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.
I guess you like to waste your money on the same thing over and over and over again. You say you don’t have 5k to make a system. Well how does it feel to know that you wasted $240 on the same game? Keep buying this garbage and you will eventually spend more money on the same game, rehashed over and over again, than it would have cost to build a custom rig.
You represent the reason why the state of games have declined since 2003. I am willing to bet you’re around 22 or younger… kids younger than that don’t know what quality game design is.
for the record, i’m agreeing with what you’re saying and i’m 22. but yer i agree, it’s guna be someone my age or younger lol
Good thing I said “22 or younger” ;)
if you knew anything about PCs, rather than being part of that unholy horde that call themselves console players, you’d realise that a decent gaming PC doesn’t cost anywhere near $5000. here in Australia, where we get ripped off for everything, you can get the whole lot for $2000, easily, plus the games are cheaper and of better quality, so in the long run you save money
I’m sorry, but online play is a cheap way to develop a game. A solid single player campaign with a great story is the way to go. You can add to it by a decent multiplayer experience, but it should never, EVER be the main attraction..All Modern Warfare’s multiplayer elements are just rehashes of the last installment with minor tweeks. It’s boring. It’s always the same. Kill everyone. Give me a mission and a reason for me to carry out that mission. How simplistic kids these days have become with their idea of what constitutes a good game.
Whenever using the words, “never” & “ever” you are immediately wrong. And also a moron. Stop tossing your opinion on the whole world. You are looking for a single-player game and are playing a game designed around multiplayer. Stop trolling a well written review of a great game and go talk up one of those ole’ fashioned single player games you love so much.
his point is that it shouldn’t be designed around multi-player in the first place! and i agree, i can’t believe what kids these days seem to think a good game is sometimes, cos some of the stuff some developers put out today is just crap
actually my main problems with CoD single-player these days are they’re too simplistic and way too short. and i still remember almost every mission from the original CoD and the expansion, not so memorable now though
Black Ops would be one of my favourite recent shooters since i really liked how they did the story. i like the MW story too, but yer it’s just missing something
Pretty much Karl. What Shaun doesn’t get is, he keeps buying the same stuff, over and over again. There is not innovation to them. It used to be that game developers had to have a great story and a solid single player campaign. I can remember most of the great ones, and all had great stories/single player experience. With games like Modern Warfare, they are hardly memorable, and have no replay value. This is compounded by the fact that once a new CoD comes out, no one plays the old one anymore. I dare you to go on MW1 and see how many people are playing on those servers. Enjoy your 12 people. So we can say that the multiplayer experience is a bust, and they have a very small single player experience. Which equals zero re-playability. Not the way to make games. In fact, these shouldn’t really be considered games… They should be considered expansion packs. Then again, kids these days have short attention spans, and can’t follow a story for more than 3 minutes. They don’t know what their missing.
Also Shaun, calling someone a “moron” nullifies your entire argument. You sir, have failed.
I liked the way you said “Michael Bay presents World War 3″ its perfect, even though its not the best shooter it earns a lot of money, just like Michael Bay’s films especially the Transformers 3 where just like modern warfare 3 was the same old thing with little tweaks and different story, manages to earn a billion dollars. This game is no different
I have just paid £45 for some new maps from modern warfare 2 where are the new innovative aspects to mw3?
The maps all look the same the classes and perks are too complicated This game encourages camping heavily.
There is absolutely no improvement from modern warfare 2 or black ops we need great maps like crash overgrown jungle stadium these maps have no new improvements.
I feel robbed into buying this a new developer needs to take over cod and make some great changes for all of us not just introduce minor tweaks and maps that look and feel the same.
Lol, Stop bitching and play the game, like it or gtfo. And if you don’t get the perks or the classes, go learn them, it’s not that hard. No improvements eh? So you want boosting and tactical nukes? And how is ” a new developer needs to take over cod ” going to work? It’s been Activision’s franchise since number one. I feel the 78$ on this game was definitely worth it. If you can’t handle it, don’t play it. Simple. Don’t bitch to other people about your problems.
Or you just need to not rely on multiplayer aspect of the game to be entertained. Multiplayer should always be used as an add-on to the single player element. Not the other way around.
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.
CoD was never focused as a multiplayer game. It wasn’t until MW1 came out, and every reiteration of the game only expanded on that (mainly due to the original game designers leaving the creation process, and Sledgehammer copy and pasting the game code). If you are going to have a multiplayer specific game, than just make a multiplayer (MMO) game… Battlefield, or more specific, MAG. But this creating a half-assed single player experience and more of a focus on the multiplayer is just not the way to go. Either make it a straight muliplayer, or make it a single player with a multiplayer addon. I’m tired of games being released with a lacking single player campaign, and a lame multiplayer aspect which seems to be the focus of the game. It’s like they release the entire title (single and multiplayer) just to get out a new multiplayer game, which isn’t really new!!!
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE! STOP THE MADNESS!!!
CoD has always placed a huge emphasis on the multiplayer. CoD 2 used the IW Engine, which was a modified Quake engine. Ever since CoD 2 the game has placed a heavier emphasis on multiplayer to the point that it is now a multiplayer-first game. BTW, you say games should be multiplayer-only, then cite Battlefield. BF3′s campaign was utter garbage.
The CoD campaigns aren’t going to get people to buy them on their own, but they are fun. I look at them like a bonus to go along with the multiplayer, and I bet others do too. Not sure why you are so worked up about it.
Because I hate multiplayer games, and the trend these days are more focused on multiplayer. They lack substance. I like a story that pulls me in. I don’t like 5 minute skirmishes that is nothing more than a killing spree. If I wanted that I would play unreal tournament.
i agree, i’m sick of games like CoD concentrating so much on multi-player at the expense of single-player. they don’t seem to realise that not everyone wants to put up with all the wankers you run into in online games, that’s why we play single-player in the first place lol
That’s because people are conditioned by advertisements to like these things. It’s a form of brainwashing/dumbing down the population. It’s called groupthink. Because everyone else seems to like it, you must also like it…
I see through that crap.
i totally agree with you. The gamers don’t allow something new to squeeze in and just want the same thing again and again
i am an avid call of duty fan. i love the games just the way they are. if you don’t like them then don’t buy them. multiplayer is a fun way for more than 1 person to experience a game. Single player games are fun in their own aspect but once you’re done it’s over. I refuse to dish out hard earned money to buy a game that i will only play for a limited time. i am a console gamer because the fact you can system link with your friends in your home or either play with your friends online. anyone can play a single player game and beat the map with limited skills and ability. i like to fine tune my skills by competing against real players to find out how good i am. playing single player, for me, is like playing a game of chess against a 5 year old kid. it’s already laid out and you know what they’re going to do before they do it. jesterking it sounds to me like you lack the skills to play against live competition so you only get the experience of getting your butt handed to you by real life players. i myself don’t have the ample time to play long drawed out single player games. i have limited time to play because of things like wife, kids, work, etc. i like to be able to set down throw in cod, halo, etc & go online to play & interact with my friends. the great thing about multiplayer games is that i can play for 30 minutes to an hour and be done. My time is limited & when i play long single player games, the time in between playing i usually forget what i was doing & where i was at the last time i played. so just because you have ample time doesn’t mean everyone does. so please quit being so critical & go do your thing & we will do ours. it’s my hard earned money & i will spend it as i see fit. and by the way i am 30 years old & have been playing games since atari. i loved final fantasy 7 & games like that back when i was a child & didn’t have other responsibilites in life. so to each their own. stop complaining.
mmmm sorry. I’ll complain all I want about poor development, and shotty stories. Sorry you got suckered into believing that you are paying for something new each time a new COD game comes out. I find it completely ironic that you claim that you don’t want to dish out your hard earned cash for a game that you will never play again… interesting… How much do you play CoD: MW 1 or CoD:MW2? Or even Black Ops for that matter? What’s that? You don’t anymore, you say…? But I bet you bought the brand new CoD game that came out right? lol for someone who supposedly claims to care about replay value, you sure do go with the rest of the group and their groupthink on this one. And you’ll buy the next one that comes out and forget about the $60-70 you paid for this game, because no one else is playing it anymore. Once a new COD game comes out, the old one’s life expectancy is short due to the heavy multiplayer aspect of them. I’m sorry, I stopped reading your post after you claimed you don’t want to waste your money.
like i said your opinion is your opinion & it is an overrated one at that. overrated by you for the most part. i still play call of duty 2, call of duty 3, call of duty 4 mw, call of duty mw2 & the new one. i also play halo3, halo 3 odst, halo reach & now the revamped halo anniversary edition. i still play a lot of the older games because when we system link, which you probably have never done & will never do, we play all these games. we like a variety of maps & these games produce that for us. & i know you read my whole reply because that’s how people like you are. you just stick to your world of warcraft or whatever flaming game you play & let us first person shooters keep on shooting. your name says it all.
crafty one you are. Still, I doubt you play the online components of those games, because they actually lack players. I know, because I’ve tried to play them. and if you want to play on servers that have 1 player, or are empty, your pretty sol. Yeah, my screen name implies irony, but it doesn’t imply that all my posts are trolling posts. funny, you claim that my opinion is over rated, which would imply that the mass majority (over) of people would agree (rated) with me.
you should stop playing video games and either stay in school, or go back to school.
comprehension > you. Do you know what that means?