Modern Warfare 3 is filled with questionable design choices.
The Bad: Some of the better ideas from Call of Duty: Black Ops were completely ignored; questionable multiplayer design choices; too similar to previous games; poor map designs.
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare changed the way we looked at online multiplayer in numerous ways. Mixing a role playing game with an online, first-person shooter was simply unheard of in 2007, yet Infinity Ward went above and beyond the call, delivering one of the greatest online shooters in the history of the medium. After establishing their franchise with a wider audience, Infinity Ward went on to create Modern Warfare 2. While suffering from a few problems that fans found a bit unnerving (Nukes, Death Streaks and a few ways to exploit particular weapons and perks such as Commando) the sequel was fairly well put together, and had a fun, if not familiar, multiplayer experience. In 2010, Treyarch (who works on every other Call of Duty game) released Call of Duty: Black Ops. What was impressive about Black Ops' multiplayer was that Treyarch claimed to have "listened to the fans" when developing the multiplayer component of their latest Call of Duty.
It definitely showed. Almost everything that had been complained about in the previous games (with the exception of grenade launchers) had been fixed in some way. Black Ops also introduced a currency system as well as a dive maneuver to prevent players from simultaneously shooting and dropping to the floor. It was definitely a step in the right direction in terms of multiplayer, while Nazi Zombies dominated the cooperative scene. Love it or hate it, Black Ops received great reviews as well as a Game of the Year nomination from many different organizations. A year later, Infinity Ward returns to the modern age with Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. While the campaign is one of the best in the series, the multiplayer leaves a bit to be desired.
MW3 picks up right where the previous game left off, with Nikolai and Price leading the mortally wounded Soap to a safe haven where he can be treated effectively. Meanwhile, Russia has begun a full-scale invasion of the United States, while the ultranationalist leader, Makarov, remains an elusive presence. In typical Call of Duty fashion, you'll take control of multiple characters throughout the campaign. Not all of them will make it out alive, and due to Infinity Ward's tendency to kill off some of the more important characters in past games, anything goes in the five hour campaign. At times, it's not a matter of "What's going to happen next?" It's a matter of, "Who's going to die next?" The end game reveals a few shocking revelations, and even if you haven't been following the story closely; the final level will definitely feel satisfying.
The campaign is definitely one of the best in the series, mixing first-person shooting action with context sensitive moments that will have you constantly adapting to your ever-changing environment. Almost every moment in the game contains those adrenaline fueled moments that we've come to expect from the franchise. Shooting down terrorists in a plane as it drops from the sky is quite exhilarating, and trying to mark targets as you're making your way through a sandstorm is one of the most interesting moments in the entire game. At times, you'll feel a bit of déjà vu in the overall design: kill these guys, move onto the next room and repeat. Taking control of an AC-130 in charge of clearing the way for ground troops had already been done in the previous two games and doesn't really feel that groundbreaking anymore, so why bring it back here? Nevertheless, the campaign is expertly paced and includes enough variety to keep you guessing what you'll be doing next.
I'll quickly mention Spec Ops in this review because I know that multiplayer is the real money-maker in this franchise. To put it simply, Spec Ops' two player missions are a ton of fun if you've got a friend willing to tackle them with you. There are a lot of interesting mission designs that will occasionally have you splitting up from your teammate in order to provide covering fire. All in all, it's a fun diversion, and can become quite addicting. Survival is the biggest addition here, pitting two players against a horde of enemy forces. As you get kills, different guns, perks and killstreaks become available. It's a cool addition and a lot of fun when you're playing with a friend, but multiplayer is the main reason people play Call of Duty.
Multiplayer in Call of Duty has become a phenomenon since Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare showed the world how it was done. For better, or for worse, the formula is still pretty much the same. You start at level one and gain experience by killing off other players or completing various challenges. As you level up, you gain more guns, more customization options and more challenges. There are only a few new perks as well as a wealth of new killstreaks that are hit or miss. You can take part in several different modes, with Team Deathmatch being the most popular. The new mode, Kill Confirmed is especially interesting, forcing you to retrieve a tag leftover from a kill in order to score a point. However, most of the other modes are pretty standard fare.
Strike packages are pretty much the only noteworthy addition to the formula in Modern Warfare 3. These strike packages basically determine how you receive your killstreaks and what types of killstreaks are provided. For example, the support package doesn't discriminate how many kills you get between each death. Each kill earned, regardless of how many times you've died between each one, counts toward a killstreak. However, the killstreaks in the support package usually don't directly aid your kill count. Instead, they aid your teammates by giving them enemy locations (UAV), making them bullet resistant (deployable bulletproof armor) and so on and so on. Personally, I didn't care for strike packages, but they do encourage different styles of play.
There are several problems that I have with the multiplayer component, and after talking with some friends, it would seem that I'm not alone. First of all, there were many great ideas from Call of Duty: Black Ops that were completely ignored. The dive maneuver which was met with fairly good reception is absent here. The currency system is also gone. Fans also complained about Death Streaks, which have made a rather unwelcome return. Kills gained from killstreaks now count toward other killstreaks, an idea that was shelved in Black Ops due to fans complaints in Modern Warfare 2, and many other things like riot shields have returned to make the game a bit more unbalanced. Infinity Ward does things their own way, and I'm really disappointed that they couldn't learn from Treyarch who seems to be more in touch with their fan base.
Another problem is the maps. If I asked you to name a memorable map from any other Call of Duty game (after Call of Duty 3), then you would probably mention maps like Nuketown, Crossfire, Terminal or Firing Range. In Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, none of the maps stick out at all. Sure, one or two of them are well designed, but the majority of them are totally unforgettable and poorly put together. In my first few matches I noticed the wealth of areas to camp in, and was extremely disappointed at how easy it was to do. While camping has always been a bit of a problem in most multiplayer games, some of the later entries in the Call of Duty franchise have been able to effectively cut it down through smart map design and item placement. Not here.
That being said, the spawning system can be wildly inconsistent. After getting killed, the spawn system will occasionally place you right near an enemy. I have spawned numerous times in front of an enemy player who allows me five to six steps before placing a bullet square between my eyes. Other times, it works fine. This is a huge issue, and with the camping problem that's fairly prevalent through most of the game modes (with the exception of Kill Confirmed) spawning next to enemy players can ruin your multiplayer experience.
Though Strike Packages have been added, the overall design of the game hasn't changed enough. I remember getting Call of Duty games in the past and simply having a blast playing them with friends, but now, it feels like the franchise is just going through the motions. We've been playing Call of Duty for years now, and the feeling you got when you leveled up in previous games just isn't there anymore. Now, this is just my opinion. Some may be perfectly content with this style of play, but after playing every Call of Duty until I prestige multiple times in each game, there's definitely a feeling that more could have been done here.
On a brighter note, the graphics in MW3 are incredibly well done. Textures, lighting and particle effects, animation are all top of the class. The engine is also able to push large objects and topple buildings with little to no recognizable slowdown, and thanks to the globetrotting nature of the franchise, you'll witness some incredibly detailed environments…before they burst into flames. To be fair, there are a few instances in multiplayer where the graphics take a noticeable dip in quality, but for the most part, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is a stone cold stunner. The same can be said for the soundtrack…which you'll barely hear amidst the explosions and gunfire. However, during the more intense moments when you can actually listen to it, the music suits the action nicely.
The campaign is brief, but exciting. Spec ops is fun, but only if you've got a friend to tackle the objectives with you. Multiplayer is generally disappointing, but will find an audience with the remaining fans of the franchise that have yet to grow bored of the multiplayer found in Modern Warfare 2. Overall, MW3 isn't necessarily a bad game, but with the franchise starting to grow a bit repetitive, it's definitely a disappointing one.