News - Failed, But Still The Best Fps. Warzone 2. 2023. Campaign Review
Welcome Back Lugo's Games is here, and today we are going to talk about the new Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. In this article, you will hear a lot of unpopular opinions about the game, and we'll also discuss how Sledgehammer destroyed the whole identity of the story campaign, which we loved so much for many years, and whether Modern Warfare 32023 is really a complete failure this year or not. Let's go,.
Reasons to criticize the game
My goal is to make a useful and constructive article in which we will discuss all the weak and strong sides of this game as well as answer the questions: is the story campaign as bad as everyone says, and what is the future of the Modern Warfare series with this vector of game development?
I will also explain why I believe that the Modern Warfare series and Call of Duty in general remain the best games in their respective genres and why this is a huge problem. Players Let's get into details.
Why we loved call of duty
I think we should start by saying that Call of Duty story campaigns have a huge fan base.
After all, we all love this game just for its exciting plots, which were passed in one breath. We got used to the fact that Call of Duty is a kind of impressive action movie for at least 5 hours in which we are directly involved, so this campaign will not just upset such an audience but will piss them off with the feeling that they were just spit in the face. You ask why the answer is simple: the new Modern Warfare has extremely weak gameplay design, a short and abruptly ending plot, insufficient scale, and of course terrible open combat missions, but let's talk about everything in order, so the.
The plot
Plot If we talk about the plot without taking gameplay into account, it's actually not bad.
Modern Warfare 3 is like a new part of the Mission Impossible movie we see the continuation of our favorite story about Ethan Hunt who again runs somewhere alone with his team saving all mankind so in the new Modern Warfare we again see the fight of our favorite team Task Force 141 to save the world and Humanity, we get the death of one of our most important and favorite characters as well as an Abrupt ending that leaves us wondering so what's next, as you've noticed the movie industry has long resorted to the strategy of splitting the Final Act into two movies to make more money, so apparently the moment has come when the game industry comes to the same decision, actually that's what the sledgehammer team did, obviously we are waiting for Modern Warfare 4 in which The Saga of task force 141 versus maerov fight will be finished, but is it fair to charge players at least $70 twice for two incomplete and short games just to find out the outcome of the story, in my opinion.
No let's break down whether this new interpretation of the Modern Warfare story is even catching on. I would say yes and no. Many people criticize the relaunch of the series for the fact that it doesn't have the same drama and aura as the original Modern Warfare Trilogy. Here, it didn't get to repeat Shepherd's heartbreaking betrayal, just as it didn't get to repeat one of the most resonant and scandalous missions.
This game is more about modern pragmatism and cold reasoning, in which it is no longer possible to scenario events of the scale that were in the original Modern Warfare after the terrorist attack by Marov at the airport where a direct war between Russia and the US began. I'm looking at fighter jets over I95.
How the hell did they get, and also, in this game, we are shown the cruel reality of the perception of those or other losses, whether it is the thousands of lives of ordinary people or the death of one of the most important and close heroes. I think this is the reason why we see such a dry and unemotional reaction to soap's death.
But is that the main problem with this campaign? I think not. As far as I'm concerned, the main and fundamental problem is the open combat missions. Yes, it was the introduction of open combat missions that simply killed the exact identity of Call of Duty, which immersed you as if in a movie with its missions and incredibly elaborate cinematic.
Cutscenes, and it all looked coherent, consistent, and logical, and what did we get now? Open combat missions, even if there are cinematic cutscenes between them and a seemingly logical chain of events, just kill the whole feeling of immersion in the movie, and a coherent game in which you feel yourself as a direct participant, feeling that the fate of not only your comrades but the whole world depends on your actions, but in the new Modern Warfare, the sense of integrity between the story and game play is simply.
Gameplay
Lost, no issues Well, and here , we'll get directly to the game: play. The game begins with the 627 Mission, which sets the bar in terms of design and atmosphere, as well as an impressive plot twist with the appearance of Marov. Everything is in the best Call of Duty traditions of recent years, and the mission is spectacular, dynamic, and impressive from the first to the last second.
However, then we move to Verdens, where we are waiting for an open War Zone-style combat mission, and you know my first reaction after seeing it was something like this. God, no God, please, no, and thoughts, give me my money back. I'll tell you right away that open War Zone-style combat missions in the story campaign are truly the worst decision Sledgehammer has made.
What kind of immersion in the story campaign can we talk about if you start running around and looting crates with weapons, armor plates, and other survival deer? and you think they introduced such an innovation in small quantities. Of course not. They managed to shove as many as six missions in war zone mode into the campaign of 14 missions, making the first introduction of a new format too radical.
Let's go further. Out of eight missions in our usual linear mode, we get only three really worthy of Call of Duty levels: operation 627, frozen tundra, and payload. I know that many people liked the Flash Mission with the terrorist attack on Verdens Stadium, but in my opinion, the mission was not impressive enough in its content, so I can't call it worthy.
We expected more from this mission. However, can these missions even claim to be on the list of iconic missions in the history of Call of Duty? Alas, they're not that good. The problem is that some missions can hardly be called gameplay missions at all. For example, Deep Cover and Passengers are a couple of minute missions, one of which we only have to quickly walk through the base, kill one officer, get the key, and run out to the.
