Spoilers ahead!
“Call of Duty games just aren’t what they used to be,” or some rendition of that, is a statement that I’ve heard more times than I care to count, and seldom does the ensuing conversation ever go further than everyone typically agreeing with it. The observant person never explains what aspect of old games they find lacking in new games. If it is the adherence to historical accuracy and the storytelling of an everyday man stepping up to the literal call of duty, games highlighting those aspects reached an apex somewhere between “Call of Duty 2” and “Call of Duty 3” (2005-06), and steadily deteriorated past “World At War” (2008). If they mean the nostalgic multiplayer competitions with friends, which reached its peak in “Modern Warfare 2” and “Modern Warfare 3” to “Black Ops III” (2009 – 2015), that has also deteriorated with subsequent releases.
With time, all things change, some for better and some for worse, but Call of Duty, proven by its immensely profitable yearly installments since its inception, will stand strong as a pillar of entertainment for the foreseeable future. Such a fact is both good and bad. I say it is bad, as it gives the studios behind the games the impression that they can put out whatever lackluster product they want and people will continue to pay $69.99 (or more with special editions) every November. Such an impression has been given to the gaming community with this year’s installment “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare III” (MWIII), released only a year after “Modern Warfare II” (2022), containing mostly “reimagined” multiplayer maps from “Modern Warfare 2” (2009).
The amount of negative reception generated regarding MWIII is quite shocking. After playing this game with friends, I cannot help but agree with some of the criticism that people have with this game, but also stand to defend a number of accusations made against it. One of the main criticisms MWIII is receiving is that it “feels like a DLC to MWII packaged as a fully-fledged game.” The community feels this way as bringing back old maps from 2009 and calling it new isn’t exactly the most consumer friendly decision Activision could have made. However, let it be known that the maps from 2009 are a thousand times better than many of the maps of the past five years. From the original “Modern Warfare 2,” it is maps like “Afghan,” “Terminal,” and “Rust” which people refer to when they say “Call of Duty multiplayer isn’t what it used to be.” The flexible movement of today also stands superior to the clunky and slow movement of 2009.
That’s not to say the multiplayer is perfect. Half of the time during matches, the spawning will be so mind-bogglingly dumb that you will get killed over and over and over. The other half, you will be holding a position such that enemies cannot possibly compete against you. The main issue of multiplayer is probably the long Time-to-Kill that many of the weapons have. Sometimes, it feels as though you unload a magazine into an enemy, and they walk it off. It should not take 12 rounds from a burst pistol at mid to low-range to take one person. Most of the time when holding down a position, you die not because the enemy found a weakness in your defense, but rather you’ve held out for so long that you’ve completely run out of ammunition to continue fighting due to the amount of bullets necessary to put just one enemy down (and yes, the same problem stands in Hardcore).
As for the campaign, I have little good to say anything about. While “Modern Warfare” titles are generally known for having the best storytelling in the entire franchise, MWIII ruins that with monotonous open-area stealth missions with side objectives passed off as actual missions. Essentially, they repurposed Spec-Ops and reused locations of Warzone and called it a day. A shame, since the first mission of the campaign, where you break into the Gulag and free Makarov is very well executed. It paces well, and the realization that you are actually playing as the Russians is a good twist. The rest of the campaign however greatly falls short. With a plot that hardly makes sense to care about, and lack of build up of stakes, the only reason one would torture themselves with this mode is to simply be able to say that they did. There is no other reward for wasting your time.
The Zombies mode, however, is never a waste of time. With the failure of the Zombies mode in “Vanguard,” the people needed a redeeming experience, and with MWIII, they received yet another open-area mission based mode that actually functions better than the campaign. Although not a blocked off traditional map, the general progression of this mode is smooth and replayable, ideally with friends. Alone, this game mode is ridiculously unfair to the player and insists that the player get friends to play with. Perhaps it is a cheap tactic to sucker in more players but a fun time nonetheless.
“Modern Warfare III” has its ups and downs. It has also only been released for a few days at this point. With no “Call of Duty” game ever releasing without a bumpy beginning, we will have to see if the future will look kindly upon this game, or if it will just be another forgettable bore until next November.
Leave a Reply