Modern War Begets Modern Warfare 3

Image for article titled Modern War Begets Modern Warfare 3

This fall will see the culmination of what has become one of the biggest money-earning entertainment properties in the world: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare.


In 2007, the creators of the long-lived Call of Duty video game series broke from the norm of recreating World War II-themed conflicts for gamers to play through and released an adventure set in modern times with modern issues.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare thrust gamers into a series of conflicts set in 2011 fueled by the labyrinthine plotting of an ultra-nationalist Russian leader. Players dropped into various missions to stop the rogue Russian, who used a conflict in the Middle East to divert the world's attention as he attempted to reunify Russia to become the Soviet Union of old.

The game was well-received, earning high review scores, a number of awards and selling more than 13 million copies.

While the sequel, released in 2009, didn't have quite the same number of accolades—and the continuing story became even more convoluted—it sold nearly five million copies in the first day and went on to bring in more than $1 billion in sales.

Last year's Call of Duty: Black Ops, a game created by a different team with an unrelated story line, sold more than seven million copies in the first day and brought in $1 billion in sales ,in record time.

This November, according to sources familiar with the game (and some official teaser trailers rushed out late Friday), Activision plans to launch Modern Warfare 3, a game that will wrap up much of the plot of the Modern Warfare series. In it, according to sources who shared audio, images and the plot of the game with Kotaku, players will be defending New York from a spreading Russian invasion. The game will also feature terrorist attacks in London, more globe-trotting missions and the use of chemical warfare.


It appears that it will be a game that extends the breadth of settings for the series, the scope of engagements and perhaps push further what is becoming an increasingly controversial series.

Modern Warfare 2 made news when it included a level that had players take on the role of terrorist shooting down crowds in an airport.


While this upcoming sequel doesn't appear to ask gamers to play as bad guys, it will seemingly thrust them into even more uncomfortable settings: Like an embattled New York City or a London victimized by terrorist attacks. Both seem to echo events from the cities' real histories.


Modern Warfare is a series that, despite its two-year development cycles, manages to echo the days' fears. It captures the zeitgeist of a modern world dealing with wars that no longer have rules or boundaries. In creating an alternate future, one plagued by a power-hungry Russia rather than a militant Islamist group, perhaps Activision gives its enormous audience a chance to safely reflect on the current state of war free of the moral baggage of today's real conflicts.


Gaming is escapism, but that doesn't mean it can't have a point.

Well Played is an internationally syndicated weekly news and opinion column about the big stories of the week in the gaming industry and its bigger impact on things to come. Feel free to join in the discussion.


Pepe Thunder

The only things I didnt quite get about MW2 are as follows:

1: in the oil rig mission and the gulag, are you fighting makarov's thugs or russian army? if its russias army, then why would they hold hostages on the oilrigs just to place SAMs to prevent an attack on the gulag all for just 1 prisoner? If its Makarov's thugs, why doesn't he just kill Price?

2: Was Nikolai in Brazil? I doubt it as it seems he was not part of the plan at all (they improvised the extraction and had to look for a pay phone, the other guys did not know what McTavish was planning) Does Nikolai fly around on that chopper all the time?

3: In Brazil, when you pull up behind the van before the bullets fly. You hear TF141 saying this is like his fifth stop (or something like that) and nothing has happened yet. You clearly see that TF141 are not hiding from the van at all as they pull up so close to it its embarrassing. unless the guys in the van where allied with 141 and i missed that.

4: Price suggests Sheppard use a nuke to end the war "TODAY!" and Sheppard tells him "You been locked up too long son" (I will point out that a middle aged man calling another middle aged man "son" seems out of place but W/E) so Price proceeds to hang up and say oops or something like that and goes with TF141 to shoot that nuke. When he is at the sub TF141 are shocked SHOCKED that Price launched the nuke. Isn't that why they went there ignoring command at every turn? why the surprise?