Battlefield 3 sure beats the call of duty franchise single handedly, Battlefield 3 shows compelling story telling and the open map based shooting that we have come to love in the previous titles, this game revolutionised the way we think about first person shooters in terms of realism.

Excellent war game, massive maps with realistic vehicles and graphics. Feels like you're actually being shot at with real weapons and Hardcore mode makes you feel like you are in the battle. Premium edition is worth the extra coin to get all the map packs. Hurry up and buy!

The most impressive part of Battlefield 3: Premium Edition is the online mode. It has great graphics, audio and game play. Single player mode is short but action packed. It's well worth the money.

This has a great story, great multiplayer and great DLC. It offers all COD offers and more.

The game is the same as normal but with all the new content. The new content doesn't come in the game. It comes in a coupon It has a lot of new missions, all the premium contest, new maps, etc

Battlefield 3 is awesome and even more so with battlefield 3 premium edition and all the packs that it injects into it. I am not sure what other people are on about slating this game, don't play it, its simple as orange juice my friend apart from orange juice is refreshing and you seem sour.

I know, shocker right. Everyone else has been harping on about Battlefield 3: Premium Edition since its release back in October of last year, but I see it as a bad road to where AAA+ games development is heading. Not to mention we have battlefield 4 coming out in the near future, but I'm splitting hairs here. The game is good, it serves it's purpose as a stress reliever. You go online for a couple of hours after a rubbish day at work and it genuinely leaves you in a better frame of mind when you're done. But after a while of playing it constantly, it gets a bit tiresome and dull. Everytime I meet a guy who boasts that they have level capped in games like this, I always ask the same question. "Do you have a soul?" I don't get the appeal at trying to get to level 9000 and beyond in games. It means people spend time playing over hyped kack like this, and not playing games such as portal 1 or 2. Games must never be weighed in merit due to its multiplayer, and anyone who buys a game just for multiplayer is a damn idiot. Games don't need a mutiplayer component to be a complete experience. The single player stories in games like this are bad because the writing was bad, it doesn't mean that every other single player game out there is going to be the same. Sure, they got SAS legend Andy McNab to write the story. But it feels to much like a bog standard "AMERICHAAAA!!!" shooter. Sure, the chemistry between the characters in the game are believable. It's just that the events aren't I'm afraid. It seems a bit... Out there. And I don't have a problem with that, it's being experimental. But there were times when the single player felt disjointed and sluggish, it failed to play itself out in the best way for the player to understand what was going on. In short, the game didn't make me care about the person I was playing as. And we'll get to him now. You play a man named Blackburn, part of the 1st recon United state marines. You're part of a UN lead incursion in to Iraq to stop an invasion by a para-military group called the PLR (to which the game fails to elaborate more on what PLR means.) and find and arrest the leader of this movement. The story plays out like memento. It starts near the end and works its way back to front. I literally think the game will make better sense if you played it from finish to start, and this is where my problem with it lies. It's trying too hard to be a Hollywood blockbuster. Sure, there are moments which will impress you in the single player, but the games industry need to remember that it's not the film industry. The sooner AAA+ developers can move out of this "WE MUST ATTAIN CINEMA QUALITY STORY LINES AND GAMEPLAY" *Strikes heroic pose* The better. It fails to remember that the film industry can produce bad films, which in turn makes game developers churn out bad games. Battlefield 3 represents the thing I'm most displeased about games today. We're more concerned about how it looks then what its context is, which is sad. Now, finally I'm going to touch upon the multiplayer again. There are times when I stop and think "Aren't dice supposed to be a heavy weight development team?" If so, then the amount of Z-fighting, texture popping and anti aliasing is something to be concerned about. The game can leave you with tired and soar eyes very quickly thanks to the amount of graphical bug in the multiplayer. Which is another reason why I don't like it. It doesn't look good to me. Battlefield bad company 2 had more superior graphics (and to an extent, was and still is a much better game.) Don't get me wrong, frostbite 2 is a beautiful engine. It tells me that developers still have ingenuity in them, unlike treyarch and infinity ward who are still using a heavily upgraded DOOM3 engine for the Call Of Duty games. If frostbite 2 is this good, then I can't wait to see frostbite 3. But yeah, on closing. The multiplayer is more balanced the it ever was due to constant patching. The vehicle action can be fun, but a little frustrating every now and then. So it takes time and skill to become a fighter pilot ace. The sniper class is now practically useless. And the weapon progression system is intuitive and pretty new. The single player can be enjoyable at some places, but bad plot pacing and rubbish military exposition makes for a bad experience. Over all score... 6.5/10 It's a bad road ahead for the video games industry if we carry on creating stuff like this. And I'll be out of a development job before I even get one. But still, at least it isn't as bad as GHOST RECON: FUTURE SOLDIER. What a relief.