Was hoping this would be the Battlefield game that recaptured the magic of Battlefield 2 and even 2142.
Was especially looking forward to the commander position coming back so the teams were actually using a little bit of strategy.
Nope, the commander only seems useful for calling in derp strikes by cruise missiles on positions. Still a bunch of wack a mole point capturing and retaking.
Honestly if you did not tell me I was playing Battlefield 4, I would swear i was playing Battlefield 3. The graphics are not a huge upgrade. The gameplay is near identical. Its obvious EA has chosen to pretty much make Battlefield a cash cow and release yearly editions with minimal improvements. Hell I am already bored playing on what seems like the same 4-5 maps over and over.
Other problems are servers and the game crashing constantly. If you can play an hour straight without crashing you are lucky.
Just a big disappointment. Mediocre shooter gameplay, crashes, expensive, more of the same, does not capture the magic of the older titles in the series.
Thanks for your view. I respectfully disagree. :)
Im curious as to which parts you disagree with, and if you can make me see what I am missing.
holy crap! A Boyer sighting! How's the beard coming in? Is it affecting your gameplay? ;)
Quote from: bayonetbrant on November 13, 2013, 03:31:59 PM
holy crap! A Boyer sighting! How's the beard coming in? Is it affecting your gameplay? ;)
The girl I am seeing, wont let me do the year beard with my neighbors ;(
Rock Paper Shotgun is not amused
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/11/13/so-i-thought-id-play-battlefield-4s-single-player-about-that/ (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/11/13/so-i-thought-id-play-battlefield-4s-single-player-about-that/)
Angry Joe is pissed LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MknLARblrDQ&feature=share&list=UUsgv2QHkT2ljEixyulzOnUQ
If you want to feel better about BF4, go play COD: Ghosts.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on November 13, 2013, 08:35:40 PM
If you want to feel better about BF4, go play COD: Ghosts.
Maybe we are just getting grumpy in our old age
lol - i feel BF4 is not about the SP experience
Quote from: bboyer66 on November 13, 2013, 08:46:15 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on November 13, 2013, 08:35:40 PM
If you want to feel better about BF4, go play COD: Ghosts.
Maybe we are just getting grumpy in our old age
...or these games just totally suck.
Quote from: bboyer66 on November 13, 2013, 08:46:15 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on November 13, 2013, 08:35:40 PM
If you want to feel better about BF4, go play COD: Ghosts.
Maybe we are just getting grumpy in our old age
Regardless, it's good to see you.
Quote from: LongBlade on November 13, 2013, 09:59:27 PM
Quote from: bboyer66 on November 13, 2013, 08:46:15 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on November 13, 2013, 08:35:40 PM
If you want to feel better about BF4, go play COD: Ghosts.
Maybe we are just getting grumpy in our old age
Regardless, it's good to see you.
Boyer is around...he is just really busy taking selfies and posting them on Facebook.
Quote from: bboyer66 on November 13, 2013, 06:37:08 PM
Rock Paper Shotgun is not amused
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/11/13/so-i-thought-id-play-battlefield-4s-single-player-about-that/ (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/11/13/so-i-thought-id-play-battlefield-4s-single-player-about-that/)
Angry Joe is pissed LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MknLARblrDQ&feature=share&list=UUsgv2QHkT2ljEixyulzOnUQ
Of course RPS gave a poor review - they didn't get an advanced press copy.
Quote from: Apocalypse 31 on November 13, 2013, 10:07:44 PM
Quote from: bboyer66 on November 13, 2013, 06:37:08 PM
Rock Paper Shotgun is not amused
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/11/13/so-i-thought-id-play-battlefield-4s-single-player-about-that/ (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/11/13/so-i-thought-id-play-battlefield-4s-single-player-about-that/)
Angry Joe is pissed LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MknLARblrDQ&feature=share&list=UUsgv2QHkT2ljEixyulzOnUQ
Of course RPS gave a poor review - they didn't get an advanced press copy.
I actually had the same problem RPS had when I first bought the game. 2 hours of Internet searching and tinkering with browser settings later, and I got it working.
Quote from: Apocalypse 31 on November 13, 2013, 10:07:44 PM
Of course RPS gave a poor review - they didn't get an advanced press copy.
Well, that's the most moronic thing I've read around here for a while. ::)
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on November 13, 2013, 08:35:40 PM
If you want to feel better about BF4, go play COD: Ghosts.
lol
Quote from: Barthheart on November 13, 2013, 04:33:10 PM
;D
Unfortunately, and maybe unfairly, that's exactly how I picture most people who play
INSERT ONLINE GAME NAME HERE as behaving and one of the reasons I do not play online
Having said that, it seems like it can't be a reason because the thought itself doesn't seem reasonable...but that is why I stay away from online gaming...voice comms made it worse imo.
Quote from: Huw the Poo on November 14, 2013, 01:56:46 AM
Quote from: Apocalypse 31 on November 13, 2013, 10:07:44 PM
Of course RPS gave a poor review - they didn't get an advanced press copy.
Well, that's the most moronic thing I've read around here for a while. ::)
I
hope(ed) it was a joke...kind of a piss take
Quote from: JudgeDredd on November 14, 2013, 02:35:50 AM
Quote from: Huw the Poo on November 14, 2013, 01:56:46 AM
Quote from: Apocalypse 31 on November 13, 2013, 10:07:44 PM
Of course RPS gave a poor review - they didn't get an advanced press copy.
Well, that's the most moronic thing I've read around here for a while. ::)
I hope(ed) it was a joke...kind of a piss take
It was sarcasm. RPS is legit, and it was a joke on them.
However, I think it could apply to a number of other gaming review sights.
So should I stick with BF'42 then?? Still my favorite.
Apologies...clearly my sarcasm detector is broken today.
Quote from: GJK on November 14, 2013, 07:30:34 AM
So should I stick with BF'42 then?? Still my favorite.
Do you play it modded?
Just with the "blood" mod.
Quote from: bboyer66 on November 13, 2013, 02:46:43 PM
Im curious as to which parts you disagree with, and if you can make me see what I am missing.
It took me a while, sorry, but here goes:
I do agree that its a bad thing the servers have problems, resulting in lag and crashes and the client suffers from frequent freezes and crashes too.
That does stink, but will be patched. In fact, a client patch is due today and the servers has seen ongoing patches since launch and the situation has improved.
I also do agree that the SP is weak. The individual scenes are very well done though, I just find it weak from a story point of view. Its incoherent and fails to deliver the story well.
What I definately do not agree with is claiming the game has weak shooter gameplay.
You might call it BF3.5 on the surface, but look at the package; a SP campaign, 6 or 7 multiplayer modes which offer wildly varying gameplay, 3 factions with weapons and vehicles.
The so called Levolution is not just a gimmick; parts of the map radically change during the match with awesome animations most of the time. This has never been done before.
The Destruction is again turned up a notch to give an even more realistic sense of Destruction. Perhaps minor things for you, but pretty awesome from a technical point of view.
Sure the main gameplay is still good old battlefield. But that is what we want, right? What should have been made better or what should have been added or changed in your view to make it better?
I am very happy with the given formula. It BF as I know it, just bigger and more awesome.
Just as a sidenote; I am a PC BF player, not a console one. If you are then I can see where you are coming from.
I like BF4 and do not think it sucks. Remember, the RPS "review" is about single-player, which is like reviewing World of Warcraft based solely on PvP arenas or something. I'm having philosophical differences with RPS at the moment, largely centered around their incessant need to try to be "cute" rather than informative, but their opinion still holds a lot of weight for me. That being said, everyone expects the solo game for BF4 and CoD: Ghosts to be largely tacked on and short.
I did not play BF3, so BF4 is a nice entry into a formula that I feel is stronger than BF2.
The RPS article is not even remotely a review. Walker makes the very clear point that the single player game should not be somehow free from criticism because "everyone plays multiplayer" (which is bollocks), and that the single player experience, due to DRM , is shocking.
If I were at all interested in the game, I'd be glad that RPS is one of the few websites to have the balls to discuss it. They would have saved me some money.
I bought BF3 - but decided to abstain from BF4 for several reasons...
1. It didn't look like a good enough step for the price
2. I don't multiplayer - only dabble if at all - so a weak single player isn't any good for me
3. I didn't like buying into Origin...I decided not to do it anymore
Just the reasons I used to justify saving me £40 :D
*Man what is it with me and saving money all of a sudden!!*
All fair reasons, just not much foundation for a general exclamation of : "Battlefield 4 stinks".
Parts of it do, but as a whole the game is solid. But if you're not a multiplayer shooter kinda guy you have no business with BF to begin with; that doesn't make the game bad.
Quote from: Yskonyn on November 14, 2013, 02:31:58 PM
All fair reasons, just not much foundation for a general exclamation of : "Battlefield 4 stinks".
Parts of it do, but as a whole the game is solid. But if you're not a multiplayer shooter kinda guy you have no business with BF to begin with; that doesn't make the game bad.
Nope. The guy at work loves it multiplayer. Quite a few crashes, but when he plays, it's a blast apparently.
He is a big fan of MP though...loves it
Quote from: Huw the Poo on November 14, 2013, 02:05:32 PM
The RPS article is not even remotely a review. Walker makes the very clear point that the single player game should not be somehow free from criticism because "everyone plays multiplayer" (which is bollocks), and that the single player experience, due to DRM , is shocking.
If I were at all interested in the game, I'd be glad that RPS is one of the few websites to have the balls to discuss it. They would have saved me some money.
Yes, but to discuss the single play as its own entity and judge it without taking into account both the nature of the game and the whole package is a very strange reviewing practice. That would be like booting up a predominately solo play game and writing a column to discuss its multiplayer mode. BF4 is marketed as a massive online FPS arena game, with a solo campaign largely there for "practice." When you boot it up, it takes you to the MP list, not the solo campaign list. A consumer who buys BF4 and
doesn't play multiplayer is a poorly educated consumer.
That being said, the solo campaign is not notable. I enjoyed the first mission, but was not "wowed" enough to want to continue with the other missions. I'm also irritated that some of the unlocks are contingent upon playing the solo campaign.
I'm not ruffled by the DRM. The game is basically an entry-point to server-based MP, so I wouldn't expect the solo campaign to be DRM free.
Singe player be damned. Could care less.
THe RPS review basically detailed a bug that I encountered the first time I tried playing multiplayer. Yes I applaud them for even trying the single player route.
In response to Yskonyn :
You nailed it, should have been called BF3.5
Yes 3 Factions with no differences other than uniforms and vehicle skins.
Destructible buildings were done in Bad Company II, this is hardly some revolution.
Once again the biggest problem is they fucked up the commander mode. The commander used to be able to give orders to squads directly and a good portion of the players would actually follow because it was easy to see what he wanted. Now all I see the commander doing is shooting cruise missiles and dropping supplies. If your lucky you have a squad leader giving orders but 90% of the time they do not. Like I said before every game goes like this. Capture flag.... move and capture next flag..... go back and recapture original flag that fell since no one is defending it................. repeat.
The other thing is the number of maps. With Shanghai down I think it was a whopping 4-5 map rotation. Ridiculous for a game that you pay over 60 dollars for. But dont you worry for another 40 dollars you can get all the future maps (expansions).
You also said it is bigger, hell no it aint. Go play some of the old BF2 maps. They were frickin huge. Planetside 2 is an example of the route BF could be going with maps over 10K X 10K, and hundreds if not thousands playing against each other on the same huge map.
When everything is working in BF4, its a typical MP shooter experience. Not much different from BF3 but still decent. The problem is it rarely is not hiccuping with glitches and crashes. Plus the fact that it costs 60 dollars, with very few maps. Another 40 for future maps. Just equal BF4 Stinks. Save your money and go play Planetside 2 for free.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on November 14, 2013, 04:49:44 PM
Yes, but to discuss the single play as its own entity and judge it without taking into account both the nature of the game and the whole package is a very strange reviewing practice.
It wasn't a review!RPS were simply saying that trying to play the single player portion of the game is a nightmare due to the DRM. They're doing what responsible gaming sites with integrity
should be doing. And with all due respect, I wonder whether you read it fully?
QuoteAnd yes, BF4 is considered, by the hardcore die-hard fans, to be a multiplayer game, it's single-player there for only the silly people. But what die-hard fans tend to forget is that they aren't everyone else, and the single-player game was created – at vast expense – for people to play. Except then the bullshit gets involved and what a miserable experience it is to try to.
I think you're underestimating the number of people who genuinely want to play through the campaign. I would, if I bought it.
Oh, and...
QuoteA consumer who buys BF4 and doesn't play multiplayer is a poorly educated consumer.
Well that's just bollocks, and borderline insulting.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on November 14, 2013, 02:12:10 PM
I bought BF3 - but decided to abstain from BF4 for several reasons...
1. It didn't look like a good enough step for the price
2. I don't multiplayer - only dabble if at all - so a weak single player isn't any good for me
3. I didn't like buying into Origin...I decided not to do it anymore
Those are my EXACT 3 reasons, as well.
well i bought it tonight from the supermarket after intense peer pressure. I have Bad Company II, i have BF3, i would say to all intents and purposes its 3 with new maps, gun names with some very minor adjustments to what can be played MP - but for me it isnt about the new assault rifle or the much reduced number of vehicles - its sitting next to a colleague or two, sharing beers and shooting each other in the face - and for that it gets 10/10
in much the same way that different people take different things from books, films and even the tool box - this game fulfils a specific purpose for me and it does that job just fine
Quote from: Huw the Poo on November 14, 2013, 05:47:59 PM
Quote from: son_of_montfort on November 14, 2013, 04:49:44 PM
Yes, but to discuss the single play as its own entity and judge it without taking into account both the nature of the game and the whole package is a very strange reviewing practice.
It wasn't a review!
Remember, even their "reviews" are called "Wot I Think," so I would hardly call any of their impressions "formal." I still think that having a specific impressions column on one aspect of a game is slightly odd. If BF4 is not above criticism, is RPS also not above criticism?
Quote from: Huw the Poo on November 14, 2013, 05:47:59 PM
QuoteA consumer who buys BF4 and doesn't play multiplayer is a poorly educated consumer.
Well that's just bollocks, and borderline insulting.
I fail to understand why that statement is either "bollocks" or "insulting." I certainly wasn't trying to offend you here.
BF4 is tacitly advertised as a FPS multiplayer arena game. To buy it solely to play the single player campaign would be a very poor use for $60. That would be like booting up DOTA 2 and getting angry because playing against bots wasn't satisfying or World of Warcraft and being angry you can't solo the Dungeons. Both are marketed as being primarily for multiplay, just like the majority of the BF4 experience.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on November 14, 2013, 10:28:21 PM
Quote from: Huw the Poo on November 14, 2013, 05:47:59 PM
Quote from: son_of_montfort on November 14, 2013, 04:49:44 PM
Yes, but to discuss the single play as its own entity and judge it without taking into account both the nature of the game and the whole package is a very strange reviewing practice.
It wasn't a review!
Remember, even their "reviews" are called "Wot I Think," so I would hardly call any of their impressions "formal." I still think that having a specific impressions column on one aspect of a game is slightly odd. If BF4 is not above criticism, is RPS also not above criticism?
Quote from: Huw the Poo on November 14, 2013, 05:47:59 PM
QuoteA consumer who buys BF4 and doesn't play multiplayer is a poorly educated consumer.
Well that's just bollocks, and borderline insulting.
I fail to understand why that statement is either "bollocks" or "insulting." I certainly wasn't trying to offend you here.
BF4 is tacitly advertised as a FPS multiplayer arena game. To buy it solely to play the single player campaign would be a very poor use for $60. That would be like booting up DOTA 2 and getting angry because playing against bots wasn't satisfying or World of Warcraft and being angry you can't solo the Dungeons. Both are marketed as being primarily for multiplay, just like the majority of the BF4 experience.
I can't speak for BF4...and to be fair to you that is what you specifically referred to.
However, I could, and will, argue that by that you are including the BF series - as they are about the multiplayer game
for a lot of people but I can assure you, point blank, that I did not buy BF2 or BF3 for it's multiplayer game. I seldom play multiplayer and if you were to see my "stats", you'd see I'm something like a Corporal...after buying BF3 on release. That shows you how much of my money on buying the game went to (for me) the multiplayer game.
I bought it PURELY for the single player campaign which I thought was superb. And had I not done any reading (and had I not been fed up with Origin), I may well have bought BF4 based on the fact that BF3 had such an excellent single player campaign.
Battlefield is most certainly not about the multiplayer option for all players. I grant you the vast majority might be likely to buy it for that - but I did not and I really don't think it's fair to suggest it either -
especially given BF3's campaign was so good.
And I did not think the £35 I spent on BF3 was wasted at all. The campaign wasn't particularly long, but it was an excellent story and worth every penny
Not wishing to join in the melee, but wishing to say a few things about why I like the Battlefield franchise as a whole.
These things:
1) Classes
2) Environmental effects
3) Command
4) Vehicle specialisation
It's just about the only psuedo military FPS shooter that allows large scale conflict, with specialist classes working together to exert their influence on the map.
Most of the modern shooters nowadays, promote the lone wolf, perk/skill hybrid expert. Quick reactions, intimate map knowledge and ultra min-maxing on the weapon/skill build. You get an army of COD people suped up to the max, to be an effective one man killing machine. If you don't put the effort in to train your twitch reflexes and tweak your hybrid builds, you get creamed. Small maps, fast paced endless zerging spawn/death cycles, until one side gets a team perk to really land the smackdown and accelerate the winning snowball. Everyone comes out of it with an andrenalin soaked hard on, or a red mist of hate and frustration swirling around their inside their head. It's just head junk for ego strokers most of the time.
At least Battlefield manages an attempt to confer some sort of fireteam organisation and a commander role. Classes interlink in subtle ways, and support is mixed in with offence plus you have specific counters for various weapon systems and vehicles. The fact that the majority of Battlefield players are just disenchanted COD players is just a shame. The endless flag catpure, abandon, recapture cycle is unfortunate, but mainly happens when you have fireteams and commanders that don't understand the power of holding a key site - or the utility of distraction attacks, or bottlenecking the enemy, tying their attention, whilst the capture clock ticks over. It's also true that most fireteam leaders don't mark up objectives - and thats a crying shame because it really focuses the gameplay - dynamically. The fact that it doesn't happen often is more down to the player population than the game itself. The facility to do it is there. Similarly commanders rarely set up any sort of grander scale tactical approaches, but some do.
I enjoy Battlefield, because it gives the player tactical options, class based co-opertaive bonuses, specialise vehicular weapon systems and the ability to affect combat through fireteam leaders and commanders (if that control and obedience to it is applied). Some games are frustrating as playing a twitch hybrid strokefest, but alot of them deliver an experience much more than your average FPS. It is an evolution though, and so far, BF4 has delivered as much excitement as I had with BF3 - with the larger environmental effects (typhoon washing up destroyers on island shores, or skyscrapers tumbling into rubble laden wastelands) stealing the show in certain situations.
Fine fine... Huw and JudgeDredd, some people buy BF4 for the solo campaign. IMHO, the BF games have been marketed primarily for their MP and, particularly with BF, it is not a solo game with a MP option but the other way around, a MP game with a solo option.
Also, purely my opinion, but there are cheaper and better alternatives for a solo-play FPS game than BF4.
Oh I agree SoM that they are primarily marketed and generally alot of people will buy them for the multiplayer.
My "wee" disagreement was just that they have provided a good solo campaign (most notably for BF3) and therefore people who liked the BF3 campaign (moi) might likely jump the gun and buy BF4 based on that.
I did manage to hold off, mainly because I just don't get £45+ worth of gaming out the games - and why? 'cos I don't do MP the way the vast majority (I would guess) do.
But some people (including me if it was cheaper and I didn't mind Origin) would've dropped the cash simply based on the excellent solo campaign of BF3 (and from what I gather be disappointed).
I play shooters for multi-player (the little that I do these days) but all I'm seeing in BF4 is a rebranded BF3 primed for a new round of overpriced DLC buffoonery.
Have fun with that. :-\
I'm having fun with it, I don't play very many shooters but the battlefield series scratches that itch for action shooter.
If you play in smaller groups or try to find friends to fill up a squad, you might find a better tactical experience and less lone wolfing going on.
Another tip, try looking into 21CW if you want to take tactical to another level. Not sure if they have migrated to BF4 yet but something to think about if you want more coordinating during play.
Quote from: Nefaro on November 15, 2013, 03:57:20 PM
I play shooters for multi-player (the little that I do these days) but all I'm seeing in BF4 is a rebranded BF3 primed for a new round of overpriced DLC buffoonery.
Have fun with that. :-\
Exactly
Quote from: Nefaro on November 15, 2013, 03:57:20 PM
I play shooters for multi-player (the little that I do these days) but all I'm seeing in BF4 is a rebranded BF3 primed for a new round of overpriced DLC buffoonery.
Have fun with that. :-\
Considering I never bought BF3... I'm glad to have this latest "patch." ;)
Quote from: son_of_montfort on November 17, 2013, 10:29:08 AM
Quote from: Nefaro on November 15, 2013, 03:57:20 PM
I play shooters for multi-player (the little that I do these days) but all I'm seeing in BF4 is a rebranded BF3 primed for a new round of overpriced DLC buffoonery.
Have fun with that. :-\
Considering I never bought BF3... I'm glad to have this latest "patch." ;)
I bought BF3 early this year. Played for a bit.. it was okay. My biggest complaint was that there were only one or two huge outdoor maps in the BF2 tradition. Then they wanted you to pay $30 for each "expansion" which didn't have much in each of them.
Views differ on this. And a SP oriënted player has indeed nothing of value in those expansions. For MP they did offer quite a variety of new stuff IMHO.
I am of opinion that the BF franchise is a MP gamers game and not a SP one. Their first games didnt even have a SP component, other than bots to train for MP.
It was with BF Bad Company (and the game going to consoles) that a SP story campaign was first introduced.
The story in the Bad Company games was pretty good and arguably worth the price for SP only.
But we should not forget that the BC line was a spin-off of the franchise and not true BF games in the tradition of what had come before.
BF 2 didnt have a campaign.
BF 3 continued the core concept (hence the naming) but added a campaign which was now expected more or less due to the console versions before being a hit.
But that campaign was pretty weak too, as is the story telling capability of the one in 4. Mind you, I find the scenes seperately very cool and fun to play.
Still core BF is a MP franchise, not a singleplayer one. I find 50 bucks for an 8 hour campaign way too much money if you are not into the MP side of BF.
But like I said ; views differ and thats fine. More money for DICE and changes for a great BF5. :)
Quote from: Yskonyn on November 17, 2013, 06:09:12 PM
Views differ on this. And a SP oriënted player has indeed nothing of value in those expansions. For MP they did offer quite a variety of new stuff IMHO.
Really? Quite a variety?
I recall picking up an 'Expansion' for BF3 and it approximately two additional maps and about the same amount of new weapon unlocks. My impression registered right around, "preposterous!" since it cost thirty bucks. Didn't feel like I got much at all, especially since it could be difficult finding populated servers using the add-on maps.
Quote from: Yskonyn on November 17, 2013, 06:09:12 PM
...But that campaign was pretty weak too...
Couldn't disagree more. The single player game and story in BF3 was the dogs nuts (why is that phrase used to describe a good thing?)! Simply superb and for me came close to rivalling the single best single player story ever created in a computer game - Call of Duty:Modern Warfare.
Nuff said.
Oh - and I never picked up any of the DLC for BF3 simple
because they were mostly (only?) MP content.
Quote from: Nefaro on November 17, 2013, 08:03:46 PM
Quote from: Yskonyn on November 17, 2013, 06:09:12 PM
Views differ on this. And a SP oriënted player has indeed nothing of value in those expansions. For MP they did offer quite a variety of new stuff IMHO.
Really? Quite a variety?
I recall picking up an 'Expansion' for BF3 and it approximately two additional maps and about the same amount of new weapon unlocks. My impression registered right around, "preposterous!" since it cost thirty bucks. Didn't feel like I got much at all, especially since it could be difficult finding populated servers using the add-on maps.
Yes quite the variety. :) I am not going to list all the things the expansions brought, we can see that on the website .
30 bucks?! What on earth are you talking about? That was not the price of each expansion at all! If you looked around for deals that was the price of the Premium pack, which got you all the expansions (even the ones still having to be released at that time).
There were 5 expansions for the game and if you bought Premium for full price this netted you one expansion for free.
For the 10 to 12 euro's each expansion cost, I find we got more than our money worth. New maps, weapons, vehicles and game modes even, spread over 5 expansions resulting in a whopping 28 or so maps in the end.
I have played BF3 right until release of 4 and never had any trouble whatsoever to find fully crewed servers. Ever.
I also found the MW campaign one of the best and immersive I have ever played in a shooter. Certainly agreed, but BF3's campaign was just ok. I did not find it nearly as good as the first MW.
But again, opinions vary aparently. That's ok.