So...having blown about $134 on two video games so far both Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3. There has been a constant argument over which is better. Ill give a slight review with an insight into the FPS franchise as a whole. The BF3 game I believe had some pretty solid graphics with the new Frostbite 2 engine. The PS3 having some slightly less graphic producing capability, but still it was quite smooth with as well impressive audio. I found as well that the story seemed a little slow...but at the same time I readable enjoyed it. The reason for its slower feeling was because in the last 4 years the gaming industry has been saturated with the Michael Bay type FPS as MW3, with unrealistic plot lines and over the top exaggerations on world wars but single character ambitions. Though the MW arena is fun, I often feel tired of facing enemies with unrealistic character ambitions. BF3 was quite refreshing with a sense back to basics and the thought that you may just be in a real conspiracy of some sort.
This is not to say I didn't enjoy MW3. I love the character development of MW3's Soap, and Price over the last three games, unlike BF3 which never truly allowed you to feel close enough to characters for you to actually care for their lively hood.
Overall Both games enjoyable with modern length campaigns, but the question still remains of when will the industry push the FPS into something fresh. Yes...we all love fighting the same enemy, in the same year, with the same tactics. But the saturation of the market in the last 5 years with repeat games has created somewhat of a stale feeling. I am hoping that with the current trend of Activision/Treyarch every other year that Treyarch will step up to the plate and reinvent the FPS trend.
No comments:
Post a Comment