Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
I recently felt like giving my views on a Modern Warfare 4, mainly as I feel I've not seen why it's been so hated recently. In my own view a 'Modern Warfare' game would be fine, I personally love modern combat as opposed to World War Two era combat, and as such a modern game appeals to myself more than a WW2 game. I would also like a 'Modern Warfare' game for the story, setting it a modern setting instead of historic setting allows devs to be a bit more free, they can choose who wins whats. Shockers such as the nuke in Shock and Awe, the Airport massacre in No Russian, the Eiffel Tower's destruction in Iron Lady and Raul Menendez's overarching plan are examples of things a modern game can do that a historical game just can't do.
I also feel I should address why I feel the concept of a "MW4" is getting too much hatred. Personally I feel that the only real reason people seem so opposed is simply because we've had so many games called "Modern Warfare", and not for any other reason. Looking at the features of the prior games doesn't seem to show any reason why another Modern Warfare game would be bad. The campaign of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Modern Warfare 2 and Modern Warfare 3 were excellent campaigns; so it's not campaign that's the issue. Modern Warfare 3 was shaky, however Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2 had amazing multiplayer modes; so multiplayer also is not an issue. Given these are the two main selling points of a Call of Duty it shows the dislike of MW4 has very little ground to hold on to, while many could say it's because you can't give MW3 a sequel, there's nothing stopping MW4 being in the same universe, but with no recurring characters (similar to the two time periods of Black Ops II, with the 2025 segments having no real relevance to Black Ops I or World at War's campaign).
Also worth addressing is the desire for a World War II CoD in its place. While I did enjoy the World War II games of Call of Duty, I feel the desire of going back to World War II is simply out of nostalgia and not much else. Many conventions of World War Two have already been covered, unless a niche was covered allowing the player to be the French Resistance or Wehrmacht then it may be an interesting game, but if not then it's just another game in World War II, once again confined to conventions.
Anyway, these are my personal views on why a Modern Warfare 4 isn't all doom and gloom as people think, but I would like to hear some feedback.
New fact: While many people claim "MW3 is the end because all the known terrorists are dead", that's also the same as Call of Duty 4. All the known terrorists are dead, the series could have ended there and then and no one would of complained really, so MW3 does still have a door open.