Sometimes the internet makes me laugh and shake my head in wonder. The current Metacritic score—both from critics and users—is one such time.
As my colleague Paul Tassi noted recently, Modern Warfare III is currently the worst-reviewed Call Of Duty game in history.
This is, quite frankly, absurd. It makes me wonder if critics checked reddit before making up their own minds and then just went with the consensus. Nothing surprises me anymore.
Then again, I have a strong feeling that many reviewers of Call Of Duty—unlike YouTubers like TheXclusiveAce—aren’t actually hardcore players finely attuned to the nitty gritties of the series, which leads to a lot more weight being placed on the campaign than on what really matters: Multiplayer.
(I have something like 1500 hours in Modern Warfare II. I’m not the best player out there by a long shot, but I understand the game at this point—probably too well).
Meanwhile, most user review scores are emotionally driven, propelled by anger that Activision allegedly transformed this game from a premium DLC into a $70 game. That’s certainly a fair thing to be angry about! I agree with them—at least in part. I think that both things can be true: That A) it’s the wrong call to release this as a full game and smacks of greed and B) that where it counts, it’s still really good!
Basically, this game either needed another year of development or it should have been released (in some form) as premium DLC, integrated into Modern Warfare II rather than released as another game entirely. Cost aside, at least that wouldn’t have transformed the Call Of Duty HQ app into such a headache for players. It would have also been a PR win for Activision and, by extension, Microsoft.
There’s no doubt in my mind that Activision blundered here, and missed a real opportunity to extend the life of MWII for another year. The company could have still sold the multiplayer content as a premium map pack of 16 remade MW2 (2009) maps and made money hand over fist. If people are willing to buy $30 BlackCell Battle Passes and $20 skins, they’d buy a map pack. At the same time they could have:
- Continued to release new maps, seasonal Battle Passes and BlackCells, guns, modes etc. for MWII turning it into the most content-rich game in franchise history.
- Released the new War Mode as part of MWII.
- Updated the DMZ to be the new DMZ + Zombies mode (or simply as an alternative mode).
- Released the new Urzikstan Warzone map.
Then, in 2024 Treyarch could release its Black Ops game with a more traditional Zombies mode as well as a brand new Blackout Battle Royale to co-exist alongside Warzone rather than replace or integrate with that game. Treyarch’s title could see a two-year lifecycle with a 2025 premium DLC expansion (all Blops1 maps remade or something) and in 2026 Infinity Ward would release Modern Warfare III with a fully-baked campaign and so forth.
This would be my vision for the franchise if I was the one calling the shots instead of just a lowly critic. This would have built faith and trust with the community and given new legs to Call Of Duty, allowing each game to fully germinate. Modern Warfare II grew into one of my favorite entries in the whole series. With another year, who knows what it could have become? And adding the OG MW2 maps to MWII would have made a lot more sense!
(On the other hand, Sledgehammer has made some great changes to movement, the perk system and other gameplay mechanics that wouldn’t have necessarily worked as DLC. Maybe another alternative timeline here could have been the release of this game in 2024, with all those changes but more time to develop a better campaign and so forth).
But back to the matter at hand, when it comes to the game itself and the quality of the campaign, multiplayer and zombies, I find the current reviews laughably ridiculous. The heart of Call Of Duty is its multiplayer (unless you’re a hardcore Zombies fan, but then you mostly care about Treyarch games anyways). So even with a lackluster campaign—that frankly wasn’t that much worse than MWII’s campaign—I’m confused what exactly is causing critics to give this game 4/10 or 5/10 when they’ve given every other Call Of Duty a pass.
Because here’s the thing: The multiplayer is pretty damn fun. Even though I grumble about some of the changes from the more tactical gameplay in MWII, I really enjoy a lot of what they’ve done with MP in MWIII. The perk system is terrific. A lot of the new guns are really fun to shoot, especially as you level them up. The camo system and unlock system continue what MWII did, making everything more approachable and the grind that much less grindy.
Having all these OG 2009 maps back is also really nostalgic for a lot of gamers, but if you didn’t play those maps then you now have 16 new maps to play. Some are better than others, and I still don’t understand the penchant at Infinity Ward (Sledgehammer made this game using IW’s maps) to make such big maps all the time. Some, like Estate and Wasteland and Derail, while really cool maps, would be better if they were either 12v12 or half the size. I like midsize maps. More midsize maps!
But still, playing on Subbase and Skidrow and Favela is just a ton of fun. And a lot of the new guns—though I’m still working to level them all up and figure out all their ticks—are a blast to play around with. I think the moment the game really clicked with me, though, is when I first used the delightful new Breacher Drone. I have never cackled with glee so much using a lethal in Call Of Duty (except maybe when I smoke a shield bro with my underbarrel drill charge). And the new Cutthroat mode is also a blast, though I still miss Gunfight. Cutthroat is really fun in Custom Games also, though some of the map spawns are bonkers.
I’m not ready to write a full review of the game so far. I thought the campaign was fine. Nothing special, but hardly the worst campaign in Call Of Duty history. I’m not a big Zombies guy, and frankly the Frankenstein’s monster of DMZ and Zombies is not for me at all. But who cares? I’m a multiplayer guy, and so far it’s been a blast. Sledgehammer has made a ton of great changes since the beta, including a massive improvement to graphics, which are now more colorful and well-lit than either of the last two MW games.
The perk system is very clever, giving players tough choices in how to craft their loadouts using Vests, Boots, Gloves and Gear. How you select each item will limit what else you can pick so, for instance, you might sacrifice Gear in order to have more lethals, or sacrifice lethals to get an extra piece of Gear. Dead Silence is now Covert Sneakers, for instance.
I’ll go into more depth on all of that in an actual review. For now, all I can say is that the critics must be crazy. Modern Warfare III is a blast, warts and all, especially when it comes to multiplayer, though depending on your playstyle you might also find lots of fun in Zombies mode as well. The campaign needed more time in the oven, sadly, but let’s be honest: Every year we play the campaign for a day and then multiplayer for the rest of the year. That’s 90% of what matters to 90% of people. And that’s where this game really does shine. No, it’s not perfect, but it’s also not the worst Call Of Duty ever made.
Thoughts? Let me know on Twitter or Facebook.
Read the full article here