Even before the premiere, the creators announced that it would be bold and controversial. We all thought it was a feature campaign. Nothing could be further from the truth. The real courage is to weaken the run-and-gun philosophy that has prevailed on CoD servers for a decade. With Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Infinity Ward opens up to new players and fans of Battlefield, which is not to the liking of the most loyal followers of the series. I am delighted with this change. Rating the new Call of Duty through the prism of a feature campaign is like judging wine by the look of a bottle. The single player mode is just an appetizer before the real dish, which is a multiplayer game. What does not change the fact that even in Infinity Ward campaign shows something refreshing, new and interesting. Part of the mission is really good, although the battle for Stalingrad and the Chernobyl mission from previous scenes remain unbeatable. On the other hand, such Piccadilly is a class in itself.
Campaign like in Rainbow Six - a lot of tightness, darkness and asymmetrical clashes.
In one of the missions, an SAS unit is bouncing a terrorist nest somewhere in the UK. The whole episode takes place in just one building. Floor by floor, the special forces equipped with night vision devices acquire a house. Every door, every corner, every corridor and every room is a threat and a challenge. The player moves slowly, shielding his comrades-in-arms. There are not many opponents, but they know they must defend themselves. Unexpectedly, the atmosphere of the SWAT series is pouring out of the screen and Call of Duty looks almost like Rainbow Six Siege. The missions are very different. In one of them, we're defenseless civilians, and then we turn into a tongue-in-cheek armed marine. Infinity Ward took care of the variety of tasks, taking us to very unexpected places. For example, I love a very political mission in the embassy. It will be appreciated by all fans of the great Argo movie. Maybe there is too much personal drama in the script. Maybe some characters are very naive at times. Maybe the single player adventure is overly feminized. But it is certainly not boring or repetitive.
Unfortunately, the campaign can be closed in five hours.
It is far too short. I also missed at least one mission with a really big, epic battle. Instead, we have many small surgical operations. I know this is how modern special units work, but I don't think anyone would be offended if the last task was a bit more pompous and spectacular. There's still a lack of satisfaction and you'd want more. Instead, we get something like a cliffhanger and a promise that it will be even more interesting in the future. A separate issue worth touching is the campaign controversy. IW said it would show the brutal, dark, dirty face of war. I must tell you that although Picadilly is indeed a very powerful experience, the rest of the shocking tasks did not shake me. The attempt to show the brutality of torture fades with GTA V. The effect of the use of chemical weapons on civilians has nothing to do with the shocking shocking shots from dusty Spec Ops: The Line. Also don't expect any earthquake. The task of No Russian from Modern Warfare 2 remains on top of the podium in this respect.
Modern Warfare is most shocking... in multiplayer mode. Big changes have come.
Loyal fans of aggressive, typically console-style gameplay in tight spaces are lamenting in the sky. This is because the Infinity Ward, after years of promoting the run and gun model, slows down the action on the servers a bit. It introduces more open areas. Installs more sniper slots. It strengthens the rifles and shotguns. Increases power and range of anti-personnel mines. All of this makes the run-and-gun model still the most effective way to get fragged, but for the first time in a decade CoD veterans are being killed by new players. By people playing slower, playing calmer and playing less offensively. A natural consequence of this shift is a larger population of snipers and campers. Modern Warfare is no longer the same Call of Duty as before. Fans of sprint and slip survive torture, having to look for anti-personnel mines. Machine-gun lovers are outraged by the accuracy of their rifles and the range of their rifles. CoD veterans no longer feel like veterans, as a new wave of players often shows them where crampons are wintering. The old one collides with the new one, which obviously causes controversy.
Call of Duty Modern Warfare Petrogard
Some players are delighted. Some of the villains. I guess there's never been such a division before.
The Call of Duty community was torn apart in two even hostile camps. Some people want everything to be the same. Others are happy because the game has finally lost momentum, is more tactical and allows you to play in many ways. I personally belong to the second group. This is the first time in a decade when I feel that the multi-player Call of Duty is really for me. I haven't had so much fun on CoD servers since the first Modern Warfare. The game is almost like a drug. I'll get sick if I don't play at least a game a day. Of course, even when I'm on the side of the new style of play, I see a lot of flaws and shortcomings. I even have the impression that this year's CoD is one of the most underdeveloped, underdeveloped releases in recent years. The game has problems with counting online challenges. The selection of players based on the premise of skills is right, but the creators mixed up the proportions. This makes the system preferable to throw us into one bag with the Americans rather than take care of the ping and quality of the connection. I even have the impression that MW sabotages players with good connections in favour of those with high ping.
The balance of weapons is not perfect either. The 725 has a terrifying range and the magnum is weaker than ever. Grenades are too weak in standard modes and too strong in hardcore modes. You should also add the balance of some maps to this crash bag. While playing Piccadilly, I knocked out almost the whole group of opponents with a grenade launcher, still on a weld point. Euphrates Bridge is an asymmetric nightmare that Infinity Ward network veterans should never produce. Neither, it's not perfect.
However, the compromising errors give way under the pressure of new, great ideas.
I'm delighted to see how the sighting of targeting tools in Modern Warfare works. The creators finally realized that the collimator only enlarges what is in the viewfinder, not the whole world around it. The new system of tilting from around the corner and the possibility of placing the weapon on a flat surface - such as a window sill - is also extremely practical. These are details, but have a real impact on gameplay. They improve it and add depth to the soldier's positioning.
I am happy to announce that we can finally change the equipment in the middle of the match. Not only weapons, but also gadgets and accessories mounted on the guns. Being with the accessories, their number is delightful. It really does delight. Although most weapon accessories are repeated, the possibility of personalization is gigantic. Each destruction tool can get up to 5 accessories that influence the gameplay style. Thanks to such a wealth of accessories, increasing weapon levels (not to be confused with soldier's experience) is a pleasure. It is also a pleasure to replace the powerful special skills from previous releases with minor field skills. Every player can occasionally use additional help; piercing bullets, a fold-out field cover or an ammunition box. This is an interesting variety that affects not only the player but also his team. A well thrown ammunition crate during the fierce defence of the B-point enjoys the same fun as a series of frags. We feel that we are helping. We feel that we have influence on the course of the battle.
Modern Warfare offers so many multiplayer modes that I always discover something new.
I was enchanted by Realism (not to be confused with Hardcore), during which no tags or interface elements appear. We don't even know if we killed somebody by leading a fire over long distances. You only have to rely on your own survival craft. A great thing. I'm also very good at playing 10v10 maps, which are growing into a new heart of online gaming. When there are 20 players in the arena, there is something for everyone, both a supporter of run and gun tactics and a patient sniper. The real star of the new CoD, however, is Gunfight. In this typical tournament mode, two two teams of two are facing each other. The pairs fight with each other using the same random weapons, using dedicated, tight and very contact maps. So simple and so exciting.
I was surprised how bland the mode for 60 players seems. Two big maps with tanks and helicopters is a good place to test new weapons and perform challenges, but nothing more. The module lacks panache, speed and dynamism. In this respect Battlefield V is light years ahead of Call of Duty. The Infinity Ward has worked to its own disadvantage, showing that anyone can do the 60+ mode, but not everyone should. In this respect, Modern Warfare is not at all relevant to the Pacific War in the BFV.
Call of Duty Modern Warfare is the best CoD in a decade. Unfortunately not for everyone.
I'm delighted with the multiplayer. I love playing on the servers of the new CoD. The speed, variety of game styles, richness of modes and shifting the center of gravity from machine guns to rifles all make it impossible for me to survive a day without a network shootout. At the same time, I sympathize with all those who wanted more of the same. Those who wanted tight corridors, direct combat and a quick exchange of fire. This is the first time in ten years that Call of Duty is not for such people.
The biggest advantage:
Shifting the center of gravity from run-and-gun to slower, more tactical fights
The ultimate in weapons configuration
Increasing the strength of rifles (including snipers)
Excellent optics for targeting tools
The Realism and Gunfight modes delight
A wealth of unlocks and multiplayer modules
First Call of Duty in a decade for new players
The biggest disadvantages:
The creators are a little bit out of line with the loyal fans
The balance of weapons and maps lies and flowers
A lot of small, but annoying mistakes that indicate a rush
A war for 60 players is not as good as Battlefield.
The script is a lie to the story. It bleaches the U.S., slanders Russia.
Modern Warfare opens up to new players. If you've ever wanted to leave the console before, because some lunatic noiselessly jumped out of a window, slipped between your legs and put a bullet in your occipital area before you could lift the rifle - it's over. Call of Duty goes back to the roots. To a more positional firefighting known from the first second world wars. Modern Warfare still needs a lot of polishing, but it has the best foundation in a decade. Just keep in mind it's the least coded Call of Duty in years.
Campaign like in Rainbow Six - a lot of tightness, darkness and asymmetrical clashes.
In one of the missions, an SAS unit is bouncing a terrorist nest somewhere in the UK. The whole episode takes place in just one building. Floor by floor, the special forces equipped with night vision devices acquire a house. Every door, every corner, every corridor and every room is a threat and a challenge. The player moves slowly, shielding his comrades-in-arms. There are not many opponents, but they know they must defend themselves. Unexpectedly, the atmosphere of the SWAT series is pouring out of the screen and Call of Duty looks almost like Rainbow Six Siege. The missions are very different. In one of them, we're defenseless civilians, and then we turn into a tongue-in-cheek armed marine. Infinity Ward took care of the variety of tasks, taking us to very unexpected places. For example, I love a very political mission in the embassy. It will be appreciated by all fans of the great Argo movie. Maybe there is too much personal drama in the script. Maybe some characters are very naive at times. Maybe the single player adventure is overly feminized. But it is certainly not boring or repetitive.
Unfortunately, the campaign can be closed in five hours.
It is far too short. I also missed at least one mission with a really big, epic battle. Instead, we have many small surgical operations. I know this is how modern special units work, but I don't think anyone would be offended if the last task was a bit more pompous and spectacular. There's still a lack of satisfaction and you'd want more. Instead, we get something like a cliffhanger and a promise that it will be even more interesting in the future. A separate issue worth touching is the campaign controversy. IW said it would show the brutal, dark, dirty face of war. I must tell you that although Picadilly is indeed a very powerful experience, the rest of the shocking tasks did not shake me. The attempt to show the brutality of torture fades with GTA V. The effect of the use of chemical weapons on civilians has nothing to do with the shocking shocking shots from dusty Spec Ops: The Line. Also don't expect any earthquake. The task of No Russian from Modern Warfare 2 remains on top of the podium in this respect.
Modern Warfare is most shocking... in multiplayer mode. Big changes have come.
Loyal fans of aggressive, typically console-style gameplay in tight spaces are lamenting in the sky. This is because the Infinity Ward, after years of promoting the run and gun model, slows down the action on the servers a bit. It introduces more open areas. Installs more sniper slots. It strengthens the rifles and shotguns. Increases power and range of anti-personnel mines. All of this makes the run-and-gun model still the most effective way to get fragged, but for the first time in a decade CoD veterans are being killed by new players. By people playing slower, playing calmer and playing less offensively. A natural consequence of this shift is a larger population of snipers and campers. Modern Warfare is no longer the same Call of Duty as before. Fans of sprint and slip survive torture, having to look for anti-personnel mines. Machine-gun lovers are outraged by the accuracy of their rifles and the range of their rifles. CoD veterans no longer feel like veterans, as a new wave of players often shows them where crampons are wintering. The old one collides with the new one, which obviously causes controversy.
Call of Duty Modern Warfare Petrogard
Some players are delighted. Some of the villains. I guess there's never been such a division before.
The Call of Duty community was torn apart in two even hostile camps. Some people want everything to be the same. Others are happy because the game has finally lost momentum, is more tactical and allows you to play in many ways. I personally belong to the second group. This is the first time in a decade when I feel that the multi-player Call of Duty is really for me. I haven't had so much fun on CoD servers since the first Modern Warfare. The game is almost like a drug. I'll get sick if I don't play at least a game a day. Of course, even when I'm on the side of the new style of play, I see a lot of flaws and shortcomings. I even have the impression that this year's CoD is one of the most underdeveloped, underdeveloped releases in recent years. The game has problems with counting online challenges. The selection of players based on the premise of skills is right, but the creators mixed up the proportions. This makes the system preferable to throw us into one bag with the Americans rather than take care of the ping and quality of the connection. I even have the impression that MW sabotages players with good connections in favour of those with high ping.
The balance of weapons is not perfect either. The 725 has a terrifying range and the magnum is weaker than ever. Grenades are too weak in standard modes and too strong in hardcore modes. You should also add the balance of some maps to this crash bag. While playing Piccadilly, I knocked out almost the whole group of opponents with a grenade launcher, still on a weld point. Euphrates Bridge is an asymmetric nightmare that Infinity Ward network veterans should never produce. Neither, it's not perfect.
However, the compromising errors give way under the pressure of new, great ideas.
I'm delighted to see how the sighting of targeting tools in Modern Warfare works. The creators finally realized that the collimator only enlarges what is in the viewfinder, not the whole world around it. The new system of tilting from around the corner and the possibility of placing the weapon on a flat surface - such as a window sill - is also extremely practical. These are details, but have a real impact on gameplay. They improve it and add depth to the soldier's positioning.
I am happy to announce that we can finally change the equipment in the middle of the match. Not only weapons, but also gadgets and accessories mounted on the guns. Being with the accessories, their number is delightful. It really does delight. Although most weapon accessories are repeated, the possibility of personalization is gigantic. Each destruction tool can get up to 5 accessories that influence the gameplay style. Thanks to such a wealth of accessories, increasing weapon levels (not to be confused with soldier's experience) is a pleasure. It is also a pleasure to replace the powerful special skills from previous releases with minor field skills. Every player can occasionally use additional help; piercing bullets, a fold-out field cover or an ammunition box. This is an interesting variety that affects not only the player but also his team. A well thrown ammunition crate during the fierce defence of the B-point enjoys the same fun as a series of frags. We feel that we are helping. We feel that we have influence on the course of the battle.
Modern Warfare offers so many multiplayer modes that I always discover something new.
I was enchanted by Realism (not to be confused with Hardcore), during which no tags or interface elements appear. We don't even know if we killed somebody by leading a fire over long distances. You only have to rely on your own survival craft. A great thing. I'm also very good at playing 10v10 maps, which are growing into a new heart of online gaming. When there are 20 players in the arena, there is something for everyone, both a supporter of run and gun tactics and a patient sniper. The real star of the new CoD, however, is Gunfight. In this typical tournament mode, two two teams of two are facing each other. The pairs fight with each other using the same random weapons, using dedicated, tight and very contact maps. So simple and so exciting.
I was surprised how bland the mode for 60 players seems. Two big maps with tanks and helicopters is a good place to test new weapons and perform challenges, but nothing more. The module lacks panache, speed and dynamism. In this respect Battlefield V is light years ahead of Call of Duty. The Infinity Ward has worked to its own disadvantage, showing that anyone can do the 60+ mode, but not everyone should. In this respect, Modern Warfare is not at all relevant to the Pacific War in the BFV.
Call of Duty Modern Warfare is the best CoD in a decade. Unfortunately not for everyone.
I'm delighted with the multiplayer. I love playing on the servers of the new CoD. The speed, variety of game styles, richness of modes and shifting the center of gravity from machine guns to rifles all make it impossible for me to survive a day without a network shootout. At the same time, I sympathize with all those who wanted more of the same. Those who wanted tight corridors, direct combat and a quick exchange of fire. This is the first time in ten years that Call of Duty is not for such people.
The biggest advantage:
Shifting the center of gravity from run-and-gun to slower, more tactical fights
The ultimate in weapons configuration
Increasing the strength of rifles (including snipers)
Excellent optics for targeting tools
The Realism and Gunfight modes delight
A wealth of unlocks and multiplayer modules
First Call of Duty in a decade for new players
The biggest disadvantages:
The creators are a little bit out of line with the loyal fans
The balance of weapons and maps lies and flowers
A lot of small, but annoying mistakes that indicate a rush
A war for 60 players is not as good as Battlefield.
The script is a lie to the story. It bleaches the U.S., slanders Russia.
Modern Warfare opens up to new players. If you've ever wanted to leave the console before, because some lunatic noiselessly jumped out of a window, slipped between your legs and put a bullet in your occipital area before you could lift the rifle - it's over. Call of Duty goes back to the roots. To a more positional firefighting known from the first second world wars. Modern Warfare still needs a lot of polishing, but it has the best foundation in a decade. Just keep in mind it's the least coded Call of Duty in years.
