Anybody have it? Thinking about picking this up once I clear up my backlog of gaming a little. If so how is it on consoles. I know PC is the way to go for BF games but I do not have a PC that can run it. I loved Modern Combat, Bad Company's were ok..

3 years and I've never played such a good teamwork oriented and balanced game. By far the best game I've boughten last year.

I can't speak for the console version, but its more similar to the bad company games then the 1942/BF2. Have no idea really since you liked modern combat and well, I didn't enjoy that game at all(and my experience with the series has been lots of 1942 and some BF2 on PC, then Bad Company 2 and BF1943 on the 360 for a while, and now BF3 PC).

I did play modern combat mostly on the PS2 so it may be nostalgia... I did play a lot of BFBC2 and 1943. Em there aren't any exploits/glitches etc that ruin the online gameplay?

Of course there are glitches, I loved 1943 there was nothing wrong with that, it was a nice affordable arcade game but BF3 has so many dimensions to it, you can take advantage of whatever path you want to go and help your teammates however you cant. If you're not a team oriented player you're *********ed....can't be lone wolf with this one.

Let me start out by saying I loved Battlefield Bad Company 2. It was the first Battlefield game I have played so I have no reference of what the past games were like so take this as you will. I love more team based shooters like this. The maps were fun and the destructible environments were exciting and refreshing. Online was great and the campaign was one of my favorites for a shooter. However, I don't feel the same way about BF3.

I was expecting the next level of play with even more destructibility. I feel BF3 went in reverse. Sure it was fun for a spell but all too soon I became bored with the maps and they really dumbed down the destructibility of the environments online. Not too much fun when your running for 30 minutes to get somewhere and die. No one really works together unless you are with a set squad of friends. The campaign was severely disappointing and on rails like COD. Battlefield Bad Company 2 campaign felt more open. I wanted to love BF3 but Bad Company 2 was better in every way.

Just my opinion.

I have it for 360 and I frickin love it. The destruction doesn't feel dumbed down to me at all, some maps are definitely less destructable then others but the new expansion Back to Karkand definitely is on par with BFBC2 level of destruction while maps like metro has very little building destruction but makes up for it in walls chiping away and atmosphere.

If u do get it just know if u buy used u need to buy a online pass and if u want Back to Karkand then that as well. so u are better off buying new but only if its the limited edition with the expansion as well. Online pass is 800 ms points and expansion I think is 1200.

The game to me is perfect, I seriously can't get enough of it. I've tried going back to call of duty a few times but I just can't get back into it after playing BF3. I don't agree that its a step backward at all, in fact I feel the opposite, to me it is a huge innovation. I even liked the single player, it was fun and the coop side missions were a fun distraction for a day.

Hit me up if u get it there's almost always 3-10 people I'm playing with every night.

Me and Em played about 4 rounds with Major Nelson and Stepto a few nights ago too. Kinda kewl. The Major Definitely is horrible at it though.

I wonder if that was actually his son. I respect his behaviour, not advertising or anything. Just him, Stepto and some family.

I have it, however I can never get it away from my husband!

Oh right, I forgot to talk about the maps, i've only played about 10 hours so far, but for the most part there not that great. I only really like Caspian Border, Operation Firestorm, and Kharg Island, and only playing conquest. There all HUGE maps too on the PC version so dunno how well that works with just 24 players, even with 64 players there are still times where i'm just running from point to point with no combat. I think the maps definitly sufferred from trying to make rush and conquest maps.

I'll see if I can talk my room mate into getting it.. we play COD together often see if I can convert him to a battlefield player.

Again I can't agree with you Pan, sorry man. Too me on the console almost all the maps are great. My only complaint early on was that the maps didn't seem to rotate much but then I realized when you manually search for servers you can view the map rotation witha couple button presses.

Before the expansion I was starting to get alittle annoyed cause in conquest there is only 4 big maps and 5 smaller maps. It seemed like I was always getting stuck on the smaller ones and for someone who loves jets it was frustrating till I figured out how to see the map rotation. But now with the new maps in the mix its nice cause the new ones have small and large versions in conquest, very cool. Also rush is fun too cause some maps are totally different compared to their conquest brothers, even more than in BFBC2 especially Damavand Peak which is at the bottom of my list for conquest but one of my favorites for rush.

I love every single map for one reason or another, except for Metro which I hate regardless of game type cause its just a clusterf (hate to see how horrible it is for 64 players) but it is a easy way to rack up some kills.

I played Metro in the beta and it was that map that convinced me not to get it at launch too many people just waiting and camping around corners for someone to walk by, that and fundage stopped me from getting it at launch. But once I clear up some old games I should have a few to sell so I can bring down the cost a little. I do still have it preordered at gamestop.

Ah, wasn't aware of that there were small and large versions of maps. I thought playing rush on metro in the beta was decent, but on conquest its pretty much just shipment from CoD4, and there are tons of servers running it 64 players with 1000 tickets on conquest because its sooooo easy to rank up on with assualt and gunner, just throw out ammo and med kits and watch the points fly in. There are only 3 flags for it also, with one in that middle/endish area with the stairs before you go outside, pretty much whichever team gets there first wins, there is no getting up those stairs.

I do have the filter on battlelog to be set up for conquest and rush but so far I've played like 95% conquest, and I did really enjoy rush in BC2, I would assume rush is more fun on consoles with 24 players. I did play Damavand Peak(I think that was it, it was a mountainous map with the attackers coming down to the first point then a few hills that go down to the second, we only got that far though), that was fun.

Haven't gotten back to karkand since I only just bought it(got it of amazon for 20 so, not gonna complain about not getting it with the game), but I reall, really wish they would do a remake of El Alamien.

I'll see if I can talk my room mate into getting it.. we play COD together often see if I can convert him to a battlefield player.

My brother got the game, and that's one thing I hate about the Battlefield games. There is no splitscreen at all, only one person can play it at a time even though there are co-op modes.

Otherwise it seems like a pretty cool game. The vehicles and semi-destructable environments really give it an edge over Call of Duty. Though I really don't play many competitive multiplayer games to begin with, so I don't really play either lol.

My room mate and I wouldn't split screen, we have 2 tvs, 2 360s, and 2 ps3s between us. Our living room it like gaming heaven.