The levelling up system to unlock upgrades and weapons for use in survival mode also adds an element which encourages you to play on even beyond the fact that its just genuinely fun, especially with a friend. Playing with different people creates a different experience and 16 levels is plenty to choose from, and despite not making new levels especially for it the MP maps also fit playing survival (actually better in some cases). Survival is infinitely replayable and i've actaully never got bored of playing it. Spec Ops has two types now: Missions and Survival. Not only that, the MP and spec ops provide plenty of replatability. Despite the short campaign I did come out of it feeling satisfied because although it only took around 5 hours to finish, they were a damn good five hours and I had no problem moving on to higher difficulties just to have an excuse to play it again.

I don't understand most of the criticism of the visuals, they're good, no worse than any other game out there and are superior to other MW games. They look and sound lethal and really get you feelinf like youre firing the gun (my personal favourite being the M4A1, it just sounds so good). The guns have more of a 'feel' to them than in any shooter i've played. Some sounds and textures may be recycled but this does not ruin anything at all. New York drops you in the middle of a fast-paced shootout through the streets, while Paris is an eerie, ghostown-like environment.

Each level has a different atmosphere from the last based on what had happened in the last level or the mise-en-scene of the current level. There are just the right amount of explosions and things falling down around you to exemplify the destruction of that a third world war would bring without getting ridiculous. The huge set-pieces in the game deliver such mind-blowing impact that you feel like youre really fighting for your life. The storyline moves along so quickly that some details are skimmed over and so it's hard to understand what is going on at times on the other hand the pace keeps things interesting and no level or section of the story drags on for too long and becomes boring. The characters aren't very deep ( the usual macho men that you get in every war game) and yet they still manage to make you care about their fate on more than one occasion.The plot itself could be considered a little thin but does make sense and create an adequate sense of tension. MW3 nicely wraps up the story of the game with plenty of dramatic moments or twists which keep you interested and eager to find out what will happen next. The set pieces in BF3 are weak and feel lifeless no matter how interactive they tried to make them, but the MP is more strategic which is good and so why choose if I had the money id get both but couldnt (have seen BF played through and had a go though). They are so similar in some ways that it makes more sense to either like or hate both. I prefer MW3 But would never say that BF3 is a bad game. Before going on ill also address the whole stupid Battlefield vs MW thing. There are still flaws in the MP such as knifing through air and lag and the campaign is too short, but these are redeemed through everything else. There are a few problems, hence the 9 and not 10 (you dont have to give it a 0 just because its not perfect or what you wanted). It's a shooter so there's only so much that can be changed. Its meant to have many qualities which are similar while adding and changing certain things and finishing the story.

Its meant to have many qualities which are similar I would firstly start by questioning whether anyone actually realises what a sequel is. I would firstly start by questioning whether anyone actually realises what a sequel is.

Call of duty modern warfare 3 ps3