Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
It had things that were good for it, but for me, it's unfortunately outweighed by its flaws. Especially when it comes to multiplayer.
A great spec ops mode with a variety of missions if you downloaded all the dlc; as well as a fun survival mode. The spec ops side of MW3, depending on your tastes, will keep you sucked to it.
Simple controls, as every CoD game has.
A story that was decent, and ended the MW series in an okay way.
Some fun modes in MW3 multiplayer.
The fact that this game seems to cater to newer players with death streaks such as final stand and deadman's hand. You might feel frustrated feeling like you got cheated out of a kill because a player using either of these unearned streaks killed you.
Inconsistent hit detection. Sometimes it may take one or a few bullets to kill a foe in multiplayer; other times it may take half of your gun's magazine to kill them. It was bad for gameplay, and easy to feel like I got screwed out of a kill.
Certain guns weren't nerfed properly. I believe when the game came out, guns such as the spas 12 were powerful, when it came to range and power; but after a while, the range and damage were weakened not only on this shotgun, but on several other shot guns.
Too many camping spots. I feel there were too many spots for players to camp at that made the game hard to play; and if they had a ghillie suit, they could probably blend with the environment(s).
I wasn't a fan of the campaign. I really loved the campaigns for the previous MW games, and feel MW3 didn't live up to those previous two. I feel had the original employees for IW stayed, the campaign for MW3 would've been much different, and I could've enjoyed it more.
For me, MW3 was strong in areas such as having a good spec ops mode and simple gameplay, but modes such as single and multiplayer were the weaker links. With multiplayer being the worst; since it had tons of issues when it came to abuse of game changing and unearned deathstreaks, a system which helped noobs too much, bad hit detection, environments which were made for camping and unbalanced guns. As for the campaign, it just doesn't live up to what the other two campaigns were.
A great game, but I have a few personal dislikes.
Variety in methods of infiltration and assassination.
Nice controls and good gameplay.
Fairly good graphics. Might seem cartoony, but they're fine.
Fun tools and weapons to work with.
Gruesome kills and gore.
The ways you can neutralize targets.
The fact you can choose to be non lethal or lethal.
Not enough non lethal tactics or weapons.
I don't like Corvo's in game design. He's too skinny. He looks better on the cover.
The fact that I generally don't get all of my powers upgraded by the end of a session; and I don't have enough runes or bone charms. Which is why I wish there was a new game plus or something for Dishonored 1.
You can't take down Tallboys non lethally. You have to evade them if you're playing a session non lethally.
Save slots. I'm more a fan of checkpoints.
This is a wonderful game that has a lot of variety, tools, methods of assassination and infiltration and take downs. There's just so much to the game. Even though I have personal dislikes such as the save slots, limited non lethal tactics and weapons, difficulty to get your magic set fully finished and upgraded and inability to take down Tallboys non lethally. In all, this is a great Victorian era like distopian setting with a lot of variety, a great atmosphere and awesome ways of dealing with your enemies.
Red Dead Redemption (2010)
Still an amazing game; but has its issues
Great open world.
Awesome quests, tasks and unlockables.
Western setting and themes.
Realistic and has fun DLCs
Stunning soundtracks, and everything else about this game is great.
This game is over six years old, so I assume that's why the servers have problems. During the winter, it's hard to find a well functioning session that doesn't have bugs and glitches. It can even be hard to get into a session.
Save files can be corrupted if you're not careful with what you do. I deleted the Undead Nightmare dlc to download something else, and when I came back to RDR, my multiplayer file was corrupted. Meaning my level dropped back to level one and all of my earnings were gone. That was the second time I lost my rank. The first time I think it was due to me dashboarding during a game. Me losing my rank, the second time I believe it was due to me deleting my dlc pack. It's frustrating to know that all you worked for is deleted, and you have to work up to that level again. You might be extremely frustrated if this happens to you a few times.
Overpowered buffalo rifle. In friendly free roam, a guy kept shooting my character with the buffalo rifle. I couldn't move my character, they were stuck in place until they blew up into pieces, IN FRIENDLY FREE ROAM where no one can kill any one else; or so I thought.
Lag in Outlaws to the End Co Op. I think there were lag spikes when I played with others, and sometimes they would be invisible during the winter time. This happens in multiplayer during winter. The other players would be invisible, and sometimes my character would randomly die.
Being at the age it is now, Red Dead does suffer from weak servers and will lag out during the winter. But it still holds up as a great game. From story to gameplay to environments, this is still an awesome western adventure. It's still one of my favorite games. The only reason I gave RDR a seven is because of the bad lag, bugs and glitches that happen; especially during the winter. But in general, I would give it more of a nine out of ten for the things it gets right. Particularly, in single player mode. Even the multiplayer is good. It's just the lag, bugs and glitches that are the primary problems. As well as other things that knock the game down to seven such as the corrupted files.
Halo: Reach (2010)
A good story that isn't difficult to follow.
Good multiplayer with great modes.
You can create and play a variety of games within the forge mode I think; and probably have a good time with friends.
Friendly fire. I know, Halo is about precision, but some team mates get too trigger happy, and that could be bad for the team and drive the unit apart. Instead of playing a game of Halo, depending on who you or your team members are, your group will be playing a game of revenge seeking until someone is kicked from the match.
This is probably one of the best games I've played with a strong campaign, enjoyable gameplay, fun multiplayer and a variety of modes I believe you can play. The only thing about it is friendly fire; but I think you can disable that in the single player section of Reach, or you can play with friends who are serious about the game; and won't kill you unless it was by accident.
Call of Duty: Black Ops (2010)
Great game for the most part
A b.a. atmosphere.
Cold war setting.
Different environments to explore.
Makes the 1960s look cool, while sort of keeping the 60s feel.
Has a fun zombies mode with a variety of weapons, perks, maps and some fun Easter eggs to pursue.
Multiplayer is mostly balanced.
The one and only second chance.
Getting to the higher rounds in the zombies mode, in my opinion, isn't interesting. The zombies have the capacity to eat up more of your clips, you get a little tired if you're playing with other players and for me, I'll have gotten most or all of the Easter eggs by then.
Batman: Arkham Origins (2013)
More Variety in the designs of enemies.
I believe there were more costumes in this one than Arkham City.
Better and longer DLC than Arkham City. ( Cold Cold Heart )
Okay story, but I like City and Asylum's stories more.
The design of the environment isn't as appealing to me as Arkham City's environment design was.
Black Mask and most of the assassins hired to kill Batman were reduced in story importance to allow the Joker to shine.
I didn't like the sound tracks in this game as much as the ones in City, but these were decent.
Short Summary: It's a decent game that has good things the other two games didn't, and vice versa. In all, I had more fun with City than Origins. But Origins is good in its own way.
Decent, but it could've been better
Growing up, I use to love Assassin's Creed; and would obsess over it. Now, I really don't care for it, and have better things to focus on. Luckily, I care enough to type this review. This game made improvements in areas such as combat, making it fast paced, and map size. That's great. But there were flaws with the game. Well, a personal grip I had with this game was feeling this title was a mislabel. The game's sub title is called "Brotherhood." But you don't see much of the brotherhood in the story. The only reason it has that title is because you get assassins you can command to aid you in battle when you want. That's all. They have no impact or place in the story. The next title, Assassin's Creed Revelations, had the brotherhood be more apart of the story, really the side missions did, than AC Brotherhood did. I think before the game was released, the community manager said there would be cut scenes where the protagonist, Ezio, visits the graves of dead assassins to "pay his respects," but there were no instances of such cutscenes. I don't know if they were removed, forgotten or if that was a mere idea that was scraped, but there was no grave scene. I can't find records of this on YouTube or Wikipedia. I can't even find this in the game. Obviously, it was never in there in the first place; I'm just trying to make a point. Another thing about the brotherhood is that they feel so unneeded, due to the combat being fast. Really, you can take out most enemies on your own, and perform missions without their help. There were a few missions where you couldn't call them though, and if you call them into battle, that makes the fight less challenging. I mean, after three hits, you can take out the enemies in one hit; what's the point in calling these novice killers into battle? It degrades the challenge. I know, I'm mostly rambling about the assassin recruits, but it was/is just a big deal to me. Aside from the assassins, the story was good. The story was decent, some memorable characters returned from the previous game and a few improvements were made with you exploring decently built environments. Now multiplayer was a step in an interesting direction. You have targets to kill while you have pursuers in a mode called wanted. There are other modes where you have different objectives and goals, such as capturing or protecting chests, and hunting a group of targets with a pack of players or protecting your self and your team from pursuers. There were good concepts, it's just the servers got bad, and things lagged out on matches. At times, it would be several minutes before I could get into a session. In a session, sometimes bugs and glitches would be every where. But I had fun most of the time. In all, AC Brotherhood is a fairly good game with great concepts and a decent story. Angles such as its story suffer from features it doesn't need and which degrade the challenge of stealth and combat; as well as not having what I thought would've been a significant part of the story not be apart of it much. On the multiplayer side, it suffers from bugs, glitches and slow servers. But the game is great though, and is pretty memorable. I give this game a seven out of ten.
I loved playing this game when I was younger. I had a blast with it. The story was good. Two brothers, who are U.S. civil war veterans, abandon their army to protect their home; but find it was raided by the opposing army. So they venture out through parts of the American frontier and Mexico to find treasure to rebuild their home, slowly turning bitter and against each other. The most conflicted brother, out of the three siblings, was the eldest, Ray McCall. He was harsh, but was very funny. His brother Thomas had bitterness in him too, but to a lesser degree. The youngest of the trio, William, constantly tries and fails to persuade them to abandon their mission to search for treasure, and change their ways. There are more characters I won't mention, so I'll focus on these three. Ray is probably the most developed, being the most conflicted. William probably comes second, being the holiest and most righteous of the bunch; and Thomas, the middle brother, seems calm and cool. But he probably doesn't have much "meat to his bones." Meaning, he's the least developed. Don't get me wrong, he's a great character, but there's just not much internal conflict in him. That's not bad, but he isn't as developed as Ray. Thomas is still funny, and has good things to say though. Now, to the gameplay. It's fun, and the two brothers, Ray and Thomas, operate differently. Ray is more brute strength and frontal assault. Thomas is more range based, fast and athletic. Both of their styles are great, even though I played as Ray most of the time, and regret not playing as Thomas enough. For the duels, they were okay; even though you could easily miss your opponent if you weren't careful with where you stood. One time I shot I guy, and he didn't die. There was just blood spatter. Actually, this happened a few times, and I think my character died once because of this error in the game. It's an issue that can pop up once in a while; and depending on your temper, it can be frustrating. The only other thing I didn't like about CoJ BiB is seeing familiar faces on the enemies a lot. The faces were re used quite a bit. But it was something I could live with. In all, Bound in Blood is a very fun and under rated western game with a pretty good story, great characters and enjoyable gameplay with concentration modes good for taking down multiple enemies, stunning western like environments, sound tracks I like listening to and gun fights that make me love being a cow boy type character. My only grips with the game are minor glitches that pop up once in a while and re used facial designs. But no game is perfect, glitches are bound to happen and not everything can be new or original. CoJ BiB gets a nine from me being a fun adventure that moves you through the old west, and has you massacre all who stand in your way.