You know, lately it’s been more common to criticize Call of Duty than to praise it. And the fact is that this trend has been observed for quite a long time. The first episodes of sharp criticism appeared back in 2011 with the release of Modern Warfare 3, when the game was “tarnished” for its repetitions, outdated graphic design and an attempt to ride on past merits. And if Black Ops 2 was able to briefly put out the “fire” in the gaming community due to a slightly futuristic setting and new ideas, then Ghosts “arrived” in such a way that it didn’t seem like much; the game was “charged for an unclear plot, a dog – the future hero of memes, “innovative gameplay with fish” and absolutely wild copy-paste in animations. Infinite Warfare aka “The Witcher 3 from the world of shooters” was also nothing more than a “pass-through”, which is now recalled only by the quote from Jon Snow – “Mars is eternal!». It is obvious that Infinity Ward, after the departure of key employees in 2010, was never able to recover, much less reach its previous level, losing the palm to Treyarch, and their latest game, Modern Warfare 2019, only clearly illustrates this, trying to ride on the popularity of the “Modern Warfare” brand, which is at the same time sad, offensive and even symbolic. However, I don’t really want to understand the problems of the series now, but I want to be nostalgic or something, remember the old days when the grass was greener, the sky was bluer, and Call of Duty was better.
So, I would like to talk about the game that changed the gaming industry in general and the shooter genre in particular – Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare.
By the end of the 90s, the popularity of science fiction in shooters had significantly decreased, and the setting of World War II came to the fore. One of the pioneers was the Medal of Honor series, created by Steven Spielberg himself and later purchased by Electronic Arts. It would seem what Medal of Honor has to do with it? Very much to do with it. Call of Duty can rightly be considered a successor to its ideas, and the fact that the third part of the series, Allied Assault, was made by the studio 2015 Inc., whose employees will in the future form Infinity Ward under the wing of Activision, connects them even more.
Having left the wing of EA for Activision, the developers continued to make the same game, albeit with the principle of “the same cabbage soup, but pour in thicker”: instead of just an American company, they added a British and a Soviet one, which was not so much a revolutionary as an evolutionary step. However, by 2005, the previously innovative setting ceased to be such and had completely exhausted itself – there were too many games on this topic and they were released annually. The next capture of the Reichstag and landing on Omaha Beach no longer brought new emotions, it was clear – it was time to change something.
The fall of 2007 as a whole turned out to be busy – there was enough to play: Crysis, which surprised everyone with its technology, but at the same time was “damp”, Half Life 2: Episode Two, despite all its advantages, was disappointing because of “to be continued”, Halo 3 was only for X-BOX360, a kind of celebration of one platform, and Medal of Honor: Airborne was “another shooter about the Second World War”, which of course is great, but is no longer interesting, especially since Call of Duty 2, in my opinion, has finally closed the topic. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, compared to other truly cool projects, stood out for its integrity – it had no “dampness” in ideas and sagging like Crysis, it was perceived as complete, without leaving triggers like Half Life 2, it was available on all platforms, which helped it become a “people’s game” and, most importantly, it offered something new, which, a priori, Medal of Honor could not provide.
The game is released on three platforms: PC, X-BOX 360 and Playstation 3, and receives the highest ratings from both the press and players. Both of them note the high level of production and direction, which is fundamentally new for the series itself and FPS in general. On the one hand, the formula is simple: we take interesting game and non-game situations, add “Hollywood” to them – more explosions, shootouts, epic moments, and of course, cool guys. It would seem nothing special, but the implementation is another matter – it was excellent. Call of Duty 4, for me personally, simply “killed” action films, because it’s one thing to just watch, but it’s completely different to take part in it. The plot was quite good for, without unnecessary genius, but with interesting moments. Naturally, there were also references to the war in the Persian Gulf, it is quite possible that the American campaign takes place there, the events of the 90s, the collapse of the Union and allusions to the Civil War in Russia are also mentioned (more on this a little later).
The gameplay of the game https://piratespins.uk has also stepped forward, this is evidenced by the features of the campaigns, and if the American campaign, plus or minus, is similar to those presented earlier: massive battles in open clashes, then the British one concentrates on special tasks behind enemy lines and other special operations. In addition, campaigns do not run monolithically, as before, but alternate, which, firstly, prevents you from getting bored due to variety, and secondly, maintains dynamics.
And you know, paradoxically, all these changes were most obvious not at the start, but with the release of the next part – Call of Duty: World at War. Honestly, I wouldn’t dare say that the game is bad, but compared to last year’s hit, it was a poor relative. Again our “favorite” setting of the Second World War, instead of interesting situations, stupid shooting of enemies and endless respawning. I finished the game, of course, but according to personal feelings, it wasn’t even on the level of Call of Duty 2, and I had to wait another year for something new.
The release of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 was partly déjà vu, the players and the press were delighted again, high ratings, nominations, ovations, etc., but personally it didn’t deliver anything like that to me. No, this is a great game that took another step in development, but not revolutionary, but evolutionary, and despite all the innovations, the game was perceived as Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare+, again, I repeat, it wasn’t bad. The plot has acquired details and unexpected moments, the missions have become even more diverse and interesting, the conflict has increased significantly in scale, because now we took part not only in anti-terrorist operations, but also in events almost close to the Third World War. In addition, Infinity Ward fully promoted the theme of modern war, which concerned primarily various military gadgets and equipment, but also included “illustrations” of military life in combat conditions.
As everyone knows, during the development process, developers, forgive the tautology, create many game concepts, so-called builds, which later “walk” on the Internet for a long time. Usually, this concerns the gameplay, most often some levels did not survive to release, but there is one build of MW2 that is perceived differently, firstly, it is plot-driven, and secondly, it does not contradict the release version of the game. Quite recently, on a YouTube channel called “VANDELEY”, this build was disassembled by the author of the channel, I will post the link under the blog. If you remember, the main twist of Modern Warfare 2 was the betrayal of General Shepard, which everyone especially remembered thanks to the cool cutscene. The main motive for such a treacherous action, according to the plot, was that the American officer was aware of the planned terrorist attack at the airport. Zakhaev and was even actually a co-organizer, sending his agent there to certain death, which will become a catalyst for a future war, and he actually kills Ghost and Roach to hide the conspiracy with Makarov. All this is of course cool in itself, but it could be much cooler.
The fact is that in the build, in the epilogue, Shepard, instead of the phrase about “30 thousand. dead" suggests that it was the United States that sponsored the ultranationalists to start the Civil War in Russia, in order to thus weaken their political rival without direct participation, but alas, everything got out of control and led to the events shown in the first Modern Warfare. Thus, it turns out that General Shepard was saving not only his “good” name, but also acted in the interests of the domestic and foreign policy of the United States, which simultaneously makes him both a hero and a villain. In addition, this is also a reference to the real Russian Civil War (1917-1922) and the financing of the Bolsheviks by external forces.
It’s very clear why this was cut. I think that Infinity Ward and Activision understood that one scandal in the Russian Federation with the game was “enough” for them, they could afford it, but no more, especially since the second one directly concerns the Americans, their domestic and foreign policies in reality, and so on. Perhaps the studio itself wanted to show such “gray morality and lesser evils,” but we understand that Activision, like other publishers, is aimed primarily at players sales and profit.
The new wave of popularity of Call of Duty, in addition to positive aspects, also had negative aspects. Many shooters, instead of developing their own ideas, tried to make their own “Modern Warfare”; some more successfully, some less, but in any case it had a disastrous trend for TV series and the gaming industry as a whole. The most striking examples for me are Battlefield: Bad Company 2 and Medal of Honor 2010, the first in many ways simply “retold” the Modern Warfare duology at that time, and the second turned out to be something between “an illustration of a real war” and “an attempt to bring more of the “Hollywood” inherent in an eternal competitor, in the end it turned out something in between, both in terms of concept and the final quality of the product.
In the meantime, the gaming community was expecting a new Modern Warfare – the final part of the trilogy, which was supposed to complete the storyline and which had really high hopes. Problems appeared as soon as development began, when in March 2010, due to an internal conflict between Activivsion and Infinity Ward, most of the studio’s employees were forced to leave, including the main leaders – Vince Zampella and Jason West. The publisher refused to pay the well-deserved bonuses and soon the case went to court. I certainly don’t think that the game ended up in “production hell,” but the fact that Infinity Ward needed the full help of colleagues from Sledgehammer Games and Treyarch speaks volumes. In addition, at the same time, pressure began from the outside from Electronic Arts, which had long been trying to “bite off a piece of the pie” from Activision, placing their hopes in turn on Crysis, Medal of Honor and Battlefield. By the way, if earlier Call of Duty firmly “held its position,” now it has seriously shaken, and Battlefield 3 was just “the right kick to throw Call of Duty off the ledge.”.
Both games came out at the same time, and in my opinion, were great, with their own strengths. Battlefield 3 boasted, first of all, of course, of the graphics, which took the genre to a new level, of a really cool multiplayer, on which the main bet was actually made, but the story campaign frankly disappointed me, although I must admit there were a couple of interesting moments in it, but in my opinion, in Bad Company 2, despite all the secondary features, it was done more competently. Modern Warfare 3 traditionally focused on single player and it has grown significantly in scale, because from the Russian-American War we moved on to a full-fledged Third World War. The plot has even more details, unexpected interesting twists, and of course that same “Hollywood” has also increased significantly.
I’m seriously perplexed now and was perplexed then when MW3 was compared to BF3 – despite the same package: single player campaign, special operations and multiplayer, they play, feel and give meaning in different ways, but oh well, enough about that.
As was the case with the previous Infinity Ward game, Modern Warfare 3 was a hostage to its series and its success, which is the problem with all sequels, especially third parts, although they tried to make it a level higher, this applies to the story campaign, special operations and network play. By the way, about special operations – they have really become more varied and interesting, and I personally was pleasantly surprised by the “Vision” mode, which was essentially based on the “Zombie mode” from World at War, but was authentically changed for Modern Warfare 3.
To summarize, I would like to say that if for some reason you missed this magnificent series, then I strongly recommend that you go through it, perhaps not now – when you have free time, a lull before the release of some projects you are expecting, or you simply have a desire to play it, then believe me, the Modern Warfare series will not disappoint you, but on the contrary, it will give you unforgettable emotions. I myself replay it consistently every 2-3 years, and you won’t believe it, the emotions are just like the first time, and from my feelings, I can safely say that this is truly one of the best series that I have ever done and in which I received maximum emotions, which I also wish for you.
What do you think about the Modern Warfare series?? You are welcome to comment, let’s discuss it together)