The storyline moves along so quickly that some details are skimmed over and so it's hard to understand what is going on at times on the other hand the pace keeps things interesting and no level or section of the story drags on for too long and becomes boring. The characters aren't very deep ( the usual macho men that you get in every war game) and yet they still manage to make you care about their fate on more than one occasion.The plot itself could be considered a little thin but does make sense and create an adequate sense of tension. MW3 nicely wraps up the story of the game with plenty of dramatic moments or twists which keep you interested and eager to find out what will happen next. The set pieces in BF3 are weak and feel lifeless no matter how interactive they tried to make them, but the MP is more strategic which is good and so why choose if I had the money id get both but couldnt (have seen BF played through and had a go though). They are so similar in some ways that it makes more sense to either like or hate both. I prefer MW3 But would never say that BF3 is a bad game. Before going on ill also address the whole stupid Battlefield vs MW thing.
There are still flaws in the MP such as knifing through air and lag and the campaign is too short, but these are redeemed through everything else. There are a few problems, hence the 9 and not 10 (you dont have to give it a 0 just because its not perfect or what you wanted).
It's a shooter so there's only so much that can be changed. Its meant to have many qualities which are similar while adding and changing certain things and finishing the story. Its meant to have many qualities which are similar I would firstly start by questioning whether anyone actually realises what a sequel is. I would firstly start by questioning whether anyone actually realises what a sequel is.
0 kommentar(er)
