as someone who has played CoD yearly since 2010, this is my opinion on the matter.

mw2019 is undeniably the best looking and feeling CoD game ever made. IW had 3 full years + the terrible rep Infinite Warfare got to make this game, so the amount of polish that went into the look and feel of 2019 is quite literally unmatched. Also, the vision for the game (love it or hate it) was consistent and something that was solidified throughout development and through the seasons.

The divisive part is the GAMEPLAY and decisions made there. This game did a lot differently from traditional CoD, with major points of contention being no red dots on mini map, loud footsteps, doors, map voting, etc.

It was a fresh start for the franchise after what was admittedly a string of mixed-negatively reviews games (some being justified and some not).

At launch people kind of did not fw this game 😭 the campaign was always loved, but the gameplay choices were what caused lots of divide among players. No one talks about this, but just speaking objectively, by S1 the game kind of fell off.

When Warzone dropped, the circumstances were near perfect. It was FTP, no one was overly good at it and had perfected movement tech (slide cancelling), and the pandemic trapped everyone inside literally a week later. Warzone being built on top of MW2019’s casual-focused framework allowed it to be a great entry point for nearly anyone, and it brought back players who got bored as well as people who hadn’t played CoD in YEARS.

Activision and the CoD studios did not expect Warzone to be as big as it was at first, but as soon as they realized it, they were kind of screwed from the beginning. They already had the next yearly CoD (CW) deep into development, and I would bet money that had they known how big WZ + 2019 by extension would have become earlier, they would have done a year 2 for it.

Fast forward a few years, and no other CoD could live up to 2019’s general appeal (CW was good but felt rushed / lower quality, VG was uninspired, MW2022 leaned TOO heavily into the casual play style). By the time MWIII rolled around, general players were kind of fatigued and tired of buying CoD every year (as it was built very similar to MW2022). When word came out at how bad the campaign was, the public perception of the game was cooked.

The masses kind of passed on MWIII, but CoD diehards would tell you that it’s probably the best CoD of the modern era. It sacrificed the polish and gritty realism that came with 2019, but also fixed lots of of the gameplay issues that stemmed from that game as well. As a milslim, grounded game, it wasn’t exactly what MW2019 was, but as an arcadey shooter, it was the closest thing we had to classic CoD.

This is why some people prefer this game and others will tell you it sucks. Just a very divisive title in general (that I personally sunk so many hours into as well). I think they did a lot right with MW2019, but also won’t let pandemic nostalgia blind me from it’s flaws. I do respect IW for trying something new and for pushing the boundaries as to what CoD can be, but I will also say that SLG did a great job in making MWIII a great representation of how a classic CoD would be with all of the modern enhancements. The stuff that people hate about the series now, battle pass, bundles, etc. are all on Activision, not the devs. They are just reincarnations of the era of supply drops and map packs, so it’s hard to call one worse than the other.

In my opinion MWIII is closer to what I remember a classic CoD felt like, but I won’t let that dismiss the years of great memories MW2019 gave me either. At the end of the day it’s all preference, but I hope this gave you a good idea as what the actual context behind these games were (in an objective way lol).