Almost seven years ago, in 2005, Battlefield 2 was released.  While Call of Duty was still storming the beaches at Normandy (and securing a beach head in the console market), BF2 was without a doubt a hallmark game for the military-based first person shooter genre.  Through it's innovative, communication based teamwork system, everyone had a vital role in bringing their side to victory.  Whether you were a lone wolf going behind enemy lines to destroy the enemy's artillery, a squad leader pushing through the heavy combat, or a commander assisting your team from the rear, BF2 reached a level of sophistication and depth that has not yet been surpassed in the first person shooter genre.  While the Bad Company games of recent years did a decent job of bringing the Battlefield brand to the console market, it was ultimately BF3 which would either succeed or fail in bringing that true Battlefield experience into the next generation.

Now, you may see many reviews out there giving this game an 8 or possibly even a 9.  In response, I'd first like to argue that BF3 does many things right : the Frostbite 2 engine is drop-dead gorgeous, and DICE succeeded largely in bringing jets and helicopters onto the console, something lacking in the Bad Co. series.  It's what Battlefield does NOT do, which makes it at best, an average game.  For something to be a lie, it does not have to be explicit.  Saying BF3 is anything above average is at best ignorant, and at worst, a lie of omission.  

If you were to tell me, seven years ago, that Battlefield 3 would not feature a commander system, or the squad gameplay would be next to useless, or that it would feature recharging health, I would have probably thought you were not talking about Battlefield.  As to why DICE would completely gut a system that worked, and gave so much depth to the gameplay, is answered beyond absurd.  

What is the point of having a medic class when everyone can just hide and have their health recharge automatically?  What is the point of having an engineer class when vehicles repair themselves?  What is the point of having squads when everyone can spawn on each other? What is the point of having vehicles when the maps themselves are poorly designed to handle them?

To people who did not experience the older Battlefields on the PC, these things may seem so minute as to make me appear to be nitpicking, or grasping at straws in order to criticize the game.  Yet to someone such as myself, these subtle details are the ones which make Battlefield go from being a game you will want to play for years, and a game you will want to play for months.   

Of course, this review would not be as bad, were it not for the fact that Battlefield 3 is a direct sequel to Battlefield 2.  While I'm sure there are many who will disagree with this review for being so negative, I'd love for them to argue how a sequel could have fewer features, less depth, and a shorter lifespan than it's predecessor, and still be considered "good".  Whether it is literature, film, or video games, seven years does not erase history, and a sequel should be expected to surpass the original, and if it doesn't, it should at least hold up to the original's level of quality.  BF3 does neither.

In conclusion, Battlefield 3 is a game lesser than the sum of it's parts.  Whether it's through poor management, or just poor decision making altogether, it fails to live up to it's predecessor.  While it may be "decent" in the sense that you can still pour plenty of hours into it and have a good time, I feel sorry on behalf of those who do not even know what they are missing out on.  In short, BF3 had a chance to be a truly mind blowing experience, but instead chose to play it safe.