Regardless of the weather, Call of Duty must continue to play. As Call of Duty evolved from being just another World War II shooter to being the most successful series in history, Activision has found success in adhering to this ethos for the last twenty years. There has been a consistent string of yearly releases for the series for the last 18 years, consistently surpassing prior records with just the odd hiccup in the path when a less-than-good but still enjoyable entry has been released.

Modern Warfare 3 is more than just a bump; it is an indictment of the Call of Duty machine. It is a hurried product that was made to fill a $70 gap in Activision’s schedule and was pushed as something that, according to accounts, was never intended to be. This is an expansion in every aspect, with the exception of the name and the price, so let’s not mince things. However, even if it were more significant, I am not persuaded that Modern Warfare 3 would achieve the desired level of satisfaction. In spite of the fact that it rides on the coattails of the fantastic Modern Warfare 2 from the previous year, which caters to the intense nostalgia of 2009, and that it brings about enhancements to Gunsmith that are very much appreciated, many of the unique features that Sledgehammer Games has made come across as being unnecessary or just not as good as what we had before.

This is the lowest point in the series. It is the first time that the barrier to entry for Call of Duty, which is $70, has seemed like an insult to veteran gamers. Despite this, the live service model of the series means that fans who want to participate in Call of Duty’s events and battle passes for the next year have no other option. Aside from Warzone, Modern Warfare 3 will be the location where the action of Call of Duty will take place during the whole of 2024, for better or for worse.

To return home

There is an excessive amount of familiarity going on here, which is causing this map pool to go stale well before the “best by” date that is often associated with Call of Duty.

In the multiplayer mode of Modern Warfare 3, the peculiar content of the game is instantly apparent. The debut of the game does not include any original 6v6 maps, which is a first in the history of the franchise. Instead, Sledgehammer went into the archives of Call of Duty and recreated all sixteen launch maps from the first version of Modern Warfare 2 (2009). The fact that this nostalgia payload was one of the first things mentioned about MW3 was, dang it, one of the things that made me most thrilled. The cultural impact that Call of Duty had on adolescents in the late 2000s cannot be understated, and MW2 was perhaps the game that reached its pinnacle of popularity. Even though I had some reservations about the Call of Duty game that was released this year, I continued to believe that the fact that it had maps that I hadn’t seen in fourteen years was enough to justify the existence of Modern Warfare 3. Actually, not at all.

The attention to detail that Sledgehammer put into constructing their favourite maps is something that I can’t say enough positive things about. I’m having a fun time going back and revisiting my favourite levels. Terminal, Highrise, Favela, and Sub Base successfully recreate the atmosphere of the originals in a manner that is almost flawless.

It is possible that Modern Warfare 3 is the most immediately sweaty Call of Duty game I have ever played. This could be due to the fact that a large number of us already know these maps from the formative years that we spent walking through them with energy drinks by our sides. However, a significant portion of this impression could be attributed to the fact that it features competitive-friendly updates to movement (more on that later).

The issue with the maps in Modern Warfare 3 is one that is easy to anticipate: not all of them are reliable players. In our present era of service shooters, it is a rare pleasure to have sixteen maps at launch (with a few extra for non-standard modes), but to tell you the truth, there are a number of stinkers that definitely should have remained in the aughts: As well as the bowl-shaped meat grinder Afghan, the uneven sightlines of Underpass, and the hilariously inconsistent spawn kills of Scrapyard, Estate, which is really just a large hill with a house on top that invariably devolves into a sniper mosh pit, can be thrown away without any more consideration. Simply put, they are… very 2009.

Retooling Infinity Ward’s previous work with the new Call of Duty in mind is a peculiar sight to see. Sometimes the old and the new come into conflict in ways that are perplexing. For example, the old maps now feature doors that are functional, much like in recent Call of Duty games, but they also still have false doors in the same places they used to. This creates uncomfortable situations in which I am unsure of which buildings I am allowed to enter and which ones I am not allowed to enter.

Sledgehammer’s flashback maps have left me with a variety of conflicting emotions. To begin, they are just what I had hoped they would be: they are faithful to the originals, and they provide a feel-good bullet point that longstanding fans can unite around. However, it resulted in the loss of the customary salvo of fresh new maps, and I find that I am missing them more than I anticipated. It’s a bittersweet experience to already have every map “figured out,” and it’s disappointing to remove the rose-coloured glasses I’ve been wearing towards classics that I thought I liked. There is an excessive amount of familiarity going on here, which is causing this map pool to go stale well before the “best by” date that is often associated with Call of Duty. If this were a map pack for the reboot of Modern Warfare 2 that was released a year ago, as it seems to have been the intention at some point, it would be one of the most impressive single add-ons in the history of first-person shooters. However, as a map pool that carries the weight of a complete game that can be played on its own, It’s doing perfectly well.

Line of production

The new weapons in Modern Warfare 3 elicit a similar shrug from players. There are around thirty launch weapons in the arsenal, and they are a combination of redesigned guns from the 2011 game MW3 and creative spins on classic ideas. At the very least, I believe that there are some old favourites included in there. For example, Modern Warfare 3 has a particularly bad case of boring firearms, more so than any Call of Duty game in recent memory. The majority of the new ones are assault rifles and “battle rifles” (which are just ARs that fire slower), which have a design language that is quite similar to one another. In some instances, assault rifles and battle rifles are the same weapons with some minor modifications.

In the same manner that Modern Warfare 2 recycled its weaponry via its “weapon platform” idea, it also created space for variation in the form of M4 variants, the AK family, bullpups, integrated silencers, and a whole fleet of MP5s, each of which had its own set of strengths and limitations.

Guns in Modern Warfare 3 blend together in a deliberate manner. About fifty percent of the time, I am unable to determine which of the two ultra-popular assault rifles—the fast-firing MTZ with steady recoil and an extended magazine or the fast-firing MCW with steady recoil and an extended magazine—was responsible for my destruction. Even if the distinctions between an M4 and an AK may be reduced to centimetres on a stat sheet, style is what creates a gravitational pull for our favourites. While functional overlap is not a new phenomenon in Call of Duty, personality is something that Infinity Ward and Treyarch often get right. Just as much as its damage value, the concussive scream, battle-worn scratches, and confident reload of the M4 in Modern Warfare 2 made it my go-to weapon. However, this year I am not experiencing the same pull towards any single rifle as I did in previous years. All of Sledgehammer’s weapons are boxy machines that have just come off the manufacturing line, and none of them stand out from the crowd.

All of Sledgehammer’s weapons are boxy machines that have just come off the manufacturing line, and none of them stand out from the crowd.

There are several types of firearms that seem to have been added without careful analysis or out of a sense of responsibility. There is no way that I could ever utilise a single-shot marksman rifle in Modern Warfare 3, since they are just inferior assault weapons. Additionally, the fact that player health has increased by 33 percent from the previous year has made the allure of single-shot marksman rifles less appealing. During my first week of matches, none of them were there, which suggests that the community is in agreement. It is a minor consolation that the “carry forward” feature of Modern Warfare 3 allows me to continue using all of those great firearms that I levelled up a year ago. However, when I switch back to my reliable Basilisk revolver, I find myself wondering why I am playing Modern Warfare 3 only to relive Modern Warfare 2 once again.

I am a fan of the few really creative variations on standard firearms, such as the Longbow, which is a peculiar sniper rifle in the style of an AK-47 and has a bolt-action that defies all conventions, and the COR-45 pistol, which can be changed into a secondary SMG by using a special “aftermarket” adapter.

Run the market.

The work that Sledgehammer has done is particularly impressive in these particulars. When it comes to allowing hybrid playstyles or making a substantial change to the way a gun acts, the few aftermarket parts that are available for MW3 go above and beyond. For example, a dot sight that has an embedded laser for enhanced hipfire is one example. Call of Duty sorely needs more attachments like this to make Gunsmith meaningful. The current sea of suppressors, grips, handles, and stocks that minutely seesaw the same three stats up and down is doing absolutely nothing for me these days. Gunsmith is the one attachment that makes a difference.

I am less enthusiastic about the sledgehammer that has been applied to mobility in Modern Warfare 2. The contentious decision that Infinity Ward took to slow down operators and weaken popular mobility strategies was taken with the intention of fostering more careful and strategic play. However, Sledgehammer had the opposite notion, and I believe that it was successful. A single week of competition against the “movement kings” of Modern Warfare 3 has shown how even slight adjustments to mobility can completely disrupt the flow of Call of Duty. In my matchups, there are a lot of players that rely on these cheesy approaches to “outplay” those players who like to keep their feet on the ground, which is me. These techniques include rapid mantling, slide cancelling, and generous mid-air accuracy.

There are members of the Call of Duty community who will tell you that these are deft manoeuvres that contribute to the game’s depth, and they will tell you this. It is possible that they are, but they also cause the motion to be excessively twitchy, unpredictable, and annoying.

Urgent work

The campaign is the most significant one to suffer as a result of the haphazard nature of Modern Warfare 3. Considering how regular Call of Duty campaigns often are—with missions lasting between ten and fifteen minutes, a combination of covert action and intense combat, and a denouement that is neatly wrapped up at the five or six-hour mark—it is quite easy to detect that something is awry with this particular installment. A rough retelling of the Makarov tale from Modern Warfare 2 (2009), the story introduces a new mission style that takes characteristics from Warzone: the Open Combat Mission. The story is a loose recreation of the Makarov story.

Open Combat appears as early as the second mission in the campaign, and it replaces the typical follow-the-leader missions that are typical of Call of Duty with solo infiltrations into sandbox landscapes that are relatively modest but rich in content. During the beginning of the campaign mode, it may seem a bit unusual to be collecting armour plates and pinging opposing squads, but the format is really very effective.

When I was able to stretch my legs in a player-versus-environment and was rewarded for exploration, I was overjoyed. It was a lot of fun to pursue such moments with an open combat mission that had weapon caches every few feet that had fully equipped rifles, launchers, and flashy gold-plated deagles. Regular campaign missions give their own unique brand of enjoyment, which consists of continually switching out your weaponry for whatever adversaries drop. I felt inspired to attempt other strategies when I died, and the fact that adversaries are always rushing onto the area from all directions makes the firefights less repetitive than they would otherwise be.

On the other hand, open combat missions are a little victory since they serve as a diversion from the primary vehicle for narrative in Call of Duty. They are short, yet they nonetheless manage to cram a lot of diversity into little places, and they never get bogged down by non-player characters that move at a snail’s pace. The issue is that they are not side adventures or diversions and are thus problematic. It is estimated that Open Combat accounts for over half of the four-hour playtime of Modern Warfare 3, and a significant number of these missions seem to be filler in order to pad out a task list that is significantly lacking in longer, more conventional plot objectives.

Call of Duty’s typical flair is absent from the few narrative missions that we actually get to play. An infiltration level similar to that of Hitman is completed only a few minutes after it starts. In spite of the fact that it is more well-conceived than the notorious “No Russian” level in MW2, an intense aircraft hijacking is just a cinematic that is, once again, oddly brief.

Call of Duty’s typical flair is absent from the few narrative missions that we actually get to play.

The uncomfortable pace has a significant impact on the plot as well, which is an aspect of Call of Duty that I have not been very finicky about in the past, but due to the fact that it flows so badly in MW3, it got distracting. Interstitial sequences consisting of jpgs of the gang’s faces chatting over radio turn out to be responsible for all of the contextual heavy lifting. This is due to the fact that a significant portion of the campaign is spent in open combat stages that are not cohesive and contain very little narrative. The rivalry between Price and Makrov is underdeveloped and dull; people go on field excursions all over the world for no apparent purpose; and stories that begin in the most recent two reboots of Modern Warfare neatly tie up in ways that give the impression that Sledgehammer is painting over objectives that it was not given enough time to create.

The strange events culminate in a finale mission that is poorly designed, underexplained, and perplexing. I cannot even begin to fathom that this goal is even somewhat comparable to Activision’s initial idea for this reboot trilogy. It is a campaign that should not be forgotten.

Zombies that are extracted

It’s a strange year for Call of Duty, especially considering that the only mode that I’m itching to play is zombies. I know this to be true. Treyarch, a Call of Duty team that is well-known for the Black Ops series and its unique zombie levels, was enlisted by Activision to produce Modern Warfare Zombies. Warzone’s new map, Urzikstan, and Modern Warfare 2’s famous DMZ format are repurposed in Modern Warfare Zombies to create a sandbox take on Zombies that trades urgency for agency. This is in contrast to Treyarch’s typical design, which consists of contained structures with monster spawners in every window.

Across the vast globe, three-person squads are sent with no specific objective in mind. A few isolated groups of zombies may be seen wandering about in the open, while more dangerous concentrations of zombies are hiding within buildings. Players are allowed to take up contracts that function as micro-missions, similar to the rules of DMZ’s extraction shooter. These micro-missions include things like protecting a zombie-purging machine, delivering supplies across the map, or clearing out complexes that have been overrun with creatures. At the end of the day, survival is the name of the game; nevertheless, you have the option to withdraw from the map anytime you choose and preserve whatever treasure you have obtained over the course of the following run.

You could find that particular aspect to be a deal-breaker if the untimed survival gauntlets of Black Ops Zombies are the primary aspect of the mode that you love the most, but I’m finding that Modern Warfare Zombies has a lot of things that I appreciate about it. Treyarch did a fantastic job of transferring well-known ideas and powerups to unexplored territory, despite the fact that it is unquestionably its own thing. It is true that it is peculiar that you can just drive away from a zombie swarm rather than having to expertly kite them down halls, but the pleasant hum of a pack-a-punched weapon continues to be exquisite, and I am still wasting all of my credits on the possibility of a raygun being in the random box.

Treyarch’s skill for player-versus-environment encounters shines through, despite the fact that it is a genre mashup that ought to seem as forced and impromptu as the pitch indicates it should. For Modern Warfare 3, this unusual Zombies variation is perhaps the finest thing that can be said about the game.

But I don’t really play Call of Duty for its player vs. environment. This year, I’m not feeling it when it comes to multiplayer, which is where it’s at. As I aimlessly hop between game modes, fiddling with guns that bore me to tears, mourning old favourites rendered useless by 150 health pools, and contending with caffeinated teenagers encouraged to slide or hop into every gunfight, I am coming to the realisation that if it weren’t my job to cover this series, I would probably uninstall Modern Warfare 3 and cross my fingers for the following year.

It should come as no surprise that this jumbled and vaporous image of Modern Warfare 3 was not the result of years of careful planning or preparation. Tradition and the arrogance of executives who are responsible for puppeteering the fleet of hardworking Call of Duty developers that work together to do the impossible each year were the driving forces behind this turnaround. Modern Warfare 3 is a chapter in the twenty-year history of the franchise that is completely unnecessary, and I strongly recommend that you do not play it. I am curious about the response that the new owners of Call of Duty at Microsoft will have.

By admin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *