squodge

COD:IW has a lot of content: 1. Single player campaign (no co-op, unlike BO3). 2. Zombies. 3. Multiplayer, as usual. If you're after content, then you're in luck. However, that's where most of the good news ends. I don't know where to start... Okay, single player campaign was boring. No amazing plot twists, no humongous discoveries, basically nothing new. It's very pedestrian, which is sad. I played on Veteran, without a walkthrough guide, and it took well over 10 hours to finish it. On easy difficulty it'll probably take 5-6 hours. Zombies - I have to admit, I prefer IW zombies to BO3 zombies. But it's still nowhere as fun as either WAW or BO1 zombies, by a mile. Multiplayer - this is where I have real issues... * Everyone seems to be made of paper - it doesn't matter which gun you use, it takes just a split second to kill someone. At least in BO3, core modes were just that - core, not hardcore. You stood a chance of escaping a gunfight if you were quick. Not so IW - one bullet doesn't graze you, it kills you. This allows noobs to just fire and throw grenades randomly to get cheap kills. Definitely equip Blast Shield to get past the grenade spamming in MP. * The Pick 10 system is screwed up. At least in previous CODs, equipping 2 tacticals would use up 2 slots... now it uses 3 slots. * There seem to be fewer scorestreaks, and none of them are exciting (BO3's RAPS were great fun). * As for the wall-running and thrust jumping, I don't have an issue with that. It started in AW, then improved upon in BO3. IW's is smooth, but I feel it's better implemented in BO3. * All in all, MP is nowhere near as fun as in BO3 (or MWr for that matter). Maybe I'm biased, but Treyarch did MP much better. Heck, even AW had better MP because it was beginner-friendly (you could increase points needed to get scorestreaks, which meant the score wouldn't reset on death); Ghosts did something similar for beginners. SCORES Campaign: 5 out of 10. Zombies: 6 out of 10. MP: 4 out of 10. OVERALL SCORE: 5 out of 10.

01.09.2016 As it stands, the game needs a lot more polish. I don't have the fastest or best rig in the world, so I'm getting a constant 30fps with low settings: Intel i7-2600K, 16GB RAM, GeForce GTX 750 Ti OC I was worried I'd get motion sickness playing it, but none so far - so that's already a plus. The loading screen is smooth on my rig, so the game can't be as bad as some make it out to be. The main issue I have with NMS is that it's literally just fetch quests at the moment. Get X, produce Y, fix Z. I honestly feel that having missions or quests would make it more playable. I understand that it's supposed be about exploration, but it's not like it's OUR universe. I can't recommend the game in its current state. If Hello Games address the myriad of issues, it's potentially a 7 or 8 rated game. The price doesn't bother me... it's whether the game is good or not. I'm happy to sink £200 into a game if it delivers on most of my expectations. I feel NMS needs: * Missions/quests * Greater inventory space * Potential to meet AND see other people * Different classes of spaceships - fighter, merchant, rogue, etc. * Able to customise the person you control (sex, age, race/species, etc.) * More save points, heck, why not auto save points as well as the manual ones?

CAMPAIGN 3/10 This game's story is possibly the worst of all the CODs I've played, which is a shame because I've enjoyed the campaigns in every COD since World at War. Nevertheless, it's still playable - but the convoluted narrative just gives you a headache. ZOMBIES 2/10 I absolutely loved the four zombie maps in World at War, and most of the maps in Black Ops I were great too. I hated zombies in Black Ops II, mainly because the maps were just too big - and they killed the ethos of **** zombies by having all those pointless easter eggs. Exo-Zombies in Advanced Warfare is far more enjoyable than in BO2 or BO3. Black Ops III has the worst zombie maps of all - just way too big. The only consolation is the map The Giant, which is a re-imagined version of Der Riese. What also kills the game are those gobblegums that are absolutely needed to get anywhere in a game - and you need to play an awful lot of games to 'buy' these gobblegums from the vendor. P2W? No thank you. MULTIPLAYER 8/10 I only started playing online with Ghosts because of my girlfriend - she loves MP in COD, and I thought I'd give it a try when I met her. Ghosts had maps that would have been great for Battlefield, i.e. they were too big for COD. Advanced Warfare had some decent maps, but the online just felt a bit sluggish at times. This is where BO3 excels - the multiplayer. Sure, some people hate the wall-running and boost jumping, but you just have to accept a game for what it is. I got into BO3 MP within a couple of hours of playing it. They kept the Pick-10 system, which works beautifully. You still get the usual no-scopers and quick-scopers, but nowhere as painful to play as any of the Modern Warfare series. If Treyarch were to remove quick-scoping and no-scoping (basically remove aim assist for all sniper rifles, heck I'd even accept if they removed aim assist for ALL weapons), then I'd bump the score up to a 9. OVERALL 7/10 That's right, my rating isn't an average of the above three scores. Why not? I believe in trying to enjoy a game as much as possible. WAW, BO1 and AW had replay value because of zombies; MW, MW2, MW3 had reasonable MP but quick-sniping killed it really; Extinction mode in Ghosts was brilliant; and BO2 had little replay value because the MP wasn't great, zombies had awfully huge maps. I believe BO3 deserves a 7 because it has replay value if you can look past the wall-running/boost jumping in the multiplayer. There is a huge amount of customisation for your loadouts, not to mention you can create your own emblems, weapon skins, etc.

I've put in 10 hours into the game so far, and I'm still enjoying it. The girlfriend loves it too. I don't really get the negativity on here - people are reviewing it, complaining that it has no single player campaign, yet the publisher and developers never suggested it was anything other than online multiplayer only. People should be reviewing the game for what it is. Others are complaining about the lack of gaming modes... yet when I go on Call of Duty, about 99% of gamers are playing Team Deathmatch, Domination, Hardpoint. Adding more modes to Overwatch wouldn't necessarily make it a better game. There 21 characters to choose from, which is 12 more than the number of specialists available in Black Ops III (if you don't count Blackjack who has to be earned from contracts). All 21 characters play very differently - no one can seriously suggest that you can pick any two characters and "they're exactly the same". Sure - try McCree for one game, then change to Reinhardt - and tell me they feel the same. Blizzard has promised free DLC in the future, DLC meaning maps and characters. So I wonder why people are calling this a F2P or Pay 2 Win game? You can buy credits for the game, but all they can be used for is to unlock skins and themes (much like Black Ops III). It is most definitely not a F2P or Pay 2 Win game - you pay for the game, and you get the whole game. And yet others are complaining that the game is expensive... the same complainers are probably happy to sink far more money into the countless FIFA games which, to be honest, are just rehashed versions of the previous year's game. When you play a FIFA/PES game, do you complain that "there aren't enough maps or game modes"? Why do I have to kick a football about in every game? Some people really ought to re-read what they've written about Overwatch before complaining. Then there's the complaint that there's "not enough depth" in the story. Sure, COD has lots of depth lol. And what about FIFA? A bunch of men kicking a football around - lots of story there. And Bloodborne... great game, but the story is practically non-existent. Last but not least, some people are complaining that the game looks cartoony or childish. Yet I've not heard that said about games like Ratchet & Clank (which looks cartoony and childish), and countless other games. I get the feeling haters just want to hate. Overwatch has a lot of great humour, and there's a lot of attention to detail in the game. The game relies on solid teamwork much more so than other FPS's, and that's where this game can shine above others. If you have not already tried the game, find a friend who can shareplay with you for an hour or two - quite likely you'll be hooked. Hours will pass when you swear it's just mere few minutes. That's the definition **** game - something that you keep pouring hours into, yet it doesn't feel like you've played for more than half an hour. Personally I'm glad that Blizzard decided not to make the game F2P (with microtransactions), as that would've just made it Pay 2 Win. The usual people who complain about the cost of the game are probably the same people who happily sink dollars/pounds into McDonalds "meals" every day. I paid US$40, which is peanuts considering the girlfriend and I have already sunk 20 hours into the game between us, and her son has added another 20 hours on top. $1 an hour (up to now) is extremely cheap entertainment... and we're still playing.

One thing the 10/10 ratings don't mention is micro-transactions. That's right - this game has them. You do not have to buy any micro-transactions, but not doing so means you have to grind something like 5-6 songs you might not like in order to play 1 song that you do. Also, the so-called live audience/crowd that's mentioned in the 10/10 ratings - the crowd is only there on Guitar Hero Live mode (as opposed to Guitar Hero TV mode, or "GHTV"), which is the short campaign. You definitely will not be playing these songs all that often, as most of the songs available are in GHTV and will feature the original music video instead. For pre-HDTV songs, we're subjected to VHS-quality music videos. All in all, this game is solid. It's fun if you consider playing a music rhythm game by yourself as fun. If you prefer to play a music rhythm game with your mates, Rock Band 4 is a better option or any of the previous Rock Band and Guitar Hero games. No actual online playing, as in multiplayer (either co-op or competitive). There's a live score chart, but that's hardly the same as playing online. You can't buy any of the songs. You have to use play tokens, which you can either grind (about half an hour's grind per play token) or pay real money for. Or you can buy a 24-hour pass for £4, which is a rip-off. Basically, if you don't want to grind and you don't want to pay real money, you have the game's 42 built-in songs plus whatever songs GHTV decides to churn out for you. What bugs me more about this game is the inclusion of way too much pop music. Rihanna, One Direction, Ed Sheeran - these artists would never have graced previous Guitar Hero games. They might have made it on Band Hero... but this is Guitar Hero Live we're talking about. The game deserves more respect than these artists. Nothing against their music - they are just not what I would deem "Guitar Hero" type of artists. One does not think of guitars when Rihanna is mentioned. Overall, I rate the game 6/10 because I think it has a lot of promise. The distributor/developers need to change the format somewhat. It's a slap in the face to have to buy micro-transactions for a game that's already a premium price. I expect micro-transactions in a F2P game like Candy Crush, not this.