Like the terrible Historical inaccuracies, how short the campaign is for a war that was so great and encompassed many parts of the world and how it only focused on just a single unit out of the whole war.
Heard a lot about historical inaccuracy and how short the campaign is but people are still saying the campaign was relatively good. Still, I bet it doesn't compare to the likes of Call of Duty 2 (2005) that had such diversity as to include the Brits and Russians as well as Americans as playable units...
Some games like Brothers in Arms really did quite well focusing on just one single unit, but I do see the issue really, Call of Duty still isn't what it was. I take it that means you don't recommend it? :P
I definitely don't recommend it. xD Battlefield 1 was a lot more enjoyable. And the campaign was really great too. I enjoyed playing as the characters and going through that part of their story and history. It may not have been really long. But in that short time of playing it was great and I would have happily played more. In fact I would love for them to do a Battlefield game for WWII.
I play for the PvP, if you're playing for the story i would probably wait for second hand versions to start appearing in game shops and pick one up for 10£ less
Comments on Profile Post by FDNY21