I’m at the part where were going in to kill the sniper in the cathedral, it’s honestly better than any WWII FPS ive ever played, it’s an extremely personal game, I love how you can only take one bullet and have a “danger meter”
The cover system seems very good, visuals are alright on models.... trees and other parts of the ENV need work. But it’s tight, the gun sounds are awesome, the Crack on the Kar98 when you’re reloading is one of the most impressive sounds ever heard in a game, the ingame dialogue from baker is very strong, the drama is alright for a videogame (if it were a movie then it would be very mediocre)
en fact, so far the whole script has reminded me of Uncharted... It’s a great story for a videogame, but if it were a movie then it’d be totally stereotypical and cliche. Squad tactics are AWESOME. I NEED my squad to complete battles, I always have Jaz fuck up a bunker while my assault team flanks.
The games terrific, I don’t see where the negatives are coming from, share your story’s of things you liked, hated, etc etc.
SILVERXXX wrote:
What did they do to the MP to make it suck so much? The MP is the most important part.....
Right....Thats why the developers focused almost nothing on it right? :/
I didn’t say that the developers put all there work into the MP bud. I said the MP is the most important because I doubt you want to just play the campaign 3 times straight, you need an alright MP to keep you coming back to the game......
Di5turbed wrote:
nope if the campaign pwns ill come back
Well I aswell love a good campaign but I still play a bunch of Halo 3 because the online is always fun and IMO Halo 3’s campaign was horrid. I just believe for most people, FPSs keep from being traded in if they have an alright MP.
But my question is what did they do to make the MP so bad, I mean the game seems amazing with the cover system and all and rumor has it that the campaign is very good but that does make sense cuz all their effort went into the campaign......