Battlefield 3

Activision and Electronic Arts share no love, especially when it comes to their respective first-person war shooters. This is proven by the slam advertising the latter ever since the releases of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2, where Electronic Arts mentioned it would avoid the nickel-and-dime technique just after Activision set its map packs at a record price. The slam advertising carried over into Battlefield 3 when it went up against Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, claiming the former was "flat out" the superior product. Did this hold true?

Unfortunately for Electronic Arts, it seems like their proud presence put them in a bit of a pickle. Not only did Modern Warfare 3 completely blow its rival out of the water in terms of sales, but Battlefield 3 offers a very broken experience for its players. While the multiplayer stands fine on its own, the single player game mode is incredibly broken and not even worth the run-through even without the flaws.

In fact, it stands to reason that, instead of providing its fans with a true sequel, Electronic Arts may have instead put far too much focus on its rivalry and attempting to big up its name and rushed through a product that was not finished, tested or even a little bit ready for players to enjoy. All that Electronic Arts succeeded in doing is making their product look foolish.

Though the multiplayer is still mostly the same decent experience as in Battlefield: Bad Company 2, that's still a poor point as well. Why pay the high price point just to have the same experience as before? At that point, players can still just load the old game on Steam and not even have to deal with the fumbling experience that Electronic Arts' Origin platform provides.

At the end of the day, Battlefield 3 is one experience that war shooter fans can pass on without regret.