Call of Duty multiplayer lost my interest in 2019 with the Modern Warfare reboot. I hated the maps, the Gunsmith system, the character customization, the streaks — all of it. Now Modern Warfare 3 is here, and it’s more of the same, save for one aspect: the maps. All the core 6v6 maps hail not from some modern sensibility (excuse the pun) but instead from a simpler time: Modern Warfare 2 (2009). And these classic maps, by the grace of some sinister god, make today’s Call of Duty multiplayer palatable. The problem? Those old maps are the only part of 2023’s Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 (MW3) that’s actually any good.
The Good and the Bad Parts of MW3 (Some, Anyway)
Bad news first: MW3 is essentially a massive expansion for Modern Warfare 2 (2022). The perks are much the same: the guns handle similarly, the Gunsmith is still terrible, and the killstreaks are as unsatisfying as any recent CoD. MW3 couldn’t even lean into the punch of streaks from MW2 (2009), opting instead to neuter them even further to make gunplay and movement the center of the experience.
The other problem is that none of the MW2 (2009) maps were designed with the sheer speed of today’s Call of Duty games in mind. Sledgehammer has gone some way to address that issue, adding specific touches to each map and increasing the size of particular areas. However, the introduction of slide canceling as an official mechanic, the more fluid mantling system, and an overall increase in the speed of every soldier on the battlefield stretches classic map design to its limits.
Yet somehow — and this is the good news — the fourteen-year-old maps hold up, if only just. Even better, to my mind, is that despite all the changes Call of Duty‘s experienced in more than a decade, the maps play very closely to their old iterations.
Related: Activision Casts Doubt on Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare Sequel
These Maps Make Sense
I’ve put thousands of hours in MW2 (2009) on both console and PC, and when I load into Skidrow, Favela, or Highrise, I will always generally know how to play them. I understand these maps on a fundamental level not only because I’ve played them a lot but also because they flow better than almost any map from the last five years of Call of Duty titles. They stick to the tried and true three-lane design, have distinct pathways that encourage or discourage aggression, and are proportioned such that I can easily time out when and where an enemy will be.
It could be said that the mind of the average Call of Duty player hasn’t changed much in fourteen years, either. When presented with a map like Estate, many are likely to see the house on the hill and want to fight around it alone. The helipad on Highrise is too good a position not to hold down. The roofs of Favela, for all their cover and mantling requirements, still offer the massive advantage they did all those years ago.
I would be remiss not to talk about how the older maps also have more ways to get around than more modern ones. In almost any map from the newer Call of Duty games, there are, at maximum, two paths to any power position. You’ll often only have one way to get there, and reaching another sightline requires you to go out of your way, either doubling back or exposing yourself from five different angles. MW3‘s refreshed maps almost all have at least three ways to reach most places on the map. They’re far more open, in other words.
There’s Plenty To Not Like
All that is to say, I love that MW3 has brought the classics maps back into vogue. I just dislike everything around them. To start, the Gunsmith still has the same problem it’s had since its introduction: the vast majority of attachments are filler. Few provide enough benefits to use over the one, best-in-slot option. Sure, you’ll see the occasional weird loadout during a match, but players never take long to figure out which setups work best in almost any situation.
The killstreaks in Modern Warfare 3 are nothing to write home about, or at least the ones in the beta weren’t. I’m sure the likes of the Chopper Gunner will make their return in the full game, but Modern Warfare streaks have mainly used a hands-off design. You press a button, select a position, and they appear. There’s been no AC-130, Predator Missile, or other highly satisfying options in years. Hell, even the modern Chopper Gunner feels uninspired compared to its classic counterparts.
Related: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 Zombies Trailer Reveals Story Cinematic & a Few Easter Eggs
Gunplay also doesn’t feel as snappy as they once did. If I were playing on maps that used today’s Call of Duty map design, that wouldn’t matter to me. But we’re on Skidrow, we’re going to be on Afghan, Quarry, and Invasion. I want to feel the crack of my weapon as it one-frames an enemy from across the map. With the increase in player health, the exact opposite is true at almost any range. Even on target, I spend nearly ten rounds trying to get a single kill. Then I equip five late-game attachments and not much changes. The jankier animation and sound design don’t bother me. I just want my guns to work.
Some faults in the hit registration might be attributable to the massive increase in movement speed and mobility options in MW3. Slide cancel, tac sprint, tac stance, basically bunny hopping, increased character speed — all of it combines to take a game with an already high time to kill and adds on another second.
Yet, I don’t mind as much. I’m playing some great-feeling maps. I like how they flow. I enjoy how they look. I like that you can move around them in more than one direction and that even the bad ones are better than what we’ve played more recently. The rest of Modern Warfare 3 is still made up of things I dislike, but none of it is a death sentence for my enjoyment of the game. It’s all just sort of…there. But I can play it because I enjoy the old Call of Duty maps in MW3. And if that’s what we get for the next year, I think I can be okay with it.
