Happy New Year to everybody! I know I'm a tad late, but I still think it's polite to wish you all a happy year. And I hope that it will be as rich as 2011 was, gaming-wise.
So, in this first edition of "What Am I Playing NOW", I'll start with a game I've only just beaten yesterday : Prince of Persia : The Forgotten Sands. The latest PoP was actually a very, very good game that I enjoyed a lot more than the last cel-shaded outing where you couldn't die. That one wasn't bad by any means, as I enjoyed the relationship between the two protagonists and the artistic graphics, but it was nothing memorable.
So, The Forgotten Sands, let's just start by pointing out that the gameplay overshadowed every other aspect of the game. Seriously, the free-running was incredibly well executed, it felt fluid, intuitive and the regularly added powers all felt natural and added some thrill and excitement to the great wall-running/climbing and puzzle solving. The emphasis on timing in the latter parts of the game really made the game that much more fun. Graphically, let's just say that beige, grey and brown walls ruled the day, even if some settings were pretty interesting in an artist's point of view. The weaker point of the game is the story, which was somewhat original, but I thought it wasn't presented very well. That Djin lady (I forgot her name) really was boring. Anyway, a very fun game, the best Prince of Persia I've played since Sands of Time on GameCube.
There's a game I've only just started that is, so far, extremely fun : Rayman Origins. I'll start by saying I've never played a Rayman game before, except on my brother's iPhone, which was certainly not the best example of what the series have to offer. Anyway, it's bloody fantastic. I LOVE the cartoony graphics and the sheer silliness of the characters and enemies. The "platforming" isn't bad either, while maybe not as sharp as, say, the Mario series (then again, which game is?), but still very, very good. I played the game for maybe an hour after opening it yesterday and I was smiling all the time, and that's a great way of saying that it's very enjoyable. More on Rayman Origins soon!
I've just started Gears of War 2 as well, but I've played only for 30-45 minutes so I can't say much about it yet, except that it looks a lot like Gears 1 (obviously...) but with some tweaks that made it a bit better. Looking forward to play it more!
And, last but not least, The Legend of Zelda : Skyward Sword. I haven't read a thing about the dungeons or the length of the game (it's Zelda, by far my favorite game series ever, I don't want to spoil a thing), but I'd say I'm past the halfway point of the game, or so it feels (yes, I've played so much Zelda games I can actually feel where I am in the story). Let's just say that it's a superb game, predictably, and that Zelda games always find a way to innovate while staying true to their formula. It's quite amazing. I'm still not entirely sold on motion controls, but it feels more natural than it did in the first few hours. GoTY candidate for sure.
I also played a tad of Fable II (still at the beginning of the story) while waiting for my brother to give me my Wii back. It's good so far, but I haven't much to say about it, it's tough to comment on an RPG so early in the game. More to come as well.
I could say I'm playing more game than that (and I am), but all others are basically Sports game or online shooters, and those games you can pop in your console, play for 15 minutes to satisfy some craving, then go on with my life. That's a lot harder to do with Zelda or Fable II. Those games are NHL 12, NBA 2K12, Forza 4, BF3 and MW3.
Games to start soon : Skyrim, GTA IV Complete (yes, 3 years later...) and a few PSN games as well.
See you soon!
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Modern Warfare 3. Afficher tous les articles
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Modern Warfare 3. Afficher tous les articles
jeudi 5 janvier 2012
samedi 10 décembre 2011
Modern Warfare 3 vs Battlefield 3
You knew it was coming, every single gaming website/blog/vlog/youtube channel already did compare the two games, for better or worse. So I figured I had to do it as well.
First, I have to admit something regarding the predecessors (both spiritual - BFBC2 - and official - MW2) of those games. I hated MW2's campaign, I thought it didn't make any sense and that it was just ridiculous. The multiplayer was actually very good, some maps were just fantastic, but still think much of this as it simply built upon what CoD4 gave 2 years earlier. As for Bad Company 2, the campaign was better, if only for the fact it didn't take itself too seriously like CoD does, and the characters were very likable. And the multiplayer was just fantastic all-around. Before playing that game I didn't think it was possible for me to be addicted to a FPS multiplayer. How wrong I was...
Round 1 : Campaign
I must say I wasn't expecting much from either games, both of which usually thrive on their respective multiplayer features. But I found myself finishing MW3's campaign in only two sittings, which is quite unusual for me. Granted, the story still doesn't make that much sense when you think about it for more than a few minutes, but the action is pretty good overall, and even if some levels are a bit boring or not well scripted, others were simply a joy to play. On those levels, you just didn't give a flying poop about level design or the unoriginal plotline.
As far as Battlefield 3 is concerned, I had the impression all along that it took itself a bit too seriously, and that made the game a bit boring to go through. The story just wasn't very interesting, the missions weren't interesting, I died a LOT even if it was on medium/normal difficulty, which is usually a breeze on FPSs. It frankly wasn't bad, just not very good.
Round 1 winner : MW3
Round 2 : Multiplayer
Before I start writing here, I'll admit something : I've played a LOT more BF3 than MW3 online. To be honest, I bought MW3 because I wanted to know the end of the story, of course, but mainly because it has a feature that makes it very attractive : Split-screen online and in Spec Ops. That's just a superb idea by Sledgehammer Games/Infinity Ward. But when it comes down to basic multiplayer online, BF3 is just so damn amazing. Superb maps, both huge and small, many vehicles, a lot of weapons and a point attribution system that tries to encourage team play, especially in conquest mode. The main drawback is the lack of modes, only Conquest, Rush and Team Deathmatch.
On the other hand, MW3 has definitely more modes and offers extreme customization, even if it's a bit ridiculous sometimes. However, the maps I've tried are not that exciting, and the main gameplay is so strikingly similar to MW2 and Black Ops, it makes you wonder where the "3" in the game's name comes from. It simply built on MW2, which itself built on CoD4. The lack of innovation is disappointing, but why change a best-selling formula? Even then, I think the Killstreak/Deathstreak rewards should be gone and that the small maps don't offer much in the way of strategy. I do love the new Kill Confirmed mode, which is very, very entertaining. MW3's multiplayer isn't bad by any stretch of the imagination, it simply looks and feels too much like MW2, and that's abit annoying if you've bought the game full price (which I didn't, I got it for 30$ used a week after its release!).
Round 2 winner : BF3
Final round : Overall presentation
EA/Dice hyped BF3's graphics like I've rarely seen before in a video game. The final product is definitely good looking, especially on PC, but it's not OMGWTF MY HEAD WILL EXPLODE out-of-this-world beautiful. It is genuinely amazing in the campaign, but not as much online, obviously. Where BF3 offers a LOT, it's in the sound design, which makes the game SO immersive. You can FEEL the pressure when a building/wall collapses close to you, the effects of a grenade exploding next to you, the sound of the bullet dropping when you snipe from a window. It's just fantastic. If there's one thing I'd like to change into BF3's presentation, it's the games menus, which aren't particularly attractive or helpful. I would rather have BC2's menus, especially in-game, as they were MUCH better.
Sadly, Call of Duty's engine is starting to show its age. Of course the game doesn't look bad, but you feel like you're playing a 2009, if not 2007 game. Characters animations seemingly never evolved, neither have explosions effects or sound design. You get the same sensory feelings you might have had 4 years ago when popping CoD4 into your console. That's another blow to Infinity Ward's franchise, it has never evolved from a presentation point of view. Even the menus are the same! I understand that you don't want to lose/frighten seasoned CoD players, but this is getting ridiculous. Now that the trilogy is over, I hope they take the opportunity to develop a new engine.
Final round winner : BF3
That makes it 2-1 BF3, which is the better game overall (but not by far), even with that lackluster campaign. I still think that every military shooter fan should get and play Battlefield 3 AND Modern Warfare. They offer different experiences, and one might suit your style more than the other, but you just have to try both.
First, I have to admit something regarding the predecessors (both spiritual - BFBC2 - and official - MW2) of those games. I hated MW2's campaign, I thought it didn't make any sense and that it was just ridiculous. The multiplayer was actually very good, some maps were just fantastic, but still think much of this as it simply built upon what CoD4 gave 2 years earlier. As for Bad Company 2, the campaign was better, if only for the fact it didn't take itself too seriously like CoD does, and the characters were very likable. And the multiplayer was just fantastic all-around. Before playing that game I didn't think it was possible for me to be addicted to a FPS multiplayer. How wrong I was...
Round 1 : Campaign
I must say I wasn't expecting much from either games, both of which usually thrive on their respective multiplayer features. But I found myself finishing MW3's campaign in only two sittings, which is quite unusual for me. Granted, the story still doesn't make that much sense when you think about it for more than a few minutes, but the action is pretty good overall, and even if some levels are a bit boring or not well scripted, others were simply a joy to play. On those levels, you just didn't give a flying poop about level design or the unoriginal plotline.
As far as Battlefield 3 is concerned, I had the impression all along that it took itself a bit too seriously, and that made the game a bit boring to go through. The story just wasn't very interesting, the missions weren't interesting, I died a LOT even if it was on medium/normal difficulty, which is usually a breeze on FPSs. It frankly wasn't bad, just not very good.
Round 1 winner : MW3
Round 2 : Multiplayer
Before I start writing here, I'll admit something : I've played a LOT more BF3 than MW3 online. To be honest, I bought MW3 because I wanted to know the end of the story, of course, but mainly because it has a feature that makes it very attractive : Split-screen online and in Spec Ops. That's just a superb idea by Sledgehammer Games/Infinity Ward. But when it comes down to basic multiplayer online, BF3 is just so damn amazing. Superb maps, both huge and small, many vehicles, a lot of weapons and a point attribution system that tries to encourage team play, especially in conquest mode. The main drawback is the lack of modes, only Conquest, Rush and Team Deathmatch.
On the other hand, MW3 has definitely more modes and offers extreme customization, even if it's a bit ridiculous sometimes. However, the maps I've tried are not that exciting, and the main gameplay is so strikingly similar to MW2 and Black Ops, it makes you wonder where the "3" in the game's name comes from. It simply built on MW2, which itself built on CoD4. The lack of innovation is disappointing, but why change a best-selling formula? Even then, I think the Killstreak/Deathstreak rewards should be gone and that the small maps don't offer much in the way of strategy. I do love the new Kill Confirmed mode, which is very, very entertaining. MW3's multiplayer isn't bad by any stretch of the imagination, it simply looks and feels too much like MW2, and that's abit annoying if you've bought the game full price (which I didn't, I got it for 30$ used a week after its release!).
Round 2 winner : BF3
Final round : Overall presentation
EA/Dice hyped BF3's graphics like I've rarely seen before in a video game. The final product is definitely good looking, especially on PC, but it's not OMGWTF MY HEAD WILL EXPLODE out-of-this-world beautiful. It is genuinely amazing in the campaign, but not as much online, obviously. Where BF3 offers a LOT, it's in the sound design, which makes the game SO immersive. You can FEEL the pressure when a building/wall collapses close to you, the effects of a grenade exploding next to you, the sound of the bullet dropping when you snipe from a window. It's just fantastic. If there's one thing I'd like to change into BF3's presentation, it's the games menus, which aren't particularly attractive or helpful. I would rather have BC2's menus, especially in-game, as they were MUCH better.
Sadly, Call of Duty's engine is starting to show its age. Of course the game doesn't look bad, but you feel like you're playing a 2009, if not 2007 game. Characters animations seemingly never evolved, neither have explosions effects or sound design. You get the same sensory feelings you might have had 4 years ago when popping CoD4 into your console. That's another blow to Infinity Ward's franchise, it has never evolved from a presentation point of view. Even the menus are the same! I understand that you don't want to lose/frighten seasoned CoD players, but this is getting ridiculous. Now that the trilogy is over, I hope they take the opportunity to develop a new engine.
Final round winner : BF3
That makes it 2-1 BF3, which is the better game overall (but not by far), even with that lackluster campaign. I still think that every military shooter fan should get and play Battlefield 3 AND Modern Warfare. They offer different experiences, and one might suit your style more than the other, but you just have to try both.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)