I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, I can really enjoy slower 30 fps games like Killzone and Uncharted, so I'm not just going to dismiss it right away for being slower. The controls are much better than BFBC2, and I played for a while today and really enjoyed it. But it was more like a "relax and take it easy" experience, rather than the pulse pounding adrenaline rush of a COD match. The main problem I have is that the graphics are just not great, and the colors seem a little washed out. It is really obvious that this game was developed as a PC title first and foremost, and that the consoles are basically getting a port. This is great for PC gamers, since it is usually the other way around. But they have really positioned BF3 as a direct competitor to COD with all the hype and marketing. BF3 is not a direct COD competitor. It is a different style of game, one that you chill out and relax while playing (at least compared to COD). COD will reamin king on the console because they have the game engine that can run at 60 fps, and the IW graphics are actually pretty good (not amazing, but good). I don't think BF3 will perform very strongly on the consoles, based on the beta I played. I may still get it, because I found it enjoyable, but at the sime time got a little bored with it after 20 minutes, and haven't felt the desire to lay it again yet. I will keep playing it though, because I want to see if it grows on me. I kind of think Rage might have more of a chance against MW3, since it will be running at 60 fps, and will be the ONLY other shooter that can do that (plus, it looks really cool in my opinion). So I don't think BF3 is a fail, but the beta was far less impressive than I was expecting.
