![]() ![]() ![]() There’s a “big picture” to World War 3 that involves the West and East going up against each other for control of different parts of the War Map. It’s bizarre, but maybe it was intentional. That being said, the dimensions appear to be a little off: the buildings seem disproportionately gigantic, leaving you feeling like a bit of a pipsqueak amongst it all. I learned this the hard way when I was constantly trying my classic routine of sneaking around the back of the enemy’s defenses and constantly coming up against more players than I could handle.Īs for the maps, they’re the comforting grey that we’ve come to accept from military shooters over the years, though there are loads of nice regional quirks based on which part of the world you’re fighting in. The TTK is quick, though your ability to heal often (depending on your own loadout and those of your teammates) means that it feels fair. World War 3 heavily promotes squadding up over going for the Shroud plays because it’s so easy to be overwhelmed otherwise. No matter how precise your aim is, it’s all pointless if you don’t know how to work with your team. I’m still experimenting with the weapons in World War 3, but it feels as if the majority of the assault rifles have serious recoil with sniping being more on the arcade-y side than normal for military shooters - I didn’t come across much bullet drop at all and was able to get kills routinely with one without even really playing like a sniper. The gunplay itself feels tight, though there isn’t a particularly great amount of feedback for a hit or a confirmed kill. Explosives to deal with them are easy to come across so there’s nowhere near as many chokepoint mass graves as seen in its peers. World War 3 also comes with tanks, though these seem to be tied mostly to Battle Points rewards so matches don’t descend into chaos. You’re able to use your Battle Points, which you receive from completing objectives and getting kills, to use special tools, such as an overhead UAV that highlight enemies and a drone that can explode and cheese yourself a kill. Do you ask your squad to stretch themselves and contend for a new zone or do you stick with what you have and repel attacks? It’s simple on paper, but tactical and tense in practice. The more zones your team holds, the more points you gain until one team reaches the limit. After some patches and patience, World War 3 has now turned into an inviting and often thrilling time, though it still has some faults.Īnyone familiar with Battlefield’s Conquest will feel immediately drawn to Warzone, which sees up to 64 players duking it out to retain control of particular zones on a map. A very bumpy launch meant that I couldn’t play it until two days later hardly what you would call ideal when a game can thrive or die in such a short space of time, people’s attention spans being what they are. It must be mentioned that World War 3 initially took the “access” out of early access. But what else is out there when everything is going down the battle royale route? Enter World War 3: a new and promising FPS that takes a debt of inspiration from Battlefield and could even potentially escape its shadow down the line. With it fast approaching its fifth birthday, however, every possible drop of fun has been squeezed out of Battlefield 4. With DICE’s franchise and Call of Duty flip flopping between time periods and also seemingly not being interested in the here and now, there’s still a sizeable chunk of people playing the fourth Battlefield game, myself included. We arguably haven’t had an impressive, large-scale shooter set in modern times since Battlefield 4 came out. ![]() I don’t know who decided we’d all had enough of military FPS games, but I’d like a stern word with them. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |