First off, I should probably weigh in on the big debate surrounding this game: Does this feel like a $70 USD/$90 CAD DLC for last year’s Modern Warfare II? Or are there enough changes made & content present that Modern Warfare III feels like a sequel? Personally, I think it depends on the mode. While I think Multiplayer has enough differences & content to justify considering it a sequel (or at least about as many differences as something like MW19 to MWII)... the campaign very much feels like it was meant to be a short little interlude story to bridge the gap between MWII & Infinity Ward’s next game (which will presumably be MWIV now) that they scrambled to expand into something resembling a full campaign experience once this project was promoted from expansion to sequel. This is because that’s exactly what happened (although the campaign was originally going to be a side-story set entirely in Mexico (presumably about Alejandro from MWII’s campaign going after Valeria/El Sin Nombre after the events of that game) before the project got promoted to a globetrotting sequel about introducing Makarov).

Anyways, the main menu of MWIII (due to being part of the Call of Duty HQ front-end) is almost identical to last year’s MWII & you can even launch MWII (and Warzone) from MWIII. And it’s about as bad now as it was then. There have been some improvements, like how scrolling down from the top leads you to quick launch screens for each game in COD HQ (which as of now is MWII, MWIII & Warzone). But the core design is the same as last year, unfortunately…

As for the graphics, they’re a bit all over the place. In some places like the Campaign missions Operation 627 & Trojan Horse, the game looks better than last year’s MWII, although not up to par with current-generation-only games like Alan Wake II. But then in other places like some of the Open Combat Missions or most of the Multiplayer maps the game looks graphically worse than MW19 and pretty bad for a current-generation game (even one also made for last-generation consoles). This is presumably a byproduct of a rushed development cycle & still being bound by the limitations of now decade-old hardware. It makes one hope that the PS4 & Xbox One will be dropped for Treyarch’s game next year, but Microsoft is committed to bringing COD to Nintendo consoles now (presumably starting with the upcoming Switch successor), so we’ll see…

Campaign:

Upon first finishing the Modern Warfare III campaign, I was actually feeling pretty positive about the experience and was thinking, “Hey that wasn’t so bad!” But the more time that’s passed, the more I saw the holes in the experience & the more my opinion on it soured. As mentioned earlier, this campaign more than anything else in MWIII is where it is most evident that this was originally meant to be DLC for MWII before it got repurposed into a sequel. The campaign is short, even by COD standards and there aren’t that many of the usual scripted & cinematic missions, and the ones that are here are typically pretty short. To make up for this, the majority of the campaign’s runtime consists of “Open Combat Missions.” These seemed like interesting ideas in concept, but in execution, they just feel like DMZ matches with bots, which just makes them feel lazy and as if they mostly exist to pad out the runtime to something acceptable for a COD campaign. Oh, and the armoured enemies from MWII are back and only slightly less obnoxious than last time.

The shame is that the story & performances from the actors here are actually pretty good underneath the rush job the rest of the campaign is. Makarov feels like an appropriate adaptation of the character for the reboot Modern Warfare series’s grittier and more grounded tone & I’m looking forward to seeing more of him in the future… Unfortunately, he just wasn’t in this campaign much and the other Konni Group lieutenants we meet aren’t as interesting as Makarov himself. Oh, and there’s a major plot event at the end that, while it gets a good scene in the aftermath, feels undermined by how quickly & anticlimactically it happens (not to mention the random and cringe-worthy 21 Savage song that plays in the credits after the (admittedly quite decent) mid-credits scene)

Hell, the cinematic campaign missions that are here are as good as they always are in COD. It’s a shame that there are only 4 of them in this whole campaign…

So, in short, while Modern Warfare III’s campaign has moments of enjoyable content, it’s held back by a rushed and heavily micromanaged development cycle and the resulting very short length, undercooked story & heavy reliance on existing assets that entailed.

Multiplayer:

Contrary to my feelings about the campaign, I think Modern Warfare III’s multiplayer is actually very strong. While it definitely used Modern Warfare II as a starting point, MWIII feels about as similar to MWII as that game felt to Modern Warfare (2019). The similarities are amplified somewhat due to the gap between MW games being 12 ½ months this time rather than 36.

A big reason why MWIII feels so different from MWII is down to the movement, flow and Time to Kill (TTK) of the game. MWII tried to cater to as many people as possible… which in practice (or at least execution) resulted in it being a slower-paced game which incentivized not moving as much as in something like Cold War. While this definitely speaks to some people, did cause the game to get rather grating for a more aggressive player like me. Fortunately for me, though, MWIII drastically shifts the pacing of the game by slowing the TTK down (although not to the extent of Black Ops 4 & Cold War) and overhauling the perk system to make this game feel surprisingly different from its predecessor.

While there’s definitely some MWII DNA still here, MWIII feels much closer to Black Ops: Cold War than MWII. I feel much more empowered as an aggressive, more movement-centric player in this game than I did in MWII. The moment-to-moment gunplay is about as sublime as Black Ops: Cold War or Modern Warfare (2019), in my opinion. The maps, which as of launch are all remakes of Modern Warfare 2 (2009), are all great (except Derail, screw that map), but as they are all remakes this may feed into the feeling that this was rushed out the door.

Zombies:

Admittedly I’m mainly a solo player, so this new direction Treyarch’s opted to go in with Modern Warfare Zombies, essentially a fusion of Outbreak from Cold War Zombies & DMZ from Warzone 2, maybe isn’t made for me. But for what it is, it’s definitely alright, but very rough around the edges.

As that description implies, this is very different from what’s come to be expected from Treyarch Zombies. It’s more Escape from Tarkov with Zombies & no PvP than classic Treyarch Zombies. They even got rid of the Easter Eggs in favour of story missions that work similarly to Contracts in DMZ or the missions in Outbreak. But honestly, I think I liked DMZ more. I don’t know, Extraction Shooters and Zombies just didn’t create an enjoyable combination for me. Apparently, Treyarch’s working on… something that they think will appeal to Round-Based Zombies fans to add to MWIII later. We’ll see how that pans out, but for now, I think I’ll just stick to MWIII’s multiplayer and keep playing Black Ops 3 & 4 for my Zombies fix instead.

The story is whatever. It’s an interlude story set between the first two games in the reboot Modern Warfare series and feels like filler within the grand scheme of Treyarch’s Dark Aether storyline. Honestly, I haven’t felt motivated to really experience it myself.

Conclusion:

Modern Warfare III rings in the 20th anniversary of Call of Duty with a whimper rather than a bang. Sure, the multiplayer feels good to play, is some of the most fun I’ve had with COD MP in years, and Sledgehammer has been proactive in responding to community feedback... But it’s hard to argue that MWIII is as different from MWII as MWII was from MW19. The campaign feels like DLC for MWII and very much deserves the negative publicity it’s been getting, and Zombies just feels like Treyarch took DMZ and made some changes to make it a Zombies mode.

So, while I don’t regret getting this game for the MP, I can’t argue that this is one of the better COD games in recent memory if the whole package is considered… Hopefully Treyarch’s game next year is a banger.

Ratings:

Creative score (story, gameplay, voice acting, art direction, etc.):

Campaign: 6.5 out of 10

Multiplayer: 8 out of 10

Zombies: 6 out of 10

Whole Package: 7 out of 10

Technical score (graphics, audio, performance)):

Campaign: 7/10

Multiplayer: 7.5/10

Zombies: 7/10

Whole Package: 7/10

Business Practices score: 3/10 (All the business practice issues MWII had plus the fact that Activision took something intended to be an expansion for MWII, turned it into a sequel and forced Sledgehammer to rush it out the door to release in November 2023)

Overall score (my thoughts on a game’s overall quality, does not consider the business practices unless they are detrimental to the experience): Campaign: 5.5/10

Multiplayer: 7/10

Zombies: 6/10

Whole Package: 6/10

2.5/5 Review for MW3 campaign: I initially had no intention of playing through this campaign. While I've typically enjoyed all the Call of Duty campaigns, I don't buy them anymore. Unfortunately for me, this one came to Xbox Game Pass so I had no excuses anymore.

Typically these campaigns are all about crazy set pieces and almost on rails shooting as the moment to moment gameplay is pretty well scripted, but those crazy set pieces were what made the prior games fun. This time around though, after the success (at the time) of Warzone, they tried implementing a lot of ideas from that into this campaign, almost all for worse. About half of the missions are open to where you drop in, and can go about the mission however you see fit. Running around enough, you can find almost every gadget or gun imaginable, so you can go in all John Rambo guns blazing, or you can try to take the stealthy approach quietly sneaking around. Unfortunately, the enemy AI is the same as always where they aren't too smart and you can predict what/where they will go. Because of this I would somewhat stealth a mission until I got caught, then just fire away. This method pretty much worked across all of these missions. I like the idea of open missions, but they were really poorly implemented..just adding parts straight from Warzone instead of altering them a bit to fit the campaign better.

The story is bonkers. It loosely follows the original MW3 story, and continues the ongoing MW remastered stories. Without spoilers though, it ends ABRUPTLY to where I thought I missed something, or had to unlock another mission. Nope! That's it. To my knowledge as well, the story ends on that abrupt cliffhanger, with no resolution at all. I think I finished the game in three sittings, and I almost wish it ended in 2.

FPS - Captain Price and Task Force 141 take on the ruthless ultranationalist Makarov, who launches a series of global terrorist attacks using biological weapons.

PROS:

++ Gunplay. The game's greatest strength is its gunplay and the feel of the movement since they literally just preserved it from the past games. There are no noticeable additions in this area but I guess it didn't really need any. Guns controlled well, sounded powerful, and felt great to use. Movement was also fast and fluid, just like in MW and MWII. Even if many of its modes were lackluster, the gunplay was enough to make me have a decent time throughout it all.

++ Performances & characters. Even though the overall story was quite disappointing, I can't help but like the main cast of characters. Even though they have the depth of a puddle, and don't really develop over the course of the series, I really enjoyed Captain Price, Ghost, Gaz, Soap, Farah, and other side characters like Nikolai, Alex, and Laswell. It also helped that their voice performances were solid and that the cutscenes were done exceptionally well.

++ Visuals.

CONS:

-- Forgettable campaign. I wouldn't say that the campaign was bad. Overall, it's decent in my opinion. But only decent. It never rises above that line. The main complaint that most people have with the campaign are the new "Open Combat Missions" where you are dropped off in an area and it's up to you to scavenge for better weapons and to accomplish the objective from a variety of approaches. I actually didn't hate this addition because I enjoyed the change in pace. But because these missions give the player agency, it means that they're largely forgettable (with the exception of Highrise) since they have no set-pieces or other scripted events. None of these missions were particularly memorable in their location and how the mission unfolded. This would have been an excusable misstep if the other linear missions were high in quality. But they're not. The only somewhat memorable mission was Frozen Tundra where you had to face against snipers. All the others were just "meh" and have been executed better in past entries. As per the story, I found it to be a weak conclusion (?) to the reboot. Although Makarov is a more cunning villain in this reboot, it was still a very weak narrative. On top of there being unnecessary retcons, (Graves and Alex shouldn't have survived from the past games) the ending was so disappointing. It unnecessarily and abruptly kills off Soap and Makarov also gets away. There might be a fourth game in this MW sub-series that could provide a more satisfying conclusion. The original MW3 was a perfect conclusion to that trilogy, but this MWIII is nowhere near that good. Nevertheless, I still had some mindless fun throughout the campaign.

-- Disappointing zombies. When I heard that MWIII had open-world zombies, I wasn't immediately turned off like most people. I quite liked and enjoyed Cold War's Outbreak mode! So I came into the Zombies mode with an open mind. But nevertheless, I was greatly disappointed by this mode. Outbreak worked because it had other standard, round-based zombies maps. But MWIII doesn't have any other maps except for the open-world map. And to top it off, you can never truly play this mode solo since you'll always be put in a match with 23 other people. What this means is that you NEED to be online in order to play. This wouldn't be an issue for some, but for me who has inconsistent internet, it was a big dealbreaker. I kept getting disconnected mid-match. And to add insult to injury, this mode acts like an extraction shooter. Whenever you die and fail to exfil, you lose all your current loot. This, along with the fact that I have bad internet, equals an experience that I have no desire in putting time in. Additional notes: the map is boring, the zombies are boring, the mode is too complicated and goes away from the simple, pick-up-and-play nature of round-based maps, there is a time limit of 45 minutes so you always feel rushed, and the whole mode is focused on doing objectives which is the main reason why I didn't like Vanguard's zombies mode. I could see why some would like this, but it just isn't for me.

-- Lack of innovation. Between this and Modern Warfare II, there really isn't much noticeable difference in gameplay, graphics, etc. It really feels like a rushed project that needed more time to cook in the oven. You can make the argument that COD has never had any major innovation in the entirety of its franchise, but at least most games had its own identity, feel, and personality that slightly differentiated it from the last entry. But this game doesn't. It's the exact same as MWII. Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V.

The new free missions were disappointing to find in this game. They don't feel like proper campaign missions. They come off more like Spec Ops levels. I remember the rumors that this started out as an expansion, and these free missions sure make it feel that way. The thing is, the missions aren't bad. I enjoyed them even though they aren't what I want from a Call of Duty campaign. They actually reminded me more of Far Cry. I lowered my expectations for the campaign after I got a few of these levels back-to-back, but then the levels managed to impress me. I loved the level that took place in the high rise building. It was a clever subversion of what came before. It ended up being a solid, B-tier Call of Duty campaign. It's not on the same level as the last two Modern Warfare games, but it's still good.

The campaign makes up for the shortcomings of the campaign. I've been having a great time with it. It's free of the connectivity issues of Vanguard. It's been a solid experience outside of a couple of crashes I had. It all ended up balancing out to a great Call of Duty game.