Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3
NEED TO KNOW
WHAT IS IT?
A direct sequel to Modern Warfare 2
EXPECT TO PAY
£65
DEVELOPER
Sledgehammer Games, Treyarch
PUBLISHER
Activision Blizzard
REVIEWED ON
Intel Core i9 9900KS, 32GB RAM, GeForce RTX 2080 Super
MULTIPLAYER
Yes
LINK
shorturl.at/crJ89
Rain or shine, the Call of Duty must flow. It’s a mantra that’s served Activision well for 20 years as the series grew from yet another WWII shooter to the best-selling franchise of all time. For 18 of those years the series has maintained a streak of annual releases, regularly shattering previous records with only the occasional bump in the road when a less-good, but still fun, entry came along.
Modern Warfare 3 is bigger than a bump – it’s an indictment of the Call of Duty machine, a rushed product created to fill a £65 gap in Activision’s calendar and sold as something (reports suggest) it was never meant to be. Let’s not mince words: this is an expansion in everything but name and price. But even if it were more substantial, I’m not convinced that Modern Warfare 3 would be satisfying.
Despite riding the coattails of last year’s excellent Modern Warfare 2, catering to potent 2009 nostalgia, and bringing welcome improvements to Gunsmith, many of Sledgehammer Games’ original contributions come off as superfluous, or simply not as good as what we had before.
This is a series low point. It’s the first time that ’s £65 barrier to entry has felt like an insult to longtime players, and yet, the series’ live service model means’s events and battle passes for the next year have no alternative. Outside of , is where the action will be throughout 2024, for better and worse.
