Harsh Reviews of COD: Modern Warfare 3 are No Mistake, Jason Schreier's Sources Claim

Source: Microsoft

i

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare III, this year's installment of the best-selling FPS series, promises to be quite a disappointment, at least when it comes to the story campaign, which is receiving dismal reviews (average rating on OpenCritic is 53%).

The story mode is short and surprisingly slimmed down in terms of the impressive cinematic moments that have become a hallmark of the series. Especially criticized are the novelty open-ended missions, most of which are just hastily reworked maps from multiplayer. Also disappointing is the storyline.

Now thanks to Jason Schreier's article we found out who is responsible for this state of affairs. It will surprise no one to learn that Activision Blizzard executives are to blame.

1. According to Schreier's sources, the developers were given less than a year and a half to develop the main elements of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare III. That's less than half the standard time, as most modern installments in the series took three years to make.
2. Initially, another game from the brand, developed mainly by Treyarch, was to debut this year. That project, however, has been delayed until 2024. At the time, there were many indications that this year would be the first in a dozen years in which no new installment would be released. In the end, Activision decided otherwise and ordered the development of a stopgap game, in the form of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare III.
3. There are conflicting reports as to how the work on Modern Warfare 3 began. Some developers claim that they were informed that they were working on a DLC for CoD: MW2. The devs deny this, believing that employees may have mistakenly thought so, as this year's installment was being developed as a direct sequel to the previous one.
4. Initially, the project, which eventually evolved into CoD: Modern Warfare III, was a more limited story with the action entirely set in Mexico. Such a smaller scale would be achievable in the shortened development time. Last summer, however, Activision executives forced a change in concept and a return to the series' typical campaign with missions set in many different countries around the world. As a result, the developers were given only 16 months to develop the story mode in its new form.
5. Developers are all the more upset because already with Call of Duty: Vanguard they had to deal with an shorten the development cycle and the team was promised that this would not happen again.
6. The whole situation is all the sadder because after the completion of CoD: Vanguard Sledgehammer began work on project Anvil, which was to be an installment of the series set in the same universe as Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare. This game, however, did not get far, and Activision quickly decided to develop CoD: Modern Warfare III instead.
7. It should be noted that Sledgehammer, just minutes after the publication of Schreier's article, released a announcementin which it asserts that it is proud of the game and the hard work the team has done, and considers any comments suggesting otherwise to be untrue.

With such sorely reduced development cycle, the low quality of the game should not surprise anyone. The developers are hoping that Microsoft, which is the new owner of Activision Blizzard, will take this into account and not be too harsh about judging the effect of the work.

Developers also complain that the work on all installments of the series is heavily interfered with by Activision executives, who often force far-reaching changes in concepts, and at best they make the devs wait long for approval of various ideas. Microsoft is known for that it gives its studios more freedom, so members of the teams developing Call of Duty are probably hoping to benefit from Activision Blizzard's acquisition.

1. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare III on Steam
2. Call of Duty devours disk space; we investigated when it became a problem