, we shouldn't clarify what version it comes from because you think it might not make a difference and because you might be able to manufacture a screenshot from another version that resembled it? It's a sample of PS3 gameplay taken using an HD-PVR. That is what the picture is actually of, and that's what it should be described as. This is as ridiculous as changing the caption "a fish swimming in a lake" to "a fish swimming" because the lake is "not relevant." Herr Gruber (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Then I ask why you haven't put in an effort to identify the other gameplay image? I assume it's just as relevant for that image? At this point you appear to be going against concensus with at least 4 or 5 editors. ferret (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Just some comments: Personally I don't think it's necessary to name the platform. Similarly, I don't have a problem with it there if the consensus goes that way, yet as Ferret just stated, the consensus currently seems to be against naming the platform, and as long as that's the case the page should be left without the platform stated. Muskeato 03:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the platform is irrelevant to the readers' understanding of the screenshot. Only if there were a side-by-side comparison of an identical image on a console and a PC using maxed settings would the platform be relevant. –xeno^talk 14:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a screenshot asap (within a week hopefully) running at max settings (ultra graphics at 1440*1920) and upload it (with proper documentation) so that we can decide to use one, the other, or both as a comparison. Sincerely, He's Gone Mental 15:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please add this link

Battlefield 1943 is now available for PS3 players in North America who preordered the limited edition at [3] This link is for getting a voucher to redeem on PSN 67.184.36.165 (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that would violate WP:PROMOTION. Sincerely, He's Gone Mental 09:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request "Awards"

Battlefield 3 won IGN's best Xbox 360, and PC shooter of 2011, best Xbox 360 sound design of 2011, and best Xbox 360, PS3, and PC multiplayer of 2011. IGN's best of 2011 It would be nice if an "Awards" section could be made on the article. It also won Gamespot's best competitive multiplayer of 2011 Gamespot best competitive multiplayer of 2011 and best sound design by G4 G4's best of 2011: Sound Design, and best shooter from GameSpy's best of 2011 GameSpy's best shooter of 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texas Rebel CSA (talk • contribs) 21:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Review summary

"Battlefield 3 has received mostly positive reviews."

Battlefield 3 has according to metacritic received the following reviews:

Positive: 58 Mixed: 1 Negative: 0

There is a minor amount of complaining elements out to skew facts, and the "mostly positive reviews" is the absolute most "half empty" summary possible. The only honest thing would be to write: "Battlefield 3 has received nearly exclusively positive reviews" or something to that effect.

Wikipedia is not a platform for complaining about products, and not a forum for expressing views, certainly not the views of a vast minority, it's a factual knowledge database. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.121.38 (talk) 10:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

"Mostly positive" is a valid description. "exclusively positive" borders on a bit of bias. Remember that a "Positive" review on Metacritic can range anywhere from a 70 to a 100. Metacritic themselves describe the current score of 89 as "Mostly favorable.", so the currently phrase is inline with the sources. -- ferret (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. "Mostly positive" implies there are negative reviews. There are no negative reviews. If I admit a million people into the Louvre to see the Mona Lisa, and 999999 people say they love it, and one says he's luke warm, it's not right to say "mostly positive". You must realize anybody can make a website and review games. There will always be detractors of anything whatsoever. You can tell somebody child birth is a beautiful thing, and one person will grumble about whatever, that doesn't take away from the fact that it must be seen as universally acclaimed, or whatever the phrase is often used with games like Half-Life 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.121.38 (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

"Mostly positive" implies that the reviews and their content, have been mostly positive. This is certainly the case. Many of the "positive reviews" do contain criticisms, which are negatives, even if none of the reviews rate the game below metacritics 70 "mixed review" score line. The statement is not to indicate that all or most of the reviews on metacritic give a score above 70, but that the actual content of the reviews are "mostly positive". Simple fact is that BF3 did not garner a 90+ Metacritic score. Half-Life 2, your other example, by comparision, has a Metacritic rating of 96, which is currently still the highest score attained on MC. (Though there are other games that also have a 96 score) -- ferret (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

In Critical Reception. "Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw, of Zero Punctuation named the game the worst game of 2011 (bizarrely tied with Modern Warfare 3)" - The bit in parenthesis should be removed, it's an opinion. Pongley (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I've edited it to more closely match the MW3 article for Croshaw's comments. -- ferret (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from , 7 October 2011 (made 7 January 2012)

I think a section should to be put into include the overwhelmingly negative response of many 1942/BF2/2142 players who felt DICE and EA had dampened down the game and made it into something that would be appreciable on consoles. Just visit the Official .co.uk EA Battlefield forums to see just how much BF3 is not viewed as a Battlefield game but rather a direct competitor to CoD. (Unsigned IP on 07 January 2012)

There was clear comment from EA, if not also from DICE, that the game was changed from PC as lead platform to Console as lead platform halfway through development. This information was, I thought, already included in the article. I will investigate to see why this appears to have changed, especially as the new statement uses a February 2011 magazine article as the ref, when in fact it was still PC as lead platform prior to the change.

As for the other point, the article already states "EA CEO John Riccitiello stated that Battlefield 3 is aimed at competing with the Call Of Duty series" Chaosdruid (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the response above. During the late development stages of Battlefield 3, "Karl Magnus Troedsson, the general manager of DICE, expressed his confidence that Battlefield 3 will be a 'real sequel to Battlefield 2.' " (http://battlefield.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Bovell/DICE:_Battlefield_3_a_%22real_sequel_to_Battlefield_2,%22_consoles_%22can't_handle%22_more_players) This is strictly controversial. Although the above link is a single reference, this phrase was used throughout the marketing process, making everyone expect a Battlefield 2, only revised in terms of graphics, physics, sound with new maps and possibly more content (including customisables). A successful shooter game combined with "good marketing" could have competed with the Call of Duty franchise. However, this was not the case. The few things Battlefield 3 has in common with Battlefield 2 are quite limited. Making a true sequal to a game which was tremendously successful would not include changing the "logic" of the game, ie. turning a tactical FPS game into a "regular" FPS game (to explain very briefly). Battlefield 2 was a game that highly promoted teamwork and that is something that entirely lacks in Battlefield 3, which in the contrary promotes individual play. What the request maker above has mentioned relates to this particular issue. In fact, this could easily be considered a marketing deceit executed by the game developers. Many people have clearly expressed that they want a refund for the game, some have even stated that they would consider filing a lawsuit against EA on the after-mentioned forums/sites. However, more importantly, the above request maker's actual request is to have a section which includes highly negative feedback coming from the already established Battlefield fanbase. This is nothing to underestimate and the only reason this hasn't been heard by everyone except by people who feel the same way, is that Electronic Arts officials and the developers of Battlefield 3 have given almost no reply to any of this sort of feedback (in fact they have totally ignored it, despite the fact that criticisers have rapidly grown in number) and have prefered to try to surpress this feedback by saying "how awesome Battlefield 3 is" or "how Battlefield 3 is the best Battlefield game ever made" on sources such as Twitter. If you type "Battlefield 3 true sequal Battlefield 2" to any search engine now, you will see almost nothing other than comments of disappointed fans amongst the search results. As the request maker has suggested sites such as Get Satisfaction.com (http://getsatisfaction.com/battlefield3), EA Battlefield UK forums or EA Battlefield US forums are full of threads started by at least hundreds of disappointed fans and each replied and actively followed by several thousands of other disappointed fans desperate for a reply by an official. This type of criticism should absolutely be included on this page, anything otherwise would seriously dent the objectivity Wikipedia.org has adopted. Finally I will give no name, but I am one of the leading thread starters on this matter on getsatisfaction.com/battlefield3 and I will be actively pursuing this request. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.78.21 (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Remember that this page is not a forum please. You must also consider that we cannot accept forums as reliable sources, thus we cannot accept the first link you posted, nor validate the 'negative responses'. Also what you have posted here, aside from being forumish seems to be original research to me or at least your own wording from unreliable sites. Secondly, you are trying to bring up points that are not related to the OP's question. This is something that should be avoided. Sincerely, Akjar13 (He's Gone Mental) 13:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Textron Lawsuit

I believe that a new section should be created to discuss the lawsuit against E.A. from Textron. Textron is currently attempting to sue EA for using bell helicopters in game (i.e. the Venom and the Viper). Textron is the parent company of Bell, the manufacturer of the aforementioned aircraft. EA is invoking their First Amendment Rights to use the aircraft because of free speech/media. There have also been several recent court rulings that make this an interesting case to follow (the recent ruling by the Supreme Court that video games fall within the same free speech protections as other forms of media such as films and books). There are currently at least 20 articles from various media outlets that can provide citations and additional information.

10 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.120.213.11 (talk)

Introduction Wording

The wording for the description of Sergeant Blackburn should be "recon Marine", not USMC reconnaisance officer, as there is no such MOS in the USMC. He's an NCO who happens to be part of a Marine force recon unit. Simple "recon Marine" is the term used generally and coloquially by Marines and civilians alike. -Regards, SP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.170.208.74 (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Done Muskeato 14:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Overly-detailed Characters Section

I feel that we should change this section to how it used to be as I feel that the additional characters (being less vital to the plot) do not contribute to the article. If people agree with me then I shall change it back. Sincerely, Akjar13 (He's Gone Mental) 09:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't feel the long list of supporting characters adds anything, most certainly aren't notable. Go ahead. Muskeato 14:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I reverted to before Firespectrum edited it, and then stuck your edit back in. Sincerely, Akjar13 (He's Gone Mental) 15:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Various edits and updates

1) This page would benefit from some updating. There are some speculations which, now that the game is out, have of course been confirmed. The out-dated text should be re-written or removed. A few examples:

- From Gameplay: "During an interview with Game Informer Magazine, EA stated that Commander Mode is unlikely to be included, which was met with some criticism on the EA forum."

- The entire Cooperative section.

2) Also, some of the article is just roughly constructed, especially where paragraph structure is concerned. There are many instances where one sentence has little to no connection to the one before it, or where a phrase (following "and") is not related to the rest of the sentence. Some examples:

- The Introduction, in particular, needs restructuring. Consider this rearrangement (with minor rewording in italics):

Battlefield 3 (commonly abbreviated "BF3") is a first-person shooter video game developed by EA Digital Illusions CE and published by Electronic Arts. It is a direct sequel to 2005's Battlefield 2, and the eleventh installment in the Battlefield franchise.

The game was released in North America on October 25, 2011 and in Europe on October 28, 2011 for Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 3, and Xbox 360. EA Mobile also confirmed a port for the iOS platform. The game sold 5 million copies in its first week of release, and received critical acclaim from most game reviewers. It does not support versions of Windows prior to Windows Vista as the game only supports DirectX 10 and 11. The PC version is exclusive to EA's Origin platform, through which PC users also authenticate when connecting to the game.

-The Multiplayer section's first paragraph should be two. The section should also explain more. Consider:

Battlefield 3's multiplayer matches see players take on one of four roles: Assault, Support, Engineer and Recon. The Assault class focuses on assault rifles and healing teammates. The Support class focuses on LMGs and supplying ammunition. The Engineer class focuses on supporting and destroying vehicles. The Recon class focuses on sniping and spotting enemies.

The mechanics of the weapons have been changed to utilize the new Frostbite 2 engine: compatible weapons may have bipods attached which can then be deployed on appropriate objects, or the ground when in the prone position, and provide a significant boost to accuracy and recoil reduction. Suppressive fire from weapons blurs the vision and reduces the accuracy of those under fire, as well as preventing normal health regeneration.

The Recon class can put a radio beacon anywhere on the map and all squad members will be able to spawn on the location of the beacon. (This sentence stands alone, and would be best if preceded by a description of normal spawn points or accompanied by information about other classes' equipment)

3) Lastly, one specific edit: The caption for the first image shown on the page reads "...player character is armed with a G36C assault rifle." The "c" variant of the G36 is a compact carbine with a 9 inch barrel. It is not an assault rifle. (See H&K's website: http://www.hk-usa.com/military_products/g36c_general.asp)

--- Eloquius (talk) 07:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your points. Feel free to Be Bold!. Personally my free time is a bit limited at the moment so a large scale redux by me isn't practical, but I can do some bits. Muskeato 18:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Done the G36 and edited the intro a bit Muskeato 18:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This engine would be perfect for a stalingrad type ww2 mod or upgrd. Better yet have different scenarios like manilla, berlin, warsaw etc. Urban warfare at its fullest. The closest thing i can think of 2 stalingrad is call of duty 2, it was fun but lacks the fast pace gameplay. More like intuition type thing. YKWIM. k laterz, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asfd666 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Zero Punctuation's review.

It doesn't say what Yahtzee thinks the game represents, and the only thing i'm getting from it is a vaguely inflammatory comment that doesn't really mean anything without that information. However, i cannot edit it because it has been protected from unregistered users. 66.59.49.88 (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the section is talking about the reviews the game received, and his opinion isn't even on the quality of the game or its content, but the subject matter shared by all war games. It should certainly be removed. 19:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed further. As an avid gamer I've never even heard of the person, and his vague and harsh critique is unnecessary and biased.

End Game

As far as I am aware there is no information whatsoever released by EA or DICE pertaining to the End Game expansion pack, the information from the 'EA Spokesperson' needs referencing or deleting, thank you. Anthony — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.37.93 (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Battlefield 3 Premium information needed

Information about premium needs to be added such as cost and what it includes. --Bobthbee (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

From what I remember costs shouldn't be included, but Premium should be mentioned Muskeato 20:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Brand new BF3 Armoured kill DLC info 23/07/2012

Here is a video describing the two other new maps that weren't shown in the "Armoured Kill gameplay video" recently released by dice/EA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWxTT-v-UZY

It features info on "Armoured Shield" & "Death Valley" and is very informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADDISON396 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 July 2012

The F-18's name is Lt. Jennifer Coleby Wedge Hawkins

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Floating Boat A boat that can float! 12:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Expand platforms

I would also request that the editor who wrote the page be more specific than simply "Optical disc, digital download" because there are five platforms that use optical discs: PCs, Macs, Xbox 360, Wii and PS3. That editor should also specify that, for the PC version, which is the one being mainly discussed in the article, there are 2 DVDs. --Marceki111 (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

With > 200 edits since 2006, aren't you a confirmed user so that you can make the change yourself? Of course you can discuss it if you feel it's controversial, but the edit request process is meant for editors who really cannot make the changes on protected pages. What am I missing? -- Nczempin (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The "Optical disc, digital download" is pretty standard for that part. The infobox also lists the platforms the game is on, so I don't really see an issue there. Also, this article, like most, is written by a bunch of people, not just one. Muskeato 14:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but "Optical disc" may refer to any kind of optical media (CD-ROM, DVD-ROM, DVD-DL for the Xbox 360 and Blu-ray Disc for the PS3), that's why I was suggesting editors be more specific.

Let me give you an example of what I mean: In the "Media" section of the article about Medal of Honor: Allied Assault it says "CD (2)" referring to the fact that there are two CD-ROMs compared to 2 DVD-ROMs. See? That's more specific than "Optical disc, digital download".

Also, I think the "digital download" part of the infobox should be removed for this and all vido game articles since I learned that downloading pirated games is illegal, and to me "digital download" means that, "pirate download". --Marceki111 (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Video games can be downloaded legally as well, for example on Steam. Floating Boat A boat that can float! 18:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Or even on Origin, which would be more appropriate for BF3 ;-) -- Nczempin (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Marking this as answered. I can't tell if there is consensus on the change, and if there is why the OP can't make the edit themselves. RudolfRed (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to request that the section for WiiU be removed as it litterally says "there will be no Wii U version". If we keep the Wii U sections should we also have a section for every platform that the Game won't appear on? I don't know who added it but it needs to be removed. --

Edit Request: Close Quarters DLC

There's another new game mode in the Close Quarters DLC for Battlefield 3. It's called Gun Master. 64.228.214.125 (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello? Nothing has been done about the request yet. 70.27.129.93 (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This answer request still hasn't been answered yet. If I were allowed to make an account at Wikipedia, I would have done that edit already. And the game mode is called "Gun Master"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.129.93 (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no list of game modes as far as i can see, adding Gun Master might also technically count as WP:FANCRUFT. 50.195.51.9 (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, we did it for the BFBC2 page, and that didn't seem so bad. I honestly can't be bothered/don't have the time to do something like this myself though. Heh. Muskeato 07:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 August 2012

On the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_3 page citation is needed for "It is a direct sequel to 2005's Battlefield 2" Any one that compares the two games can see that there is almost nothing to indicate that Battlefield 3 is a sequel to Battlefield 2. 70.161.100.44 (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 05:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request: Armored Kill DLC

The Armored Kill DLC adds a new game mode called "Tank Superiority". 70.27.129.93 (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request: Armored Kill Typo

The section for Armored kill has this in it "The DLC will be made availabable for Nnn-premium PS3 and Xbox 360 users on September 25, 2012", it should read "The DLC will be made available for Non-premium PS3 and Xbox 360 users on September 25, 2012" 50.195.51.9 (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)