BF3 SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
On October 26th, 2011 in News
The vast majority of gaming publications have released their Battlefield 3 reviews, and so far they’ve been overwhelmingly positive, getting near-perfect scores from many publications. We thought of doing a Battlefield review ourselves, but what’s the point? It would become the most biased review out there 
Here’s a run-down of the Battlefield 3 reviews so far:
- GameSpot: 8.5/10
- IGN: 9/10
- GameSpy: 5/5
- GameInformer: 9.5/10
- 1UP: A-
- GameTrailers: 92/100
- Destructoid: 75/100
- Joystiq: 4.5/5
What do you think of Battlefield 3 so far? Use the comments to share your thoughts!
can you spot the call of duty fanboy?
“Destructoid: 75/100″
They played on a PC with one Radeon 5 series card.
if your talking about Destructoid, they played on PC with:
“Intel i7-2600k @3.40 GHz, with 8GB of RAM, GeForce GTX 580 GPU (SLI)”
for the record I’m playing BF3 on at least high with:
Phenom II x4 940 BE @ 3.00 GHz
8GB of RAM
XFX HD 5750
and it works great.
so if your talking about the HD 5xxx line, it works fine if your NOT getting one of the lower end cards.
Are you playing maxed out?
Destructoid is a good review and I agree whit everything they write, did you even bother reading it?
I agree with you, i did read all those negative reviews and some of them were call of duty fan boys, but only like 2 of 10, the rest was good reviews, and i agree with them this game is full of glitches and bugs, to much call of duty implemented on this game, some commands that appear on the PC trailers didn’t even appear on the full game, the graphics are not that great i prefer the original Crysis for great graphics, on PC feels more like a Console port… i will give it a 6.8 of 10.
I have to agree with Destructoid’s review. the main reason they knocked down the ratting: Battlelog (PC)
“The PC is the obvious choice for Battlefield 3 — if you can run it — but there’s a catch. A very large, significant, infuriating catch that may prove a deal breaker for some people. The name of this catch is Battlelog, and it’s by far one of the worst ideas in videogame history.” -Destructoid
I have to say, it plays too much like BC3. 4 man squads, hack-job’d commorose, from 0-100 hp regen in less than 20 secs, plays like a true beta (even for SP… “Night Shift” has a few bad respawn/checkpoints for example)
no in-game voice chat…. what were they thinking? In the beta I tryed to use it a few times, it was such a headach i just ended up using Ventrilo…
Am I saying it’s a bad game? in it’s current state it has many issues, but it’s not a bad game. in Metro you can still shoot thru the ground in a few areas… shouldn’t that map have been perfect since that was about what 95% of people played in the beta and everyone played in the alpha?
@BF212343 crap, i missed the dislike button :I
@gundam (didn’t see a reply link under your comment)
I don’t see the issue with Battlelog. The voice chat through Battlelog works great. My friends and I have been using that to talk during gameplay and have found no problems yet. I find the browser server browser to refresh faster than any in-game server browser I’ve ever used. And I like how while it’s loading I can do other stuff. Plus, seeing my friends’ unlocks motivates me to play more to try to catch up, so that works in their favor as well. It just sounds like they don’t like that it’s a different system, because if you actually judge it for its pros and cons, there are definitely more pros to battlelog than cons in my opinion. Never had an issue with it yet.
And as far as system specs go, I’m playing on high and some ultra and I still have an ATI 4xxx series card. Albeit it was the fastest of that series, the 4890 1GB. And I have a good CPU too, Core i5 2500k which is 3.4GHz that turbo’s to 3.7GHz. I’ve read that my CPU can overclock to 4.1GHz stable without increasing voltage.
Anyway, I’ll have to disagree with that review. The only things I agree with is the lack of a commander mode and how you can’t really pick your squad kind of suck… Hopefully they at least fix that squad issue…
I feel like Destructoid doesnt know how to play battlefield
I agreed with destructiod about everything except the vehicular combat.
It seemed he actually didn’t tweak with the traditional BF mantra of bg maps and all out war and it showed when he said he prefered the smaller infrantry-centric maps…..but to each their own….
Other than that, an honest assessment of things I didn’t realsie I felt until I saw them written, as well as some things that are blinking obvious for everyone to see.
BF3 is not all that, but it is still the only MP game I’m playing.
I doubt he’s ever played a Battlefield game…
And is it just me, or do a lot of the textures still look sd after te mandatory installation? Especially the blood in sp when you die… (PS3)
even though a lot of u say it doesn’t matter, the singleplayer is a valuable tool to get familiarized with any multiplayer game
for me the single player is always played b4 multiplayer. it also gives developers time to patch multiplayer bugs so i dont get po’d over glitches
While the review seemed fair, they didn’t really give the games scale and online gameplay justice.
Destructoid are clearly CoD fanboys, these are the people who said that CoD MW2′s maps ranged from ‘small to ‘huge” and that they online play had only ‘minor’ flaws… last time I checked having 80% of your team using noobtubes and 15% failing at trickshotting while 1 person just fucks everyone over in a fucking insta-kill helicopter (assuming you could even get into a game for more than 5 mins without a failed host migration) qualifies as more than ‘minor’ flaws.
I mean they were probably a little too harsh on BF3, deducting around 20% of the total score for an ‘alright’ single player/co-op. The review wasn’t fair at all because it focused far too much on the negitives and almost not at all on the positives, whereas Destructoid seem to do the opposite with their CoD reviews.
Destructioid’s is disappointing, although it does raise legitimate complaints about Battlelog.
Overall Score on Metacritic for Battlefield 3 PC right now is 92%. Not bad for a Triple-A Game. For some reason however, the Console Scores are much lower, with the PS3 at 84 and Xbox 360 at 82.
Something wrong with the Console Version?
Perhaps cod fan-boys?
i think lots of consolers were dissappointed they didnt get the full battlefield experience they never really experienced before. and i heard there were a few extra bugs too.
Battlefield 2: Modern Combat was the 1st BF game on the consoles. (PS2, Xbox1, Xbox 360) it played great on xbox1.
haven’t played BF3 on a console, any other game that you can compare it to for refence? Kinda intrested in it since some review sites are saying on consoles it got shafted.
The game really is divided big time in quality. The multiplayer is extremely well done. The singleplayer is really not great at all. There are pathing problems with AI, hit detection issues, undevelopped characters, lame quick-time events that should have died off a decade ago and some cheap/unfun mechanics.
But who actually bought it for the single player anyway? The game with multiplayer is all I need. The single player is just a distraction anyway. It’s plain and simple, if you buy for singleplayer, just don’t bother. For multiplayer? #1 game hands down.
Well, biggest thing on PS3 is i cannot talk to anyone in squad.. same as beta. So for now i am playing dungeon defenders until thats resolved.
Is it really THAT much of a surprise? The game’s really good, does many things right with few misteps, but it’s far from “perfect”. You might also want to think that since it’s Metascore, reviewers could be like, from the older genera of Battlefields, and thus downsizing it. And lets be honest here, this more like a Medal Of Honor 2 with Conquest stripped from BF2 but the pacing is from COD.
But hey-ey flame if you care, like I said: BF3 is good if not excellent, just a bit overrated on that “sequel/successor” part.
if they expanded the squads to 6 man and had in-game VOIP(dunno if consoles have in-game VOIP or not) it would be MUCH better.
but I have to agree with you, in it’s curret state it plays like BC3. Run N Gun. teamwork feels like it got the shaft on the PC.
Consoles have In-Game VoIP, In-Game Server Browser, Game Menu, etc. Basically the stuff the PC Version is getting shafted on because of Battlelog.
@Implied
I don’t see the problem here. My friends and I have been using Battlelog’s voice chat for the games and it works great. Better than in-game for a few reasons:
1. We can keep chatting in between rounds even while the new map is loading.
2. We can chat while we’re looking for a server, or even if we’re just browsing around we can chat, so it’s not limited to while we’re playing.
And to me, I like the server browser via the internet browser also for several reasons:
1. I can continue browsing the internet if my friend is searching for a good server, it makes a noise when they send me an invite or they can just verbally tell me they found one and I’ll switch back.
2. I can also continue browsing the web while the game is loading, and then jump into the game with one click once it’s done loading.
3. Tell me, have you seen a single in-game server browser that refreshed and searched faster? Because I haven’t. I remember in other games, you chose the filters, you clicked refresh or search and you’re left watching a spinning circle for a few seconds before servers start popping up. The one through battlelog is instant. So what’s the problem??
I do hate that some of the teamwork mechanics have been removed like larger squads, better squad management, creating squads, commander feature, etc… But yes, they are trying to cater to some of the COD fans, because let’s face it. They can’t just rely on us old-school BF fans, they need to attract the younger crowd too, and they all have ADHD now-a-days so everything needs to be fast and crazy to appeal to them. Gaming style has evolved, we just have to live with it unfortunately…
The idea of Battlelog as a Server Browser, isn’t bad at all. Some people are skeptical but yes, it works. Except when it doesn’t work because its bugged, but same would go for an In-Game Browser. Battlefield has a History of crappy In-Game Server Browsers. The problems start when you realize it goes beyond being just a Server Browser.
Its not as much that there’s Battlelog VoIP, but that there won’t be In-Game VoIP (no matter what they say “might” happen). They’re trying to make their own Ventrilo here, which isn’t necessarily bad. I personally still prefer Vent. Even the Stats Tracking part isn’t an issue (with me personally anyway). We’ve had Battlefield Stats Tracking Sites for ages. Now there’s an “Official” one so to speak.
Problem is, they’ve thrown in a Battlefield version of Failbook which nobody ever asked for, to compete with Activision’s Call of Duty Elite Service, and while this one doesn’t have a Subscription cost, at least CoD Elite is optional. “Battlebook” isn’t.
Then there’s other things. Lack of Game Menu for one, simply because of Battlelog. Want to launch Campaign? Go through Battlelog, which launches Origin, which launches BF3. Fortunately it has an Offline Mode which doesn’t make it a 100% DRM, but it almost is. Good thing Campaign isn’t Battlefield’s strong suit.
Battlelog as a Server Browser + Stats Tracking thing is fine. But going beyond that has just tanked the whole thing. I’m afraid DICE will either scrap the idea entirely after Battlefield 3, meaning we go back to crappy In-Game Server Browsers, or EA will ignore our criticism and keep shoving it down our Throats (possibly along with Origin too). Origin integration isn’t exactly making this an all-popular thing either, and there’s quite the amount of people whining about “Origin Spyware.”
Some say “you’ll just get used to it,” “you’ll grow to like it.” I hate Failbook. Why would I grow to love Battlebook?
I have both console (xbox 360) and pc. If I was reviewing I would at most give a difference of 1 or 2 points for the score. My personal score:
PC: 96/100
Xbox: 93.5/100
Sorry PS3 owners haven’t played that version but I do know for a fact that both console versons are the SAME GAME IN EVERY ASPECT (except for the amount of discs).
I’d say that’s arguable. The PS3 Lighting/Shadows have been proven to be just slightly better, which would equal the 2 point difference between the 2 Console Scores. With the Xbox 360 there’s also a matter of requiring an Xbox with Hard Drive Space to get the full Experience (HD Textures), while on PS3 this is only a problem if you don’t have 2 GBs of Disc Space free.
Ignoring HD Texture Pack/Graphics Quality difference between the two Versions, why are they 8-10 points below the PC Score? That just makes no sense. I mean, the Game looks fine, so either the Console Reviewers are all Biased CoD Fanboys or they just downrated extra because they didn’t like the Campaign yeah.
There’s nothing really lacking from the Console Version of BF3, apart from the full-on Graphics which is due to Hardware, and AFAIK Commo Rose (confirm?). I doubt they’d downrate over the lack of Battlelog DRM… Lol. Extra Bugs? Something game breaking?
In-Game VoIP doesn’t work?
Funny Cause Its True – Are you basing that on Beta? Beta Op. Metro + Rush did feel very CoD with Ballistics/minimal Destruction, but I’m curious how the hell Caspian Border Conquest feels like CoD (EU, so haven’t played yet), even Operation Firestorm/Tehran Highway, etc. etc.
PC down to 91 now, PS3 up to 86, Xbox 360 still at 82.
I’ve noticed some big sites like PC Gamer still haven’t published a Review, that should probably help buff the score a bit.
I play it on the ps3 and I’ve had a lot of problems with it. Over the 2 days I’ve had it, it has crashed about 6 times, the matchmaking doesn’t work well e.g I filtered quick match for caspian border and got a different map. I don’t know if it’s just the people I’ve been playing with but mics have been coming in choppy. Also a decent amount of server lag, especially on the night map. I don’t know if it goes for PC version but I personally feel a lack of vehicles overall. The minimap now has massive icons for health and ammo kits, in dense combat areas they tend to block the icons of ally’s and enemies. A couple times my hud has just disappeared. Also the campaign is kinda bad. I like it but I can see where it falters. Also I can’t be the only one to notice the plot is a rip off of MW2 and Black Ops put together.
Aside to that though, this game is a fucking blast.
I can’t understand why people don’t get that the console version of BF3 is lower because it is lacking relative to its PC counterpart. Lower quality graphics and less players. That really changes the way the game plays. And some reviewers felt that should lower the score a bit. Why is that surprising to people or hard to comprehend in the slightest. They still got decent scores. Besides, if you love the game, who cares if it meets your personal score. 10 million gamers can’t be wrong
I DON’t KNOW IT’S NOT OUT YET :’(
Hmm…. To be honest I’m not happy with the reviews… I rly expected full pot (100%).
I obviously know the reason… and it is the singeplayer. The only reason DICE implemented it was to steal fans from MW3… But what is the point DICE? Why not stick to the thing you know best! – To create the best MP-game the mankind have ever seen?
Next time… Drop that Co-op and singleplayer-bull****. Focus instead to “perfectionizing” the MP!
lol, it’s called “perfecting” bro
Shakespeare made up his own words:)
This may be a literary genius in the making:P
Campaign is part of an FPS Formula these days, unfortunately. After BC2′s Campaigns, some Reviewers would have probably docked points just over the lack of Campaign, while others would have probably given it a pass, or even praised DICE for sticking to their Roots and spending more Development Time on Multi-Player.
From what I gather of it however, it might have been better off not existing in some people’s opinions. Community seems very biased, some people love it, some people hate it. Haven’t played it myself yet, and most likely not going to, but from what I see in the Videos that have been Uploaded, it seems very Scripted. “Press Space” over and over. And I hear there’s a “Press Space to Dodge Death” part somewhere. Lol?
Much of the criticism comes from the poor singleplayer component, but I suppose that’s to be expected being a Battlefield game.
Much of the criticism comes from f***tards. The BF community is by far one of the worst comunities out there. You get to play one of the best games out there yet you can’t stop complaning about everything. You didn’t like the campaing? Don’t play it. How is it that BF3 feels more like CoD? Because it doesn’t have a commander feature? They brought TONS of stuff from BF2 that were missing in BC2 and you are still crying. Squad leaders, commo rose, jets, 64 player based maps, you can even hold the knife and the granade in your hand. I haven’t seen this much bitching in my life.
Battlelog on the PC is the other part of that as well. And to be honest it feels… rushed.
I feel the same way. I’m loving the game, but it feels like it could have done with another month or two in development.
True, it feels rushed indeed. But that’s not an excuse for al the whining I’ve seen around here. We all know this stuff is going to get patched sooner or later. Besides, EA/DICE has change everything we haven’t liked so far. What’s to worry about then?
Hey i got a question but its off toppic: Can i use dogtags that i have obtained by a stealth kill? because i got a few premium dogtags but i cant wear them.
Well I like BF3 but with much rage. sometimes i think that the support ist overpowered while the assault underpowered is. but all in all its great
I would love to review Battlefield 3, If only I could play it long enough before it crashed…But for what I’ve seen so far, and as I said, that’s not much, it looks great. Looking forward to a stability fix by DICE so I can get to the FULL!! Battlefield experience.
Guys these scores are for as soon as the game came out they might get higher and i personally think these are great scores.
Great multi of course. Co-op.. I was hoping to be able to play the campaign with a friend but it just arcade mission, fun tough. Could be better with 4 players co-op.
Campaign… great but too short.
It’s a little bit soon to say it.
I liked the singleplayer, but should have been a lot longer. plus did anyone realize that all the things we saw in the end of those trailers (Remember, at the end of those trailers there was like two seconds of what seemed to be of the Campaign) was no where at all in the final game?!? that was disappointing to me.
XPlay: 5/5
CheatCC: 4.6/5
I think the reviewer from Destructiod was having a bad day. Complaining about the tanks being “sluggish”? What did he expect them to drive like, Porshes? Honestly.
I kind of agree with them on that point….I mean, this isn’t taking place in 1940…The Abrams is a pretty mother****ing fast tank, I mean, for a tank. Without a governor, it can hit 100mph. In the game, a verrry slight incline slows them to like 2 mph… Driving on flat terrain the speed is fine, but going up any incline slows them drastically for whatever reason in the game. Didn’t need to make the difference that bad.
But whatever, that’s a freakin’ minor as hell complaint. Modern Gayfare 3 won’t even let you in an Abrams, period.
Where did you read that they can reach 100 mph ungoverned? From what I’ve read the top speed is around 60 mph. Just curious.
Road 67.6 km/h (42.0 mph)
Off-road: 48.28 km/h (30.00 mph)
haha, imagine a tank rollin´da highway in 100 mph!
nope, the top speed is around 60 KPH, and not mph, which is way faster.
** Don’t forget you can “sprint” in the tank…. I guess that’s like turbo.
A turbo tank.. not that sluggish
look at destructiods complaints toward the end of the review.
hes basically complaining that the multiplayer is vehicle based and isnt like CoD. gun on gun all the time. sad. of course vehicles are “overpowering” verses infrantry, thats what there there for. an overpowering force.
CoD fan boy. no doubt about it.
not only that but he dubs anyone left outside of a tank or vehicle useless. clearly this game isnt for him.
I think this is a pretty good and fair sample. The multiplayer is nothing short of stunning and the single player, while intense, does kind of get annoying at parts, especially when you get caught off-guard and miss hitting a button you were supposed to get within like half a second. Overall, a solid, mid-90′s game. Yup.
So how many of those were paid for by EA?
…Have you got something about this awesome game to say son?
Yeah, I’m really excited about playing it tomorrow, even the beta was very enjoyable (even though the map doesn’t really cut it). Just being cynical concerning EA, that’s all.
A few points on Destructoid:
a) 75 isn’t a terrible score. It’s simply good. They haven’t killed your firstborn, fanboys.
b) Mr. Jim Sterling appears to have very little experience with the Battlefield series, or other combined-arms games at all (Planetside, Red Orchestra, Tribes, etc.), and as follows…
~He believes the vehicle controls are wonky/dodgy. Having played all of the main BF entries and the games I mentioned above, I can personally say BF3 manages to have the best vehicle controls so far attempted. I guess he was addressing them objectively, rather than comparing them to prior attempts. Whatever.
~He says matches become rushes for vehicles, in which they overpower infantry and feel too disconnected from combat. Disregarding the fact that infantry have a significant number of options against vehicles, jet and helicopter pilots have commonly cited disconnection from the fight on the ground despite leaving an indelible impact on the battle. He is quite obviously partial towards infantry combat, and is probably playing it like an infantry arena shooter. Not healthy for his enjoyment.
~He complains about traversal time and quick death. Again, playing it like infantry arena combat gets you killed fast and reduces your contribution to the match. Seems like he didn’t learn how vehicles and infantry should interact when a game is structured primarily around combined-ops.
c) A realism point: He complains about dust, light, and foliage obstacles making it difficult to spot targets. We should all pitch in to take him to an airsoft battle.
d) While I understand his concern about Battlelog making a mockery of all of us by being a social network with some functionality issues, I question just how much its functionality has destroyed his experience, as that hasn’t been the case for me. It makes out to be one of his primary concerns, which is a bit confusing.
If anything, it’s good that we got at least one opinion from a reviewer without any significant experience with combined-ops. Maybe all those CoD and Quake and Counter-Strike “hardcores” will look elsewhere. If they’re not going to have fun playing with us, they’re only going to detract from our experience.
LOL why would you even bother writing a wall of text to explain Destructoid’s review? The site do not take their reviews seriously, they would score a game with metacritic score of 6.8 with a 10/10 LOL! and give bad scores to games with high metacritic scores.
That’s irrelevant. Reviews, regardless of how objective they are supposed to be, are entirely subjective and subject to the preferences and experiences of the reviewer. They are NOT driven by Metacritic averages, nor do they ever have to agree with what is “supposed to be” a good score.
Ultimately, reviews are meant to inform purchasers on the fense with informed opinions, critiques, and preferences.
Unfortunately, in the giant circle-jerk cluster-fuck dipshit-train that is the internet, any score near perfect is “bought out” and “fanboy written,” and any score below the Metacritic average is “fanboy of the OTHER game” or “a faggot sissy casual non-hardcorre piece of shit.”
Regardless, it’s just fanboys of games, developers, publishers, and publications flinging shit at each other over a stupid number. Which is why I addressed his review. Notice that the first comment on this article claims Mr. Sterling is a Call of Duty fanboy. That’s not a very well qualified statement.
This game is fucking redic. I keep getting every error in the fucking book trying to join any game, admin has kicked you, battlefield 3 has stopped responding, you name it I get it. Next time release a game… Not some pos.
stop playin on pc! simple i dont get kicked ever i have had no problems not one on my ps3, game runs flawless but ill get flamed for sayin i told you so
What average ping do you have on PS3? Oh well, you cannot know that…
how bout i dont give a fuck?
the games runs smooth, i kill people, i have fun.
nuff said.
When I played I had one game client crash which I had to force close. But aside from that and some updating issues with battlelog and server population, my experience in BF3 was amazing
May I suggest trying to join an empty server from a provider that you normally don’t join. Sometimes it is server settings at their end that screw it up. You may end up finding other providers that offer similarly populated servers and no “you shall not pass!” problems
to give a bad review?? why would ea pay for a sub par score??? honeslty i felt like the sp was fun up the difficulty for a real challenge and the multiplayer is fantastic. the problem is people listen to these critics and go by their every word when its all just opinion. people need to stop listening to reviews and review it YOURSELF. the game is honestly a 9 out of 10 only gripe i have is how short the sp was , but! it was fun none the less so a great game from dice/ea
worst fucking game. ever.
Lamest and Stupidest comment. Ever. Grow up.
hey, can you please just tell us what you think is so bad with BF3? and since you call yourself “Gay” and are on a BF3 fan-blog just to troll, i don´t think you really have ever played any other game than call of duty because most cod kiddies who haven´t tried BF before will just troll their games for fun… and if you are over about 20 years, i am really surprised to see a grown-up act like a little child.
The game was JUST released so it’s gonna have a few bugs. Considering the amount of stress that the servers have to take, I’d say it runs pretty well. Just give it time and they’ll resolve any problems…
5 out of 10 as it stands now. Too much like BC2.
It feels nothing like BC2.
I say this as someone who has Played BF2 since 2005 right up to the end of 2010, then BC2 right up to last week.
Gotta agree with you. I don’t get it.. I’ve played BF1942, Vietnam and 2 ’till yesterday and I’m completely sure that BF3 feels like a real BATTLEFIELD game. All these whiners should go back and take a close look at the previous BF titles and then after playing them for some hours they might notice: “Hey, after all BF3 isn’t that bad at all!”
it blows on the ps3 the graphics are awesome the single player campaign is fun but too short, and ea’s servers are completely full so i can’t get online to play. for the last 2 days its said unable to connect to ea online i called and the said they’ll credit my account with a 15% coupon for my next purchase, but there isn’t anything else ill ever buy from ea after this garbage.
i have had the game since midnight on launch day and not once did it say i couldnt get in, try quick match trying to pick a server is pointless let the game choose whats best for you thats why its there.
I have found that quick match on PC is not the way to go… It quite literally takes forever and ends up with connection issues. This may be fine for consoles, but if you are on a PC… search for servers instead.
troll alert
“DONT FEED THE TROLLS”
i have noticed living in UK that since BF3 was released in USA it is very hard to get on to BC2 games. I think EA are using everything they’ve got to keep BF3 online working
The game didn’t blow me away.. for some reason textures get ugly when looking through a sniper scope. Like anti-aliasing isn’t working. Als I played online ranked up some levels, but couple hours later i was back to lvl 1.
Feels like Bad Company 2 except for the prone and bulletdrop.
there was bulletdrop in BC2 too… :I
this is coming form a critic that gave killzone 3 a 10 out of 10
I hate when people use mics in battlefield games, I just quit the game and find another 1, it’s annoying as hell so fk the idiot who sed this was a problem on ps3, fk you
Are you retarded or are you retarded?
I concur Dr, definetly retarded.
“The long-running series is at the top of its game thanks to stellar multiplayer and the best FPS campaign since Call of Duty 4.”
http://www.gameinformer.com/games/battlefield_3/b/pc/archive/2011/10/24/review.aspx
Gameinformer actually gave a 9.75 to PC, 9.5 To console, so why include just the console score? Why not average them?
Destructoid… Bet ya all my money they’ll give MW3 a 10/10
If that happens we are starting a revolution.
Hell with a revolution, let’s just buy all the MW3 copy’s so all the fanboys can’t get there grubby ten year old hands on um! Then we could have a 10 year supply of the best tolite paper around!
Yeah! Lets give activision ALL of our money! that will sure show them!
Someone who sais Crysis2 on consoles has great graphics while actually are subHD and totally blurred at 15 fps… has no credibility.