Modern Warfare Remastered Could be the Smartest Move for Call of Duty

Whether we wanted it to or not, Modern Warfare Remastered's position as an add-on rather than a stand-alone experience is but one small symptom of the very business we, as fans, call video games...and others may prefer to call...opportunity. This isn't an attack on Activision or its fans, but rather an affirmed noting that whatever happens come the end of this year -- when the consumer-base has not one, but two [technically] new titles to play -- will ultimately play a critical role in further shaping this "beloved" shooter's fate in the coming years. It's a role Infinite Warfare may not want to have weighing on its shoulders, but truth be told, it's one of the most interesting and heated developments this series has taken for quite some time. The power is indeed, this time, in the consumer's hands.

Activision has released the patch notes for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 and Warzone 's newest update that rebalances weapons, fixes bugs, adds ground vehicles to Rebirth Island, and more. The minor update arrives as Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 has enjoyed a surge in popularity recen

So...Infinite Warfare huh? A far-flung space-based voyage that may be seen as the ultimate in future sci-fi transitioning for the lucratively-successful FPS game Story guide franchise. Pardon me if my words look or even sound flat, but we've been here plenty times before: a reveal of a rather (it has to be said) obtuse intensity that surprises no one yet still locks fans in deep, deep debate. Some relish the new look, others are a lot less pleased. Yet it's Modern Warfare Remastered that seems to be the talk of the town over Infinity Ward's new title. A supposed return to what many perceive as the best entry in the series -- a game that revolutionized the first-person shooter and gave birth to an online multiplayer system that still persists to this very day. And while many may take to the word "remaster" with a possible rolling of the eyes (for understandably good reason), is a bundled-in return to Call of Duty 4's setting, premise and very nature of modern military shooting really all that bad?

The difference here is that this won't be a new entry, but a return to what the series was at that time. As such, it opens up a possibility to not only reintroduce a setting that many could perhaps have forgotten, but also introduce the days without robots and drones and aerial-dominating killstreaks that only embellished the "rich get richer; poor get poorer" mentality entries like Modern Warfare 2 got pressingly wrong. Modern Warfare's design was a lot simpler. Its 3-5-7 kill-streak system may be deemed minimalistic by recent standards, but back then it didn't over-complicate or make 90% of player's strive to simply getting a tactical nuke, so predictable (Harriers, AC130, bo-WEEP bo-WEEP...done!).

The Striker has been a solid option for some time, but it now enters the top meta weapons for Season 6. The Submachine Gun category is highly competitive with the introduction of the FJX Horus and the Static-HV, but the Striker shines as the perfect middle ground between more close-range options like the aforementioned SMGs and the Superi

That's not to say I disapprove entirely with the series' recent trend in relying solely on mere three-route, choke-point maps with blatant kill areas. Put simply, there's nothing better than playing the Sniper; picking a perfectly unnoticeable spot to lie down (or at least what one might consider perfect) and playing the waiting game. Yeh apparently snipers aren't meant to take cover and wait -- what a stupid idea. In essence, it's been a while since the humble Sniper was approached with as much the same consideration as those who saw themselves the SMG bearer or Shotgun wielder. Seeing the more spacious maps with a visual touch-up here and there -- not unlike the return of a simpler kill-streak system -- could offer an interesting question on how design factors in, if at all, to the annual Call of Duty game.

I've speculated over the past week whether a remaster of previous Call of Duty titles is necessarily a bad thing. But whether Activision's late (it has to be said) jumping on the remaster band-wagon should be regarded as universally "lame", the truth is, I don't see it as something objectively bad. If anything -- and this is coming from someone who's always open to discussing the many, troublesome issues with Call of Duty as a model, let alone as an iteration-by-iteration video game -- I find the idea, notably interesting. For a series that has shifted from World War 2 to modern war and now to future warfare, could this be an early sign of where the series may end up turning in later releases further down the line? Yes you can argue Ghosts tried a return to a contemporary-ish aesthetic to counter the ever-growing futuristic direction Black Ops & Advanced Warfare brought forth.

While I feel Modern Warfare deserves some rightful attention away from simply existing alongside new ideas, I'm in no way surprised to see Activision use a beloved classic as incentive to invest in Infinite Warfare's dubiously-titled Legacy Edition . It's a smart-move, unquestionably -- and one that I suspect a large majority will be gritting their teeth over -- but in itself, it will determine just how far this newfound remastering business goes. In the end, much like everything else with a price-tag attached, it's down to the consumer as to how far this model succeeds. And while I'm not flat-out defending Activision's cleverly sneaky demand of the green in my wallet, if we're talking personal affections, I just want a chance to experience something I feel has sadly gone astray in recent iterations: sniper maps. Those more-open, stealthily-prone maps like Modern Warfare's Overgrown or 2's Derail/Wasteland that, while don't punish run-and-gunners, greatly benefit those who approach such maps with a bit more care.