Editorials Reviews Previews Essays Worth Playing

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Game review

Game review 30 October 2019, 12:44

author: Darius Matusiak

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Review – Nearly the Best CoD Ever

Modern Warfare may not have the best campaign in the history of the Call of Duty series, but it certainly sets the bar high for all subsequent shooters about war. Sets it very, very high.

The review is based on the PS4 version. It's also relevant to XONE version(s).

PROS:
  1. mature, serious portrayal of the cruelty of war;
  2. varied set of missions with diverse mechanics;
  3. great graphics and sound effects;
  4. highly authentic shooting experience;
  5. varied network modes that offer diverse experience to suit most tastes;
  6. lots of fun with weapon modification;
  7. successful return to the best times of the Call of Duty series;
  8. clearing rooms is exhilarating, full of tension – reminiscent of the original Rainbow Six games.
CONS:
  1. good moments don't last, same as the campaign;
  2. rather poor pacing of the story – we jump in the middle of the plot and finish when the real fun should begin;
  3. inconsistent attention to details.
  4. half-baked 64-players mode; coop requires some polish.

Let's start with a bombshell: is the new Modern Warfare the best Call of Duty to date? Well, yes and no. In terms of audio and video, this is definitely the best installment in this series, hands down. The multiplayer is riveting and diverse; the campaign offers good atmosphere and isn't afraid of drastic scenes, thus being an interesting depiction of a modern armed conflict – without a defined battlefield, where the divisions of the good and bad guys are sometimes indistinguishable. The pace can be significantly slower than in any of the previous installments. The creators from Infinity Ward oftentimes rehearse familiar patters we've seen in previous installments, and – as they do – reference movie blockbusters, sometimes recreating scenes one-to-one. And although the multiplayer is extremely engaging, and the single campaign brings numerous memorable moments, overall, this game comes a little short of being the undisputed best in the Call of Duty series.

Maybe it's because of the hype – maybe I just expected too much, or maybe the devs made too many promises that were too big. Because overall the campaign seems really good. Compared both to previous CoDs, and games from Ubisoft or EA, this installment reaches levels mastery that's unattainable for them. But it falls short, too – not only because of the expectations, but also when compared to the original. The first Modern Warfare was more consistent and complete. This game, on the other hand, feels like entering a movie screening half way through it, and then leaving right before the finale. As concerns the multiplayer, on the other hand, the big promises were not empty, but many elements will have to be significantly refined. All this media noise and hopes for a 10/10 game aside, we get one of the best and most daring shooters of recent years.

Sometimes it's hard to believe it's a Call of Duty.

Slow authenticity, like in Michael Bay's

Modern Warfare, as a reboot, certainly lives up to the name. This is a modern war in all respects – with terrorist attacks in world capitals and full-scale armed actions somewhere in the countries of the Middle East. Sometimes, we engage in special operations in full gear, and sometimes run in civilian clothes around the streets of crowded metropolis. Playing three different characters, all of whom are reminiscent of the one and only Captain Price, we switch locations in search of stolen cargo with extremely toxic gas. The script may not be outstanding, but it makes effective use of authentic events in recent history and combines them with atmosphere and ideas known from productions such as Jack Ryan from Amazon Prime.

It is also significant that, after frequent comparisons of the scope of the previous games to films by Michael Bay, this time, Modern Warfare actually recreated scenes from the works of the famous director. We will not see, however, falling skyscrapers or a raid among burning aircraft carriers. It's all more restrained, more credible and low-key; the game, for example, let's us participate in events familiar from the movie 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi. The devs weren't afraid to also create missions in which we move at a snail's pace, door to door, firing just a couple of bullets, clearing rooms just like in tactical shooters the like of Rainbow Six games. Too bad these moments are few and far between, because the tension and thick atmosphere literally pours out of the screen. They're very evocative of games like SWAT or R6.

War has taken to our streets.

CALL OF DUTY – BASED ON REAL EVENTS

The film 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi tells the story of a real operation to protect an American ambassador during his visit to Libya in 2012, by a group of six hired operators – mostly former spec-ops. The visit quickly escalated into a full-on siege of the consulate, with CIA officers inside. Several defenders with a few Delta Force soldiers repelled wave after wave of the Islamic militants, up until the dramatic evacuation.

Price, you heartless bastard

Modern Warfare became notorious even before the release, with the announcement of unsettling missions similar to the infamous "No Russian" opening of MW2. Did it work out? Overall – yes, but not on every front. The devs didn't go all the way; we don't shoot civilians or children, for example. If we do that, we'll have to reload from the last checkpoint. There are a few moments where we move among a frenzied crowd, bullets whizzing by at random, and then, collateral damage isn't punishable. But it's not really a "grey war," where telling friend from foe would not be obvious.

In Modern Warfare is full of shades of grey. Can't be sure about anything.

NO NORMAL OR EASY!

Remember to play the night assault missions at the highest level of difficulty, without any user interface. This critically improves immersion and feel. Every step forward, every lean around the corner, and every shot will make a huge difference. No need to be afraid of endless waves of enemies. It's all about atmosphere and tension – just like the first Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon games. Going through them on easy or normal will take all that away.

So while such stages are featured in the game, but just briefly, in two missions based on the book Operation Geronimo and the movie Zero Dark Thirty, which depict the famous raid for Bin Laden's headquarters (he was the leader of Al-Queida). Then, you really can't know what to expect behind the next door. We walk in silence down a narrow corridor, a baby whimpering in one of the rooms. We pry open the door with force – inside, a woman throws herself on a bed. To grab a rifle, or to protect her child? You have to decide in a split-second. In such moments, the new Call of Duty sweeps away all FPS competition. It's worth playing the game even for these moments.

To top it off, the developers have also portrayed Russians as completely aggressive and ruthless oppressors. Russian soldiers in Modern Warfare shoot unarmed civilians and children, relocate women so that "terrorists can't breed," torture prisoners, and attack entire communities with chemical weapons. Some respite is offered by the fact the good guys aren't that good, too. If that's what the mission requires, even the most positive characters will become merciless. There are no saints in the world depicted by Modern Warfare. Against the backdrop of ubiquitous political correctness in games and beyond, the new Call of Duty boldly bucks the trend.

A little of the old, a little of the new

Minimalistic HUD turns on only in some situations. Works great for immersion!

Alright, and how does the new CoD feel as a game? Very familiar, on the one hand, and on the other – a little different. It is still a dynamic action game – full of scripts and truly cinematic moments. The character is a little slower, you can feel its weight more, and the movement seems more authentic overall. The new shooting model works out great – in this respect, this Call of Duty brings quality that's superior to anything the series offered so far. Supporting the weapons on elements of the environment is both useful and convenient, and the new recoil and reloading animations are very realistic. Each projectile has huge power, but it can be felt only when the creators want it, because in the campaign, it's not possible to switch the fire mode at will. Which is a bit baffling.

The developers also made sure that we are constantly doing something new, something fresh. One moment we're shooting, then we're carrying bricks. Veterans of Modern Warfare will sure be reminded of many moments from previous installments, since we will see many situations that reference some cult missions of the trilogy. The new engine delivers, but mostly in smaller locations where everything's near us. The textures are realistic, as is the lighting and the level of details of characters, gear, and elements of environment. Anything further away looks a bit off, and the scenery makes average impression – at least on PlayStation 4. Can't complain about audio, though! A barrage of loud shots, separate sounds for each falling casing and other noises, or even radio dispatches during firefights make for an amazing experience.

The devil's in the details

Just like in the original Modern Warfare.

So, if the new Modern Warfare looks good, sounds great, is serious, authentic and just feels good, then why is this not the best campaign in the history of the series? First of all, one could take issue with how the story is constructed. The creators seem to be much more committed to some individual missions than to the overall vision of the entire plot. From the first minutes, we're caught in the middle of some events, all characters seem to know everything about each other, and we learn mere scraps of information – as if that's not enough, the end credits appear in the most exciting moment. We do not know almost any details about the two main characters that we control: Alex and Kyle, so we don't have a chance of formulating our own opinion about them. The only exception here is the third playable character – Farah – she's really well-written and amiable.

Pretty much everything that's cool in Modern Warfare doesn't last – e.g. the more tactical levels, or some moments referencing the older installments. The creators seem afraid that players will grow bored after more than fifteen minutes of the same activity, which results in a very short campaign, lasting about five, six hours. One can also notice a certain indolence of the authors, which is quite difficult to explain, especially after they boasted attention to detail and authenticity on their blog. For some reason, for example, some assets were reused in the wrong setting – missions taking place twenty years ago feature modern cars, and the Russians are using American helicopters. It might be a trifle, but after such bragging, this was surprising to see.

Climbing the staircase is incredibly intense and takes a while. For me, a gaming highlight of the year.

Firefights in the multi really are addictive.

Mutliplayer? Highly compelling

But we've come to expect the campaigns from any Call of Duty game to be short and intense – let's remember, the franchise is mostly about the multiplayer, which is playable as hell in this case. You can definitely spend hundreds of hours here – the gameplay's riveting, there's a ton of things to do and unlock, and there are the announcements of new, free (sic!) content still to come. I, for one, have really been looking forward to coming back to modern battlefields, embodied as the duel between AK-47 vs. M4A1. There's of course some major and minor issues here and there, but the multitude of all kinds of modes, and the number of players, make it easy to avoid anything that you don't particularly like in the MP. There's really lots of stuff!

WHERE ARE THE MICROTRANSACTIONS?

They're planned. Activision continues the tradition of introducing micropayments only a few weeks or months after the release, and so far, only one small package can be purchased for an additional fee – it includes an operator's watch with additional features. It's note and praiseworthy that the profits from this purchase support the Call of Duty Endowment project, which helps war veterans return to work after leaving army.

The number of cosmetic elements in the game, however, is huge, which suggests that there will be plenty of opportunities to spend some dough in the game. There are crosshair patterns, skins, stickers, emblems, avatars – the usual stuff. Will micropayments only accelerate the painstaking acquisition of tinkets, or will they be the only way to get some of them? We'll find out in the future.

This is what you can do with a regular M4 or AK – which is just a fraction of all the possibilities.

What deserves the most praise in my view is the way the multiplayer feels – the gunplay is exquisite, and the weapons are the main actors, rather than gadgets or some super abilities. Escape from Tarkov is probably the only game out there offering more customization options than the Armory here. You can turn a basic M4A1 or AK-47 into almost anything – from a machine gun, through a sniper rife, from a weapon to a CQB to an LMG, not to mention dozens of other guns. Sporting your favorite weapons, you spend hours on end running around the maps with players from around the globe. More importantly, all the novelties in terms of the mechanics, such as supporting weapons on elements of the environment, reloading, aiming, and all the different ways to open doors are incredibly intuitive. Each of these clicks instantly, once you learn how to do it. They quickly become second nature – like a compulsive reload after each burst. The icing on the cake is the realistic recoil of weapons, and the stunning audio design.

4 is skill and tactics, 64 is a big mess

The general impressions from the multiplayer will, however, depend on the chosen map, mode, and the number of players. The venture into Battlefield territory, with 64 players plus vehicles didn't exactly turn our great. Ground war is a mess and an arena for humiliating newbies (see frame). The less players and the smaller the map, the better the experience. Currently, probably only one map, the bridge on the Euphrates, continues the tradition of maps with three main movement corridors. The rest provide much more possibilities, and all of them, apart from the sterile and seemingly unfinished Piccadilly in London, are full of details and almost palpable grime and mood of a battlefield.

Map design is overall much better than in any previous game in the series.

BATTLEFIELD UN-CONQUEST

The hopes were high, but already the beta-tests revealed that Infinity Wards is barely making its first, blind steps in the 64-player conquest mode. In fact, the way things are now on the maps of Ground War is basically a mess. On one map, players hide from killstreaks in the buildings in the center of the map, while the rest besieges the flanks with sniper rifles and vehicles. On another, typically urban map, the more resourceful players camp on the rooftops, firing their sniper rifles at the players on the streets, who are probably beginners expecting a fair fight.

The balance of vehicles and killstreaks doesn't work, the respawns are problematic. This is basically an excuse to have a laugh with your friends and gather up some frags by exploiting the maps, rather than play atmospheric, rewarding battles. Don't get me wrong, this is a step in the right direction by Infinity Ward. For now, however, they're nowhere near Battlefield in terms of level design.

The war is very apparent.

The most balanced games in the new CoD are probably 10v10 battles on slightly larger maps. They're dynamic enough, and manage to give you enough time and space to make decisions at the same time. There's less senseless running and waiting for players to cross your line of shot, and more strategy and observation, especially in the modes that require attacking or defending specific locations. And if you want to completely avoid chaos altogether, you can always focus on strictly skill-oriented 2v2 shootouts. There, you always know where the enemy will come from, and how many of them there are. It's somewhat intense, and the competitions is certainly there, so it's best approached with a trusted comrade. My personal favorite was the highly immersive mode without the HUD, on night maps. Gameplay is definitely slower and the atmosphere's thicker.

What worries me a little bit is that this part of the game is subject to constant changes. I really dig the atmosphere of a realistic firefight, but I could already see neon-colored weapon skins appear. The decision is obviously daft from the logical standpoint – wearing a skin like that is like shouting "I'm here! Come and shoot me!" but it seems this is an inseparable element of modern shooters. The implementation of micropayments remains an open question. You can unlock skins and add-ons by completing game challenges, but the watch that provides additional features is only available in a paid pack. We just hope the developers will support their game over the coming year sensibly, paying attention to what works and what doesn't.

64-player Ground War and coop suffer from bad level design.

WILL THE COOP SURVIVE?

There's also a four-player coop, but so far, I can't see it becoming wildly popular. The very idea of referencing the plot of the first Modern Warfare in multi-stage raids with specific goals seems interesting enough. It's based on the zombie modes from previous games, but it still requires some polish. Completing the whole operation with random beginners is pretty much impossible. The difficulty is high: flawless communication and the right equipment management will be mandatory. But even if the team is strong, the game is keen on spawning enemies on flanks or behind you, which can effectively nullify any strategy. There are bullet sponges, too – the armored colossi – and you can never be sure how close you are to defeating them. There's plenty of potential here, there are some fun moments, like the shootout in a plane that's taking off, but on the whole, it has to be refined.

Possibly the most underwhelming mode is the survival, and if you were scolding Sony and Activision for making this mode exclusive for PS owners, there's not much to regret here. Shooting waves of enemies and buying the best weapons for this quickly gets boring – because it's so repetitive. Coop modes are also no good for getting XP – it's much more efficient to play regular multiplayer deathmatches.

Tom Clancy's Modern Warfare

Regardless of these few flaws with all these Modern Warfare seems a game from a different universe against the backdrop of Battlefield V, Breakpoint, Siege, or The Division. The multiplayer reminds me of older games, such as Battlefield 2 and 3, or Medal of Honor 2010. War isn't romanticized in the campaign, the atrocities and uncomfortable, morally unclear situations are bread and butter here. This is a game that finally has the courage to be mature. It sets the bar high for all subsequent war productions – including the upcoming Black Ops and other titles in the Call of Duty franchise. This is actually exactly how I imagined games signed with Tom Clancy's name – and it came from the left wing. Call of Duty is back at the top, and is currently the best single and network shooter on the market.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

I spent about 25 hours in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, 6 in the campaign, on a mixture of normal and hardest difficulty levels, and the remaining time in various multiplayer and cooperation modes. The game brings the best campaign in Call of Duty since the first Black Ops, as well as the most diverse and atmospheric multiplayer. The game is still short of a perfect score, but this release could mark the beginning of a brand new future of the series. I am a great fan of all the "realistic" installments of Call of Duty, and a sworn enemy of all the futuristic iterations of CoD. The new Modern Warfare is the first CoD in years that I can finally buy in good conscience and not feel disappointed about.

DISCLAIMER

We've received a review copy of the game from Kool Things, who cooperate with Activision, free of charge – many thanks to them.

Darius Matusiak | Gamepressure.com

Darius Matusiak

Darius Matusiak

Graduate of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Journalism. He started writing about games in 2013 on his blog on gameplay.pl, from where he quickly moved to the Reviews and Editorials department of Gamepressure. Sometimes he also writes about movies and technology. A gamer since the heyday of Amiga. Always a fan of races, realistic simulators and military shooters, as well as games with an engaging plot or exceptional artistic style. In his free time, he teaches how to fly in modern combat fighter simulators on his own page called Szkola Latania. A huge fan of arranging his workstation in the "minimal desk setup" style, hardware novelties and cats.

more

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Review – Nearly the Best CoD Ever
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Review – Nearly the Best CoD Ever

game review

Modern Warfare may not have the best campaign in the history of the Call of Duty series, but it certainly sets the bar high for all subsequent shooters about war. Sets it very, very high.

Alone in the Dark Review - It Ain't Easy Making a Classic Come Back
Alone in the Dark Review - It Ain't Easy Making a Classic Come Back

game review

A famous franchise makes a comeback with its modernized reboot, but can it live up to the legacy?

Outcast: A New Beginning Review. A Questionable Comeback
Outcast: A New Beginning Review. A Questionable Comeback

game review

The original Outcast seemed ahead of its time when it first came out back in 1999, but does this sequel make the same impact 25 years later? Find out why it may have missed the mark in our review.

See/Add Comments