Since the beg of the russian war aka the crimean crisis, lots of speculation has arose about this game, warface. The events in ukraine crimea are akin to the happenings of this game. However, in a real-life scenario. Warface is infact The Crimean Crisis turned into a game idea. The factions are the same, and even the hardware is the same. The game itself plays like the event, and the scenario is fairly similar. So is this real? No, it can be. Warface is a game with lots of speculation. Games in a world war 3 scenario hadn't been so similar as to this one. It gives the player all the options of a realtime swat, allthough the swat is military and the scenario is realworld in what's happening in russia today. I don't bother, because one could ban counter-strike for it being similar to the ukrainian protests. The terrorists are actually terrorists whom wear masks. Both events play out as a scenario. The COD in the airport, or rainbow six does as well. This game though takes it to the bar, it seems like the game itself is a military reality. The nationalists are actually nationalists. However games like these fps ones are not so revealing as to be the event itself, but it does put users in a real world scenario ie the world of tanks with one side as nazi germany only. Its controversial to play the losing side, when the winner reigns supreme. However, what if this time their is no winner? So after I decided to review the game, and play it myself I gave it a rating of an A for its realistic interpretation of war, and its movement and fast paced action akin to bad company 2, where you have to work as a team to gain checkpoints. Yet it draws away from the fact that you can use certain abilities of that army only. This idea would be useful, it would be like a fighting game with different moves, even though the character is the whole team idea. How I stress this in realworld gaming sims. It def puts the player in an experienced scenario, and gives the player that much experience, like a flight sim etc. It also draws away from the fact that one can take a weapon from another team. In a real war, you can't just simply pick up another teams weapons. Ever since halo 4 switch-tech gaming has given rise to the next generation of fps gaming. The fast-switch option gives players 4 times the number of attributes, however at a price..you need to come to terms with game complexity, giving rise to the field of simulation style fps shooters at the heart of the action. Actually I think all the weapons are the same. Particle effects, phsyics are oustanding yet the gameplay never gets repeative, only a little dumb. However, what makes this game and review controversial is not the graphics or gameplay but the theme. No one in their right mind would even suggest to play private organizations and militias from Iraq such as Blackwater or other privately owned groups mostly since they are linked to american splinter groups starting major wars in russia, one being the south ossetian conflict and the other the recent crimean war. This game may go somewhere but so may a game with charles manson as a playable character. The game doesn't really influence school shootings though, and its no mortal kombat in terms of controversy. Buying and selling weapons has been done before in counter-strike, though this one takes it to a new bar. However, I haven't played it long enough to really tell.

Minor update: Microsoft's decision to end xbox 360's warface was in no idea connected to this article. You might as well have banned cs source, etc. The fact is warface was the only good free-to-play fps ever released. In no way do I support this decision, it being one of the top fps games on console or PC. The sniper rifle ability is up there with homefront, bad company 2 and even possibly the best one of the three. Unfortunately it never left beta phase and was infact missing stages etc anyways.