The campaign – like the multiplayer – is more of the same. With hindsight though, these were the right changes to make and they’ve allowed the game to age better than its predecessor. At the time, these were significant changes, and they arguably made the game less entertaining to play. The One Man Army, Danger Close and Commando perks were gone. The game-ending tactical nukes were gone. And the spawns on some modes are absolutely terrible too.Īnd it’s also a much more balanced game. Most are ultimately forgettable and don’t stack up to the selection offered in the previous games in the series. It doesn’t look as good for one, with the game looking greyer and more washed out. In fact, in many ways Modern Warfare 3 was arguably worse than Modern Warfare 2. And the emblem maker and COD points – welcome additions to Black Ops – are absent too, in favour of the old system. The deathstreaks are back – even after the-then community manager vowed they wouldn’t be. The UI is the same, the guns and their reload animations are the same and most of the killstreaks and perks from the previous game make an appearance too. Modern Warfare 3 does look suspiciously similar to its predecessor.
Put an image of the two games next to each other, and it’s remarkably difficult to differentiate them. It also didn’t help that Battlefield 3 – arguably the best game in that series and genre-defining in its own right – had released a few weeks prior to rave reviews. People were expecting more, not a cheap imitation of a critically acclaimed game.
To many people, it seemed that they had paid $60 for a title update. Perhaps the most obvious answer is the fact that it appeared nothing had changed from that which went before.
0 kommentar(er)
