Modern Warfare III’ Sounded Like A Good Idea On Paper

4 minutes, 21 seconds Read

Many mistakes have been made with the launch of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare III. Let’s list a few:

  • For one thing, Activision rushed the game out of the gate, resulting in mostly half-baked campaigns. But honestly, 99% of players don’t care that much about the campaign.
  • The feeling that this was all supposed to be DLC before a major pivot has created a stink around the whole thing, and the campaign is the best evidence that this is true. That all of the maps are MW2 (2009) maps lends credence to this theory.
  • Call of Duty HQ is a glitch, forcing players to load MWIII and then quit and reload it if they want to play MWII or Warzone. Very clunky and not user friendly.

But to me, when it comes to whether the game is good or not, these are all issues, and the answer to that question is: absolutely. In fact, the more I play multiplayer (which is the core of any Call of Duty experience) the more I’m enjoying it, to the extent that I’ve had more fun than I’ve had with any Call of Duty game in years. Enjoying more than. , It sounds exactly like a mix of MWII and black ops cold war, And it’s a great combination. Add in all the same old maps from 2009 – but with better graphics and better movement – plus a bunch of new guns, and I’m having a lot of fun.

However, the thing is. There’s an identity crisis in the game that I think is mostly caused by the thing I thought was a good idea at first: moving all those guns to the front. Modern Warfare II. All your guns and attachments follow you from the game, creating a huge arsenal to choose from MWIII.

And that sucks. To be honest, it creates an unwieldy, unbalanced monstrosity. Players can join the lobby equipped with all the guns they have been using from last year, fully leveled up or equipped with powerful blueprints. I can only imagine what a balancing nightmare this is for developers.

More from ForbesAll These ‘Call of Duty: Modern Warfare III’ Reviewer and User Review Scores Are Absolutely Wrong

However, more than that, it changes the nature of what we expect from a new Call of Duty title at launch. Generally, everyone is on a relatively level playing field, unlocking all the new guns and gear, etc. at the same time (obviously some players will do it faster, but you get the point). Now, instead of everyone competing using essentially the same limited arsenal, both games have this madhouse of weapons.

It’s also hard to keep track of what you have from each game. There are no filters to turn off the MWII gun so you can focus on new things. Instead, you have to go through a lot of options when you’re loading out a loadout. it’s annoying. I get angry whenever someone shoots me with a gun MWII. It feels cheap and it makes the game feel less like its own thing.

I understand why Activision made this call, and in theory I was happy with it. But in practice, it’s an absolute mess and it takes away something special from these first weeks of the new COD going live. And honestly, I think this applies to operators and skins as well. Typically we have a month long mil-sim style operators and no bunny rabbits or Snoop Dogs. The game ultimately comes down to all kinds of stupidity, but at least for a few weeks we’re not pitted against Nicki Minaj and the Rat Man. Again, a filter to turn off silly skins would be nice. (I’m not against stupid skins like this, but it would be nice if we could just see the Mil-Sim defaults if we wanted).

In any case, I’m still loving the multiplayer. It’s not perfect but it’s a lot of fun. Don’t listen to the reviews and ignore the constant crying and gnashing of teeth on Reddit, MWII There is an explosion. I just want it to be its own game, not some weird hybrid existing in the liminal space between DLC as it was originally intended, and the full game release that it eventually became.

follow me Twitter, check out My Website,

Source link

Similar Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *