Originally Posted by WitchdoctorDan
I don't think enough effort was put into it.
Don't get me wrong, the game is extremely fun, like all of the CoDs, but I feel like I wasted a bit of money. I don't see the point in paying $60 for a game that hasn't even changed it's engine in 5 years. The game looks terrible and the multiplayer feels like, well, MW2 again. Is that good or bad? Well, that's complicated. MW's formula worked, and still does, but I would like a bit of change. I mean, take away the new game modes and the "skill set" and you just have a glorified MW2 map pack.
As for the MP, it's still fun, undoubtedly. But, it's not as fun as MW2 was when it came out. I'm not exactly wasting days playing this like I was MW, WaW, or MW2. And in all honesty, I find myself playing BF3 more (not to take sides in the growing game war). I've ran into a lot of glitches and weird graphics bugs on the console version, and hackers galore on the PC. I still have that gnawing, addictive desire to play like I used to. ("One more rank... For real this time!") But when that wears off for a bit, it feels... stale.
Despite my disagreements with Activison for stifling a once great and high potential franchise, I gave the game an honest shot. Though I may sound negative, I was actually pleasantly surprised with it. It's nice to pick up the Campaign again (though I haven't finished yet, so no spoilers plz!) and the MP retains it's old charm, though it's a bit tarnished, and the sounds are better than Black Ops IMO. But I wish more time had been put into it. A new engine, fresher multiplayer, and some better polish (above all, more polish; the game is as smooth as sandpaper) would have helped. But it is ultimately, as some had feared, MW2 with a new paintjob and a few bumper stickers. The paintjob is quite good, but it's just paint.
|