At this point, most gamers know what to expect from a series like Modern Warfare; a competitive, multiplayer-driven experience with an explosive - albeit meteoric - single-player campaign tied in.

This formula hasn't changed with Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. After all, what would a holiday season be like without another Call of Duty game? I couldn't fathom it either.

Following the fallout between Infinity Ward's lead designers and Activision, many thought that the departure of most of the studio would bring about the demise of the Modern Warfare brand. Yet, the game you know and love remains intact. Immensely intact. In fact, that's my one issue with the series that touts itself as the "best-selling game of all time"; being afraid of change.

How so?

A word of warning: if you haven't played the previous Modern Warfare games, you'll more than likely have absolutely no idea of what's going on (then again, even if you have you might fall into the same category). Following the events that transpired in Modern Warfare 2, the Russians have invaded America and continue to rain destruction down on the eastern shore. Makarov, the man behind the whole 'destroying the world' thing, is still at large, and you need to kill him so that the US and Russia can make peace. There it is.

Yo, yo, yo! Check out this sentry turret man!

Being candid, the campaign for MW3 is as cinematic as it is disappointing in almost every category. Without giving away major plot points, this game follows exactly the same formula that was given to us with the original Modern Warfare four years ago. Controversial issue arises, a main character dies, scene of extreme violence appears and then you eliminate the main threat (or a notable one). This makes the story extremely predictable and shallow, especially during the cut-scenes, where the whiteboards, post-it notes and other information is basically flung at you from seemingly nowhere. These moments remind me of a standard CSI episode where the team has come to a dead end and then, miraculously, someone finds something and the case is busted wide open. Of course, when it comes down to it, all you need to know is that you need to shoot people. A lot of people.

There are few things that don't blow up as you're climbing your way to the objective in the campaign. Missiles flying overhead, buildings collapsing around you, ordnance being detonated nearby - I can't deny the adrenaline rush that MW3 offers. A quote I recently heard describes it best: "if Modern Warfare 3 were a movie, Michael Bay would have to retire." Sure, in some ways the game makes great use of action and definitely stirs excitement, but Activision and Infinity Ward have been pulling the same strings for a while now. I understand they're trying to recreate the same effect that the original Modern Warfare had on the masses, but by literally utilising the same story-arc again and again, the game just ends up seeming plagued by lazy design. It'd be one thing if the story were at the very least interesting, but sadly this just isn't the case.

You are the Juggernaut.

Multiplayer, on the other hand, offers a much better experience in MW3 than its predecessor. Whilst MW2 gave us the superior co-operative Spec Ops mode along with a slew of new perks, equipment and kill-streaks, MW3 refines it all, creating a nicer overall package. As far as I'm concerned, Spec Ops is once again the star of the show. If you've never played it, Spec Ops is a two-man set of challenges that earn you stars for the difficulty you complete them on. Some missions may be completed alone, but if you're dead set on getting all 48 stars you're going to need a partner in crime. There's also a new Surivival mode, which pits you against waves of enemies, à la Gears of War's Horde.

The original Modern Warfare was where I sunk my teeth deep into the competitive multiplayer. MW2 felt bigger, but it was ruined for me by exploiters, terrible spawns and overpowered weapon sets. MW3 feels better to me, purely due to the fact that you're rewarded for staying loyal to certain weapons. What I mean is that you can actually level up your individual weapons, unlocking additional attachments and bonuses. For instance, leveling up the Riot Shield will give you the option to make it melee quicker or give you a speed boost.

Only novices shoot rockets. I think.

However, my favourite new additions to the multiplayer remain with the playlists and new kill-streak mechanics. MW3 offers the biggest selection of playlists the series has seen yet, including an all new mode called Kill Confirmed. Kill Confirmed's basic premise is that killing people doesn't automatically net your team points; instead, upon death your enemy will drop a dog tag and, if claimed, collection of that tag will net your team points. The cool thing about this mode is that you can grab your own teammate's dog tag, denying them the point. As far as kill-streaks go, they can still be fully customised, but can now be set to either Assault or Support streaks. Assault is your typical streak system which will end if you're killed prematurely. Support, though, allows your streak to persist through death. They aren't quite as devastating as the Assault ones are but it's still a rather nifty change that makes constant death less frustrating.

After that though, MW3 devolves back into its typical 'shoot everything, everywhere' format. It wouldn't be such a bad thing if MW3 were to have better spawns, but, alas, it does not. Couple that with an unbalanced matchmaking system and you have a real issue. The first game I played online pitched me against four people who were all level 80; about midway through the game, I was killed six times in a row without taking more than four steps from my spawn location.

MW3 isn't a bad game, but its lack of imagination and derivative nature will drive away gamers who want just a little bit more. Its nonsensical story doesn't help matters, but at least Spec Ops and a familiar competitive multiplayer element provide enough to keep coming back to. Having said that, this title is nothing more than average, but if you're a Call of Duty fan and shooting dudes is the name of your game, go ahead and add two to the score.

5/10 [?]

Labels: 2012, Activision Blizzard, Andrew Whipple III, Call of Duty, Infinity Ward, Modern Warfare 3, PC, PS3, Review, Sledgehammer Games, Xbox 360

My vision blurs, and myriad shouts and explosions fill my ears as I come to. I’m sitting in an overturned Humvee, trying to come to grips with the chaos going on around me.

“We gotta move, now!” calls my squadmate, cutting himself free of his seatbelt. I open the door and hoist myself out, as outside light blinds me. My eyes adjust, and I watch a cruise missile collide with a skyscraper, sending debris cascading down to the street around me. The report of gunfire, grenade concussion and screams of terror and pain wells in my ears. Not far up the street, invading troops are bearing down on my position, barking orders and sending a hail of bullets in our direction. My squadmate tosses me a magazine, and I load my weapon, ready to meet the enemy head-on. This is Modern Warfare 3, and this is only the first level.

Many, including myself, wondered if Infinity Ward - now sans numerous key members of its creative team - could pull off the sort of bombastic, thrilling campaign that the Modern Warfare name is known for, whilst retaining the tight, finely-honed gameplay that brought the series popularity in the first place. Fortunately for gamers everywhere (which numbers at least 6.5 million, based on first-day sales alone), Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 meets Infinity Ward’s high standards, with perhaps the best campaign since Call of Duty 4, and even manages to surpass that hallowed game in several respects. Add the series’ already-exceptional multiplayer and several well-designed cooperative modes, and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 easily ranks among the year’s top titles.


Modern Warfare 3 picks up immediately after the end of the second game, with Russia invading the United States over a misdirected terrorist attack, orchestrated by Russian ultranationalist, Makarov. Players take control of several characters over the course of the game, but primarily occupy the boots of Sargeant Derek 'Frost' Westbrook of the US Army, and ex-Spetsnaz soldier Yuri. The game largely expects gamers to remember events from the story in the previous two titles, doing little to re-explain who Makarov is, or why Russia is waging war with the United States, except in brief flashbacks. For those willing to pay attention, as well as dig through the rat-a-tat delivery of military speech voiced by nearly every character, the game does a great job of driving the action forward and providing context for each mission. I’ve seen many folk on Twitter crowing about how difficult the story is to follow, but I thought Modern Warfare 3 does very little to deliberately obfuscate its narrative.

The game trots players around the globe, from Sierra Leone, Africa; to a shelled-out Hamburg, Germany; to a frozen diamond mine buried in Siberia. Variety is the order of the day, and in addition to its many explosive setpieces, Modern Warfare 3 does a good job of changing up gameplay styles and including slower, more deliberate moments, such as navigating a mine-strewn harbour to board a submarine, or using stealth to evade guards on the dark, rainy streets of Prague. Modern Warfare 3’s pacing is outstanding, using the calmer sections to build up the heavy ones, sometimes within the course of the same mission. Admittedly, the game does play it a little safe; none of the scenarios push expectations of what the series can do with shooting. Still, each mission is pitch-perfect and wound tight as a drum, with none of the tricks used by similar games to pad the difficulty or create frustration for its own sake (read: no enemy spawn-closets, and no ‘fend off endless enemies until the data downloads’ missions).


I find Modern Warfare 3’s story to be as good as that of any action movie, and was surprised how - for an ostensibly shallow single player game - the campaign drew me in, and even provided a few emotional moments. The title does an excellent job of building on characters (within the context of a military shooter; this isn’t Mass Effect, after all), and I found myself building an attachment to members of my squad in ways that I hadn’t felt during many recent shooters' campaigns. There was also one moment before the end of the first half that elicited an emotional response from me in a way I hadn’t felt since the infamous Aftermath scene from the first Modern Warfare. The narrative is pure action movie fare, but it’s the very best action movie fare, and is a must-play for shooter fans.

Of course, Call of Duty hasn’t achieved its legend status in the gaming industry solely because of its single player mode. Modern Warfare 3 brings back the series’ much-loved multiplayer, letting players battle it out locally or online via Xbox Live and PlayStation Network, with the option to bring one additional guest via split-screen. Changes are light, but not insignificant. Modern Warfare 3 ditches CoD Points from last year’s Black Ops in favour of level-specific unlocks. Perks have been further rebalanced, feeling more like strategic add-ons rather than nearly-mandatory requirements, and gun-specific perks like Iron Lungs or Deep Impact have been reincorporated as weapon bonuses. Weapons also level up in Modern Warfare 3, unlocking goodies like silencers or personalised scopes through general use. Lastly, Infinity Ward has added two new types of killstreaks (called Strike Packages) that differ from the usual 'kill X players without dying for bonus Y'. Support packages summon team-boosting effects, and allow gamers to retain their kills after dying, whilst the Specialist package gives players additional perks for as long as they can keep their kill streak going. Most will stick with the traditional streaks, called Assault in this game, but the added options are definitely appreciated.


New modes are light in Modern Warfare 3, but fortunately, they’re all keepers. The first is Team Defender, an odd mix of Capture the Flag and Team Deathmatch, with players earning double points whilst they possess a flag. The other (and better) mode is Kill Confirmed, a variation on Team Deathmatch that requires players to collect the dogtags of their fallen victims in order for their kill to count, effectively reducing the effectiveness of camping. Both new modes add a small semblance of strategy to the usual Team Deathmatch fare, and stand proudly alongside staples like Domination, Sabotage and Demolition.

Maps in Modern Warfare 3 are fun, though they merely feel ‘pretty good’ rather than ‘great.’ Maps are much more conducive to tight, close-quarters action, though many have enough open spaces to make sniping a valid strategy. As always, learning a map’s chokepoints and alternate routes will help determine players’ success, a problem that Activision’s new social tool , Call of Duty Elite, is supposed to help address. However, at the time of writing, the service was still largely out of commission, and I was unable to dive into the its finer points. Whilst each map is more than sufficient for team play, Modern Warfare 3 lacks any standout maps, like Afghan or Nuke Town. Still; deeper, more rewarding multiplayer games are hard to come by, and Modern Warfare 3’s online modes should be more than enough to satiate those with an itchy trigger finger.


For players uninterested in competitive play, Modern Warfare 3 also includes two flavours of co-operative gaming with the return of Spec Ops. New to Spec Ops is the Horde-esque Survival mode, which pitches increasingly-difficult waves of enemies against players, forcing them to group up, purchase weapons and revive one another in an effort see how long they can last. The Missions mode is similar to Spec Ops’ iteration in Modern Warfare 2, pitting teams of two players against a variety of objective-based situations, from rescuing hostages in an African village to collecting samples of biological weapons in a hulking Juggernaut suit. Best are the scenarios that place gamers in specific roles, such as a mission where one player must utilise a base’s security system to clear the way for another player, who must reach the endpoint before time runs out. Mission mode features sixteen different operations to work through, and finishing each one requires teamwork and constant communication, leading to an incredible sense of satisfaction upon completion. Spec Ops also features a progression system similar to the one found in multiplayer, adding an extra incentive for return sessions.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is absolutely crammed to the gills with worthy content, from its harrowing and thrilling single player campaign, to its deep and addicting multiplayer, to its varied and rewarding co-operative play. It is incredible that a brand like Call of Duty can operate at such a high level, year in and year out, and Modern Warfare 3 toes the line, providing the best franchise experience in years. Perhaps next time, Activision could try to innovate a bit further and push gamers’ expectations with the series. Still, what’s here is absolutely stellar, and shooter fans owe Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 a spot on their shelf this holiday season.

10/10 [?]

Labels: 2011, Activision, Andrew Testerman, Call of Duty, Infinity Ward, Modern Warfare 3, Review

I don't like this war. I don't like how the Battlefield 3 fans and the Modern Warfare fanatics will go as far as their hate-filled minds find it possible, to dig up as much dirt and sling as much shit at each other as their tiny, bigoted hands allow.

'BF3 sukcs, it just copys MW'. 'MW3 is crap lolol BF3 forever'. It's graffiti that adorns the walls of seemingly every YouTube video out there. It's facile, fruitless and frighteningly feckless. I'll probably stump up the crumbled cash for both, as I imagine a great deal of you will. At the end of the day, we're all adults, and there are - obviously - redeeming and disappointing qualities in each game.

Keep that in mind.

I feel I have to say the above, because you may think I'm nitpicking. This may look, perhaps, like a piece of propaganda which overflows from the legions of froth-faced fanboys around the internet. But do believe me when I say that I have a serious point, despite being a man who's taken several screenshots of a fictitious van. A van which drove a knife through my heart whilst I sat at my computer. A van that may have just killed my faith left in Modern Warfare 3.



That's the Modern Warfare 3 multiplayer trailer. It's exactly what everyone expected: lots of shooting, lots of things blowing up, and a hell of a lot of death. Despite a largely incomprehensible storyline of a sneaky sniper, Modern Warfare 3 looks to embody the reckless chaos which made Modern Warfare 2 a hit; you, a gun, and a confined space with explosives around every corner and a dozen enemies wanting to shoot your face off. But one thing in particular caught my eye.


It's a van. A van which can blow up if put under heavy fire. In fact, the same brand of van, Marley & Griffin, goes up in a ball of flame quite a few times in the trailer. For developers, it's a bog-standard replacement for a red barrel; bigger, more dangerous, less cliché than its iconic counterpart but still a destructible asset in a game which thrives on gratuitous chaos, whilst also providing tactical opportunity for each team. So, why is this important?



The first picture is a Marley & Griffin van, blown up in Modern Warfare 3, a game which released on 8th November, 2011. The second is a Marley & Griffin van, blown up in Modern Warfare 2, which released on 10th November, 2009. There's a two year gap between those two games, yet it's the same van.

Yes, I'm being pedantic. But it's not so much the van that annoys me - there aren't many players who stand and look at the branding of transportation vehicles in video games; those who do are described as 'easy kills'. What bugs me is what the van represents. It represents laziness. It represents copy-and-paste design. It represents a lack of ambition and, perhaps most irritatingly, a lack of pride.

Assets are reused in video games all the time; it saves a bit of money and means developers can focus on other stuff. But Modern Warfare hardly needs to save money; we're talking about possibly the biggest, highest-grossing, most cashed-up videogame series in existence. It would take a designer half a second (exaggeration, but still) to come up with a new logo or brand for a van, or even a whole new van. This is particularly true given that he has two whole years to do so. That van peppers every single multiplayer map numerous times, and players are bound to cast eyes over it on thousands of occasions. So why the hell is it exactly the same as Modern Warfare 2?

And it's not just the van; I reeled off a whole list of exact replicas in this article here. The heavy physics, the boring blood effects, the invisible line triggering the next wave of enemies in single-player, the reload animations, the vehicle controls - all these aged conventions seem just lifted from older games and lumped into Modern Warfare 3. We all know the reason for these similarities is due to the ageing, stumbling and predictable IW Engine that has been used since 2007, and - to an extent - that can be used to justify the physics or the graphics. It's a silly and a lazy choice by the developers, but at least it gives an explanation. The design of a goddamn van, though? Very little excuse. I knocked one out in 30 seconds:


There you go. It's utterly disgusting and I feel sick just looking at bit, but at least it's something new. That's why a tiny, stupid van was the final straw for me. Of all the things they could have done with two years and hundreds of millions of dollars, you would have thought one single bored guy would have noticed one day that: "oh, hang on, these vans are from Modern Warfare 2, and since they're seen so regularly it would probably be a good idea to change them so the game's design doesn't look so blatantly lazy". When Battlefield 3 launches weeks before with an entirely new engine, and Skyrim steals sales just a few days later with its massive scale and unestimatable ambition, Modern Warfare 3 should surely be pulling out all the stops to make sure that as much of the game as possible seems fresh and exciting.

But, alas, no. You'll take your van and you'll like it, say our lords and masters. Screw you, say our lords and masters. I'm having whatever is in your fridge then I'm punching your kids in the eyeballs, say our lords and masters. They don't care.

I'll end up buying Modern Warfare 3. The reality is that it's unavoidable, in the same sort of way that death is unavoidable. And if I must, I'll avert my eyes whenever I see a Marley & Griffin van, in the same way I approached the bits with the spider in Limbo. It is, after all, a van; a very small part of a very big game. But, even still, it's attention to those details which makes the best games. It's that extra will to polish everything, that unbounded passion to make the best experience humanly possible, that desire to go the extra mile and have pride in every aspect of your game which has brought us classics like Half-Life 2, or GTA IV. Or, dare I say it, Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare.

Modern Warfare 3 shows none of that ambition. And that's why I've lost faith in the game.

Labels: 2011, Activision, Call of Duty, Chris Hawke, Infinity Ward, Modern Warfare 3, Sledgehammer Games

Released to critical acclaim in 2007, the original Modern Warfare both redefined the first-person shooter genre, and catapulted its developers to the forefront of industry attention. Almost five years on, however, Chris Hawke explores the difficult dilemma prompted by Activision's cash cow.

I still struggle to remember why I knew almost nothing about Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. Almost five years ago, I'd read some previews and seen a bit of gameplay, all the trappings and trimmings of a game that just sits in the corner of your eye; you know it's there, but you're not too fussed. In reality, I was hugely unprepared for what hit me in 2007.

Modern Warfare was brilliant. It was hands-down, balls-to-the-wall stunning. It tore the competition apart with realistic, next-gen graphics, a fresh setting, and horrifically brutal gameplay. In a world filled with tired, old Second World War shooters, and clunky sci-fi romps, Modern Warfare boldly strode out onto the playing field and slapped the gaping, wide-eyed industry around the face, proclaiming "This? This is how you make a videogame."

I'm writing this on the 21st June, 2011. I'm watching the E3 demonstration of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. And I don't know what to think.

The Call of Duty series has been in a rather odd decline, at least from my personal perspective. Yes, sales are continually rising uncontrollably, breaking records with the carelessness of a toddler and his toys. Yes, the franchise has more media coverage than anything that had ever gone before it. Yes, it boasts an ever-growing userbase, and has propelled the franchise's two developers - Infinity Ward and Treyarch - into stardom. Yet, whilst a casual onlooker may only glance the surface, storms rage beneath; they may not notice the corporate turmoil as splinter group Respawn broke away in a messy lawsuit, might not have seen the furious mobs' boycotting and badmouthing, and may not get a whiff of the general feeling - amongst those serious about their games - that the magic has slipped away from Activision's baby, like falling sand from Bobby Kotick's clammy hands. Battlefield is enjoying unparalleled reverence left, right and centre, whilst Call of Duty Elite was announced to tepid applause and scathing stares.

The series finds itself with older legs and faster competition.

But how did it come to this?

One commonly cited criticism is the stumbling plotlines. Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare had a rounded, interesting and lovable cast, complete with HOORAH-yelling Marines and quiet, reflective British SAS stormtroopers. It allowed greater scope for a wide variety of characterisation, a concept disgustingly overlooked even now in many shooters. To actually care about a video game character in a first-person shooter - to the extent that the discussion surrounding whether or not Price was dead, and 'that' moment when you succumbed to nuclear radiation, raged for weeks afterwards - was novel; you actually cared for who you fought with and what you fought for. The implications of that on the quiet, grounded and scalpel-sharp story were huge.

Here's a quick recap of its sequel, Modern Warfare 2: BANG, BANG, NO NO, NOT THE CHILDREN, THUD THUD THUD BAM HOORAH KA-BOOOOOM. Or, at least, that's all I could glean. Garish explosions replaced understated floodlights, heavy metal overpowered the once-terrifying echoes of gunfire, and the whole thing was just big and loud and stupid and dumb. Compared to the deftness of the original, with its relatable characters and clever twists, Modern Warfare 2 felt contrived, messy, and incomprehensible. It covered precisely the same ground and the same characters - only, this time, with more swears! - and essentially the same twists, but with a nasty gasoline-meets-match focus and very little development. It could still take you on somewhat of an engrossing journey, and there are some lovely touches when developing the theme of personal sacrifice, but the whole thing just paled in comparison to its older brother.

Competition has also been a major element in the growing distaste for the Call of Duty name. We waited with baited breath for Medal of Honor's return, wanting it to grab the top spot once more, but it could only manage to get a fleeting finger on the prize. Homefront was touted as a possible Call of Duty killer, but the less said about that, the better. If you give an audience the same thing for 4 years, they're going to get bored. People scream out for new stories and new experiences, and after so many failed attempts at delivering that, it's natural that fans become more and more disillusioned. Battlefield 3 seems to be the new centre of attention, and every feature it has that Call of Duty doesn't have (regardless of how minor or unimportant) is touted as another small victory in the war against the Call of Duty name.

These factors are important. The rivals, the ridiculousness; it all chips away at the once-proud, Ozymandian series. But there's one comment that you keep seeing again and again, over and over, which perfectly sums up the reason for this backlash against the beauty that became the beast:

"It looks like the other Call of Duties".

Correct, it does. And it isn't for lack of trying, either. Now you're in England, Germany, even France; there are new guns and new features, new levels and new characters. There are pretty hefty improvements and additions to Modern Warfare 3, so it isn't quite correct to claim that each new game is merely its predecessor "with some new maps". Instead, that effect - of each game seeming the same as the last, and the one before that - is created through one key, tragic flaw: the IW Engine.

"It would be counter-productive to create a new engine from scratch", Infinity Ward claim. Utter bollocks. The engine is the very heart, the core, the beating heart and pulsating soul of the Call of Duty series that once dazzled, but now reeks of dirt and guilt and rust, struggling to keep the game standing on its ever-weakening legs. The engine has aged, and it hasn't aged well. Sure, the actual graphics could stand up to other games in 2011, but that isn't the point. I've played every Call Of Duty multiplayer since 2007, all the single player stories countless times, achieved 100% completion on Spec Ops: I know the games, and I know them well. And thus, even before I've played Modern Warfare 3, I know exactly how it will feel and play.

I know the bodies of enemies will drop to the floor a bit too fast, and won't have enough physics for my liking. I know that it'll take two bullets too many to kill a man. I know that, if I camp in a corner and don't cross an invisible 'line', no more enemies will find me. Even in the E3 demo, I knew how it would feel to control the boat, how long it takes to aim my weapon and reload, and that the only blood splatter will still, disappointingly, come from a headshot. I know pretty much every detail - the good, the bad and the ugly - months before release.

It's beyond stupid: it's depressing.

But, even as I survey Modern Warfare 3, shaking my head and tutting, I can't help but think: y'know what? That's quite good. Setting it in four entirely different locations? That's pretty neat. Sneaking into a nuclear submarine, hijacking the missiles, and then belting away as Manhattan burns? Yep, that's kinda cool. It's a bit redundant to compare every facet of Battlefield and Call of Duty to one another, but whilst EA had a slow E3 demo in which (let's face it) a few tanks had a skirmish, Modern Warfare 3 was a thirteen-year-old's wet dream. Is that what we want from a first-person shooter nowadays? Possibly not, but the fact that it realises its situations so well is honestly awe-inspiring: everything is blown to bits or on fire or dead. It may be childish and unrealistic, but Infinity Ward take the task of setting out a Third World War scenario, and do a bloody admirable job of it.

And that is the dilemma. Modern Warfare 3 is predictable, outdated and stale. But, despite that, it has a raffish charm, like the kid who's muddy, dirty, annoying and loud, but you can't help but admire a little bit. The key question, when it comes down to it, is whether or not you purchase a game you've essentially played for years now, with only some nice little additions in way of development. Or, is this the final nail in the coffin?

Labels: 2011, Activision, Call of Duty, Call of Duty Elite, Chris, Chris Hawke, Infinity Ward, Modern Warfare 3, Treyarch