I would have thought that someone with your background and taste in games would see though this flimflam of a game.I guess you just get caught up in the 15 minutes of fun that each MW titles brings...
I don't think they show up as Free Agents but there are a couple of ways to include them:
-Transfer them to the roster of the teams you want to have in your league
- Substitue a team for the Legends team or a created team with the legends on the roster.
The fun thing about the Be A GM mode is that you can really create a crazy league with a mixture of NHL, DEL, Elitserien, AHL, national and your own teams.
In the GM mode the legends will have their age when they first started out in the NHL. Gordie Howe will be 19, Chris Chelios 22 and so on.
In my oppinion those games just proves that people are blinded by graphics and explosions (and it's obvious the video game critic prefers AAA-titles over innovative, yet maybe technical not so great, independent games - it's a wonder Rayman Origins got an A and not the usual "Indepndent games C rating" but then again, Rayman is a franchise with a AAA-History )
Call of Duty was once a great game series (the original trilogy featured good gameplay and the first one was even quite innovative between all those ww2 shooters) but Modern Warfare was lame, Modern Warfare needed a shocking gimmick to have talks (that airport mission, which also was the only interesting mission) and Black Ops and Modern Warfare 3 was basically the same gameplay all over again, same stupid AI, same heavy-scripting, simple, stupid and created for a "Michael Bay Audience" that wants style over content. The Single player on all those games is second-rate and it's obvious all the producers care about is Multiplayer....but what fun is a simple, stupid Shooter online that is filled by idiots and children? Compare the gameplay of this so called realistic military shooter to America's Army, ArmA2 or even the 11 year old Operation Flashpoint, those are still miles ahead in terms of realism, online experience and gameplay fun to those "McDonalds Shooters" (It's funny that there was so much backlash against Homefront, even though it was just a direct rip-off of those Modern Warfare games, same style of gameplay, same graphics, basically the same settings..but it wasn't MW so it was considered bad....funny how the gaming world works)
Well nobody plays Call Of Duty for "realism". If I want realism I'll play Dragon Rising or Red River(though I couldn't really get into the first Operation Flashpoint game) I just find the Modern Warfare games pure mindless fun(probably because I like Michael Bay) though I don't give a rat's ass about multiplayer. I'll think about giving America's Army a try though.
IDK, it seemed relevant to me.
The funny thing is that I am in agreement with 99% of the critics reviews.I just do not get what he sees in these MW titles that warrant the "A" rating they all receive...? If I were to rate anything after the original Modern Warfare it would be impossible to receive an "A" simply due to the fact that they are just rehashes of the first one,no innovation,no originality.In my rating book a game would be immediately docked a letter grade due to the lack of originality\innovation.
Id be willing to bet that if you were to show 10 people still images of MW1,2,3 & BLOPS,without any HUD display,9 of them would not be able to tell them apart.
You really can't deny the quality. The lifelike animations, attention to detail, and richness of the environments is unsurpassed. If you take a look around it's astonishing how much work went into every level. You could sit back and watch somebody playing this game and it would be a worthwhile experience.
Yes, I do love the destruction. There's a point early in the game where you take down a metal tower on a skyscraper. The idea of a 50-foot tower keeling over doesn't sound spectacular but it is. I especially loved the audio effects of twisting metal and the "pops" of the support cables being broken.
The campaign mode does a great job of putting you on a squad while putting you in a lead role. While the campaign is linear, there are different approaches and tactics you can use. The controls are tight and the checkpoints are closely spaced.
And then there's the multiplayer. It's very easy to join in on an on-line contest. Don't want to hear the other players? No problem, just wear headphones. You may be a newb, but the game will put you on a team with a lot of experienced players to balance things out.
Finally, for old-school players out there, the game supports split-screen combat for four players, and coop for two. A lot of modern game has gone the "on-line only" route, which sucks, but not MW3.
The game is extremely polished. While playing most first-person shooters (most recently Killzone 3) it's pretty easy to notice visual and audio glitches here and there. I've never seen anything like that in MW3. The thing is a well-oiled machine.
The one valid criticism I've heard is "same thing different year", but you have to keep in mind it's designed to be a continuation of the insanely popular MW2. It picks up where the last one left off.
Anyway hopefully that will shed some light into why these games tend to get an A. I'm not on Activision's payroll - I just like the games.