The introduction to the third game in the Modern Warfare series assumes I paid way more attention to the story in the first two games. Modern Warfare 2 may have had a story, but it was hard to follow, featured a number of characters dying for little reason, and it seemed to have been designed to get the player from one large-scale conflict to the next.
[partner id="arstechnica"]Modern Warfare 3, available now on Xbox 360, PS3, and PC, is laid out in much the same way, although the game will reference the two titles that came before it as a misguided way to bring some emotional relevance to the explosions going on around you.
I didn't spend any time trying to figure out what was going on and, because of this, certain moments might have been robbed of gravitas. It doesn't matter; this is a series that's known for its action, not its well-drawn characters. This is a Modern Warfare title from feet to skull. If that idea turns you off, so be it. If you're a fan, this is going to be heavenly.
Modern Warfare 3 has the bad luck of shipping next to Battlefield 3, a game that shows off a brand-new engine to great effect, especially on high-end PCs. In contrast, Modern Warfare 3 runs on Infinity Ward's proprietary engine, and that beast began its life as a heavily modified version of the Quake 3 engine. It has been improved and modified since its debut in Modern Warfare 2, but it's still old technology. Those behind the game get a little sensitive when you criticize the use of the older tech.
Ars Technica's Velocity Micro Gaming Rig____OS: Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
CPU: Intel Core i7 2600k processor, Hyperclocked
RAM: Patriot 8GB 1600Mhz PXD38G1600LLK Memory
Video: EVGA GTX 580 1536 MB 015-P3-1580-AR
Motherboard: Asus P8Z68-V Pro Motherboard
Storage: Patriot 2 x 120GB Wildfire SATAIII SSD PW120GS25SSDR in RAID 0
Optical drive: LG UH12LS28 BDROM/DVDRW
"If you put Modern Warfare 2 next to Modern Warfare 3 you would see a huge difference. Look at all the character models, look at all the gun models, look at the reflections, look at the water," Glen Schofield, general manager of Modern Warfare 3 co-developer Sledgehammer Games, told CVG. "There is so much that we've added, so when someone says 'cut and paste,' I don't even want to talk to them because they don't know. They just don't know. They have no idea."
He's right, and the game looks very impressive with all the details set to maximum. My gaming rig ran the game at around 150fps with all the settings set as high as possible. Your graphics card won't be put to the test here, but the game still looks impressive. It suffers from a direct comparison to Battlefield 3, but there were still moments in the game that caused my jaw to drop, and the game offered large external battlefields as well as tight corridors without issue. Just because there is something that looks better doesn't mean Modern Warfare 3 looks bad. That said, it may be time to invest in a new engine for the series, especially with so many other graphically impressive PC games hitting the market with new engines this year.
The game gives you a good selection of options to adjust the game's graphics to run well on your system, and the upside to an engine this old is how well it scales for use on a wide variety of systems. There is also a mode to help color-blind gamers differentiate targets in multiplayer, which is something that the community has demanded for years.
The technology behind the Modern Warfare series is still up to the task, and everything was stable and polished in my time with the single-player game. All the issues have been removed from this engine, and many systems of differing power will be able to run it well. If you're lucky enough to have a powerful gaming box, you will be able to see some very good looking scenes play out on your monitor. It's possible no one at Activision is willing to invest in a new engine when we're still at least a year away from the next generation of consoles, and the PC version of the game doesn't seem to be as large a priority as the better-selling console versions. For now, the game's visuals remain competitive. Part of that is the strength of the engine and work being done to keep it modern, and part of that is the masterful design of the action.
Next: A review of Modern Warfare 3's single-player campaign.
The Modern Warfare series is a set of first-person shooters that take place in a variety of locations around the world, showcasing a variety of high-tech weaponry in situations that cause many, many things to blow up. There are moments of quiet, and they usually involve a character sneaking up behind an enemy soldier and burying a knife in his neck. You will not be given a break from the violence or the sensory overload: the game assaults you with the sights and sounds of war. It's easy to see why these games are so attractive and, in a way, addictive. When you play them, you're in a constant state of arousal, complete with elevated heart rate and dilated pupils. I sat in front of a large monitor with my headphones cranked way up, and my body was continually in the thrall of the fight-or-flight response. It's adrenaline on tap.
The game's live-action trailer highlights this feeling, and it makes war seem like the ultimate thing for buddies to do together, a skill you can learn in order to have fun with violence. The disconnect between the brutality of armed conflict and the use of these images in games meant for amusement is nothing new, but Modern Warfare puts these two realities in contrast directly, without reservation. The game doesn't shy away from just how scary violence can be, but you're also in control of a character that acts like a superhero. The message is simple: with a little training and the right gun you can fight yourself out of any circumstance.
While the guns may offer different scopes and rates of fire, too many of them feel similar. You'll find and use the odd sniper rifle and turret, but there is not enough differentiation between the weapons you use in the game, although they all look great. The shooting mechanics are as solid as they've ever been—the gunplay itself feels great—but unless you're willing to kick up the difficulty, you begin to feel like a super-soldier. Until you do so, you're not going to run into many enemies that do much more than line up to die. The graceful dance of and hunter and hunted is something left for the multiplayer; this is mostly just slaughter.
The game tries to instill a little fear in you, however, using the now-tired trick of killing off a character you're controlling in a cut-scene at the end of a level. This was interesting when it subverted the usual rules action games lived by, but now it's just a cheap way to try to shock the audience. It also makes your actions feel less important. If the game says it's my destiny to die, why does it keep bringing me back to life when I die in the interactive combat before meeting my end at the hands of this particular character? It's the weirdest form of predestination you're likely to run into during a video game this year.
I was comparing notes with our own Peter Bright, who finished the single-player campaign in a little under five hours. It took me significantly longer to see the final, dour scene, and my problem was the fact I was hanging back and enjoying each of the firefights. Bright's solution was to constantly move forward to trigger the next event and make sure your computer-controlled team killed everyone you missed. As long as you push forward while laying down effective fire, you can breeze right through the game.
They're only gods as long as the player has the controller."The way I played the game actually annoyed me, but I had no other option. I would like to play in a kind of clean, precise way; clearing each area and then pushing forward, while using cover to avoid getting shot and aiming my shots carefully," Bright told me. "But I know I can't, because Call of Duty doesn't work that way. You have to be an ultra-aggressive Rambo, and that makes you quite careless in many situations."
This is the same criticism that can be leveled at every Modern Warfare game, as the series is relentlessly linear. Each level is designed to take you to interesting places, and then you walk down a predetermined path and kill a series of enemies until you walk past an invisible line and the game triggers the next big event or set-piece. This drives many players crazy, but you do get something in return: an action movie come to life. Each explosion, every jaw-dropping moment, every time the game increases the scope of the conflict or simply puts your character into a situation it would take a superhero to escape from – these are all possible because the game knows exactly where you're going to be, and it's an effective strategy. This is a thrill ride, and it's designed to excite and thrill you as often as it can. This is the game's goal, and it's very good at it.
Call of Duty is general, and Modern Warfare specifically, aren't interested in exploring the subject of war, although the games will show you post-death quotes about the terrors of conflict. The series is there so you can geek out over the military hardware and men who have become invincible due to the fact they went through basic training. That is, until a cutscene, and then they become as mortal as everyone else. They're only gods as long as the player has the controller.
You've likely made up your mind about whether or not you'll be buying this game, and the design decisions made in the latest installment of this series will not surprise anyone on either side of the debate. This is the Modern Warfare game fans keep asking for, and it's the same one haters will sneer at. The "story" of the past two games is over, but there wasn't much gravity to begin with. The entirety of the world seems to burn through the series, and innocent people die. This point isn't made with any kind of subtlety, as the player's nose is rubbed into the death of a single family during one scene that seems designed only to shock, but don't let that fool you. The game doesn't know what to do with the extraordinary things it shows the players.
If the Modern Warfare series has a thesis statement across these three games, it's that war is pretty much the best thing anyone can do, those who participate get all the best toys, and every soldier makes action stars from the '80s look like children. This is a game that doesn't glamorize war as much as it wants to canonize it, and with it every soldier. The series doesn't revel in American exceptionalism as much as it trades in the exceptionalism of violence itself.
And that's OK. I loved every second of my time with this game, and that may be because of its simple goals and rock-solid devotion to executing them well. The game made me feel heroic. It was neat to fire all those interesting guns and watch blood spray across the virtual asphalt. Breaching a door and then killing everyone behind it in slow motion remains a beautiful, haunting moment, one you'll experience several times.
Which is why this review sounds so critical when in fact I had a great time with the game; all the tricks the game uses to bring you into the world only work when you're playing. Modern Warfare 3 causes you to pump your fist and get that rush when you're in front of your computer, but once you step away and think about the experience, it all falls apart. I can't imagine playing the single-player portion of the game a second time, although the first session my be one of my favorite gaming moments of the year.
It is OK to lose yourself in a world where every situation can be solved with a bullet or a knife and, if you die, you do so knowing that the bad guy is now that much more of a bad guy, and he'll meet his own end at the hands of one of your brothers. This isn't high art, and it's certainly not deep: this is Oliver Stone funneled through Steven Spielberg, fueled by cocaine, designing a postmodern version of Disney World. Who doesn't want to take that ride?
See Also:- Review: Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 Billets 9mm Special Edition Earphones
