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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.