Like all industry leaders, the Call of Duty franchise has become a victim of its own success. The people that like the series swear by it, while those that dislike it tend to righteously hate it. The thing with the Call of Duty games is that you can criticize them for the style and dislike the nature of the games, but you can’t really claim that the games are bad or technically flawed. Not that they are perfect, but they are polished.
It is fair to criticize things like the series increasing stagnation and the lack of risks the developers take, but the franchise is where it is because Activision releases quality games stemming from the best possible resources available in the gaming industry today. Activision has too much at stake to let the series totally fail. The games could slide into tedium and mediocrity, but they will still retain a sense of technical proficiency at the very least.
And because the series takes very few risks, they won’t likely win over any people that aren’t already converts. The core fans may not be blown away either, but they are typically satisfied. In the case of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, Infinity Ward (and company) did a good job of examining what has worked, and tweaking the things that didn’t, even with all the hoopla stemming from the behind-the-scenes telenovela surrounding the ousting of the former IW heads. But that’s another story for another day. Perhaps the loss of West and Zampella hampered the creativity a bit, but there is no obvious loss of quality.
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 does what it needs to do, and should satiate fans without alienating any. The campaign is on par with the last Modern Warfare story (take that for what you will), while the multiplayer will likely suck the life from gamers for months to come—right up until the next Call of Duty in 2012. It doesn’t take any risks, but when you have one of the most successful franchises of all time, you really don’t have to.
Michael Bay Presents World War 3
If you played the previous Modern Warfare campaigns, than you know what to expect: Lots of ‘splosions and shootin’. In fact, with the exception of the cut scenes and a few very deliberate parts, there is not a single 60-second stretch where you are not involved in combat. From minute one, there is never a slow section as you race through the six-hour or so story.
The plot picks up immediately where Modern Warfare 2 left off, with Soap and Price having just confronted Shepherd, the Russians invading and Makarov still loose. As with the previous games, the story regularly shifts perspectives. This time the bulk of the plot is played through the eyes of an America Delta Force soldier codenamed Frost, and a former Spetsnaz member working with Price, named Yuri. There are exceptions, and you do take on a few other roles, but the bulk of the story focuses on these perspectives.
When you are with Price, the plot is focused on the hunt for Makarov, as the former Task Force 141 travels around the world looking for their prey. The Delta team is mostly involved with the larger story of the outbreak of combat around the globe that heralds the start of World War 3. Regardless of the character, the plot can usually be summed up by you killing everyone before they kill you.
As with most third entries in a trilogy (and while there may be several more stories to tell with the same core characters there is a definite ending to the current storyline), the characterizations are a bit weaker than before–but for a game like this that hardly matters. The story is not quite as compelling as the first Modern Warfare, and it doesn’t have quite as many over-the-top moments as MW2, but it is a serviceable story, and a fitting conclusion to the trilogy.
There are still plenty of wild instances as you fight around the world through some impressive settings, but it is the gameplay rather than the plot that will keep you involved.
The same technical problems with the campaign exist as they did with not just the other Modern Warfare games, but all CoD games. The enemy AI is fine but unremarkable, while your AI teammates—while not busy trying to catch your bullets with the back of their heads—are mostly ineffective. The AI isn’t great, but it isn’t bad either. Again, Infinity Ward (with help from Sledgehammer) did what they needed to without taking many chances.
The campaign is fun and will appeal to fans of the story, but it won’t really impress either. Then again, as long as it is decent, it doesn’t have to.
A Good Reason to Have the Internet
Few games are as geared towards online play as the Call of Duty franchise. The campaign is important, but secondary to the series. Most won’t be playing the campaign a year from now, but you can be sure that there will be people online playing the multiplayer. While Infinity Ward (with the help of Raven Software) didn’t exactly rewrite the book with MW3‘s online side, there are a few key changes that should make fans happy.
With a game like this–a game that will have so many people playing and scrutinizing it–there will always be a few balance issues that make people angry. In the first Modern Warfare juggernaut and martyrdom could make a nun swear. In Modern Warfare 2, several weapons were too powerful (looking at you, Model 1887 akimbo shotguns) while others led to weird semi-glitches (javelin glitch, anyone?). There are sure to be the same complaints about Modern Warfare 3, but nothing immediately stands out. With a closed beta though, those problems are to be expected, as are the inevitable “oh my god, using the ___ ruins the game! I’m never playing CoD again!” exclamations that will come. Give it time.
But for the most part, the weapons do have a sense of balance. Sniping seems to be a bit easier as the “strike zone,” so to speak, is a little larger and bullets will kill with what may look like a glancing blow. The rest of the weapons are all fairly interesting, and there are a lot of them. Many of them also feel a bit meatier, and the sound, kickback and controller feedback make them feel a bit more realistic and unique.
Each weapon now also has its own leveling system, which unlocks weapon-specific perks and attachments called Weapon Proficiency. The more you use a weapon, and the more success you have with it, the faster your level rises. Once you’ve put in a bit of time with a particular weapon, you will start to unlock the things you would expect like red dot attachments, cammo or things like extra ammo—the purchase system from Black Ops is gone, but he new Weapon Proficiency allows you to add a perk to your weapon on top of the attachments. Some perks are things like kickback, which reduces your weapons recoil, while others allow multiple attachments. It is just one more thing to level up, but it is a solid addition and gives more customization options.
Beyond that, the perk system remains more-or-less the same as always, with three perks to choose in each loadout. Secondary weapons have also followed the Black Ops’ path, so while you can carry machine pistols, handguns and launchers as a secondary, unlike MW2, shotguns are once again a primary weapon.
Well, while trying to avoid the Troll Warfare above, I’m liking MW3. Yeah, the CoD games are very similar, but I’m ok with that because I really enjoy the style of the multiplayer. I think IW (and Treyarch) have a formula that works, and if there weren’t annual CoD games, I’d probably still be playing CoD 4 (not counting how bored I’d inevitably get of playing the same maps, but the fundamentals are awesome). I’m an avid gamer, and for me, it is the little tweaks in the old gameplay that I’m most interested in out of the new series. I don’t necessarily want a whole new setup (although I’m open to it), I like the levellign system and all that, but I appreciate the additional weapon proficiency. It’s not a huge change, but it’s the kind of thing I like. I also think the game feels more balanced than Black Ops, and the maps are the best in awhile.
I play on the 360 so I can’t speak to the PC problems, but on console the games have always worked fine from a technical point of view. The odd glitch here and there (the review pointed out my most hated glitch of all time, the 1887s) cropped up, but a lot of that was just soooooooo many people constantly looking for ways to exploit the game. I wasn’t a huge fan of MW2, but I thought Black Ops was solid–although the best maps were by far the DLC maps. But I’m liking MW3 so far. Time will tell if it can hold up, but for a series that I can, and will, dedicate well over 100+ hours at least, I’m fine dropping $60 on it.
They aren’t breaking any new ground, but they still have a place. They do need to start taking some major changes soon, but I think Activision can get away with one more similar title.
And yeah, Activision is a greedy company, and the DLC stuff is pricey, but honestly I’ve gotten more than my money’s worth for each new map pack I bought, and I bought them all, and my friends that bought the DLCs didn’t complain about the $15. That’s not a rip off, that’s capitalism. Just my opinion though, continue with your flame wars.
Adam Reed from digitaltrends.com said:
I get what you’re saying, but I disagree. What’s wrong with a multiplayer-specific game? I’m all for a solid single player experience, which is why I am buying Skyrim, but I also enjoy a game with a focus on multiplayer like CoD and Battlefield. A multiplayer game is almost a different genre of game, but a valid one.
I do think that tacking on a multiplayer to a single player-specific game is lame though. Feels like every game these days HAS to have a multiplayer. I love Assassins Creed, but the multiplayer was weird. Wasn’t really bad, but immediately forgettable and unnecessary.
jesterking from digitaltrends.com said:
Good thing I said “22 or younger” ;)
I believe that the special ops was a huge step in the right direction — It’s so much better than zombie mode, in my opinion. So, while I only played since World at War, I believe that this is new to the game, and has made it more than worth its’ money.
The way the perks are set up, the way everything is set up, I’m having more fun than ever playing the game.
wtf. extension pack? stupid
I agree mw3 is a copy of mw2 but it is a bit better what im saying is whats new wheres the innovation and new ideas
lol MW3 was copy pasta of MW2.
I disagree, MW3 is a souped up version of MW2. Yeah, there are a LOT of similarities, but so far MW3 is a better game, with better balance than MW2. Games move better and play better.
Maybe that’s just because I’ve played waaaaaaay too much CoD though, lol.
Black ops is a good game this introduced the rc xd the chopper gunner and some very memorable maps like nuke town firing range waht has mw3 to give us just new maps and a bit of a tweak Ive played all of the cod games cod 4 was the best of all and black ops has introduced some of the newest ideas where mw3 lacks this
You do realize that the core of the game is not multiplayer, right?
hear hear
Largest MW 2 DLC ever!
What a lame map pack.
If you want to get real world data, go to the Infinity Ward Forums. That will enlighten you on what the PC gaming community thinks of MW3, and Activision.
“but you can’t really claim that the games are bad or technically flawed” Not True. Since MW2 this series is always flawed. They are Industry Leaders only with respect to sale numbers. MW2 was a joke with regard to getting into servers, being dropped from servers and a lack of any creative design. Black Ops has serious issues with the game freezing up for several seconds and then running again (not Latency related), and the weapons are completely unrealistic. Activision is only concerned about money (not necessarily a bad thing) but, it shows in the quality (lack of) in their games. They never fix the bugs. Instead they concentrate on the next DLC for mo money. You have to go back to COD 4 to say they are a creative company producing good games. Their maps are completely unimaginative and linear.
Reviewers of the game are like Senators. They don’t have the balls to put in an actual dig where it belongs for fear of reprisals. What’s next ? Enabling the ability to Tweet while in game. Reading reviews of any COD game is like watching FOX News. Unbalanced.
I signed up for an account just to reply to this garbage. I love the CoD games, and so do 20 million others. Take your PC fanboy crap elsewhere. I don’t have $5000 to waste on a gaming PC so me and my friends can play 3 really decent games that are on xbox anyway, so I don’t know about CoD on the PC but on consoles the games are as good as any games out there. They aint making major changes but neither does madden and those games are bad ass too.
King of Troll’s. Congrats Jason.
I’m a troll? You come in here talking mad sh*t about everyone and everythign and I’m a troll? There are better games than teh CoDs, but they are better than most of the junk out there. I’d still rather play MW3 than BF3 anyday. Ive been playing MW3 and I like it. Not much has changed but its enough to keep me playing for a long while. I’d a given it a 8.5, but 9 is fair. Theres a reason so many people buy these games and it aint because people are sheep or whatever its because they are fun. Fun! heard of it?
no, it’s because their sheep. I bet you liked the terrible game that was Black Ops too, didn’t you? Horrible game.