So I realized what was wrong with MW3's plot.

[Owen Robertson]

I'm not talking about how short the campaign is, or how predictable it was (at least for me). I'm talking about the war the story is told through. Two of the largest military forces in the world are absent: China and India. 1st and 3rd in size respectively. Now China may not have any reason to attack in favor of either side, but India definitely does. Makarov's men (Russian Military men) send a pretty large force (300+ soldiers and air support) to attack Nicholai's safe house in India. So India doesn't even respond?! What a load of shit. Even if Russia had some sort of agreement where they could have standing military units in India (which they don't, in-game or otherwise), India would definitely respond when the Russian forces start killing civilians! Play "Persona Non Grata" again and you'll see what I mean.

It may seem pointless to criticize a game's campaign when it's played almost entirely for its multiplayer, especially since it's 3 months after the release and 2 & 1/2 months since anyone has played the campaign, but it's been buggin' the shit outta' me for a few days, and I felt the need to share. Comment if I missed any other massive plot holes.

 

[DioWallachia]

It may seem pointless to criticize a game's campaign when it's played almost entirely for its multiplayer

But they still got the balls to think that the shitty campaign will keep the customers shut from bitching about "The game needs to stand on his own." So yeah, rip it appart as you please

 

[spartandude]

Yes, because you will see the entirety of every single nation fighting in World War 3 through the eyes of 4 different soldiers that are neither Indian or Chinese. Brilliant logic.

you would expect to atleast here about it

 

[ChupathingyX]

I'm more concerned with Frost's mysterious disappearance.

 

[SillyBear]

Yes, because you will see the entirety of every single nation fighting in World War 3 through the eyes of 4 different soldiers that are neither Indian or Chinese. Brilliant logic.

It doesn't matter whose eyes you see it from - you'd still have day to day encounters with the fact that other nations are fighting too.

What you said was ridiculous. It's like claiming that an American soldier in either of the World Wars wouldn't have known that other nations were fighting.

 

[Valanthe]

Yeah, I stopped buying Call of Duty games after Black Ops shitty single player. I am actually more surprised that you were surprised the single player was such a dissapointment. But I'll try to reign in my distaste for the franchise and address your point at hand.

What you said is true, actually, I am under the assumption the mission in question takes place -in- India, and you are either trying to kill or capture this Makarov fellow (he was a bad guy or something from the second one, right? it got confusing, there was a bunch of shooting, and some cheap attempt to tweak controversy, then a bunch of teammates I didn't give a crap about died, and then there was more shooting.) Anyway, if Russian troops are shooting civilians in the streets of India, as a PC, yes I would find it odd that no Indian Military personelle responded, seeing as the rest of the goddamned planet's supposed to be at war, I imagine India would be a little wary about any wrong-doings in their border that would force them into an action they did not want to take.

 

[ultrachicken]

I would levy my complaints more towards character development, as that is what makes a good story in my opinion.

Spoiler

The one good character moment is when Price absolutely loses it as Soap dies, but that's it.

On the plot front, I do find it odd that no mention was made of China or India, too.

Yes, because you will see the entirety of every single nation fighting in World War 3 through the eyes of 4 different soldiers that are neither Indian or Chinese. Brilliant logic.

It doesn't matter whose eyes you see it from - you'd still have day to day encounters with the fact that other nations are fighting too.

What you said was ridiculous. It's like claiming that an American soldier in either of the World Wars wouldn't have known that other nations were fighting.[/quote]Except we don't see their day to day lives, we get a mission briefing to cover a loading screen and the mission. That is it. We are focused solely on the mission. Not on their day of fighting, just the mission.[/quote]Maybe that's a problem with the way the story's told. Focusing on the mission so much, while "realistic," is not helpful when you're trying to tell a story. MW3's plot shouldn't be, "We'll parachute into the compound and cut the power before proceeding to objective Alpha."

 

[ultrachicken]

I would levy my complaints more towards character development, as that is what makes a good story in my opinion.

Spoiler

The one good character moment is when Price absolutely loses it as Soap dies, but that's it.

On the plot front, I do find it odd that no mention was made of China or India, too.

Yes, because you will see the entirety of every single nation fighting in World War 3 through the eyes of 4 different soldiers that are neither Indian or Chinese. Brilliant logic.

It doesn't matter whose eyes you see it from - you'd still have day to day encounters with the fact that other nations are fighting too.

What you said was ridiculous. It's like claiming that an American soldier in either of the World Wars wouldn't have known that other nations were fighting.

Except we don't see their day to day lives, we get a mission briefing to cover a loading screen and the mission. That is it. We are focused solely on the mission. Not on their day of fighting, just the mission.

Maybe that's a problem with the way the story's told. Focusing on the mission so much, while "realistic," is not helpful when you're trying to tell a story. MW3's plot shouldn't be, "We'll parachute into the compound and cut the power before proceeding to objective Alpha."[/quote]That is how Special Forces operate. Not to mention Call Of Duty has always been that way.[/quote]As I said, this is true, but it still doesn't make a good story. Plus, there should have been more room for exposition at least in the disavowed TF141 loading screens. You would think Price and Soap would be discussing the events of the war.

 

[Nickolai77]

Heh, that's whats wrong? Not "invading all of Europe"?

I second this. If we are critiquing how the war is told then shouldn't we be picking up on the part which involved the Russian army actually getting to Paris? IRL, the Russian army would have severe difficulty getting past two million NATO standard European soldiers fighting on their home turf. They would never get to Paris, let alone Berlin or Prague. It's about as silly as Russia successfully invading America as it happened in MW2.

After COD4, the Modern Warfare franchise really descended into the realm of fantasy. The games are still fun to play with great multiplayer, but it seems highly dishonest to title a game which involves Russia invading the USA and Europe as "modern warfare". Cold War Fantasy warfare sounds more like it. If we find out in later games that Captain Price is immortal because he drank from the Holy Grail and is actually one of the Knights of Camelot then that would actually fit quite well into the world of "Modern Warfare".

 

[Korten12]

Heh, that's whats wrong? Not "invading all of Europe"?

I second this. If we are critiquing how the war is told then shouldn't we be picking up on the part which involved the Russian army actually getting to Paris? IRL, the Russian army would have severe difficulty getting past two million NATO standard European soldiers fighting on their home turf. They would never get to Paris, let alone Berlin or Prague. It's about as silly as Russia successfully invading America as it happened in MW2.

After COD4, the Modern Warfare franchise really descended into the realm of fantasy. The games are still fun to play with great multiplayer, but it seems highly dishonest to title a game which involves Russia invading the USA and Europe as "modern warfare". Cold War Fantasy warfare sounds more like it. If we find out in later games that Captain Price is immortal because he drank from the Holy Grail and is actually one of the Knights of Camelot then that would actually fit quite well into the world of "Modern Warfare".

You guys do realize that Modern Warfare doesn't take place in real life timeline?

It actually takes place in an alternate timeline where things began to diverage around the Cherynbol Incident.

So when anyone says: "Well in real life..."

It doesn't matter because the game timeline doesn't take place in our '2000's.

 

[Terminate421]

Too me its just explody simplicity at its finest. It doesn't have to be written well it just needs to have money behind it. And before anyone calls me someone who hates indie games, think about this:

How great is it to walk out of a badass movie, that obviously spent billions on the budget, with your friends just talking about it on the way to your car(s)?

I do like Call of Duty but its quality has been gradually decreasing (Black ops was a slight bit better than MW2)

 

[Pandaman1911]

You know what irked me most about MW3? That you got to play as neither the GSG 9 nor the GIGN, even though you went on missions in both Germany and France. The only involvement the GIGN had were a few characters holding down an alleyway, most dead. I mean, I saw it as an opportunity to go back to classic CoD. Different campaigns as different people, and whatnot. A campaign in America fighting off the rest of the Ruskies, playing as the Delta Force guy, a campaign in France and Germany fighting off the Russian invasion as the GIGN and GSG 9, respectively, and doing your thing as an SAS agent with Captain Price and friends. And it didn't happen. Just the Delta Force schmuck everywhere, and Soap and Price doing their thing wherever because whatever.

Doing things my totally awesome, amazing, brilliant, and handsome way could have involved different kinds of weapons unique to the campaigns, too. Like, the GIGN could have been equipped with the FAMAS, the FR F2... the GSG 9 could have access to all of H&K's plentiful arms, the Delta Force guy could have unique super secret special-ops gear and guns, and the SAS could be forced to slum it or something because they're not being supplied because they're outlaws, making do with what they've got (or more accurately, what the enemy's got), and so on.

Buuuut no. No interesting or good ideas for me. Just a box with a company-approved amount and quality of "fun" inside.


...getting back on topic... wow, that really is a massive plot hole. I'm surprised your brain was working by that point to notice it, though.

 

[Stukov Wolfwood]

at least you should had hear a soldier say something like "not only we have to worry about the russians, but the chinnese are also fighting around here"

but no, apparently all there is to war is america, russia and a few especial guests from other countries. curious how that is a world war. (i know they invaded all of europe [with neither makes any sense. you can't expect people to believe they are just pulling out of an invasion of the USA, and they still have enough soldiers to occuppy europe.], but apparntly american soldiers fight for most of those contries too..)

I do like Call of Duty but its quality has been gradually decreasing (Black ops was a slight bit better than MW2)

i have to disagree with that. while is very unreal that russia could invade the usa without anyone noticing them moving troops. (no wikileaks, no home video of a guy that saw all the boats leaveing the russian ports, no secret inteligent services sending information about the incoming attack [though giving green light to kill civilians, when you could just have killed the terrorist leader and his top men on the spot]), you killed Fidel castro in a the mission which is supposed to be the invasion of Bahia de Cochinos. an operation that actually failed, and caused a lot of political troubles and remember that fidel himself may still be alive to this day. wonder if cuba didn't said anything about that game, but the president of venezuela blames "mercenaries 2" of being a game about trying to kill him (real story), because it takes place in venezuela.

 

[way2sl0w]

I'm not talking about how short the campaign is, or how predictable it was (at least for me). I'm talking about the war the story is told through. Two of the largest military forces in the world are absent: China and India. 1st and 3rd in size respectively. Now China may not have any reason to attack in favor of either side, but India definitely does. Makarov's men (Russian Military men) send a pretty large force (300+ soldiers and air support) to attack Nicholai's safe house in India. So India doesn't even respond?! What a load of shit. Even if Russia had some sort of agreement where they could have standing military units in India (which they don't, in-game or otherwise), India would definitely respond when the Russian forces start killing civilians! Play "Persona Non Grata" again and you'll see what I mean.

It may seem pointless to criticize a game's campaign when it's played almost entirely for its multiplayer, especially since it's 3 months after the release and 2 & 1/2 months since anyone has played the campaign, but it's been buggin' the shit outta' me for a few days, and I felt the need to share. Comment if I missed any other massive plot holes.

Nothing wrong with that. Soap and Price are labeled as rogue agents. There's no reason India would go into a costly war to protect the equivalent of terrorists. And of course remember: the Russian President legitimately wanted peace and Makarov kidnapped him so obviously his men aren't exactly representing Russian intentions.

Btw, in real life, America has killed lots of Pakistani civilians and staged a full blown raid into Pakistan territory without permission and but they didn't start a war over it.

 

[Stukov Wolfwood]

Nothing wrong with that. Soap and Price are labeled as rogue agents. There's no reason India would go into a costly war to protect the equivalent of terrorists. And of course remember: the Russian President legitimately wanted peace and Makarov kidnapped him so obviously his men aren't exactly representing Russian intentions.

wich makes it kind of weird as yathzee said it. "if the russians were so decided to negotiate peace, that the president was already on the plane, who the fuck gave the order to invade europe?"

they never stablish that makarov takes control of the russian goverment when he kidnaps the president, and i am sure the russians would prioritize a rescue operation of their leader than an unauthorized full scale war.

and what would they gained from invading europe? more land to the already large amount of land they can barely control? or it was it just a patetic excuse to raise the stakes, because just withing 2 or 3 missions they recover control of america?