Bombastic, perhaps too bombastic.

When Battlefield 3 premium was first announced at E3 this year at the EA press conference, people immediately got angry. Why? Well people got angry because it was EA announcing something that costs money; this usually pisses off simple minds. When I first saw the announcement, I was not too interested mainly because it reminded me of Call of Duty Elite. You get new weapons, assignments, camouflage, and DLC early and cheaper. Yet then I thought about it very briefly and did some simple math and realised that there was absolutely nothing wrong with Battlefield 3 Premium. So I decided to take the jump and get it partially because I wanted more Battlefield 3 and partially so that I could judge it and thus inform people about what it is and why it is a long way from terrible.

So, to cover what DICE said during the EA conference, Battlefield 3 Premium gives buyers all five DLC expansions at a lower price along with tons of new weapons, assignments, and player camouflage and gun camos. It is a very straight forward package catered to those that are still playing Battlefield 3. And that is really all there is to Battlefield 3 Premium. It is not complicated; it isn’t tricking you and scamming you of money. You get five maps for fifteen dollars less than buying them individually and in addition to those maps; you get plenty of other bonuses to keep you playing.

Gun camo, one of the many bonuses you get for selling your soul to Electronic Arts.

While we still do not know much about the future expansions, we know that each expansions goal is to provide a unique experience that has yet to be seen in Battlefield 3. Karkand offered a nostalgic return to some of the greats of Battlefield 2, Close Quarters offers the frantic Call of Duty formula (I’ll talk more about CQ soon), Armoured Kill is set to offer the single largest map ever in Battlefield and ridiculous vehicular combat. What the final two expansions are going to offer, we do not know, but if they continue the trend set by the last two expansions, then we are in for some more awesome Battlefield 3.

Personally, playing on the PC, I was most excited for Armoured Kill. While there hasn’t been a lot of footage released that which has been shown is very exciting. The promise of the biggest map in Battlefield history and the addition of more vehicles including an AC-130 just get me so, well, I think the best description of how I feel about Armoured Kill comes from AhmadMetallic, a user on the Giant Bomb forums. To quote Mr. AhmadMetallic in regards to Armoured Kill;

Yeah, you said it AhmadMetallic, you said it.

On a serious note I should say that Armoured Kill does not look like it would be much fun on a console. While I know many still play Battlefield 3 on their 360's or PS3's, I do think that Premium is of its greatest value to PC players. But again, I cannot speak for the console versions on Battlefield 3. Suffice it to say I cannot image the largest Battlefield map ever being too cluttered with 24 players.

Now before I answer the difficult question as to whether or not Premium is worth it I must talk about Close Quarters. When I first saw that the next four map expansion for Battlefield 3 was focused on close quarters combat, I was not too interested. I wasn't interested mainly because the reason I love Battlefield is because it is team focused, vehicle centred, and wide open. Strangely enough, the reason I have enjoyed myself so much with Close Quarters is because it lacks all of the above things. You see Close Quarters it catering to the Call of Duty formula, small maps and infantry combat. And to be perfectly honest, why shouldn’t DICE try and acquire some of the Call of Duty crowd? Close Quarters does not play like Battlefield 3 proper, it plays like a very interesting Battlefield / Call of Duty hybrid that really works for me.

Now I should note that I like my multiplayer to be really dumb. I go to a game’s competitive online mode to have fun and witness and partake in shenanigans. That is the primary reason that Call of Duty has worn off on me and why Big Team Battle in Halo 3 is still my favourite thing out there. That is also the reason I love Battlefield 3 so much, 64 players on massive maps with vehicles everywhere, the possibilities for stupidity are seemingly endless. Now I also need to note that I have only played the Close Quarters maps on full 32 versus 32 player servers. Yes, 64 players on Call of Duty sized maps. It is extraordinarily dumb. But that is what I like. The maps work very well on smaller 16 versus 16 player games (I played one or two of those) but they don’t compare to a full 64 player server.

Look at all the little blue dots, no one map should have so many players.

Now I know that this is not how some people like their Battlefield and I understand that. However, I think that the strange Battlefield / Call of Duty hybrid DICE has created with Close Quarters works extremely well and I will leave it at that.

The maps are all well designed with multiple levels and entrances to each area. This muti-layered design with plenty of ways to get in and out of a room makes playing each map very exciting. No game really plays out the same as there is not really any one area on any of the maps that cannot be taken from multiple angles. This results in both teams slowly moving in a circle around the map as a group of player’s lockdown one area, only to have an enemy squad come in from another area and flush them out.

DICE also focused on the destructibility of each map. While two of the maps are quite as destructible as I would like (mainly because they have plenty of metal and stone that doesn’t break) the other two maps take place in buildings that have good old wood and drywall construction. Ziba Tower boasts the most destructible environment bar none. At the beginning of the game there is plenty of cover, dozens of small rooms with perfectly good was and windows, but by the end of a game all that remains of those walls is the steel that holds the building up. This level of destruction dramatically changes the way the map plays as the game progresses.

I think that Close Quarters succeeds best at providing a unique game every time you play. Unlike other games that have one or two areas that players can hold for the majority of the game, the maps of Close Quarters almost feel organic in how dynamically they change from game to game and even during the game itself. But, as I said earlier, this style of infantry based combat may very well not be your cup of Battlefield tea and unfortunately there is really no way of knowing if you like it or not until you play it for yourself.

Most of the walls in this picture were not here 5 minutes later.

So, is Battlefield 3 Premium worth it? The simple answer is yes, but it is not for everyone. I think I can ask a few simple questions and if you answer yes to any or all of them, then you should go out and get it. So, do you still actively play Battlefield 3? Do you want to keep playing Battlefield 3? Do you intend on getting all of the DLC? I believe that if you answered yes to any or all of those questions that you should invest in Premium. If you are still loving your time with Battlefield 3 or if you want to get back into it again, then there is no better way to keep yourself on the Battlefield for at least another year then to go get Premium.