We’ve covered Modern Warfare 2 in the past, but for some reason we’ve never gotten round to the final part of the trilogy before. However, it came top of yesterday’s poll, so here we are with the bombastic conclusion of the Modern Warfare arc.
Call of Duty is a bit of an odd beast at times, although it’s hard to argue that the Modern Warfare series didn’t significantly alter first person shooters forever. The problem is though that by the third Modern Warfare game the innovation that helped push the series to the top seemed to have largely stopped, something that Peter commented on in our review of the game’s single player, and something that was touched on, to a lesser extent, when we looked at the multiplayer.
Since the first Modern Warfare, Call of Duty titles really have been games of two halves, so we’ll stick with the single player aspects for a moment. Perhaps the most important thing about the game’s campaign is the way it has that “been there, done that” feel to it, at times it really does seem like their recycling sections from earlier games. This does fall by the wayside somewhat later in the game, as Peter noted, so it’s certainly not just retreading the same ground.
Despite the lack of innovation, Peter was pleased with the single player, rating it at 8/10. In particular he praised the “bold narrative” and the twitch shooting that has now become a staple of the series. In conclusion he called it a “a fast, furious careening journey through a global war zone and although its goals and methods are now familiar, it still achieves them like nothing else.” I think that’s all you can ask of the single player in a Modern Warfare title.
Now, onto the multiplayer. As noted above this got a separate review, this time coming from Matt. He started off by praising the way the game is fun at all levels, whether you’re just starting out or a veteran player. He felt that the way it constantly gives you unlocks and reward adds a genuine sense of achievement to the game, and keeps you wanting to play.
He was also pleased with the game’s strike package system, which is an overhaul of Modern Warfare 2’s kill streak rewards. With a greater focus on objectives other than killing enemies, and more persistence in the form of support packages, he felt the new system really improved the game.
On the downside he was disappointed that Spec Ops still only supported two players, and felt that the game could have done with a few larger maps. The game’s multiplayer still game in at a 9/10 though, so they’re certainly doing more right than wrong. Here’s a quick snippet from his closing remarks:
Those who have played all the previous games and have grown tired of Call of Duty are just about the only people we wouldn’t recommend Modern Warfare 3’s multiplayer to. For everyone else, dive right in, the warfare has never been better.
Now that our two reviews are out of the way, it’s your turn to share your views on the game. Feel free to write about the multiplayer, the single player, or both. All you need do is drop your response to the game in a comment below by Sunday afternoon. Remember that you need to attach a rating to the game in your comment, selecting from the Buy It, Bargain Bin It, Rent It, Avoid It scale.
SpikeyMikey23
This isn’t entirely related to WeView but after World at War, I’d had enough of WW2 shooters. Now i’m craving one! Gimme Gimme Gimme. I’ve had enough of ‘Modern Shooters’
igotmy9milli
Call of Duty 2 is still my favourite. Now that was a single player campaign! And playing through on the hardest difficulty was a real challenge! Love the simplistic MP too.
LTG Davey
Damn straight :D Recently dusted off my copy and have been playing through it again. Probably my favourite single player FPS ever (aside from Bioshock). Hill 400 on Veteran was a pain in the backside though!
Izorpo
is that the one where you throw potato’s? now that was funny
Motalla
A potato gun with red dot :-P
LTG Davey
“But sir these are potatoes. Why are we using potatoes and not real grenades?”
“Because real grenades are valuable! A lot more valuable than you!”
Excellent stuff :D
Origami Killer
MW3 is a mess in my opinion. The single player story has become so far fetched. I wouldn’t be able to tell you what is going on very well as the characters switch between each other after every level. The narrative is poor. As for the gameplay; its boring. We have had the same mechanics for 4/5 years now. I’m finding it so repetitive and lifeless that I would rather watch paint dry. I know the term “if it’s not broken don’t fix it” can be applied here, but some innovation wouldn’t go a miss.
The multiplayer, well what can I say I could easily mistake it for MW2. Is there any difference at all apart from the maps? You could say the different killstreak packages but that’s just a cheap shot. Again it’s boring as we have had the same for the past couple of years. I’ve put so little time into it as I would rather go back to the other COD’s or look to a better shooter which is taking a different approach (BF3!).
All I can merit MW3 for is the continued inclusion of split screen, and the fact that this COD title was actually stable online. The latter was a poor attempt at sarcasm.
AVOID IT! Keep with previous COD titles or look to another FPS with a little more to give than the rinse and repeat strategy.
As you can tell I voted for MW3 in that poll.
gazzagb
Although inferior to MW2 imo, MW3 is still a great game. A brilliant (but short) single player combined with COD’s famous multiplayer system is a recipe for yet another awesome experience.
The main reason I don’t like the MP system in comparison to MW2 is that it is far more balanced. Some would argue this is good, but when I go 25 for 5 and my team still looses a game of TD, it really annoys me, whereas in MW2 it was easier to carry your team even if they were pretty bad players.