Post by Sweetheart on Jan 2, 2012 21:22:20 GMT -5
In a random case of boredom while walking into Wal-Mart to grab some Turkey for a sammich, this thought occurred to me. I'll take it upon myself to play games you guys ask to be review, and tell you if they are any good. I'll go about a Good, Bad, Ugly format. I'll name the good points of the game, bad points of the game, and just the plain ugly parts. I will start with the highest selling Xbox 360 game, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3.
The Good: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 has an extremely engaging story plot that is both enjoyable and well-thought out. Fixing the problem from the previous titles, Modern Warfare has weapons that are developed and used by the countries within it. The voice acting and artwork are almost the best they could have asked for. Activision even goes so far as, during the Chemical Weapon strikes on Europe, to show an American family visiting London get killed by Makrov's attack. This was an extremely risky move by Activision as this could have knocked MW3 off the shelfs to an Adult Only title. (Though, no one cares much for Duke Nuke'em Forever, the fact there are strip clubs that have topless women, but enough about EA.)
The Bad: The Plot, while as good as it is, seems rushed. Everything seems to happen with a period of 4-5 days. They are trying to document both an end of one war, and the beginning of a second one.... In.... 4.... days... People seem to fling back and forth from place to place too fast. They also give Makrov's organization too much power. Yes, they do have the Russian government under their control, but, the Russian economy is 10% below America's and yet, Makrov seems to have enough money to start a world war. Kamerov. We met him in the First Modern Warfare release. He was colonel of a Russian Paratroopers Company. Now, he faced the Ultranationalists in a civil war in Russia. He was the Ultranationalists single biggest problem both in, and after the war. I think that Makrov is pretty good at taking care of loose ends.
Speaking of loose ends, Yuri. Yuri is the Russian Protagonist that the player play's as. Yuri used to be in the Ultranationalists, but left after Zhekiev died and Makrov started his vendetta against the Americans. As I said before, Makrov is good at getting rid of loose ends.
The Ugly: Having 3 companies all trying to create a game in their own image is tough. As so, the Special Ops, Campaign, and Multiplayer all feel different from each other. As so, there is no real singular feel of the game. The problem of most games today is that almost unending attention to Multiplayer. This leaves some players left out, namely, the ones without online.
The Final Words: All in all, MW3 isn't too bad of a game. It had so much potential just to be killed by the separation of the Campaign and Multiplayer. I would give MW3:
☭☭☭☭☭
Four Hammers and Sickles, out of Five.
If you have a request for a game review, whether you have played it or not, post it here.
Name: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3
Genre: Shooter/FPS.
Developer(s): Activision, Raven Games, Sledgehammer games.
Highest Confirmed Sales of Copies Worldwide: 59 Million.
The Good: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 has an extremely engaging story plot that is both enjoyable and well-thought out. Fixing the problem from the previous titles, Modern Warfare has weapons that are developed and used by the countries within it. The voice acting and artwork are almost the best they could have asked for. Activision even goes so far as, during the Chemical Weapon strikes on Europe, to show an American family visiting London get killed by Makrov's attack. This was an extremely risky move by Activision as this could have knocked MW3 off the shelfs to an Adult Only title. (Though, no one cares much for Duke Nuke'em Forever, the fact there are strip clubs that have topless women, but enough about EA.)
The Bad: The Plot, while as good as it is, seems rushed. Everything seems to happen with a period of 4-5 days. They are trying to document both an end of one war, and the beginning of a second one.... In.... 4.... days... People seem to fling back and forth from place to place too fast. They also give Makrov's organization too much power. Yes, they do have the Russian government under their control, but, the Russian economy is 10% below America's and yet, Makrov seems to have enough money to start a world war. Kamerov. We met him in the First Modern Warfare release. He was colonel of a Russian Paratroopers Company. Now, he faced the Ultranationalists in a civil war in Russia. He was the Ultranationalists single biggest problem both in, and after the war. I think that Makrov is pretty good at taking care of loose ends.
Speaking of loose ends, Yuri. Yuri is the Russian Protagonist that the player play's as. Yuri used to be in the Ultranationalists, but left after Zhekiev died and Makrov started his vendetta against the Americans. As I said before, Makrov is good at getting rid of loose ends.
The Ugly: Having 3 companies all trying to create a game in their own image is tough. As so, the Special Ops, Campaign, and Multiplayer all feel different from each other. As so, there is no real singular feel of the game. The problem of most games today is that almost unending attention to Multiplayer. This leaves some players left out, namely, the ones without online.
The Final Words: All in all, MW3 isn't too bad of a game. It had so much potential just to be killed by the separation of the Campaign and Multiplayer. I would give MW3:
☭☭☭☭☭
Four Hammers and Sickles, out of Five.
If you have a request for a game review, whether you have played it or not, post it here.
