QYN6CYZU3D76 - Last night it had its glitzy launch at London’s Old Billingsgate Market, with hordes of celebrities in attendance, but is Call of Duty Modern: Warfare 3 actually any good?
There are certainly some quibbles, but overall the verdict seems to be a resounding thumbs-up.
Publisher Activision opted for evolution rather than revolution from Modern Warfare 2 and that seems to have paid dividends. Here's a look at what the gaming press are saying.
The Single Player campaign
Metro describes the single-player campaign as ‘still the best in the business, with some incredibly cinematic set pieces that range from a raging sandstorm in Somalia to a chemical attack in London’.
Ausgamers.com, meanwhile, also waxes lyrical about the single player mode, saying: ‘It’s looking mighty pretty, with a new pass on lighting that really makes the game pop. It’s also by far the most epic of the three [Modern Warfare games].’
Official Xbox Magazine positively drooled. Its reviewer hinting that perhaps careers in Hollywood beckon for the programmers: ‘Modern Warfare 3’s campaign remains startlingly effective as a showcase of cinematic craftsmanship.
'Every bit of the adventure demonstrates remarkable care and polish on the part of Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer Games — so much so that this game is arguably the slickest Call of Duty to date. It remains a very stellar, cohesive, and staggeringly refined trek.’
Edge is also impressed, but thinks that the original Modern Warfare campaign was superior. It said: ‘Taken as a whole it doesn’t quite live up to the original Modern Warfare’s outstanding campaign – but it gets closer than it has any right to.’
The Multiplayer mode
For many gamers, this is the most important part, and the studios behind the title have made some major changes.
There’s a revamped point-streak system, ‘Strike Packages’, new modes such as ‘Kill Confirmed’ where players must collect enemies dog tags to claim the kill – plus new weapons, equipment and perks.
Edge magazine concludes that the changes are ‘interesting’. It says: ‘They’ve clearly been made with a huge audience of highly differentiated skill levels in mind, but because they show that massmarket game design doesn’t mean dumbing down. Multiplayer has become more accommodating for everyone, and it makes COD better.’
IGN is even more impressed, describing the multiplayer mode as ‘fantastic’. The reviewer says: ‘This entry pulls you in with its persistent levelling system and frantic combat. All of the sixteen new maps are fun to play and, with a whole new slew of challenges to complete, rewards constantly pop up and keep you hooked with the next little endorphin rush.’
Eurogamer.net is also a fan, commenting that ‘at its brutal best, there's still nothing like a Call of Duty multiplayer match, and a shrewdly designed unlock system ensures that players of every skill level will start expanding their arsenal almost immediately’.
How does it compare to Battlefield 3?
Modern Warfare 3’s main competitor is the recently launched first-person-shooter Battlefield 3, but the feeling seems to be that Activision has won the day, just.
Eurogamer.net says: ‘Comparisons to Battlefield 3 are expected, but played back-to-back, also fairly futile. Where multiplayer is concerned, the two are far more different than their surface similarities would suggest. Where COD wins out is in its coherence.
‘Away from online, Battlefield 3 felt uncertain, Modern Warfare 3, on the other hand, feels like a complete package from the start; the three gameplay areas - solo, co-op and multiplayer - all feeling like parts of a cohesive whole.’
Computer And Video Games isn’t so certain though, claiming that ‘put side by side, they could be twins’.| Source :
Daily Mail
