目前尚未有人將此評論標記為值得參考
不推薦
最近兩週 0.0 小時 / 總時數 18.5 小時 (評論時已進行 9.8 小時)
張貼於:2019 年 1 月 15 日 下午 6:35
更新於:2023 年 7 月 28 日 下午 9:44

搶先體驗版評論
WW3 has always existed in the shadow of Battlefield and Call of Duty. During Early Access, development was hit or miss. There were a lot of problems during Early Access.

The official launch was just as bad. I didn't play early "official" builds of the game. Last night I decided to revisit WW3 and see how it stands.

The good news is that the game is very smooth. Weapons and movement feel great. Performance is substantially better than Early Access.

The bad news is that the game is less than half of what it used to be. A absolute metric crapload of content was cut. The maps feel a lot smaller and more cramped than the Early Access maps were, even though at least a couple of them were in the Early Access game.

Spawns are bad, and matchmaking takes forever. Balance is basically nonexistent. Network problems will be the cause of your defeat more than your teammates, most of whom consistently forget that friendly fire is always on.

The Early Access game had more of a future than the "full release" game. Personally, I'd rather play the jank ass Early Access version. I hope it will improve, since it's one of the very few Battlefield/COD competitors with promise.
這篇評論值得參考嗎? 搞笑 獎勵
此評論已停用留言功能。