Sledgehammer Games says Modern Warfare III gameplay hours are up versus previous games

Call of Duty game studio Sledgehammer Games said that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare III has set records for engagement for the overall Modern Warfare trilogy.

While that doesn’t mean that the game has outsold the earlier versions, it is a good sign that the game could have longer legs than the previous titles, which were among the most popular games in Call of Duty’s 20-year history.

“Just two weeks in, MWIII has already set records with the highest engagement in the new Modern Warfare Trilogy,” Sledgehammer Games said in a thank-you message to fans today.

I’m actually having a blast playing multiplayer, much more so than I did playing the relatively short and different single-player campaign. My gaming was interrupted by a week of travel to Portugal, but I feel like I’m progressing better than I have in years past. Still, these engagement numbers suggest that Call of Duty is doing better than you might expect given the relatively weak reviews that were tied to single-player gameplay. I don’t know what I’ll rate multiplayer yet, but it’s clearly higher than in years past.

Wedbush analyst Michael Pachter said he doesn’t know what sales are yet, but he believes the poor reviews will hurt sales for the long tail and he sees more ads early this year than in years past and that means they know the game needs help.

I haven’t even started Modern Warfare Zombies yet, but I hear it’s much more fun in years past thanks to the open world of the Warzone map. It looks like this game could have a lot of legs when it comes to engagement for multiplayer, even though I and others dinged the single-player campaign for being too short. I’ve included a couple of matches where I had good results so far as a sniper/assault gunner.

Sledgehammer said that the Zombies mode is the most successful third mode in all of CoD history. And it says there is more engagement with MWIII than with the prior hot-selling Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II from 2022 and the popular Modern Warfare 2019 title.

I have a 0.91 kill/death ratio and 0.69 match win/loss rate. That’s not spectacular but it’s better for me. As an example, in the first year of Warzone I had a 0.44 kill/death ratio and 0.84 in Call of Duty: Vanguard. Pretty bad, yeah, but this suggests to me that the subtle changes in gameplay and the effectiveness of sniper weapons early in the game is much better than in the past.

I’ve also had more matches where I’ve scored above 1.0 in the kill/death ratio this early in the game than before, thanks to a different weapon strategy. I’ve played more than eight hours and 24 minutes so far and I have scored about 12 kills per match. Other players are going to score much different, but this look back at my previous kill/death ratios tells me that I’m having better success for gameplay design reasons.

As far as the maps go, I have enjoyed Rust, though it’s a bit too frenetic. Scrapyard is more like my pace, and Wasteland can get fairly intense in the middle of the map. If I want to get tactical and careful, I’ll play Search and Destroy as a mode, but generally like Team Deathmatch the most. I haven’t ventured much into 3v3v3 or the War mode so much yet. So I have a lot to explore.

One thing I’ve done different in this game is use the preset sniper rifle and assault weapon the most, leveling up those weapons rather than just take a new weapon from scratch and grinding. So the MCW assault rifle and the KATT-AMR sniper rifle are my weapons of choice. I’ve completely leveled up the MCW with 419 kills and I am midway leveling up with the KATT-AMR with 179 kills. The better results may mean that I’m used to playing these classic maps like Scrapyard and Wasteland, as they’re recycled.

But the point isn’t necessarily that I’m scoring better myself. It’s more that I expect to be playing this game for longer than I have in the past because it’s better.