Modern Warfare 3 Reiterates Call Of Duty Is No Longer What It Once Was

Sometimes, when a franchise becomes too huge, it attains the confidence that it can do anything and get away with it swiftly. And I have a perfect example of this for you — Call of Duty. What was once the peak of action-packed FPS experiences is now just about making money. Even if the world was ending, the only thing that would stay constant is that we would continue getting new Call of Duty games. If you somehow thought that was a good thing, the latest entry to the gigantic series just can’t wait to change your mind. 

The major player that was significant enough to make the Activision acquisition deal such a turbulent matter is here with a new entry, Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3. My foremost thought upon its reveal was, “Why does MW3 look so bad?” and I’m still coming to terms with how this qualifies as a separate entry. The same old maps with absolutely no changes, a lackluster campaign filled with repetitive and tedious tasks, and the fact that it’s essentially an MW2 DLC leave a bad aftertaste.

Seriously, Who Greenlit This Campaign?

I’ll be honest with you, I never had any grand expectations with Modern Warfare 3 either way. The glory days of Call of Duty are long gone, at least for me (Well, the glory isn’t but the substance surely has). However, this turned out worse than even my meager expectations. First, the point that disappoints me the most is MW3’s ridiculous campaign. It does nothing but solidify the impression that this is a highly rushed project, devoid of any innovation and originality.

Review in progress: Modern Warfare 3’s campaign is a series low point
byu/Turbostrider27 inGames

Where has that tense and goosebumps-inducing cinematic storytelling of Call of Duty gone? The campaign is meant to engage me with its intense action encounters that are contextual and feel meaningful. On the contrary, this feels like Call of Duty attempting to revive its past hits in the most mundane way. It feels like all of it is haphazardly placed together, with not a speck of novelty. The missions have little to no coherent story, go in, shoot stuff, and you’re done. It feels completely devoid of life.

And who thought saturating the game with Warzone-style “open combat missions” was a good idea? Completing the same three objectives in what is in truth a short game but feels like an eternity is not my definition of fun. It’s like the game is trying to do something big, blending old and new concepts, but it fails at it pretty badly. I fail to see any ingenuity in this, and honestly, this campaign stands out as probably the worst Call of Duty venture. If you thought “Why does MW3 look so bad?” there’s your answer.

[MW3] “Open Combat” missions are cover for sheer laziness
byu/KarmaPolice10 inCallOfDuty

It Seems Modern Warfare 3 Ran Out Of Maps

Here’s another little tidbit for you. Modern Warfare 3 has all 16 maps from MW2, and that’s it. See the problem? For a separate entry, the lack of new maps is pretty troubling. If I’m playing a game that’s essentially the same as the prior entries, at least the presence of new locations and map design gives off the feeling of a change, a breath of fresh air. Playing in the same maps makes it hard for your brain to accept that you’re currently in a different game.

Bringing back iconic locations from the 2009 Modern Warfare 2 is a great idea, I agree. It sparks a sense of nostalgia and you can see the visual leap from your childhood to the modern era. Still, that doesn’t mean they should be the “only” maps in the game. Shouldn’t I just play MW2 then, why go for Modern Warfare 3 in the first place? The campaign is completely out of the question, so at least new locations or game modes should motivate me, but nothing there too.

Shouldn’t og mw2 maps be on mw2 instead of mw3?
byu/bandora_b inModernWarfareII

A good approach should’ve been to bring back the old maps to trigger a little nostalgia, and then add some fresh ones to improve player engagement and also justify the game as a distinct entry. A little good news is that new maps and locations are planned, and will be released as post-launch content for the game. We’re not aware of the release date yet, but the hope exists. Nevertheless, releasing a $70 game with a complete lack of originality is shocking, to say the least.

Modern Warfare 3 Says It’s A Separate Game, But I’m Not Convinced

Activision released Modern Warfare 3 as a distinct game to charge $70, but is it truly so? I believe this is nothing more than DLC for MW2, and I have my reasons. Do you remember there was a DLC in production for Modern Warfare 2? What happened to it? It was never released and instead, a good while later, MW3 was announced. So what if this was originally a DLC, but then haphazardly put together as a separate game? Things make a lot of sense if I think this way.

MW3 is LITERALLY an add-on for MW2. App has been re-named. It’s not a separate app.
byu/james271293 inXboxSeriesX

First, take a look at the map selection of this game. Modern Warfare 3 has taken maps from the original MW2 and presented them in a sort of remastered state. So here’s a question. Why not the old MW3 maps? The game is called “Modern Warfare 3” It should have some maps from the original MW3 too. Unless it was originally a MW2 DLC so included maps only from its namesake? There is no official information regarding this, but why else would a game called Modern Warfare 3 not take maps from the old one when its predecessor did it?

I agree that might be simply speculation, but here’s some concrete proof. Earlier, it surfaced that the trophy/achievement design of MW3 suggests it is a DLC for MW2, as it appears a subcategory of the latter. Now, we officially know Modern Warfare 3 has no separate client. You cannot launch it without starting MW2 first. What does that tell you? But hey, it’s not MW2 but “Call of Duty HQ” now, so you cannot say MW3 is a DLC anymore. Yes, that fixes things perfectly.

$70 For A Glorified DLC Is Going Too Far, Activision

Despite all these problems, I would have considered this solely because of the fun mechanics and improved visuals if it was a Modern Warfare 2 DLC. It would’ve been a little weak expansion, but still an acceptable one nonetheless. However, a full game of this quality is certainly not. Activision is demanding a whopping $70 for something that feels lackluster even as a DLC, let alone a separate game. I don’t see any feature that comes even close to justifying the price.

On top of a campaign that is already such a mess, it’s also extremely short. Coming in at only around 4 hours, is this truly a $70 game’s story mode? A 4-hour campaign, filled with missions recycled most tediously, and an absolute lack of originality in terms of design choices is asking for 70 dollars. If this was $20, I wouldn’t be this bothered. If it was 40 bucks, I would’ve argued there is very little to justify the price. 70 bucks is completely outrageous.

Plus, not to mention the multiplayer is nothing special either. As I mentioned, the game has no original maps of its own, all recycled ones. For a game that essentially thrives on its multiplayer, including no new maps, and then expecting players to pay 70 dollars is beyond me. This is what I meant when I said Call of Duty got too big for its own good. You had epic stories and creative mechanics in every new entry before, now it’s just bare-bones recycled content and that’s it. 

can we be honest mw3 isnt worth 70$
byu/stu7ldl0s3r inmodernwarfare2

People Will Buy Anything “Call Of Duty,” And That’s The Problem

Why do you think Activision can get away with this, especially with Call of Duty? That’s because it knows we can do anything and the people would still buy it. And that, my friends, is where this discussion loses its purpose. No matter what you or I think, Call of Duty still sells, and it sells a lot. I don’t think there has been any entry in this franchise weaker than the new Modern Warfare 3, and still, it’s selling like hotcakes. I can’t comprehend this.

It’s our fault for making Call of Duty the golden goose. From what I believe, Modern Warfare 3 was indeed a DLC, but Activision decided why settle for less when with just a few changes and tweaks, it can sell it for $70. The reason why Call of Duty was the principal cause of the disputed deal was because everyone knows the franchise’s worth. It can make a ton of money and so they want it, regardless of if the product is a quality one. After an acquisition of such a scale, is this the sort of games Activision will pump out now?

You want Activision to change?? Stop buying their ****
by inblackopscoldwar

I know Modern Warfare 3 was announced before the deal was finalized, so Xbox might not be involved in this one, but it carries the Xbox name nonetheless. After such a high-spec deal, I expected some strong Activision titles, but instead, we get this. I hope this does not become a norm for Call of Duty. Though no longer what it once was, I still enjoy the franchise and continue to follow it, but I can’t see a single reason to invest $70 in MW3 so far. I can only hope Activision doesn’t put money over quality in its future endeavors.