Call of Duty: Modern Warfare III Review

Death and taxes. And Call of Duty.

There are so few certainties in this brief life of ours.

Perhaps with equal guarantee is the polarizing deluge of opinion surrounding the franchise which only grows more vocal each year.

Since 2005’s Call of Duty 2 there has been a Call of Duty game released every single year. It feels like an impossible cadence but one a fleet of Activision-based developers have been able to maintain. But in the past decade, cracks in the foundation feel as if they are becoming increasingly pronounced.

Outside of 2013’s Ghosts, I have played and reviewed every Call of Duty game since Black Ops 2. My “game journalist” DNA feels intrinsically linked to the series. Have I become blind to its charms? If Call of Duty: Modern Warfare III is any indication, then no.

Annually, Call of Duty is usually guaranteed to be the biggest game of the year in terms of sales. Month after month, hundreds of thousands of players gorge themselves on the yearly evolving feast of multiplayer and, most recently, Warzone. Despite that seemingly innate popularity, the series continues to garner divisive reception. Single-player campaigns are applauded for production values and explosive action. Or trounced for incoherence and style over substance. Multiplayer is consumed both competitively and during red-eyed late night sessions. Or waved away for its ability to not justify yearly refreshes.

However, I can honestly say that I have never had a sour experience in my past 11 years with Call of Duty. Maybe that’s because I completely skipped Ghosts, the entry that seems easy to hate. It could also be due to the fact that I have found countless value and enjoyment from each entry since reengaging with the series on a critical level. The trio of futuristic Call of Dutys–Advanced Warfare, Black Ops 3, and Infinite Warfare–might be among my favorite simply because they sought to be different while offering worthwhile spins on the series’ pillars.

But the feeling of looming communal dread that began to surround Call of Duty when it ventured into space was inescapable. WWII‘s severe backpedal to series’ World War II origins produced an excellent entry but made me nostalgic for a franchise that was attempting to mold itself into something new. When Black Ops 4 released without a campaign but a unique Battle Royale mode, the writing was being etched on the wall.

Call of Duty strikes me as an anomaly. How has Activision kept these wheels grinding for so long and with such consistency? The move towards shifting into three-year development cycles was a godsend and provided novelty when one game included features the other didn’t. The astronomical budgets, flood of marketing, and commodification of Call of Duty has to take some of the blame for its success.

Yet I think in 2023 we are coming full circle.

Outside factors cannot be ignored, not in the instance of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare III. Soon, Activision Blizzard and Call of Duty will become Microsoft-branded entities, becoming strange new incarnations through Game Pass and Xbox. There are real wars boiling in our world right now. This is the first time Call of Duty has seen a direct sequel in back-to-back years. Developer Sledgehammer Games seemingly made this game under a brutally tight schedule and, as an immense disappointment to me, potentially had to forgo an Advanced Warfare sequel.

Of course, it also can’t be ignored that Modern Warfare III was potentially going to be released as DLC to Modern Warfare II. For the first time in 18 years the world would not receive a full Call of Duty release, breaking the cycle. But that is not the world we live in and here we are with a full-size entry in one of gaming’s few behemoth franchises.

And despite Modern Warfare III attempting to strike the powder keg of disenchantment inside of me, I cannot deny the enduring and primal joy that comes with a new Call of Duty release. In spite of the game’s many flaws, it is near gospel truth that one of the reasons this series refuses to die is because there quite simply isn’t anything like it. And until someone else replicates it, Call of Duty will always rest atop the throne.

The unpleasant elephant in the room is that Modern Warfare III‘s campaign is oppressively short. Though Call of Duty campaigns feel like they’ve been shriveling in playtime over the last few years, this game absolutely has to have the shortest runtime out of them all.

We live in a world of bloated production costs across multiple forms of entertainment and video games aren’t immune to it. But Call of Duty campaigns have always oozed with production value because of their massive budgets. Often referenced as an appetizer to allow players to get a feel for the mechanics before diving into multiplayer, campaigns would cycle players through varying scenarios and shooting galleries while watching everything explode.

I lamented the idea that players and reviewers would dismiss the single player efforts of Call of Duty games as mindless spectacles. And while there are moments I can agree where that was the case, seven or ten hours was a great length for a Call of Duty campaign. Players were provided with a theme park of combat and several moments of bombastic spectacle that made the whole thing look and play like the biggest of Hollywood blockbusters.

Over the years that playtime has seemingly shrunk and the plots become more incoherent or rushed. Though I could barely recount a sliver of past narratives outside of war-inducing global threat needs to be eliminated by an elite team, Modern Warfare III almost relies on players’ nostalgia for the original trio of Modern Warfare games. While the Modern Warfare reboot from 2019 contained sleek, clever missions in its attempt to reframe and retell the older games, Modern Warfare III, to me, practically begs players if they remember Vladimir Makarov and his vile actions and other key moments from the original trilogy.

Modern Warfare III unfortunately does not allow any room for the actions of Makarov or Task Force 141 to seep into the player’s mind and create lasting drama. If played on the normal difficulty, Modern Warfare III could be beaten in less than four hours. I’m sorry but that is just insane. Such a short length is almost suffocating, crushing plot developments under the weight of revelations that are breezed past in a matter of minutes.

It’s a shame because the cast of the Modern Warfare reboots have been excellent. Farah, Price, Laswell, Alex, Ghost, all of them have actually stuck themselves in my mind, developing solid personalities and superbly acted by their voice cast. While Modern Warfare III is a direct continuation of the previous game, the continuity feels almost forced to include Makarov. Where the original trilogy established him over the course of two lengthier narratives, Makarov maybe gets less than 15 minutes of screen time, despite his name being constantly referenced.

Another major issue stemming from the campaign is its mission structure. This time around, promotion has been centered around the campaign’s “Open Combat Missions” which are basically large maps where players are free to tackle specific objectives in any way they wish. On the surface, this sounds like a unique opportunity for Call of Duty to take. Rather than the guided, “forward momentum” structure of previous missions, players would have some agency over the cadence a mission will take. Better yet, the option to go quiet instead of loud provides extra challenge.

The reality of these Open Combat Missions, however, is that they offer the illusion of player choice and agency. The first two of these are particularly egregious. The first sees Farah alone in a shipping container starting with just a knife, avoiding enemies and collecting equipment and guns. Her task is to find a shipping manifest on a boat and then tag shipping containers. The second mission sees Price having to destroy three gunships and then infiltrate a missile silo. If I’m correct, both of these missions and the introductory chapter of the game all feature maps that are directly pulled from past Warzone areas. The shipping yard, Gulag, and military base are just locations previously used in Call of Duty.

As the game continues, more of these mission types crop up asking players to accomplish similar tasks with the illusion of freedom. But honestly, many of them could be completed in about 15 minutes or less on the lowest difficulty. But because I played on Hardened, enemies were a lot deadlier. Yet this introduces another problem I had with these mission types: the enemy AI is absolutely lethal but unquestionably dumb at times. There are times when Farah was spotted in the dark halfway across the map and other times she could stand right next to a guard and get no reaction. During Price’s mission I blew up a helicopter and ran after being spotted only to have AI guards pop up around every hallway with a bead on me, allowing me no breathing room. Because the checkpoints in these encounters can be terrible, it would potentially negate minutes of progress because I simply did not complete enough objectives, making me want to dial down the difficulty and completely strip away any challenge.

For me, the lack of challenge and incentive in the Open Combat Missions is one of their most damning qualities. Players are shown that there is a specific number of weapons that can be discovered in each map but to what end? For the sake of completion? It was surprisingly off-putting to see a map littered with armor plates, grenade types, killstreaks, and weapons all for what? Rather than serving a greater narrative or gameplay purpose, these open missions feel like they cater to the Warzone demographic who need endless options for combat approach. But even if you are a part of that crowd, what is the reason to return to these missions? There are no Hitman-style incentives or opportunities to be inventive with kills. Players seemingly can’t shoot out lights or board up doors to prevent enemies from attacking. You can literally rush to objectives and be done.

In prior Call of Duty campaigns, the player’s pace was controlled by the scope of the individual missions. Some were stealth-based, a few focused on character development, many were action setpieces that were among the best in gaming cinematics. Regardless of their style, missions in prior games felt directed and tailored to provide players with exceptional moments other games could only hope to replicate.

Because Modern Warfare III is filled with Open Combat Missions, the narrative loses a great deal of cohesion. If players rapidly burn through these missions then most of the story is going to be told through radio chatter and cutscenes that last a few minutes. Only a handful of the campaign missions feature linear progression paths and they were among my favorite. One in the frozen woods of Siberia featured varied shootouts requiring thermal vision and a killer introduction of assaulting a military convoy. One encounter with Makarov at a stadium was noteworthy because of the realistic stakes but I only couldn’t help but note that it felt like I was conducting a mission while the Battle Royale at Verdansk played out nearby.

Even the most impactful moments of the campaign feel muted because they are over so fast. A semi-answer to the chilling “No Russian” mission involves a terrorist attack on an airplane. It is an absolutely gut-wrenching story beat but lasts two to three minutes at most. Players expecting a powerful, cinematic final fight are instead treated to a semi-claustrophobic shootout in London’s Chunnel. In Modern Warfare III, there’s no dramatic car chases and escalating gunfights in war-torn towns. Buildings don’t collapse after a bombing and America isn’t being invaded. The action is muted and often takes place in a way that feels rushed through, giving the player no time to process what is going on.

The attempts made to diversify the action in the Modern Warfare III campaign are noble. In the first hour of the game, the pacing felt all over the place with multiple Open Combat Missions sandwiched between stricter, more directed fare. I just couldn’t escape that feeling of corners being cut by having the player thrown into a pre-existing section of map and told to do rote objectives. Gracefully, not all Open Combat Missions are terrible. The floor-by-floor escalation of scaling a highrise building allowed for the AI to be less unpredictable and the combat to remain focused. A bomb defusing mission in an expansive dam had a map large enough that players could at least get a little creative.

Regardless of my issues with these open-ended missions in Modern Warfare III, I don’t think the formula is a complete failure. Potential for these mission types exists but it needs to be done so on a map crafted specifically for the story and the encounter. Call of Duty so often has allowed players to fight alongside NPC teammates, emphasizing that these campaigns are about the struggles and triumphs of a team of soldiers. But so rarely are players actually interacting with a team outside radio chatter and the occasional helpful sniper. Why not allow players to have more control over an NPC in the mission? Allow us to switch over to Alex while he is helping Farah find evidence of a terrorist attack. I want to have Price, Ghost, Gaz, and Soap boots on the group next to each other, cracking jokes and fighting for their lives.

Whether or not past Call of Duty plots have been coherent or not, they’ve felt like true can’t miss experiences. In Modern Warfare III, the attempts to experiment with the formula only serve to strip away what makes this aspect of the series shine so brightly. There’s simply nothing like a classic Call of Duty campaign. In Modern Warfare III, it all feels by the numbers, like checking boxes, or just inserting unused ideas from DMZ and Warzone.

I also can’t help but shake the notion that due to the game’s rushed development cycle, the campaign’s short runtime, and many other factors, that Modern Warfare III exists as a precursor to a potential Modern Warfare IV developed by Infinity Ward. Maybe story beats have been laid out far in advance and this game exists to show Makarov’s face, up the stakes, and fully deliver on him as a villain. Otherwise, many parts of this campaign outside of the last three or four cutscenes seem negligible at best.

Of course, the campaign usually is shelved by players after completion, leaving multiplayer efforts as Call of Duty‘s true standard-bearer.

Luckily, Modern Warfare III‘s multiplayer suite consists of some of the most mechanically engaging Call of Duty I’ve played in years. Time-to-kill is the big one here and is probably the longest in recent memory. Yes, I’ll often die in the blink of an eye from a gunshot by a person just rounding the corner. But I must say that surviving a 1v1 or a 1v2 encounter is more manageable this year. The combat and movement options in Modern Warfare III don’t feel as weighty and grounded as in 2019’s entry, being more akin to a Black Ops game with a longer lifespan.

In the 50 hours I’ve spent in Modern Warfare III‘s multiplayer, I’ve almost hit level 55 and done so at a relatively good clip. Not being an absolute professional at this game, I have to say that I’m in support of skill-based matchmaking, especially in this go round. Though I usually need a match or two to knock off a day’s rust, only a handful of times did I feel that a match leaned overwhelmingly in favor of one team or another. Plus, I don’t really enjoy Call of Duty when matches aren’t at least a little sweaty because I won’t have any sense of personal skill progression.

The speed at which matches begin and end in Modern Warfare III made me appreciate the variety of perks, equipment, and gun options for a customization standpoint. A challenge system is in place that marks guns as “recommended” for players to try out to progress in XP and cosmetic challenges. I’ve never been a player that focuses on the meta in any competitive multiplayer and Modern Warfare III‘s bevy of options isn’t going to change that. I play with what I enjoy and change it from there.

Being overwhelmed at the amount of options will likely exist for players because the game carries over almost everything from Modern Warfare II. If anything, this could make the battlefield a bit cluttered with the amount of field upgrades killstreaks possible. While unlock progression feels very standard, the armory unlock system can be somewhat strange. A large number of perks, killstreaks, and guns are locked behind the completion of daily challenges which cap out to 4 each on either Zombies or multiplayer modes. And though it seems prohibitive, I noticed that progress was made when completing career challenges as well. Was this a bug? I’m not entirely sure but it made armor unlocks less annoying for me.

As a player who didn’t spend any amount of time with the original Modern Warfare 2 or 3, Modern Warfare III‘s inclusion of only prior legacy maps does feel a bit weird and yet another reason why this game can come across as full-priced DLC. That being said, those legacy maps are phenomenal to play on, if not a little large for 6v6 modes. The flow of combat usually shifts fairly well in non-objective modes but I’m always a fan of larger player counts to increase the chaos. The inclusion of War mode–where two opposing teams fight for progressing dominance of a map–and the lives-based Cutthroat modes are fantastic inclusions when wanting to stray outside the normal matchmaking modes.

Honestly, I have few complaints with the multiplayer of Modern Warfare III and find it to be some of the most fun I’ve had with the series in quite some time. But I do think tying Modern Warfare III to the Call of Duty HQ launcher is going to cause some complaints over time. Not only do playlist resets happen constantly, it just isn’t great to navigate and I expect better production from the series, especially when the launcher eats up so much hard drive space.

Zombies, much like the campaign, cannot escape the Warzone influence that is apparently influencing a large swath of Call of Duty currently. Perhaps this is where the developers have noted players are gravitating towards more and more and find that Warzone-like experiences are highly coveted by a growing base.

This year, Zombies is less like it ever has been. Gone are the round-based fights on smaller maps, requiring skillful resource management and apt puzzle solving. Now, players are tossed into a massive map to complete small missions, collect gear, and hopefully get out before dying. Because I didn’t play a lot of DMZ last year, my Zombies experience took a lot of time to wrap my head around. While the mode does have a story, it’s more straightforward at first glance than anything Treyarch has ever done. Specific objectives are required to progress the story, often requiring to kill foes in specific ways or complete various objectives. But the effort required to complete these objectives can often be random and time-intensive considering the luck-based nature of the mode. Though other players and teams are plopped onto the map, it may be very rare that players decide to work with one another. On my first mission, my team wiped but I decided to stick around and was revived by another team that strolled past. We ended up lasting the remaining 40 minutes, making for a wonderful experience.

Progressing closer to the center of the map yields better rewards but also deadlier and stronger zombies. The inclusion of mercenaries is strange but not dumb enough that it doesn’t work for something as absurd as this. But players who enjoyed previous Zombies outings shouldn’t expect to instantly enjoy this entry in the popular mode. It definitely is a spin on Warzone and DMZ, allowing players to start rounds with recovered weapons and loadouts. If anything, it’s a Zombies-lite. Players aren’t going to get an identical experience but they may find this mode to be easier to get into. Personally, it works better for solo players because if you’re like me, finding a team is not easy and this version is more casual and requires less intense player output.

While Modern Warfare III has all the hallmarks of a traditional Call of Duty game, the shortcomings cannot be ignored. Where the series maintains its phenomenal sound design, I was shocked that there are spots where the graphics just don’t shine like they should. Particularly during the Open Combat Missions that seem ripped from Warzone areas, I noticed the game didn’t look as well as it should have. And that’s likely due to those maps not being custom made for the campaign. Mechanically, the shooting feels phenomenal as it always has over the years. It’s been refined and polished to the greatest sheen imaginable and allows the multiplayer to stand out amongst the other less admirable bits. But is this game DLC masquerading as a $70 game? Potentially and each individual player may have to be the judge of that. Personally, I just want to get back to multiplayer and likely will after concluding this review because it feels so good almost to the point that I’m addicted to the easier camo grind and improving my skill. But, as always, that mileage may vary.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare III is likely going to go down as one of the weaker entries in the franchise. Undoubtedly the quality fluctuates from player to player every year but key elements of Modern Warfare III don’t hold a candle to what most expect from a superb Call of Duty game. This is most apparent in the game’s lackluster campaign that injects far too much Warzone influence for its own good. Rather than a classic, bombastic narrative with diverse mission structure, we are left with an all too brief story that leaves players with little to latch onto outside of vaguely experimental open-ended combat. Zombies is as universally weird as ever but may actually be beneficial towards newcomers with its large map and mission-based approach. Thankfully Modern Warfare III‘s exceptional multiplayer feel and suite of popular maps, modes, and customization elevate this rough going. If Call of Duty needed a break, maybe this year should have been the one. But at 20 years old, the old chap still has life left in it.