The latest Call of Duty is here, and this time it's Modern Warfare III (not to be confused with Modern Warfare 3 from 2011), the sequel to Modern Warfare II (not to be confused with Modern Warfare 2 from 2009). The campaign is a continuation of the rebooted Modern Warfare franchise from 2019 (not to be confused with Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare from 2007). The multiplayer for today's MW III launch exclusively features the maps from MW2 (2009), and all of the MWII (2021) guns and attachments are carried forward, so you preserve any unlocks you achieved previously. This isn't confusing at all. Anyhow, here's what the critics think:

• GamesBeat 3.5/5 - "Overall, it balanced out and the rest of the campaign was well done. As I mentioned, most players really care more about multiplayer than the single-player campaign. For me, I’ve always liked how the single-player story motivates you to play the multiplayer. And so it really does matter to me. I don’t know if my objections here mean that I don’t like the game overall. I feel like I’m a superfan who nitpicks endlessly while still pouring a lot of time into playing Call of Duty every year."

• GameSpot 5/10 - "Although its narrative setup is enjoyable, Modern Warfare 3 can't get out of its own way, with nearly half of the missions being the underwhelming Open Combat style. The bumpy pacing and abrupt ending make Makarov's big return a disappointment, dragging Modern Warfare 3 down as the weakest entry of an otherwise strong reboot series."

• IGN 4/10 - "Underbaked, rehashed, and cobbled together from multiplayer parts, Modern Warfare 3’s single-player campaign is everything a Call of Duty story mode shouldn’t be."

• Rock Paper Shotgun Unscored - "There’s a common narrative that Call of Duty campaigns were at their peak in the late ‘00s. That may be true in pop cultural terms, multiplayer having long since overshadowed solo modes for the typical COD fan. But this Modern Warfare reboot began with Infinity Ward firing on all cylinders, embracing brave themes and experimental designs in single-player that excused its occasional stumbles. It’s a shame to see the engine it built sputter and fail, betrayed by a stopgap schedule-filler with nothing to say."

• GamesRadar Unscored (in-progress) - "There are hints of a more traditional Call of Duty campaign in the roughly six hours it took me to compete Modern Warfare 3 - one mission on plane, for example, is a trademark bit of playable COD exposition. But the majority of the missions feel assembled instead of crafted, and there's very little texture variation to either them, or the game overall. When I think of the Call of Duty franchise I think of big action set pieces, and occasionally surprising missions with unexpected mechanics or ideas breaking up the overall move forward and shoot everything thrust. This lacks any of that and feels more like it's being made to do as much as it can with as little as possible and is underwhelming in a way that feels like it knows it can do better. "

• Eurogamer Unscored - "Untethered from any kind of wider meaning, at its worst feels very, very close to propaganda. At its best, with that vapid story combining with hit-and-miss stealth and borrowed widgets from Warzone, Modern Warfare 3's campaign is just a muddle."

• Polygon Unscored - "Modern Warfare 3 has finally succeeded in unmooring the series entirely from history and from meaning. It continues the previous games’ practice of adding political texture to explosive ultra-violence, but it has never been more of a hollow shooting gallery, a ghost of a game and a departure from everything that may have once made the franchise compelling to play."

It's worth noting that these reviews are almost solely focused on the campaign alone, as aside from the prior beta weekends in October, the multiplayer servers weren't live until today. As a result, there are some major outlets missing from this roundup, along with a few that may have scored reviews once they've had some time with the online component.

But, with all that in mind, is this a series low point for Call of Duty? Call of Duty: Ghosts is the entry with the lowest metacritic score at 68, and it's looking like this could certainly 'beat' that.

I've finished the campaign and mostly agree with the thoughts conveyed from the reviews - it's extremely short, coming in at four hours, maybe five at a push, and feels very disjointed. The open combat missions completely ruin the pacing and it feels like there are entire story beats that have been skipped over, probably in the development rush to get the game out in time. From the beta though, the multiplayer certainly isn't bad, so if that carries over to the full launch, we may see some scores get bumped up.

If you're playing MWIII, let us know what you think!