Modern Warfare 3 Review

Another November, another Call of Duty title. The business model of this huge military-fps series is as regular as my bowel movements, and almost as stinky. Nonetheless, I picked up this year’s release, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, along with maybe eighty percent of the human population. I did so with some trepidation, considering my dislike for last year’s, and the worrying events at developer Infinity Ward since the last game, but I was hopeful that it would once again capture the hugely compelling action of the older games. 

some scrubs I'm gonna kill later

 

Nobody plays these games for the singleplayer, obviously, but since it’s part of the package I played through it, so let’s mention it and get it out of the way. The narrative is mostly stupid, Michael Bay movie shit. It’s the near future, and the big baddie Makarov has, through the events of the past two games, played the powers against one another to cause all out world war. Russia has invaded mainland USA, somehow, as well as most of Europe. The player switches between characters, variously fighting the regular Russian military and Makarov’s personal terror cell. Not a bad setup- a little overt, perhaps, a far cry from the relatively muted, Clancy-style narrative of the original Modern Warfare, but plenty of scope for the high action set-pieces the series is famed for. And action there is, relentless action, with the standard infantryman play interspersed with decent turret sections- exactly the gameplay formula we’ve come to expect. Which is fine, really; it’s a competent formula, and though it’s a little stale by this point, there was no real call for a hotbed of gameplay innovation. That said, I don’t think it comes off as well as the older games. Modern Warfare was never The Elder Scrolls in terms of freeform gameplay, but this game approaches monorail levels of linearity- you follow your boss from setpiece to setpiece, and stray not a fucking inch or you will die. The dreaded quick-time event makes a few appearances as well, perhaps surprisingly a series first. This definitely gets grating- the campaign is not long, clocking in at about six hours on the higher difficulties, but I was bored as all hell by the end. In terms of gameplay, it’s not terrible- it works without any huge bugs I can recall, and everything is at least as polished as a game this heavily recycled should be.

Special mention goes to the finer details of the singleplayer narrative for being the most unrelentingly retarded crap I’ve experienced in years. I’m not asking for Pulitzer Prize shit, here, but holy god damn! Call of Duty 4 set the bar for a storyline that was thrilling without being overtly overt. This game flies an F-22 into the bar, blows up the stadium, and then escapes to Hogwarts on a rocket jetski. I get the feeling the developers were given a list of landmarks to shoehorn in at all costs, and the result is a game that is more like a sightseeing tour than a special operation. Turn your brain all the way off for this one, otherwise it will ask annoying questions, such as-

• Why is the roof of the New York Stock exchange a good place for jamming equipment?
• Why are the Paris Catacombs a good place to stage an invading army?
• Why is there an army of terrorists aboard the Russian president’s plane mid-flight?
• Why does a 30 second segment need to show dozens of union flags, a red bus, the Houses of Parliament, a football, a red postbox, a red phonebox and Tower Bridge to demonstrate that it takes place in London?
• Why does the chopper pilot fly into dangerous conditions with no co-pilot to assist him or to operate the cannon, but instead have the player character remotely control the gun using some sort of iPad while fighting on the ground?
• Why did the developer think that in a post-Team America world it would be okay to, without irony, blow up the Eiffel Tower?
• Why did I buy this stupid fucking game?

There are no answers to any of these, or the dozens of other head scratching moments, more satisfactory than “because it was kind of cool”.

me headshotting some scrub

Multiplayer is what everyone who’s anyone cares about, of course. Again, it’s outwardly similar to past games- the same progression system, the same weapon mechanics, the same killstreak reward system- veteran players will be immediately at home. It’s the finer details that really let it down. The design of the all new maps is genuinely heinous- they are all small, single-level affairs, highly cluttered with very limited sightlines and an emphasis on spamtastic point blank engagements, nothing like the complex arenas of past MWs. The slight tweaks to weaponry have also had, in my eyes, a negative effect; damage is up, recoil is down. High fire rate weapons are depressingly effective as any gorilla can mindlessly spray his way to victory. Weapon customisation has been needlessly simplified such that instead of completing specific challenges to unlock different upgrades, players simply unlock everything through scoring points with the weapon. The “perk” system that allowed players to choose from a selection of bonus abilities has been reshuffled once more, and it seems to me to no longer offer quite the playstyle variety as in the past. Killstreak rewards, too, have been reorganised. There are now distinct “strike packages” that offer different rewards with different acquisition methods- the Assault package gives the player offensive rewards, typically attacks from aircraft, for the traditional kills without dying model, the Support package grants team-friendly bonuses, without resetting after deaths, and the Specialist package gives the player access to extra perks based on his performance. These fresh features are pretty cool, but between the ease of dying to some lucky scrub and the bizarre skyline clutter that blocks the sightline of support aircraft, killstreaks aren’t nearly as reliable or effective as in MW2. All in all, I think this is the worst Modern Warfare yet, with nothing over its predecessors other than a few UI improvements. Those games were crack cocaine for me, but this shit is like Vege-Crack.

I was pleasantly surprised by the ‘Spec-Ops’ cooperative segment of the game, especially compared to the poor showing from the more staple singleplayer and competitive multiplayer parts. Split into Missions, where players must complete a set task or scenario, and Survival, where they fend off ever more ferocious waves of enemies for as long as possible. Playable splitscreen or online, it’s very competently executed, and quite compelling. Missions are usually under ten minutes long, but if you die you are put back to the very start. There’s a really strong one-more-go mentality with these, and you’ll find yourself discussing tactics and manoeuvres to get to the finish. I’m not sure if there’s quite the same variety as MW2’s coop missions, nor the same steady increase in challenge, but there’s plenty of fun to be had with these. Survival mode is also really cool, doubtless an acknowledgement of the Treyarch games’ hugely popular zombie mode. It’s the standard waves-of-foes gameplay you’d expect, with weapons, equipment and air support requisition points to summon extra gear with the cash you earn for killing enemies. These are linked to an unlock system akin to multiplayer- what you can call in depends on your experience level. I’m not sure it works as well here, especially in the splitscreen context- I had giant machine guns and automated sentries while my buddy was forced to make do with only an ancient shotgun. Still, it adds a bit of depth, and replayability, which might otherwise be lacking. The survival mode is let down a little by being stuck on the same horrible maps as multiplayer, however. Seriously, these maps are shit.

 me killing some other scrub

There’s also the Call of Duty Elite thing, I guess? It’s like a stat tracker, I think, and also a delivery system for CoD related content. I had a look at it, though I don’t really see the point. You can look at some really detailed statistics, and watch policemen play MW3 with firemen, apparently. You can also buy a subscription that unlocks enhanced features and includes access to all the map packs and other DLC as they become available, which they haven’t at the time of writing. I don’t really know what to say about it. It works fine, with a smooth if a little confusing interface in the console application, so maybe it’s of use to someone? 

Modern Warfare 3, then, is about what I was expecting. It’s pretty competent in design, if flawed in places, full featured and pretty well polished. The engine tech was a little dated when it was used in CoD4, and there’s not been much changed since then- it’s definitely not cutting edge technically, especially compared to competition like Battlefield 3. It’s a by the numbers Modern Warfare game, basically just this year’s instalment. Personally, I don’t like it nearly as much as I did the first two. Those felt like games the creators wanted to make; this feels like one the accountants wanted. That’s not exactly surprising- while it’s possible that the creative talent at Infinity Ward remained in their comfy jobs during the staff exodus, and the jobsworth hangers-on jumped ship to the newly founded and unproven Respawn, my money’s on the reverse. Frankly, there is a pervading stink of playing it safe, simplification and of pandering to the low-skill, casual player who has become the target audience. CoD4 multiplayer was enjoyed by the casual gamer as it was straightforward and compelling, but also by the hardcore neckbearded asshole like me because of its depth and variety. MW3 will be enjoyed by the casual gamer because it was made purely with him in mind.

Tanks, World of

Do you have any idea, any idea, just how interesting the history of tank combat is? I'll tell you; shit is incredibly interesting. Did you know, for instance, that the differences in Soviet and NATO tank tactics can actually be observed in the design of the tanks themselves? The ruskies favoured aggressive, advancing-under-fire doctrine, and consequently, the tanks are low-profile and manoeuvrable. NATO didn't play that way, oh no. NATO doctrine dictates that you roll up on the crest of a hill, exposing just your turret, depressing the gun and blasting on fools from behind the protection of geography. The extra gun mobility needed by this approach requires a taller turret, giving the vehicle an increased target profile, though one that is ideally hidden in a hull-down position of cover. Ain't that interesting? No? Well, shit. Guess I'll skip the ten thousand word essay on armoured warfare. Fortunately, the knowledge isn't required to enjoy World of Tanks, an interesting free-to-play game from wargaming.net.

It's not easily genre-able, this one. It's probably an action game, firstly- standard battles pitch teams of 15 tanks up against one another on a variety of maps. To succeed in battle, you need to employ some degree of strategy, since it's just a little more complex than your average Black Ops match, though the same could maybe be said of . In addition to the rootin' tootin' shootin' side of things, we have some RPG-style progression out of battle- you buy tanks and upgrades for them with credits earned in battle, and watch your crewmen increase in skill like some kind of militarised Pokémon. An unusual game, then, but a good one? Maybe.

A garage brimming with my totally sweet vehicle selection.

You start off with three frankly heinous little wagons in your garage, one from each of the Russian, American and German lines. After a few battles in these poorly armed, slow, paper-armoured deathboxes, you might have scraped up enough funds and experience to upgrade. In terms of vehicles offered, World of Tanks is certainly impressive- there are five classes of vehicle- agile Light Tanks, versatile Mediums, powerful Heavies, long range SPG (self-propelled gun) artillery wagons and ambush-focused Tank Destroyers, with each nation having intersecting lines for each class in ten tiers of increasing potency. There's a whole lot of historical accuracy here, with tanks from the inter-war period through to the early '50s, though dozens of the tanks available seem to have been prototypes that never saw combat. Nonetheless, the attention to detail is commendable, almost alarming- each tank has realistic options for equipment and meticulously detailed models, including the positions of crewmen and essential parts with regards to incoming fire. I saw a thread on the (well-trafficked) official forums where digital tankers were genuinely digging up blueprints and design documents for these sixty or seventy year old machines to find the ideal spots to place that killing shot.

Into the fray! I took a screenshot before the enemy appeared because I did not wish to put virtual lives at risk.

The progression system is solid. Players spend experience to to unlock new parts for their tank, which also unlocks further research- the classic 'tech tree' approach. There's a lot of depth, here; researching appropriate advancements is vital to keep your tank competitive, and there are a hell of a lot to choose from. Engines, turrets, guns, suspensions and radio units can all be swapped out. Most of the parts available are straight upgrades, but each tank generally has a range of guns available with variations in rate of fire, accuracy and firepower. There is an awful lot of fucking grinding, though, which can prove a real pain. I wanted to get into the Russian Medium tank line, which includes the legendary T-34 series and ultimately the venerable T-54, arguably the first true Main Battle Tank; a delicious prospect, as I'm sure you would agree if you knew what that meant. However, to get even as far as the T-34 (a vehicle without which your sorry ass, reader, might well be speaking German), I had to progress all the way through the light tank line. Light tanks suck man balls, though, and grinding through was a real drag. Because there is so much grinding (this is an MMO, after all), I worry that it would be all too easy to stick a whole lot of man-hours getting locked into a line that isn't as much fun as you thought it'd be. This is reduced a little with recent additions to the tree whereby you can move more easily between classes, but it remains a concern.

The pre-round period is filled with tension, motivational speeches and shit-talking.

The actual gameplay is pretty fun. Two teams of fifteen vehicles line up against one another on about a square kilometre of semi-accurate historical battlefield. To win, a team must either destroy all enemy vehicles (there are no respawns) or capture the enemy base. A lot of work has gone into the combat; intricate mechanics are present for spotting enemy vehicles, shell penetration and tank damage. There's a potent one-more-match mindset the game invites you into, probably because of the one-life system, reminiscent of Counter-Strike. To survive in combat, you must be fairly thoughtful- positioning and movement is key. Speeding out into the open battlefield will almost certainly leave you with thirty tonnes of burnt out paperweight in short order. Unfortunately, some of the tactics are nullified by the relatively compact maps. These play too much into the hands of the heavy tanks; their crazy armour and god-like firepower is quite a bit more helpful than the extra mobility of the light and medium vehicles. It’s not that badly balanced, (though the developers are Russian, so the Soviet tanks have characteristics between ‘exaggerated’ and ‘nightmare death chariot’) and they are working on it, but the issue is present. Another balance issue comes from matchmaking. Since the available tanks range from inter-war experiments to two-hundred ton prototype tracked mountains, there’s a tier system, and you theoretically get matchmade with tanks around your own tier. I think you can end up with too many extreme-tiered tanks; it’s not much fun to play in a team with five tier-fives against one with five tier-eights, but this seems to happen all too often. It’s not crippling, and if you find the wrapping paper of your mid-tier tank torn asunder by the berserk child at the controls of some steel monster, you can just leave the battle and start one in a different tank, but too often I see a tier-four light matchmade with some tier-nine heavies, and pity that fool.

This guys about to taste some hurt. Or he would be if i hadn't got a bloody ricochet.

For a free game, the production values are great- tanks are meticulously modelled, and a whole lot of effort has clearly gone into their recreation. In fact, for a free game, what faults it has are pretty minor. That said, for a free game, there are an awful lot of ways to spend money on it. You can buy a premium subscription, increasing your credit and experience income, premium vehicles if your time is too precious to grind through the trees to get tanks the proper way and premium ammunition to penetrate thicker armour. You start with a (fairly healthy) five garage slots, and more can be purchased for real money, stuff like that. The devs have, I think, struck that difficult freemium balance where paying real money is both worthwhile and non-essential; even the extra-penetrative shells don’t give much ingame advantage since they don’t do more damage than the standard ammo- essentially they just mean you are less hosed against tanks tougher than your own. At higher levels, the income bonus from a premium subscription is the surest way to make any kind of progress, yes, but at no point is it essential, which is very agreeable.

So, if you find yourself with a desire for some WW2 armoured action, but no desire to pay for it, I could not, in good conscience, recommend any game over World of Tanks. Since various goverments and school boards have rejected my calls for the art of tank combat to become a mandatory part of primary education, it might be the only way you can learn this vital skill.