We've reached a point in time where one can be nostalgic for the PS3 generation, and Activision is banking on that with all its might to sell Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. Rather than a new line-up of multiplayer maps, this year's entry is a strange amalgamation of the past, as all of the weapons and playable characters from 2022's Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 have been ported over for play on classic locations from, well, 2009's Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. The usual single player campaign and an open-world spin on Zombies are what Modern Warfare 3 can call its own, but when remastered maps from a 14-year-old game is the best you've got to offer, maybe it really is best to just take a year off.
Heavily speculated to have started life as a DLC pack for last year's instalment, never has a standalone Call of Duty game felt more like a contractual agreement all parties regret signing. The campaign stitches together Open Combat Missions that feel like adverts for Warzone, the multiplayer is bloated beyond belief with little in the way of original content, and Zombies comes across as a tired trick failing to justify its existence.
While it's difficult to brand it the worst Call of Duty game ever, Modern Warfare 3 is certainly in the running. The disappointing campaign does much of the heavy lifting to earning that unwanted accolade, with levels mostly devoid of the bombastic set-pieces you expect from the series. In their place are Open Combat Missions: scenarios that play out more like a typical Warzone match where you procure much of your equipment on site. You'll need to source better gear, weapons, and routes through the level, and try over again if you fail — and that's a likely possibility since checkpoints are at a frustrating premium.
These missions work fairly well when they're clearly geared towards a specific playstyle (such as stealth), allowing you to fine-tune your approach and find better guns for your next attempt. However, they largely feel like inferior stand-ins for the sort of levels you'd expect out of a Call of Duty campaign. There are no dramatic set-pieces or hand-crafted shoot-outs, just docile encounters and objectives that feel like Contracts from the franchise's Battle Royale offering.
At least when the campaign does flash the absurd budget backing it in-between those Open Combat Missions, it starts to feel like the single player levels of old. The trademark sniper and AC-130 encounters return, and they're set between other somewhat decent scenarios that spell out Makarov's return in the story. It all amounts to a campaign that's maybe not quite as bad as what you've been hearing, but it's still the worst it's been for some time.
On some level, you could say the same about the multiplayer. Almost completely devoid of new content, Modern Warfare 3 is made up of 16 remastered maps from Modern Warfare 2 of the PS3 era and all of the weapons and skins from last year's game. Besides some new weapons and community-pleasing gameplay updates, the title's online battles are all made up of recycled content. On the gunplay side, this has led to a preposterous amount of bloat.
When it comes to preparing a loadout, you have an utterly ridiculous 114 weapons to choose from — 77 guns brought over from Modern Warfare 2 (2022) and 35 new ones along with a bonus two melee options. Then, when you finally find a weapon you might like, you must scroll through huge lists of attachments to kit it out with the most minuscule benefits and negatives. This process is common in all Call of Duty games nowadays, but when you've effectively got two games' worth of content bundled together along with a full year of post-launch support, it's so overwhelming that you'd need an online guide to know where to even begin.
The same goes for the amount of characters (known in-game as Operators) you can play as, though many of them require purchasing with real money. Again, everything has been brought forward from last year's instalment, so we've already got Lilith from Diablo 4 and real-life rapper 21 Savage gunning down troops from the campaign. Instead of introducing the more unrealistic skins a few months down the line, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 already feels like a pantomime on day one.
Actually engaging in multiplayer matches plays out exactly as you'd expect, with the usual modes to choose from and various ranks to progress through into the Prestige options. The iconic maps of Modern Warfare 2 (2009) are the main selling point, and they at least hold up nearly 15 years later.
Revisiting the likes of Terminal, Highrise, and Afghan is still a pleasure two generations of systems on, especially when you've so much nostalgia for one of the titles that defined online gaming as it became part and parcel of the console experience. Some of the maps aren't quite as familiar — particularly those that were added later on in map packs — but you'll quickly ground yourself as their general layouts come flooding back after rounding a specific corner or stumbling upon a certain part of the map.
However, what is the game's highlight can also be seen as its biggest weakness: there's not a shred of new content. While entirely new maps will arrive as part of seasonal updates post-launch, it's glaringly obvious how Modern Warfare 3 was originally pitched as DLC in this regard. A full suite of remastered maps would have worked well as an expansion, but as a standalone release, it fails to provide the breadth of new content you'd expect out of a Call of Duty experience.
Zombies hardly fares much better, this time set in an open world that lacks the intensity of the cramped, smaller-scale scenarios seen in years past. Multiple teams of three work to complete objectives, accrue currency, and eventually extract from the gigantic map. Essentially an undead twist on modes from previous instalments, it feels tacked on and undercooked. And if the campaign felt like an advert for Warzone, the Zombies mode quite literally is one: the map is the basis for the next Battle Royale setting launching next month. A truly cynical admission that demonstrates just how cobbled together Modern Warfare 3 really is.
Conclusion
"We need a new Call of Duty game every single year," the Activision executives bellowed, and out popped Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 after the development times caught up with them. A truly anaemic release, there's never been a surer sign to press pause on the series. 14-year-old content is the best thing about this year's entry and if that's not enough of an indictment of where Call of Duty is at in 2023, we don't know what is. A franchise in serious need of a complete reboot, Modern Warfare 3 has to be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Comments 58
Chew,chew,chew. Well why am i not surprised. I'm glad its got a low score as its just not acceptable. Maybe if it was in the £25 range i'd be a bit more forgiving and have a punt on it but for what it is and the price its a huge no from me..
People were concerned that MS own the call of duty franchise. They can have it 😛
That's a shame for any big company to recieve such low scores. But it was hard to expect anything else keeping in mind the time given to developers. Hope this failure will prove year-to-year model wrong.
@LiamCroft thanks for the review! Reading articles with low scores is as interesting as to read all the praises to awesome 10/10 games.
I don’t play COD but I had to drop by and read this out of morbid curiosity. Yikes! Surely Sony first party can develop (or is developing) something to compete with this.
I feel sorry for gamer parents, getting mithered to death by their kids, to buy this at Xmas, knowing its a stinking pile of garbage.
@Jswift56 hopefully ms will improve it after all this backlash
@Jswift56 Talking about overreaction, right?
People are delusional if they think that this is some kind of trend. Remember, Sledgehammer had 16 months to make this game in times, when AAA games takes 4-5 years to make. All because ABK execs were terrified what will happen if regulators would block ABK deal and they would be without Call of Duty.
2024 will have Treyarch's new Call of Duty that has usual 3-years dev cycle.
Not to mention fact that despite low scores, game is selling like hotcakes.
But it is clear that moving forward (after Treyarch's COD), doing annual releases is unsustainable. And I hope that Microsoft will realise that and they will switch to bi-annual releases with longer support for existing COD games.
I will disregard this score and buy it anyway because small studios like Activision need our support.
Game pass ready!
Cod has had its best years along time ago
@Grimwood I really like CoD on rails campaigns. It is like an Action Movie. But in this case campaign is like twice shorter than the one in MW2 and all other content is basically a DLC to MW2 for the price of a brand new AAA game. I can't rate it higher than 4/10 too.
I do agree that ppl asking CoD campaign to be some sort of open-world'esque are indeed riddiculous.
There seems to a very strange disconnect over this game. (And not the first game this year) I was watching stonemountain and a few other streamers play this the other night and he is really liking it, especially the zombies mode. And a few of the other streamers have commented this is the game last years MW2 should have been because of the movement and ttk is better. ( I don't play COD so I cannot confirm)
But then you read a review like this and you would think it was a gollum level of disaster
This is the first COD I'm excited for since PS3 era.
I had no idea it was just MW2 content until the reviews came in and now I'm excited and want to buy it....although at 70$ I'll probably wait. I put 32 days of playtime between when MW2 and BO1 launched. It's embarrassing but a time I look back on as my golden days of gaming with friends.
Wow microsoft already affecting product quality
Is that a viable complaint that the multiplayer has too much content? 😂 The multiplayer is a lot more fun than MW2 was. It'll pass the time when not trying to plat games. Looking forwards to Treyarch release next year. It's def going to be a step up.
Was hoping for something more with Zombies.
What Zombies needs is it's own standalone progressive game, maybe even a campaign. Something to freshen it up and get people back on it.
Wonder if this is a start of a down turn on COD. Be pretty ironic if it's popularity starts to drop after the acquisition.
Not sure about the multiplayer side of this review, seems very forced tbh.
Spawns are fine, it was an issue during pre release for content creators but from launch was fixed entirely. And too overwhelming? I think thats a bit of a copout to make another negative.
Campaign side agreed, Zombies i’m enjoying but I get the criticism entirely. But that multiplayer review is just bad.
Anyways, happy 10th anniversary with PushSquare to me. Only right it was a negative comment 😂
@Czar_Khastik The sarcasm 😮💨
Microsoft would do well to tell Activision to take at least a couple of years before releasing the next CoD. The game needs to innovate or it’s going to end up dwindling its fan base and no longer be the top dog, leaving EA Sports FC to dominate the sales charts year in year out.
I'm definitely part of the problem. My friends bought it, so I bought it, and I will play MP for the next 6-9 months. I will admit the MW2 maps were a huge pull for me. I'll probably hate myself for it, but it's almost become routine.
Maybe one day my group will break free.
Nothing is ever going to change unless people start speaking with there wallets. It's definitely gamepass ready though! 😂
A £70 DLC everybody!
@Sakai It's been a common complaint for the past few years now that CoD has been designed to pander to streamers to the detriment of the more casual players. That probably explains why streamers are so happy with it as it has basically been designed for them
@Kevw2006 thanks for the additional information mate. But the streamers were saying they did not like last years MW2 as much as this years MW3? Why would that be if the last few COD have been designed specifically for streamers?
I still don't see how that can create such a chasm of disconnect to score it as low as gollum/redfall (2 games that were released unfinished and broken) but it at least helps explain it a little bit. Appreciate it
As a £20-£30 DLC to MW2, this wouldn't be that bad. Zombies could well be a Warzone option - alongside BR & DMZ and the Campaign probably would be better served without the padding to set-up the next game. The MP maps and 'few' additional weapons would really suit a DLC bundle better (as they were surely meant to be) as they aren't 'new' at all...
Sounds like it should have been DLC at half the price at best, and just simply not worked on at all at worst.
Not sure why there is hate for the annual releases. A developer with the knowledge and resources of Activision should be more than capable of releasing a remaster/reworked game intertwined with a brand new release every 2 years. These are the same games in the same series... it's perfectly achievable as evidenced by the fact they've releases a COD every year for nearly two decades.
Call of duty has become the same as the yearly sport games. If you skip a couple of years you won't miss a thing
And yet this thing somehow still sells in ridiculous numbers...which was a large reason behind Sony fighting over that outrageously stupid ABK deal.🙄
@Sakai I'm not saying it's the only reason, or the biggest reason by any means, as I still think the DLC repackaged as a full release feeling has affected the scores badly. But something to bear in mind is that streamers often get paid promotion, perks, gifts etc that keeps them saying good things about a game. A lot of popular streamers likely didn't even have to pay for the game.
Comparing the score to that of Gollum puts things in perspective, if MW3 had released as a lower price DLC it would likely be sitting at around a solid 8/10.
Still a more engaging narrative than Spider Men
The entire series needs a reset at this point.
@Kevw2006 you are probably bang on with the whole value/dlc thing
And yet, it's still the best selling game of November 2023. Activision will absolutely learn the wrong lessons and, before you ask, no I don't think MS will fix this.
Haven't played a CoD game in like 10 years.
I enjoyed the black ops series more then Modern warfare because the close up death match style of game play. But I have agreed with this review a 100% and this has been my thoughts for close to a decade now! Cold war to me was the last decent one we got. This has all been played out in every senorio and played every way a war game can be played. It does need to be set down and discussed by the developers and a complete revamp of the franchise. A revamp not a reboot of some older game. To me their at the point were halo was we got the good ones one thru reach and then 4-6 was dry because they wasent refreshed enough. The series needs to ether just stop or do what sony did with God of War and do somthing completely differnt with it. Cod hasent been a must have release for me for close to a decade. It shows their stumped and running out of ideals and just milking the name by remastering MWF 1-3 and the talk of remastering black ops 3. Nobody gets to be king for ever and sooner or later the luck runs out.
I was going to buy this for the Campaign alone as I loved the original Modern Warfare Trilogy but my God what a disaster this game has become. I'm so glad I decided not to buy this. I might buy it during a Sale but Idk we'll see I guess.
Doesnt matter how COD reviews really. It could get a 1/10 and it would still be No1 within a week.
The Call of Duty Microsoft deserves.
Well im enjoying the multiplayer in this, you know what you get, havent played campaign yet. Its a solid mp shooter. When you just want some dumb fun its great
Removed - offensive remarks
Between this and MK1 charging for fatalities it's getting ridiculous now
Still gonna outsell anything else on PlayStation.
@Rocky1972 Yea their really pushing the boundaries and intelligence of people's integrity on pushing this trash. Let them keep pushing! Their going to end up ruining their entire franchise beyond redemption. Yes I know their is some not so bright people in this world but even they catch on.
@TheCollector316 And why is that?
I'm sure people will start returning their copies or asking for digital refunds if they bought it. Ha ha!
I don’t know as I haven’t played this or MW2, but the Guardian gave it a fantastic review. Points knocked off for the campaign (but do people really play it?) but they said the multiplayer was a excellent and the new DMZ-like zombies mode was superb too.
@MaccaMUFC Well, people usually do call me Czar Khastik
Removed - unconstructive feedback
Removed - flaming/arguing
@Godot25 I'm sorry but how is this my problem? They could wait for a year and still make tons of money.
They release a product it's a mess and for me yes I have not played a COD game for several years because of this.
@Nintendo4Sonic Why so salty because they don't share your opinion? This deserves what it gets €70 for a DLC pack that does not work with you downloading MW2 yep it deserves all it gets.
@Flaming_Kaiser I'm not defending state of MW3, but I understand why ABK management pushed for it's release, especially since buyout by Microsoft was in real danger.
What I was criticising was implication, that Modern Warfare 3 is trend moving forward. Which is not.
Removed - flaming/arguing
I played the MP beta of this game on PS4 it was fun. cod has always been a multiplayer game for me. But at £70 I think I will wait for a bit.
Removed - flaming/arguing
@Godot25 I'm not blaming the developers I know they just need to push out a game for profit. Maybe I said a little rough but I wont accept it. If it's a overpriced product I'll call it on it.
The Last of Us Part 1 was also overpriced for what it was its quality but i still bought down the line at a lower price.
Hahaha listen to all the COD bros cry
it has been bad before this since BO4
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...