by: Michael Barnes

For all of the hullabaloo and hype surrounding Activision’s now-annual Call of Duty releases (the fanboy tribalism, the sniffling indie gamer elitists who decry their influence on game design, and the billion dollar marketing machine behind them) it’s easy to forget that at the end of the day, the Modern Warfare titles are really good shooters. Sure, the single player campaigns are short on depth and long on summer blockbuster spectacle, while the multiplayer is an incredible time-sink that for the casual player is something like swimming in a tank of potty-mouthed piranhas. But the fact remains that these games are not only trendsetters, but they also represent the top of the AAA pile in terms of big-budget production and financial success. Fortunately, they’re fun games, too.

Throughout 2011, we’ve been primed for some kind of retail showdown between the third editions of reigning champ Modern Warfare and Electronic Arts’ underdog Battlefield, but the outcome reveals that the fight card wasn’t a square match up to begin with. Despite the chest-beating of their most vocal fans, both games have core competencies and are at their best when they play to them. Both are absolutely worth your time if military shooter burnout hasn’t yet claimed your dog tags.

Assessing the single player content, Modern Warfare 3 handily bests its rival by demonstrating the value of a well-produced single player campaign in the midst of what for many is a multiplayer only title. Carrying on the story of renegade soldiers Soap and Price, it’s the same ridiculous mish-mash of Tom Clancy paramilitary techno-babble, Soldier of Fortune Magazine fantasies, and G.I. Joe camp. World War 3 consumes the globe, and our heroes along with some new ones travel to Prague, Paris, Sierra Leone, London, and New York City to stick it to those wicked Russians. Things blow up, people die, and there is tons and tons of shooting to do. But this time, the world of Modern Warfare includes one woman.

At eight to nine hours, it’s plenty long and the breakneck pace can be exhausting. It’s also satisfying despite the corridor-like design, repetitive sequences, and overall lack of anything particularly surprising given some of the material in previous games. What’s more interesting for the offline lone wolf (or the co-op friendly wolf) is the return of Modern Warfare 2’s SpecOps missions. These mini-stories feature three difficulty levels (more or less degrees of “hard”) and challenge the player to achieve goals and earn points. There’s a complete package of upgrades and unlockables for this mode alone, and none of the levels are just arcade versions of the campaign’s areas. If for whatever reason you have no inclination to play online, there is still plenty of value here.

Of course, when you log on to the reliably stable Modern Warfare 3 servers on opening night and you see that there’s well over a million players playing, it’s pretty clear where the bulk of this title’s strength lies, and where minor improvements and changes make the most difference. Make no mistake, if you’re not into the whole Modern Warfare multiplayer thing, the addition of handicapping features such as “Deathstreaks” and team-assisting Support packages won’t change your mind. The game remains a hectic, twitchy, aggressive affair across all of its modes and the 16 new maps.

Because of the pace, Modern Warfare for my part has never been suited to more objective-oriented game types and unfortunately Domination, Capture the Flag, Sabotage, and Demolition games still pale in comparison to the more focused and tactical options available in the Battlefield games. Maps are also tight affairs with shorter sightlines and few (if any) truly strategic positions. Terrain and geography are not nearly the tremendous element they are in Electronic Arts’ flagship shooter. This game is about getting in quick, getting in close, and getting that kill.