Video Summary - Modern Warfare 3's Campaign is hilariously bad

Overview

The video offers a harsh critique of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 (2023)’s campaign, arguing that it is:

The overall claim is that the campaign feels like a rushed product pushed by Activision, rather than a coherent story.

The campaign is presented as a confusing “reboot,” blending story elements, maps, and assets from different Modern Warfare entries.
It is also criticized for not resolving the main villain plot in a satisfying way, instead saving key resolution for a later game.
The video claims the game butchers established characters and story logic, including:
- How major figures survive or return “alive”
- Failure to tie up narrative threads properly

The opening mission is described as unclear in objective and undermined by:
- awkward scripting
- poor or missing motivation explanations
The video argues that multiple major plot points are:
- unexplained (“why is X like this?”)
- or outright contradicted, including:
  - big-name characters being alive despite prior deaths
  - explanations arriving too late (or never arriving)
Villain characterization—especially Marov’s obsession with time—is described as repetitive and shallow, lacking the depth of earlier treatments.

The video mocks brief instances of dialogue choices, claiming they never meaningfully affect the story.
It further argues that later choice systems similarly disappear after early use.

The campaign frequently uses objectives on generic/recycled-style maps.
The pattern is described as:
- travel
- complete scattered objectives
- exit
Difficulty changes are framed as mostly forcing stealth rather than improving design.
Trackers/missions are criticized as illogical—e.g., glowing trackers enemies “somehow” fail to destroy—making goals feel unrealistic and padded.

The narrator argues stealth and complexity are undermined by:

AI behavior (such as allies getting in front of the player’s shots)
story mechanics that “conveniently” prevent expected outcomes, including odd resolutions to events involving:
- key threats escaping
- chemical/radioactive/weapon-related situations

The creator describes the infamous controversial sequence as handled in a way that removes intended intensity, including claims that:
- guards/airline security supposedly fail to detect a clear threat
- the “No Russian” wording is allegedly not delivered as promised
- the sequence is heavily scripted with less impact than the original
The later escalation/framing is also said to fail to deliver the kind of escalation seen in earlier games.

Even after stopping multiple crises (e.g., missiles, chemical weapons, overarching plans), the story repeatedly restarts with escalation “plan V / plan L” style.
Key information exchanges are described as happening without:
- stakes
- emotional weight
- clear necessity

Soap’s death is called “atrocious,” with emphasis on:
- a sudden surprise attack
- confusing support/control moments where the team is present but doesn’t stop it
- lack of payoff or emotional closure
Shepherd’s death (described as a courtroom-style “Judge Duty” moment) is presented as ineffective, lacking a satisfying verdict or consequence.
The finale is criticized for resolving outcomes indirectly or cinematically, rather than letting the player directly finish key events.

The narrator’s bottom line is that the campaign is:

The creator’s recommendation is not to buy the game, giving it a 1/10, and suggesting other games instead.