Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare
Developer Infinity Ward Publisher Activision Format PC, PS4 (tested), Xbox One Release Out now
PC, PS4, Xbox One
Like the 2007 game of the same name, 2019’s Modern Warfare depicts modern military conflict in uncomfortable, sometimes excruciating detail. And as we’ve become accustomed to from the series, it’s also several distinct modes and experiences under one banner, varying wildly in atmosphere and objectives. And as well-crafted and enjoyable as many of its component parts are, it’s a game that demands – almost goads – close scrutiny of its tonal choices.
However, 2019 is not 2007. In the present day, popular opinion’s finger twitches precariously on a hair trigger, so featuring such close analogues to real acts of terror and placing emphasis on civilian casualties and infanticide was always going to carry risks. But 12 years on from the release of Call Of Duty 4, we’ve seen terrorism manifest as something that might, at any moment, happen on our doorstep. So as you play through Modern Warfare’s second campaign level, Piccadilly, and watch helplessly as dozens of civilians are gunned down in a faithful recreation of central London, you’re forced to ask: why? Why did Infinity Ward feel it was important to visit this location, draw upon recent real terror attacks and give the player no agency to lessen their body count?
The answer, one suspects, is because this is what its developers think is expected from a Modern Warfare game. This is the series that brought us No Russian, after all: controversy is as much a core pillar of this COD subseries as Captain Price and killstreaks. It’s possible that Infinity Ward is making a broader comment on real-world shooters as entertainment, or asking why interactive terror attacks feel so much more tasteless when they’re closer to home than the usual fictionalised Middle-Eastern venues. Given the bombastic tone, Piccadilly’s inclusion as a multiplayer map, and the fact that much of the campaign takes place in the fictional Middle-Eastern Urzikstan, however, that seems unlikely.
The problem is that it’s every bit as finely wrought as it is crass. While you creep up the stairs to shoot women holding infants in a special-forces sting on a Camden terror cell, you’re being guided through a masterclass in pacing and tension. As you wave a laser wand around in the windows of an Urzikstani high-rise and watch missiles obliterate your targets, a swell in action and spectacle sweeps you up in the moment. It’s there in the silence between calculated sniper shots during Highway Of Death, and in the cacophony of the embassy assault one mission prior: an undeniable and irrepressible knack for crafting great FPS sequences.
It’s an awkward dichotomy running through the very heart of Modern Warfare, never letting you resolve the inherent discomfort of watching civilians murdered, and equally never dissuading you from playing on deeper into Infinity Ward’s salacious vision of counterterrorism. Some elements can’t be brushed under the carpet in the name of mechanical enjoyment, though, and the revisionist history of its Highway Of Death mission is one of them. The real Highway Of Death is a stretch of road between Kuwait and Iraq where US-led coalition forces carried out a widely criticised attack towards the end of the first Iraq war, killing an unknown number of surrendering troops and civilian refugees. In
Modern Warfare, it’s the scene of a Russian atrocity on the Urzikstani people, and of a CIA operative’s heroics. Infinity Ward has defended the level, claiming the name is coincidental. If that’s true, it only underlines the attitude at the heart of the game: Infinity Ward wants to brandish reality to give an edge to Modern Warfare, but it doesn’t want the responsibility that comes with it.
An area the studio obviously does feel responsibility towards is its competitive multiplayer, revamping the modes and the style of play to an almost unprecedented degree. The best examples of Modern Warfare’s new credo for online matches are its Realism playlist, where HUD elements are stripped away to markers above friendlies’ heads, and the Battlefield- style 64-player Ground War. Taking away the radar has a huge impact on the pace of play in Realism, and forces players to slow down to a creep and check corners like seasoned
CS:GO veterans. It does make camping too viable a strategy, though, and although there’s equipment in your loadout to counter with the tactic, it isn’t effective enough to deter people yet. It’s early days, of course.
Played as it’s intended, with a good amount of unlocks from the overhauled Gunsmith customisation system and effective team communication, Realism feels a worthwhile new avenue to pursue after years of playing team deathmatch at a perpetual sprint. Ground War, meanwhile, attempts to cross-pollinate Battlefield’s scale with traditional COD’s flair for pace and spectacle. It’s largely successful, but like every other mode it’s underserved by the release maps. Some, like Euphrates, seem always to favour one side, and nearly all produce predictable chokepoints. Spec Ops provides a wavesurvival nicotine patch for players hankering after the absent Zombies mode and, despite offering three separate strands of PvE, feels like a stop-gap until the next instalment of COD’s real co-op highlight.
Modern Warfare is precariously balanced. On a straightforward level, its multiplayer is admirable in its reform and a touch undercooked in its execution, while the inventiveness in its six hours of campaign remind players why this became such a juggernaut name in the industry. But underneath that, there’s an unease about the way Modern Warfare pushes the player’s buttons without demonstrating respect for or responsibility to its source material. It’s a conversation that will continue until the next game, when more lines are crossed, and we once again ask: how much is too much?
Controversy is as much a core pillar of this COD subseries as Captain Price and killstreaks