What with the first of the big releases of the next year already out (Warhammer 40k SPACE MARINE) I think that its a good time to look forward to the other big releases coming out in the near future, and perhaps seeing wether they'll be as great as rasberry and white chocolate cheesecake or as useless as the Kardashian twins (yes I am unfortunate enough to know of theire existence as well).
The first title that everybody is talking about is the much anticipated Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. As I said a couple of reviews back I don't think that the COD series has brought much to the gaming world in terms of new ideas and innovations since the mighty Modern Warfare emerged nearly half a decade ago. The COD series overall still retains it's generic consumer-charm but that charm is deteriorating fast and took a heavy knock with the legendarily crap Black Ops. Things aren't looking great with the upcoming MW3 though because the gameplay looks virtually the same, the graphics have for some reason advanced very little since MW2 and whoop-de-doo, its mostly coloured grey, white, brown and black (just like every other bloody shooter these days). All in all I don't think MW3 is going to be a real cracker of a shooter like say Left For Dead 2 or Modern Warfare were but it does actually look considerably more fun than Black Ops was so I could be wrong.
The other of the biggest two releases coming out over the next several months is of course Battlefield 3. As I've said before I like the Battlefield series quite a bit and my favourite installment to the series is still the underatted Battlefield 2142, I'm not sure however what to feel about this new installment. My gut keeps giving me a sense of impeniding doom about this game but then again my gut is a right idiot who keeps persuading me to pig out on boring snacks like digestive buiscits. It does seem to be quite appealing and fun though, in fact it seems like its taken and combined aspects from many of the battlefield games; the great vehicle driving/piloting of the Battlefield 1942 triology and Battlefield 2, the fantastic reward system of the Battlefield 2142 duology and the intense 'reaction time-workout' shootouts of the online and campaign modes of the Bad Company installments. It could be good, i'm not really sure. I mean there hasn't been must talk about the singleplayer and they seem to have kept the advancment on melee combat on a minimum as usual, but generaly I have an alright feeling about this one.
Now we move onto less popular and less intersting titles. The first of these smaller titles is Resistance 3 which has...wait...this bloody game is already out! Ah whatever, I'm pretty sure I can find a few words for it. Compating it to its two predecessors, Resistance 3 seems to be the most advanced and fun installment of its series yet what with taking many of the greatest gameplay aspects of Half-Life 2 (e.g. no automatically regenerating health, being able to carry at least 12 weapons at once etc) and applying them to the amusing Resistance storyline. It does look to be a promising new game and the graphics are pretty good, the only problem from the sounds of it is its quite formula plot, however it also looks as fun as hell so it shouldn't sting too bad..
The next game that is soon to come out is The Heist: Payday which by the looks of things is pretty appaling. Even just looking at the trailer you can see loads of problems: No plot whatsoever, graphics that make it look like it was made for the Xbox or PS2 in 2001, unimaginitive gameplay and combat scenes that are even more generic than Call Of Duty, no juicy character development, no exciting objectives, no brilliant variety betweeen different enemies and challanges and of course it only has 6 maps. JUST 6 BLOODY, SAMEY MAPS. Oh yeah there are are no missions with more than a minute outside of a building.
Of course there are many other titles coming out in the nexy several months or year or two but if I listed them all then I'd be here for ages so I'm only going to say this once; if you are thinking of gettign any of the new releases later this year just get Resistance 3, Serious Sam 3 and Battlefield 3. The reason why I am saying this is because all the other big releases this year look like utter s***...*sighs*...oh well.
P.S Happy Jewish New Year!
Showing posts with label Battlefield. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Battlefield. Show all posts
Wednesday, 28 September 2011
Tuesday, 23 August 2011
Game Review #5: Battlefield VS Call Of Duty
I thought it might be a good idea to do this for my first review back from my week of summer camp in Norwich mainly because I've always taken quite an interest in the differences and heated competition between these two legendarily popular 1st person shooter series'.
On paper, these two series' look very similar; they both have been going for between 10-15 years, have many of their games set in different eras and also put a lot of emphasis on their multipayer modes. On the whole these two series' are very similar but for the first half of its existence, the Battlefield series kept bringing out games that were getting worse such as Battlefield Vietnam and Battlefield 1942-Road to Rome. This began to change however, when out of nowhere rode a magnificent knight in polished black armour riding a magnificently white stallion...uh, sorry. What I meant to say was 'then out of nowhere came the gaming gem that was/is Battlefield 2142'. Unlike It's predecessors, Battlefield 2142 wasn't bland and samey but interesting and fun as hell. It introduced a new unlock function to the series whereby you could get funky weapons, gadgets and power ups for your different classes (recon, support, engineer and medic) and changed the setting from today or the second world war to a mad global conflict amidst a mostly frozen earth in the year 2142 where the powerful Pan Asian Coalition is on an unstoppable drive to conquer everything. Although it didn't have any good single-player, Battlefield 2142 was an intense and highly enjoyable game.
Whereas the first half of the Battlefield series may not have been so great, the first half of the Call Of Duty series was pretty alright. I say that it was only all right because as a whole the first half of the COD series was pretty samey, it was however full of fun titles (all set in WW2) where you were able to fight through various different famous campaigns in widely varying environments (such as a snowy airfield or a town in the middle off the sahara). After several years and quite a few titles, the people behind COD decided to take the series to a whole new level and transform the setting from WW2 to the modern day in the appropriately named Modern Warfare. This gave the series a new edge as the mad, runny-jumpy-stabby gameplay was combined with cool looking modern guns allowing the player to fight groups of enemies with a greater variety of weapons than any other before it in the series. The huge boost in the popularity of the series has lasted since then but has been marred by the utterly dreadful Call Of Duty-Black Ops.
Okay now that we've discussed the history of Battlefield and Call Of Duty a little bit, lets get into what's good and bad about their games. On the whole I personally prefer the Battlefield series mainly because with every new instalment they seem to look at what they did well or bad in the last game then bring in a new development that negates that problem. I do like the COD series as well though, in each campaign you fight alongside engaging characters and are able to perform some awesome tricks with a large variety of weapons. The most striking difference, I think, between the two series' is that whilst Battlefield games usually have better multiplayer and weak singleplayer, with the COD games it is the other way around. I can't think of a way to explain why this usually comes to be through the actions of the people who make the games but I can explain somewhat through the games themselves.
The biggest reason why this is so is because whereas the layout and the including of many types of vehicles to drive in the Battlefield games emphasize that the series as a whole is aimed at a more varied sort of audience. The only way to go into battle in a COD game is to go in on foot by yourself with just your own weapons, this in itself contributes to the online mode of COD games being always repetitive and boring which is helped hardly at all by the lack of variety in the online maps for the COD games. I always think that a game should have not only a well balanced and enjoyable multiplayer but also a truly excellent singleplayer that you can use to just have fun on your own or practise certain tactics. Now despite the fact that most Battlefield games have poor singleplayer (bar Battlefield Bad Company 1) the multiplayer is so varied what with the staggering number of maps in each game, countless ways to approach an objective (be it by land, sea or even air) and balanced game types. As I already pointed out, the multiplayer in COD games is not so good due to a lack of considerable, overall variety. I could overlook this due to the campaigns always being filled with great characters and fun missions but the gameplay style of Call Of Duty is getting old fast and this was very glaring indeed in Black Ops.
I suppose, at the end of the day the reason why I seem to enjoy Battlefield games more is due to the fact that in both singleplayer and multiplayer you are forced to work with your allies as a group or you get your arse handed to you on a plate with coleslaw and chips. This gives the series a real sense of authenticity, sort of like as if you're in a real combat situation, therefore you get a much more intense and enjoyable experience. In the Call Of Duty games, working as a team gets boring after a while and although it does work you eventually just have to go out yourself. This showed me how samey the combat in COD games can get where 10 men can get easily done in by 1 man with a revolver.
So if you want my advice go for the Battlefield series for a fix of 1st person shooting. Because despite COD having good singleplayer and going well with chips and ketchup, you just can't beat the Battlefield experience of having made it through a blazing war-zone because you had your friends watching your back
On paper, these two series' look very similar; they both have been going for between 10-15 years, have many of their games set in different eras and also put a lot of emphasis on their multipayer modes. On the whole these two series' are very similar but for the first half of its existence, the Battlefield series kept bringing out games that were getting worse such as Battlefield Vietnam and Battlefield 1942-Road to Rome. This began to change however, when out of nowhere rode a magnificent knight in polished black armour riding a magnificently white stallion...uh, sorry. What I meant to say was 'then out of nowhere came the gaming gem that was/is Battlefield 2142'. Unlike It's predecessors, Battlefield 2142 wasn't bland and samey but interesting and fun as hell. It introduced a new unlock function to the series whereby you could get funky weapons, gadgets and power ups for your different classes (recon, support, engineer and medic) and changed the setting from today or the second world war to a mad global conflict amidst a mostly frozen earth in the year 2142 where the powerful Pan Asian Coalition is on an unstoppable drive to conquer everything. Although it didn't have any good single-player, Battlefield 2142 was an intense and highly enjoyable game.
Whereas the first half of the Battlefield series may not have been so great, the first half of the Call Of Duty series was pretty alright. I say that it was only all right because as a whole the first half of the COD series was pretty samey, it was however full of fun titles (all set in WW2) where you were able to fight through various different famous campaigns in widely varying environments (such as a snowy airfield or a town in the middle off the sahara). After several years and quite a few titles, the people behind COD decided to take the series to a whole new level and transform the setting from WW2 to the modern day in the appropriately named Modern Warfare. This gave the series a new edge as the mad, runny-jumpy-stabby gameplay was combined with cool looking modern guns allowing the player to fight groups of enemies with a greater variety of weapons than any other before it in the series. The huge boost in the popularity of the series has lasted since then but has been marred by the utterly dreadful Call Of Duty-Black Ops.
Okay now that we've discussed the history of Battlefield and Call Of Duty a little bit, lets get into what's good and bad about their games. On the whole I personally prefer the Battlefield series mainly because with every new instalment they seem to look at what they did well or bad in the last game then bring in a new development that negates that problem. I do like the COD series as well though, in each campaign you fight alongside engaging characters and are able to perform some awesome tricks with a large variety of weapons. The most striking difference, I think, between the two series' is that whilst Battlefield games usually have better multiplayer and weak singleplayer, with the COD games it is the other way around. I can't think of a way to explain why this usually comes to be through the actions of the people who make the games but I can explain somewhat through the games themselves.
The biggest reason why this is so is because whereas the layout and the including of many types of vehicles to drive in the Battlefield games emphasize that the series as a whole is aimed at a more varied sort of audience. The only way to go into battle in a COD game is to go in on foot by yourself with just your own weapons, this in itself contributes to the online mode of COD games being always repetitive and boring which is helped hardly at all by the lack of variety in the online maps for the COD games. I always think that a game should have not only a well balanced and enjoyable multiplayer but also a truly excellent singleplayer that you can use to just have fun on your own or practise certain tactics. Now despite the fact that most Battlefield games have poor singleplayer (bar Battlefield Bad Company 1) the multiplayer is so varied what with the staggering number of maps in each game, countless ways to approach an objective (be it by land, sea or even air) and balanced game types. As I already pointed out, the multiplayer in COD games is not so good due to a lack of considerable, overall variety. I could overlook this due to the campaigns always being filled with great characters and fun missions but the gameplay style of Call Of Duty is getting old fast and this was very glaring indeed in Black Ops.
I suppose, at the end of the day the reason why I seem to enjoy Battlefield games more is due to the fact that in both singleplayer and multiplayer you are forced to work with your allies as a group or you get your arse handed to you on a plate with coleslaw and chips. This gives the series a real sense of authenticity, sort of like as if you're in a real combat situation, therefore you get a much more intense and enjoyable experience. In the Call Of Duty games, working as a team gets boring after a while and although it does work you eventually just have to go out yourself. This showed me how samey the combat in COD games can get where 10 men can get easily done in by 1 man with a revolver.
So if you want my advice go for the Battlefield series for a fix of 1st person shooting. Because despite COD having good singleplayer and going well with chips and ketchup, you just can't beat the Battlefield experience of having made it through a blazing war-zone because you had your friends watching your back
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)