NowGamer writes: "Hard to believe that one of the world's most renowned first-person shooters is sharing the same shelf space as the slurry pit of Wii shovelware we're expecting this Christmas. At least with Modern Warfare: Reflex being tarnished by the same brush, our expectations weren't exactly stratospheric to begin with... and why we were pleasantly surprised by the experience."
MW 2019 is five years old at this point and on previous gen hardware, but it is still the best looking Call of Duty game to date.
MW was an excellent videogame. They messed up Spec Ops big time, but aside from this it was a huge step in the right direction initially. Most notably, at launch it seemed to come from a very cohesive creative vision that was felt across gameplay, to story to art style/visual direction. It was also very notably written by prominent ex-Naughty Dog guys that quit almost immediately before release.
That COMPLETELY dissolved through post-launch content and the full pivot to a "cross-mode" narrative that completely obliterated the cohesion in overall story direction. Warzone then "became" the new face of Call of Duty and the franchise completely removed itself from anything remotely creatively "good". It is a pure money machine, so I kinda get why they're doing it....but I personally completely lost interest.
I would love to see Infinity Ward move off CoD and get to make their own product with full control. They clearly have some massive talent in their ranks but it's perverted by Activision's corporate interests.
Call Of Duty is back with its yearly instalment, but is Modern Warfare 3 breaking new ground, or just a lazy cash grab? The answer may not surprise you in today's review from JDR.
The original Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2 games have been drawing players back in
I really hope we get other activision games on GP soon. My dream would be Scarface but I know the license probably expired
None of those games had dedicated servers on console in the first place? Were always player hosted. Did something change?
Decent score, and honestly what I think the game deserves. But these three things don't make sense:
1.) "9.5" score in graphics. I mean...really?
2.) "Better than COD:W@W." It's a bigger game, with better multiplayer and more customizable controls.
3.) "Conventional controllers handle first-person shooters much more effectively than the Wii Remote, but otherwise its a very faithful port."
There's subjectivity, and then there's nonsensicalness. A mouse/keyboard setup is the golden standard for FPS. Not dual analog, which has always been inferior. The remote/nunchuck is as close as you can get to a mouse/keyboard's point-and-shoot mechanics without playing on a PC. It seems like there's an awful lot of reviewers who only play console shooters, and haven't played with a better setup.