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.

Something Approximating to a Black Ops Review

*checks watch*
*checks calendar*
*checks mysterious stone circle used by the ancients to measure the passing of aeons*

Six months? Time for a blog post!

Hello again, reader, if, contrary to my suspicions, you exist. After six months, one would assume I had been preparing some unstoppable megapost bursting utterly with fresh content, and one would be at least partially wrong. Y'all know I don't prepare posts; the actual time between decision to write one and it appearing on your screen is often a single day; that is simply how I roll. So, to the meat of the post.

As anyone with something that could be described as consciousness is doubtless aware, there is a new entry in the Call of Duty franchise. This is a fairly momentous event in the games industry, given the series has consistently sold numbers of copies approximately twice the population of Earth. So, being a blogger (and a fanboy), it is my duty and requirement to buy it and bore you with my opinions on it.

Named Call of Duty: Black Ops, this latest entry in the series ditched both the modern setting of the more recent games and the traditional WWII aesthetic in favour of exploring the grimy world of Cold War espionage. Instead of the usual heroism and apple pie, players would experience denied operations- assassinations, sabotage and mutually assured destruction. The single-player campaign promised to centre around one of the aforementioned assassins and saboteurs, being tortured for information, with the playable missions following his flashbacks as the interrogation slowly draws what is needed from him. The set up, then, was excellent, and the game looked ready to take on last years leviathan Modern Warfare 2, one of my personal favourites and the best selling game or possibly thing in the course of human history. But how was the execution? The game was developed not by Infinity Ward, creators of the Call of Duty franchise and later its excellent Modern Warfare subseries, but Treyarch, secondary developer and annualisation puppet of the Activision overlords. Could the game hold up to the hype? Well, no.

Completing the campaign of Black Ops was a bit of a chore, in truth, with a few notable exceptions such as the Vietnam missions, but that's probably more to do with my pathological love for the Vietnam War than anything. Perhaps it was nostalgia from the first Modern Warfare, but MW2's characters interested and entertained me so much more than Black Ops, though, admittedly, Woods is badass and awesome. The Cold War theme fails to quite hit home- at no point did I really feel like radioactive Russians were under my bed, as I understand was the norm in the ‘60s. Gameplay is standard CoD fare- shooting people, blowing up things. The covert nature of the so called black-operations also seemed ill-explored. The first Modern Warfare had an interesting duality going on- there were the US Marines, very much in the media eye, subject of news bulletins played over loading screens, and also the SAS- the hyper-competent, ultra-covert killers, battling the Russians without anyone apparently realising. There was a similar deal in MW2- bearded man’s man Captain Price remarks that the epic suicide revenge mission he planned would go unremembered, for instance. This all served to remind you of the global significance (or not) of the events portrayed in the game. Black Ops didn’t do the same, at least for this reviewer. It could be the repetition, but the set-pieces in Modern Warfare's storylines excited me more, the missions gripped more, the single-player maps were more interesting to me. Though I never thought of MW2's single player as its strongpoint, it managed to entertain me significantly more than BO's.

The almost comically awesome Frank Woods.

As for multiplayer, well; I loved Modern Warfare 2. I loved it despite the quickscoping, and the lightweighting, and the noob-tubes, and the nuke boosting. Again, maybe it was just me, maybe I naturally evolved my play style to the point that these things ceased to affect me overtly, but in any case, though they bothered me, they did not break the game. I loved the pace, I loved the killstreak rewards, I loved the challenges and rank progression, I loved the maps. Though I consider myself a serious gentleman and hardcore gamer, I rank this mainstream shooter among my favourite games of all time. As such, when I heard about Treyarch's attempts with Black Ops to remove much of the, frankly, bullshit, prevalent in MW2's multiplayer, I was ecstatic- the game I loved, streamlined, purified, and with a sweet Cold War setting to boot!? I was stoked beyond belief. I went to a midnight launch for Black Ops, which is not something I have done previously, and was among the first to buy the game. From here, however, everything went downhill.

The maps seem overcomplicated and poorly designed- sometimes, a minute can go by before a shot is fired in a standard match, as the maps simply do not allow the free flowing, fast paced action of MW2. I may be imagining it, but the core gunplay seems to have been altered, and, to me, ruined- the perfect gunplay the series has had since the beginning, gone. The progression system has been tampered with, too; but the new "CoD Points" system simply lacks the compulsion to achieve and improve that the challenge-based system of MW2 and its precursor had for me.

A Huey, swinging in to minigun most of downtown Havana to the ground.

The new, watered down killstreak rewards also fail to hold up for me- while I realise the cumulative element of MW2's rewards irked many, I felt it really enhanced the gameplay- the greater amount of choppers and fighters buzzing overhead made possible by this approach making the match that much more spectacular. Black Ops, by contrast, seems to have lost that exciting element of support. Now, we have legions of ridiculous, slightly childish, and damn near unstoppable toy cars screeching after dismayed Special Forces operatives, with the odd spy plane or attack chopper swooping in to lend some credibility to the notion that this is an actual conflict between factions armed with machines more threatening than those given to children. Being awesome, I am familiar with some of the more unobtainable rewards, such as the Blackbird (actually a good idea, giving real time information of enemy position and facing), Chopper Gunner (this time a bloke hanging out the door of a Huey with a minigun instead of MW2's monstrous Apache/Havoc chain gun) and Gunship (granting full control of an Mi-24A Hind attack helicopter to the player) and they just don't excite like the hovering Harrier, lumbering Pave Low or earthshaking AC130 on offer in MW2. Incidentally, the reward vehicles are the same for all multiplayer factions. While MW2 was not perfect in this regard (why some Brazilian gangsters were in a position to employ special operations gunships and bombers used only by the US Air Force always puzzled me), the Russians using a Hind where the Americans used a Cobra was at least a nod to the military aircraft enthusiast section of the playerbase, which might be populated by me alone. Here, doubtless aware that most players couldn’t tell a UH-1 from an F-15E (cretins), Treyarch has used the same visuals for every killstreak for every faction, a reminder of the apparent laziness I observed in my very first review feature.

My hard-earned Chopper Gunner being shot down by some mouthbreather with a missile launcher.

The game is not utterly bereft of virtue. What Treyarch has messed up has been unable to totally overpower all that Infinity Ward originally did so well- the game is still recognisable as Call of Duty, whether that name fills you with a fanboy’s excitement or a game-snob’s dread, and therefore the experience is intense and memorable, though, perhaps, not to the same extent as one of Infinity Ward’s offerings. Some of Treyarch’s additions are actually rather nifty, such as the Theater mode- unoriginal, but still entertaining, and very useful for adding screenshots to a blog post- and the Wager matches, where players are given some fairly obscure weapons and made to fight to the death. The single player, while a little railroaded, does have a compelling Cold War action thriller at heart, and a couple of delightful badasses in the form of Frank Woods (straight talking Commie slayer) and Jason Hudson (ice-cool, shades wearing CIA operator), and the occasional shining set-piece. The Zombie mode is fun, too, and the semi-secret level where players assume the roles of Kennedy, McNamara, Nixon and Castro to fight of the horde of undead is simply hilarious.

There's me! Defending my care package from a Cuban like a good capitalist should.

The conclusion that I am forced to draw in the end is that Black Ops is the product of a franchise that has become a victim of its own success. Obviously, I am no corporation-hating-commie-liberal, but I am truly concerned about what the dark council at Activision is doing to my beloved Call of Duty series. In a better, kinder world, Infinity Ward would produce astounding games at the rate they desired, and Treyarch would not be forced to produce annual entries into blockbuster franchises. Black Ops is a game that drives fellas like me to write long-winded blog rants, not because it is so bad, but because it should be something better.