Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 PC

User Score
2.5

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 5646 Ratings

User score distribution:
Buy On

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Nov 14, 2011
    5
    As a Avid fan of the Call of duty franchise i must say i am fairly let down with the latest release of MW3. You say you listened to the fan base and on some fronts yes i would say you did but on others you did not. And those area's you didn't really can make and break the game. First and foremost I am a PC gamer i started playing the franchise on PC and i always will. But i feel you areAs a Avid fan of the Call of duty franchise i must say i am fairly let down with the latest release of MW3. You say you listened to the fan base and on some fronts yes i would say you did but on others you did not. And those area's you didn't really can make and break the game. First and foremost I am a PC gamer i started playing the franchise on PC and i always will. But i feel you are pushing us aside and not doing us justice. WE are the players that have the best hardware etc and the graphics are well as they say so yesterday. You have little to no abilities to edit the PC graphics to a point where if you have a high end system that you can get the best out of the game. everything is locked. Max frames ( max fps ) etc. i believe this is due to the fact that now instead of building for pc first then porting to 360 etc you build it for the lesser hardware system in this case consoles then try to port it to the PC at the last minute. Ill give it to you in the fact you did break the pc version like black ops did when they ported the game to PC. But at least we had the ability to adjust things like FOV, Max fps, Max packets ETC. These things i can overlook but the single most important thing i cannot.

    Servers. in reality you guys have none. Sure you say you do and they are there and you can join them But whats the point of a server if it is non ranked. The point of servers is to essentially provide a medium for players to where they can go and play the game with other people in a non or little lag environment. i do like the party system but it isn't a big deal honestly. day 2 there were already hackers playing the game and without servers you cannot ban them from your server. all you can do is simply report them and wait for them to get banned if they ever do. in the mean time they wreck your experience for days if not weeks on end. With ranked servers players can join game modes ( tdm,dom,ffa) etc with subsets of rules or none at all and know that 1 they are joining a server close to them thus reducing the chance of lag 2 joining a relativity hackless environment because the server admins who run those servers just ban hackers when they see them thus neutralizing the issue and 3 they are joining a server / game mode within the game mode that they wish to play.

    Instead of just porting the game from 360/ps3 to PC look at the past games and take the good build on that and take the bad remove it and build on it as well. The lack of non ranked dedicated servers is probably one of the main reason PC players are unhappy. Next to that it is the graphics or lack of them. We as PC players Demand a higher Caliber of game standards that YOU as a company lacked to give us. Most PC players think this is just mw2.5 with less graphics and more lag issues. If you say you really listen to the people Listen to some of the core points i am posting about they are essentially what is bringing your game down. ill review perhaps the key points
    1) No servers or lack of Primary Ranked Servers ( such as the ones that are loved in black ops )
    2) Lack there of graphics and graphical tweaking
    3)Lack of a way to deal with hackers.
    4)The feeling we are getting the metaphorical shaft when it comes to a PC game. Stop porting you games from console to PC instead design it from ground floor up with PC as the key factor then port it down to the lesser hardware systems aka CONSOLES. You will make more money in the end that way as more PC players will buy the game and if the game is as good as the rest in the good respects the Console players won't even know the difference. Sincerely Angry but happy gamer MrNuck
    Expand
  2. Nov 21, 2011
    5
    I can't say its really a BAD game, considdering modern warfare and mw2 were good. but its just stale.

    nothing feels knew. it feels like MW2 with new maps. Single player is MEH at best. To be honest, im kind of tired of COD in general. It always feels the same, which isn't bad, but it just gets old. It almost feels like they just want to realease a new COD every year, like an anual thing,
    I can't say its really a BAD game, considdering modern warfare and mw2 were good. but its just stale.

    nothing feels knew. it feels like MW2 with new maps. Single player is MEH at best.

    To be honest, im kind of tired of COD in general. It always feels the same, which isn't bad, but it just gets old. It almost feels like they just want to realease a new COD every year, like an anual thing, and make a ton of money off it. I'd LOVE to see a NEW IP from infiniti ward and sledgehammer, because they are tallented studios, but COD is just getting old, and you can really tell with MW3
    Expand
  3. Nov 8, 2011
    5
    I pre-ordered both BF3 and MW3, trying not to be a fanboy to either in this comparison.

    BF3 isn't perfect but MW3 is a complete joke, especially on PC. If you are even thinking about MW3 on PC, forget it, just buy MW1 or Black Ops and have at least a 10x better experience. No ranked dedicated servers? Check. No adjustable FOV? Check. No real innovation from MW2? Check. I'm not really
    I pre-ordered both BF3 and MW3, trying not to be a fanboy to either in this comparison.

    BF3 isn't perfect but MW3 is a complete joke, especially on PC. If you are even thinking about MW3 on PC, forget it, just buy MW1 or Black Ops and have at least a 10x better experience. No ranked dedicated servers? Check. No adjustable FOV? Check. No real innovation from MW2? Check.

    I'm not really one to care about graphics, but MW3's graphics are just laughable considering this is 2011. Comparing MW3 graphics to BF3 graphics is like comparing speed between a 1990 Neon and a 2012 Bugatti Veyron. BF3 gets huge props for their innovation in this department.

    Audio is even worse than graphics. As another poster pointed out, the guns literally sound like paintball or BB gun. Again, a joke when compared with BF3 which makes huge innovations here again.

    MW3 does have a much better campaign than BF3 though, and BF3's SP was disappointing considering what they could have done with all the new tech. Not sure how long MW3's campaign is though as I haven't finished it yet.

    Post-launch support from DICE has already been fantastic, and they do truly listen to the community on changes. I remember in BFBC2 Beta, I had an issue specific to my PC relating to low CPU usage, and I got an email from a dev who personally worked with me to resolve it. This fix was including with the final game. I don't have a lot of experience with Activision, but from what I've heard the only post-launch support they give is in paid DLC's.

    Overall, BF3 is definitely worth $60 where MW3 is definitely not worth $60.
    Expand
  4. Nov 10, 2011
    6
    Yet again rate " professional critics " this game very high while we consumers , in general , think it sucks. These reviewers have lost all perspective and insight in what their readers think and expect . The argument now by "professional reviewers" is that "fans"of BF3 are posting negative comments . I am 35 year old consumer who buys games and am no fan of any corporate entity orYet again rate " professional critics " this game very high while we consumers , in general , think it sucks. These reviewers have lost all perspective and insight in what their readers think and expect . The argument now by "professional reviewers" is that "fans"of BF3 are posting negative comments . I am 35 year old consumer who buys games and am no fan of any corporate entity or product. If the games are good they get a high score, if they suck they get a low score. I think that counts for most reviewers here as we just want to keep others from spending 60 bucks on a bad product . A computer game is not like buying another product. WE find out after we already paid that we got screwed Expand
  5. Nov 10, 2011
    5
    This is not a bad game but it feels like I've played it two years ago. The campaign was short, but it had the same size of MW2, the multi-player is basically the same as MW2, so there is no much motive to begin all over again. The graphics are a little bit better, but is because they implemented SSAO, this graphics engine cannot be more improved than this, it's time to move on to a newThis is not a bad game but it feels like I've played it two years ago. The campaign was short, but it had the same size of MW2, the multi-player is basically the same as MW2, so there is no much motive to begin all over again. The graphics are a little bit better, but is because they implemented SSAO, this graphics engine cannot be more improved than this, it's time to move on to a new engine, there are plenty of them out there.
    Resuming, the fun factor is almost gone from this game, you are basically buying the same game that was released two years ago, I'm afraid that this one can be the beginning of the end in the Call of Duty series.
    Expand
  6. Nov 8, 2011
    5
    I'll be frank, I'm a fan of the series. I really like that Activision brought fps war gaming out of WWII and into something that hits a little closer to home. The third instalment has a nice little wrap up to the story, albeit a tad predictable (I honestly think the first MW's story was the better). The co-op is a little tired but the survival mode is fun enough. However, I am once againI'll be frank, I'm a fan of the series. I really like that Activision brought fps war gaming out of WWII and into something that hits a little closer to home. The third instalment has a nice little wrap up to the story, albeit a tad predictable (I honestly think the first MW's story was the better). The co-op is a little tired but the survival mode is fun enough. However, I am once again let down by the major flaw in multiplayer, something called IWNet. Living in Australia with its **** internet, client-side hosting is the worst possible thing you can do to PC users here. It turns what would be quite an excellent and engaging multiplayer experience into a highly irritating and frustrating lag-fest, where you appear to be knifing an enemy in front of you, but in reality he was 5 metres away and shot you in the face. Over and over again. Yes there are dedicated servers this time around but, insultingly, they are unranked, which completely drains the attraction of levelling your skills and unlocking new weapons and abilities. It does get plusses for the inclusion of support pointstreaks and weapon levelling which are great ideas. Long story short: disappointing.

    PS: After reading some of the positive reviews from this and the other platforms, two things: anything bad to say about the game does not a 10 out of 10 make; and anyone who rages about the so called "BF3 Fanboys", your reviews are as much of a fail as theirs may be. For the record, I have played BF3 and it's fine but I don't like it a heck of a lot.
    Expand
  7. Nov 8, 2011
    5
    The good. The engine. Same as its been, but its good. No reason to mess with a good thing.
    The meh. The graphics. These graphics were very nice, 4 or 5 years ago now... now its simply Xbox graphics that don't stand up on the PC.
    The bad. Its not a full retail game. Its DLC or an expansion. Not a lot of changes, just little tweaks here and there. New maps, and a short unimpressive campaign
    The good. The engine. Same as its been, but its good. No reason to mess with a good thing.
    The meh. The graphics. These graphics were very nice, 4 or 5 years ago now... now its simply Xbox graphics that don't stand up on the PC.
    The bad. Its not a full retail game. Its DLC or an expansion. Not a lot of changes, just little tweaks here and there. New maps, and a short unimpressive campaign that makes you thinkg "Haven't I played this already"

    If you're playing for multiplayer... there was really no reason for a new game. Its MW2 with new maps and an update patch. COD needs to take a year off and really put some time into a game... but they won't. Its all about getting more and more games out to make more and more money.
    Expand
  8. Nov 8, 2011
    5
    Basically this game is MW 2.1 or 2.5 as spec ops is very enjoyable. Single player campaign is a tired, used, and put away wet rehash of past WM titles. My main complaint is how short/easy (even on the hardest lvl). Finally and most disappointing MP is just plain dated; Black Ops could teach this game something in all aspects (balance, maps design, and getting the most out of the graphicsBasically this game is MW 2.1 or 2.5 as spec ops is very enjoyable. Single player campaign is a tired, used, and put away wet rehash of past WM titles. My main complaint is how short/easy (even on the hardest lvl). Finally and most disappointing MP is just plain dated; Black Ops could teach this game something in all aspects (balance, maps design, and getting the most out of the graphics engine). It is glaringly obvious that with the departure of the core members of Infinity Ward the "sledgehammer" (aka EA retreads) team assembled in haste was not up the task of creating a "new" CoD experience. In all honestly; considering the leap from World ar War to Black Op's (let's face it Black Ops MP trumps MW2); Treyarch would have been a much better team to tap; even though Activision's payout would have been delay. If you are looking for a $60 (low end and I truly do feel for the hardened Ed ppl) expansion then you will enjoy this game. I admit I too fell for the hype plus boredom of needing a new quality FPS fix; but came away with the feeling my score was cut to nothing. I worry with Activision's rush to cash in on the best FPS name in the market; the series will die out. I do hope their greed, lack of innovation, and pushing out unpolished games to meet quarterly profit goals; does not infect their only remaining quality game developer Blizzard. In closing; please do not lose heart or faith that Treyarch can somehow make a worthy game out of these dated graphic and shell of a stand alone sequel. Expand
  9. Nov 8, 2011
    5
    Overhyped and repetitious It lives up to its hype somewhat in certain areas of the single player, but the moment you hit multiplayer you realize the developers have just copy/pasted the good aspects of modern warfare 2 and filled the bad ones with even worse. Great campaign presentation filled with huge set pieces that are sure to keep you going that only just make up for its modernOverhyped and repetitious It lives up to its hype somewhat in certain areas of the single player, but the moment you hit multiplayer you realize the developers have just copy/pasted the good aspects of modern warfare 2 and filled the bad ones with even worse. Great campaign presentation filled with huge set pieces that are sure to keep you going that only just make up for its modern warfare 2 look. The story picks straight from where the previous game ended and starts of promising all the way to the end. All loose ends are dealt with, theirs a few small twists and fast paced moments that make up for the dumb AI and problems you know and hate from modern warfare 2, their are still those moments where you feel like your playing follow the leader but theirs no doubt you have more control and as I stated the set pieces are undeniably impressive. That is for the single player at least.
    The moment I hit multiplayer I was to a point horrified at how it actually looked worse than modern warfare 2. And this is running the game max settings@ 90+fps, after playing 5 out of the 15 available maps you can easily tell it has a horrible presentation. The colours are very bland and the textures are almost identical to modern warfare 2. Everything from explosions to smoke effects look the same. The animations have been ripped(literally) from modern warfare 2 (same slip on a banana peel death). The weapon sounds are the same as they were in modern warfare 2 which is no surprise but I don't need to get into that. I never really expect nice visuals from a game such as this but it still doesn't make up for its core aspects. Killstreaks are back and are unbalanced as ever, you now have strike packages that could have worked well but fail miserably due to unbalancing issues. For example the specialist pack gives you a perk for every two kills you get (your a super soldier once you hit 9 kills). The assault pack gives you things such as a Juggernaut killstreak that would take literally a whole M60 clip to kill. If you want zero recoil just throw on a suppressor. Their are so many gimmicks in this game I would need more pages than the bible to write out my essay but I think you get the point. The core COD experience that we love is still their but it simply doesn't make up for its negatives. Their are some aspects that I love that improve further on modern warfare 2s positives but once again are overtaken by all the crap in the game. It also feels very console ported and this is just another big issue I could raise. In the end a game that had potential falls short for the third second time, yes its better than black ops but if you want a true cod experience stick with modern warfare.
    Ok.
    6/10
    Expand
  10. Nov 8, 2011
    6
    A new November, a new Modern Warfare. The game, being a 2011 game does not looks good, at all, compared to other games like Battlefield 3, RAGE or the upcoming Skyrim. The gameplay, the shooting mechanics are nearly the same as in Modern Warfare 2. The campaign is pretty interesting, it connects the first MW with the second, and expands the story. It has interesting twists, and itA new November, a new Modern Warfare. The game, being a 2011 game does not looks good, at all, compared to other games like Battlefield 3, RAGE or the upcoming Skyrim. The gameplay, the shooting mechanics are nearly the same as in Modern Warfare 2. The campaign is pretty interesting, it connects the first MW with the second, and expands the story. It has interesting twists, and it motivates you to play through the single player campaign, especially if you have played thorugh MW1 and MW2. The enemy AI isn't the best, there are a lot of times when their act is just stupid. They don't care about their lives, they just run through your allies and want to kill you. As I have said, not every and each time, but it happens a lot. The multiplayer is nothing, it is an expanded MW2 multiplayer, with some new maps, new perks, new weapons, kill confirming and with a database sort of thing named CoD Elite, which basically collects information about your play style, your achievements etc etc.... The SP part of the game is interesting, but I hope that I won't see a new Call of Duty game based on the same engine as Modern Warfare. Expand
  11. Nov 9, 2011
    7
    As far as FPS games go I've played the CoD series almost exclusively over the years logging in literally thousands of hours. Anyone should know before buying this game that you aren't paying $60 USD for a single player game. That being said, it is still frusturating to see them using the same engine with the same outdated graphics over and over. But, as a wise man once said, "if it ain'tAs far as FPS games go I've played the CoD series almost exclusively over the years logging in literally thousands of hours. Anyone should know before buying this game that you aren't paying $60 USD for a single player game. That being said, it is still frusturating to see them using the same engine with the same outdated graphics over and over. But, as a wise man once said, "if it ain't broke don't fix it." Or something like that. There is a reason this is the most popular shooting game in history. There is a reason that 90% of the reviewers who gave this game a score of zero are probably online right now trying to get the next unlock for their weapons. It is a quick, simple, fun to play game that will bring me hours of enjoyment over the next year. So here it is:
    7/10
    -1 for crap singleplayer mode THAT WE ALL KNEW WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.
    -1 for seriously outdated game engine. (Mark my words they will have a new engine next year)
    -1 for no ranked dedicated servers on the PC. (Lobbies? Intermissions? WTF that's lame.)
    Expand
  12. Nov 8, 2011
    7
    If you are new to the call of duty this is a fantastic game, 5 years of gradual improvements have led to the most refined iteration of the series, although the graphics are somewhat lacking in to comparison to battlefield 3, they are perfectly adequate for the smaller indoor settings with are synonymous with call of duty. multiplayer offers many improvements over the previous modernIf you are new to the call of duty this is a fantastic game, 5 years of gradual improvements have led to the most refined iteration of the series, although the graphics are somewhat lacking in to comparison to battlefield 3, they are perfectly adequate for the smaller indoor settings with are synonymous with call of duty. multiplayer offers many improvements over the previous modern warfare including the return of dedicated servers and even LAN support which is becoming rarer and rarer in modern PC games, the improvements to the kill-streak system are great and overall the game feels more fluid then past call of duty's. singleplayer follows the same formula that has been successful in the past games, and while the story isn't a masterpiece it is defiantly fun and the fast paced scripted campaign is well refined. spec ops returns and once again it includes a great variety of missions in which there is some very well designed 2 player coop, survival mode is also enjoyable but gets boring pretty fast. whether this game is worth buying or not will depend, technically the game is not a huge improvement on previous call of duty's and if you have modern warfare 2, you will probably find it hard to justify the $100us (in Australia) buying price on steam which is quiet frankly ridiculous. but if you are new to the series i would recommend this game as it offers the most refined version of what is, technically a very decent first person shooter. Expand
  13. Nov 26, 2011
    6
    Another COD, another year.
    + Single player is inrtesting,fun and epic
    - Single player lasts only 4.5 hours + Co-Op offers alot of content in which you alone or with a friend can waste alot of time trying to get higher scores,rank up and earn achievments -Multiplayer is unbalanced, Akimbo weapons are OP, Everyone camps, Broken hit detection, OP killstreaks and it has a weak anti cheat
    Another COD, another year.
    + Single player is inrtesting,fun and epic
    - Single player lasts only 4.5 hours
    + Co-Op offers alot of content in which you alone or with a friend can waste alot of time trying to get higher scores,rank up and earn achievments
    -Multiplayer is unbalanced, Akimbo weapons are OP, Everyone camps, Broken hit detection, OP killstreaks and it has a weak anti cheat system that nevers bans hackers
    +Even thought the MP suffers from alot of problems it's still playable, it's not as good as COD2's,COD4's or BLack Opse's MP but it still can be fun here and there.
    - Ugly outdated visuals
    - Alot of content in the game is copy pasted from MW2.
    + Good optimization, unlike previous COD titles that were extreamly unoptimized and cheap console ports this COD game runs nice and smooth even on low to mid range gaming PCs.
    Expand
  14. Mar 1, 2013
    5
    ok this review is going to be in 2 parts single player and muitiplayer. first of all single player, is fun campaign is actually enjoyable and there are some fun things in there to do. the next is spec ops, this is actually another good point for the game and finally "surival" you will either hate or love this mode, depending if you like wave defence games or not. so for single play i wouldok this review is going to be in 2 parts single player and muitiplayer. first of all single player, is fun campaign is actually enjoyable and there are some fun things in there to do. the next is spec ops, this is actually another good point for the game and finally "surival" you will either hate or love this mode, depending if you like wave defence games or not. so for single play i would give it a soild 8 out of 10. the next bit of the review is multiplayer..... this had the poeatinoal to be good, but failled masively! firstly, there are deticated servers but they are useless as you do not earn exp. next is the amount of 12 year old kids hacking, quite frankly this pissed me off so much i stopped playing the entire multiplayer all togther, as activision doesnt care and lets the hacker roam messing up all your games. finally the lag in multiplayer is dreadful as it is not a deticated server, you get host migrations? what the hell is this meant to be? oh yeah thats right they use that system on a console, this does not work on pc at all. i would give mulitiplayer a 3. do not get this game if you want to play if for the multiplayer its awful. overall then i would give this game a 6, becasue of its good single player, but avoid its multiplayer. Expand
  15. Nov 12, 2011
    5
    No dedicated servers ranking is a joke. Why did they have to ruin this game? Same game basically as the last two is total bull crap. With all the money they make there is no excuse for a game like this. Waste of $60!!!
  16. Nov 20, 2011
    5
    This only gets a 5 because of the fairly decent OTT SP experience straight from the Michael Bay camp. MP which is what i normally play is a mash up of claustrophobic, tight corridor type maps. Gone are the open types like Overgrown, Afghan etc what we get is uninspiring to say the least!

    Black Op's and even MW2 annihilates this in every way possible! You can sense that the main players of
    This only gets a 5 because of the fairly decent OTT SP experience straight from the Michael Bay camp. MP which is what i normally play is a mash up of claustrophobic, tight corridor type maps. Gone are the open types like Overgrown, Afghan etc what we get is uninspiring to say the least!

    Black Op's and even MW2 annihilates this in every way possible! You can sense that the main players of IW have long gone and what we are left is a slight whiff of turd in it's place!

    Oh and for PC: No dedi ranked servers, no adjustable FOV, straight console port.

    Oh and to IGN, have to say your allegiance to Activision is a downright disgrace! How much did they pay you?
    Expand
  17. Mar 5, 2013
    5
    It looks and plays pretty much EXACTLY the same as 2009's Modern Warfare 2, even the menus, sound effects, and buildings have been recycled from MW2. I feel extremely disappointed, the campaign and single player were shorter and barely better than MW2. Do not fall for the hype for this game, this game should have been a 15 dollar expansion for MW2, charging 60 for this should be a crime.
  18. Mar 6, 2012
    6
    Let's be honest, no game deserves a 0. Nice single campaign, but the multiplayer experience is practically the same as MW2. So, in my opinion, not worthly of paying $59.99 for basically a cloned game.
  19. Nov 9, 2011
    6
    Well, here goes. Modern Warfare 3 is certainly not a bad game, not in the slightest. i enjoy how they continue the campaign story and tie it up, but this is the only CoD title I've ever pre-ordered, and i am sad to say I'm disappointed i did pre-order it. MW3, unlike what people thought it would be, is certainly NOT the most anticipated game ever. i literally just bought it, and im on dayWell, here goes. Modern Warfare 3 is certainly not a bad game, not in the slightest. i enjoy how they continue the campaign story and tie it up, but this is the only CoD title I've ever pre-ordered, and i am sad to say I'm disappointed i did pre-order it. MW3, unlike what people thought it would be, is certainly NOT the most anticipated game ever. i literally just bought it, and im on day 2 and i'm already back to Battlefield Bad Company 2. The story is, somewhere in between good and great, but the actual campaign has little to no replayability. of course, i develop close bonds with the main characters, but that doesn't mean i actually enjoy the campaign. The multiplayer is just MW2 with a MW3 coat of paint. granted, this game is MUCH better than Black Ops, but i expected more from the creators of CoD 4 and MW2. PLEASE DONT BUY IT NOW IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY!!!! wait 'til the prices drop, or you will have wasted 20 dollars on what i think should be a 30 dollar product (and that's just being nice). I gave it a 6 just because it bored me even more than it did replaying MW2 for the sixth time over, but on its own, it's pretty good. Of course, the multiplayer AND singleplayer weapons are much more on par than CoDBO's were. Spec ops, even though i havent really done much of it yet, is ok, but the scenarios could be a bit less hard. All that stuff they say about the new multiplayer things, dont get all hyped. It's just same-old same-old every man for himself kinda thing that we've had for the past 7 games. It kills me inside to write this, because am truly a fan of CoD, but i must give the truth. Battlefield: Bad Company 2 is a much better choice, even with all the corporate bullcrap that EA gave it. It also kills me inside to just stop playing after 5 hours of campaign and roughly 30 minutes on multiplayer to go play battlefield, but i just cant stand all the solo, no teamwork stuff that is CoD. But dont believe all the people that gave it a low rating, those are just the younger battlefield fanboys who like CoD, too. FINAL CONCLUSION: MW3 is a rather good game. The campaign story is well put together, but the actual singleplayer gameplay leaves more to be desired. Multiplayer, nothing has changed. remember when you thought Black Ops would be radically different with the points buying guns system? Not only are they back to the same old level up stuff, but i am just depressed with how little they added to the multiplayer. even the maps are the same freaking things. Graphics, jesus christ, they didnt even change the goddamn textures. this game is barely worth $30, based on the previous two, which were totally worth the money. I am sad to say, i slightly disapprove of this game. i hate saying it, especially because its probably the conclusion of the series, but it leaves more to be desired. Thanks a lot InfinityWard, you broke my freakin heart. Expand
  20. Nov 14, 2011
    6
    Ok i'll try to be as fair as possible. If you own MW2 or BO and you don't want to waste money don't buy MW3. Reason is that MW3 is similar to MW2 and there are better games to spent your money out there. Single player campaign is similar to MW2 but with less spice twists and thrills. I was expecting an all out mayhem but instead i get a few "good fights" every now and then accompanied by aOk i'll try to be as fair as possible. If you own MW2 or BO and you don't want to waste money don't buy MW3. Reason is that MW3 is similar to MW2 and there are better games to spent your money out there. Single player campaign is similar to MW2 but with less spice twists and thrills. I was expecting an all out mayhem but instead i get a few "good fights" every now and then accompanied by a few "shocking" scenes ( not even close to the "no Russian" chapter joyful massacre). The campaign kicks in strong but all the intensity and excitement fades away soon. I also think the campaign must be smaller than MW2's or at least it feels like it is. Multiplayer is a review on its own. Graphics are like a polished MW2. Guns may look a bit better but overall its all the same deal as in MW2. No real changes. Soundwise i'll have to say that i really enjoyed the campaign score since it really adds up to the whole experience but tha'ts not enough. All the sounds are the same as MW2 with the exception of the majority of gun sounds. Most are just worse. Especially if you attach a silencer. Rest are the same as MW2. Now as far as gameplay ( which i believe is the most important part of a game. Gameplay > graphics)
    Single player is a linear story line picking up from the point MW2 ends and progresses through the eyes of various soldiers, deltas and so on. Nothing different from MW2. But who cares about Single Player anyway? CoD is all about Multiplayer right?

    Multiplayer. Mixed feelings about it to be honest. One can say that MW3 Multiplayer is a big content patch of MW2. I wouldn't blame him since i get the exact same experience by playing MW2. the new kill confirmed mode is nothing more than a deathmatch with dogtags you have to pick from the dead. No real difference than the actual TDM. Everything else is the same. CTF, DOM, SAB, S&D are all there both in normal and in hardcore. I havent noticed the really "awesome" third person mode from MW2 so i guess devs realized that it was an insult to all intelligent life on this planet so they removed it :) There are only a handful of maps and this stupid voting system remains. They somehow improved it by allowing us to vote between 2 maps per session. There is no more random map selection in case the original selection was voted to skip by the players. It's either this map or that map now. However i get the feeling that there is a limited amount of maps. Also most of the maps are medium to small size urban battlefields suitable for UMP madness and campers and less joy for snipers and such. Now lets see how soon the first DLC will arive.
    Guns. Although they finally added a few of "must have guns" 90% of the MW2 weaponry is here. New additions in all weapon categories. For the complete weapon list just use google :P I do have to say that i dont see a lot of eastern toys (again)..All the rifles are western with the exception of the AK47. Same goes for all the weapon categories.. They also removed the FN FAL :( Weapon handling is identical to MW2. You wont need to get used to MW3 guns at all. Classes. I have to say i really like what they did. In MW3 you get to customize your class to its full extend. I like the fact that you can lvl up weapons now and customize your loadout even further. I also like the new killstreak system and its mechanics. Again you can customize your loadout with a much more efficient way.
    One thing i don't like is the absence of the nuke and the fact that you can reach tier2 and tier 3 killstreak rewards even if you die in the middle since once you reach the first "checkpoint" by obtaining your first killstreak if you die right after the killstreak count is not back to 0 but to its last killstreak checkpoint. In other words if you need 14 kills to call in a AC130 and you reach 5 kills and call in a predator and then you get killed the game will put you back to your 5 killstreak count meaning you ll need 9 more kills to call the AC130 while in MW2 you would be back in 0. Lame. Another thing i really hate and i hoped they would have it fixed (apparently the didn't) is the UMP and the pain it delivers. I think that this weapon is by far the most OP gun i have seen. It's like equipping your BFG and head out to kill everyone. I'ts recoiless it has tremendous accuracy and range it's light and has a superior rate of fire. If you master the UMP then every other single weapon is obsolete.Great balance. Oh and for those that haven't heard. IWnet will be our bff in MW3 as well. Apparently they don't like server based multiplayer in IW and Activision. Suffice to say that Lag and host issues are thriving. Also MW3 hates my router as well. NAT is always strict unless i DMZ my router just like in MW2. If you are addicted like me buy it now. If you use your head and respect both your hard earned cash and your intelligence don't buy it and either buy another game or wait for its price to drop. Hope my review was helpful.
    Expand
  21. Nov 10, 2011
    5
    This game has achieved what we thougth almost impossible: it is worse by far than Black Ops.

    The graphics are a joke, they are 2009 graphics. The game doesn't take advantage of the greater capabilities of PC hardware, seems that they've make a port of the console version. The explosions, animations, sounds, all of them worse than Black Ops. The jump animation for instance, is shorter,
    This game has achieved what we thougth almost impossible: it is worse by far than Black Ops.

    The graphics are a joke, they are 2009 graphics. The game doesn't take advantage of the greater capabilities of PC hardware, seems that they've make a port of the console version.
    The explosions, animations, sounds, all of them worse than Black Ops. The jump animation for instance, is shorter, slower, and it feels like a man-on-the-moon jump.
    There's no need to bother aiming, just spray and hit. Any n00b can get kills, since the maps are really small, designed for one-vs-one close combat. Snipers won't get fun here, there are no long corridors, and the field of visions feels plain (no deep). Of course there are tons of guys running with sniper rifles and sometimes quickscoping. This is not realistic.
    The movement looks more robot-like, the turns are really unnatural. They have removed the dive movement.
    If you enjoy running in small maps, use an entire reload to kill an enemy, then die becouse a n00b was in the nearest corner and you have lag (since the host is determined automatically), this is your game. Otherwise, rent it a weekend to see the fireworks in the campaign mode, but don't buy it because it is not worth that money.
    Expand
  22. Nov 15, 2011
    5
    Don't buy Skyrim and CODMW3 together, or you'll wind up playing this for 30 minutes and getting bored as hell, and Skyrim for 8 hours and have a blast.
  23. Feb 9, 2012
    6
    I enjoyed the single player campaign but it was very very short.
  24. Nov 11, 2011
    6
    MW3 has really lost touch with what makes video games great. I loved MW1 because that game brought so much to the table. That game had big maps, small maps, ranked dedicated servers, so many options that you could play the game however you wanted. Now IW has decided to lock everything down and force people to play the game in very specific ways. NOT FUN AT ALL. I bought this gameMW3 has really lost touch with what makes video games great. I loved MW1 because that game brought so much to the table. That game had big maps, small maps, ranked dedicated servers, so many options that you could play the game however you wanted. Now IW has decided to lock everything down and force people to play the game in very specific ways. NOT FUN AT ALL. I bought this game because I was excited that IW was bringing back dedicated servers to us PC gamers. I boycotted MW2 because they took away dedicated servers, so seeing them return was rather nice. But then I find out that the dedicated servers are NOT ranked, so if I want to unlock anything I have to play the game the way IW wants me to play it. NOT the way I want to play it. I honestly don't understand how IW justifies a 60 dollar price on a game that has less features than MW1 and uses the same graphics engine as MW1 (albeit they improved on this over the years.) The whole game reeks of laziness as I see all the maps are super tiny, and only seem to favor people that like to "run and gun." But what about those of us that like to use a little strategy or have more than 18 people in a map? What about people that don't want to "run and gun" the whole time? I give the game a 6 because of the single player campaign and because the game is not completely broken. But it HAS lost everything that made MW1 great. I am going to try to find a way to get my money back. I am sad that IW has stooped to making this when they clearly know (or used to know) how to make a good game. Shame on you IW, and shame on me for spending 60 dollars for this. Expand
  25. Apr 4, 2012
    5
    this is game is pathetic, no, almost disgusting I wonder if COD: Black Ops was also nul.J 'love this game a long time but this time it's not very convincing so I recommend you BATTLEFIELD 3 instead.
  26. Jun 10, 2012
    5
    Hi.Ive played this game more than a 100 hours and now i am ready to write it.At first I thought the game was perfect.I liked everything and i liked it more than Battlefield 3.But after spending hours and hours on it soon enough ive understood that the plot is boring the multiplayer and even the whole game is just copying MW2.And MW2 is copying Cod4 (Awesome game i must say).So here i go -Hi.Ive played this game more than a 100 hours and now i am ready to write it.At first I thought the game was perfect.I liked everything and i liked it more than Battlefield 3.But after spending hours and hours on it soon enough ive understood that the plot is boring the multiplayer and even the whole game is just copying MW2.And MW2 is copying Cod4 (Awesome game i must say).So here i go - i give it 5 only because ive spent some fun time with my friends here. Expand
  27. Nov 10, 2011
    5
    Its the same thing over an over again with recycled material. Honestly i dont mind playing COD but the amount map packs cost + "elite service" which should be f'in free, is insulting.
  28. Nov 9, 2011
    5
    Most expensive map pack ever made. Even looking at it as the standalone expansion that it is, its still not worth the $60 price tag. Basically you pay the usual $15 for the map pack, plus $45 for the 5 hour campaign. Yet, it will still sell millions of units. Stupid compulsive gamers.
  29. Nov 9, 2011
    5
    You cant give the game a 0.....but you cant give the game anything more than a 5 either. I question the "professional" reviewers and their integrity by awarding this game so highly. At its best its a map pack for MW2. Only buy this game if you after the exact experience you have had for entire MW series. I actually look back and think that MW1 was superior to this entry. It was excitingYou cant give the game a 0.....but you cant give the game anything more than a 5 either. I question the "professional" reviewers and their integrity by awarding this game so highly. At its best its a map pack for MW2. Only buy this game if you after the exact experience you have had for entire MW series. I actually look back and think that MW1 was superior to this entry. It was exciting and fresh. The maps on this are poorly designed and small. It encourages sub machine gun run and shoot play only. The spawn points are just awful. The only people giving this game high reviews are fan boys who dont understand gaming. I will say its a prefessional package and put together with quality.....but the developers should be good at this by now.....they have done it three times in a row. Expand
  30. Nov 10, 2011
    5
    This is basically a map pack for MW2. I really regret paying £39 for this pile of junk.. With the previous debacle on lack of dedicated servers I was in two minds whether to buy this or not. Having read the reviews I decided to give it a go and it was a mistake. For starters the graphics and the engine are really starting to show their age. Having also purchased BF3 (no I amThis is basically a map pack for MW2. I really regret paying £39 for this pile of junk.. With the previous debacle on lack of dedicated servers I was in two minds whether to buy this or not. Having read the reviews I decided to give it a go and it was a mistake. For starters the graphics and the engine are really starting to show their age. Having also purchased BF3 (no I am not a fan boy) there is a stark difference in the quality of the graphics that is almost emabarrising. The same applies to the sound.

    Secondly the game just feels like an add on for MW2... the weapons feel the same, the whole package feels very similar. Overall this feels to me like they are milking gamers. With such a high selling franchise why haven't they moved this to a more up to date engine? Having made so much money off of this cash cow surely they are in the best position to do this.

    On the plus side the new awards system is a good idea in that it doesn't just focus on kill streaks... that's about it.

    I really don't understand the mag reviews giving this 90%'s etc...
    Expand
  31. Nov 14, 2011
    6
    Being 21, and getting in to gaming at a early age I saw the rise and fall of many fps's from quake, counterstrike and halo. This is the tipping point for Cod. Looking at the single player first. the campaign was shallow, characters weak and thin. but you dont expect much more from a fps. The main flaw with the campain is that it all felt reused. levels felt as if i had been there before inBeing 21, and getting in to gaming at a early age I saw the rise and fall of many fps's from quake, counterstrike and halo. This is the tipping point for Cod. Looking at the single player first. the campaign was shallow, characters weak and thin. but you dont expect much more from a fps. The main flaw with the campain is that it all felt reused. levels felt as if i had been there before in previous games and looking back we had. the story was stock standard military fiction which for the younger audence (alot of whole shouldnt be playing this game) would be fresh and new, but to anyone over the age of 18, who have read or watched military fiction in the past nothing should take you by surprise.

    The Spec ops mode is the same out of MW2, this is no bad thing. Some of the missions alow you to play out campain segments but from the other sides view point, This is honestly the most interesting part of the game, particulary if you play the campain first. I wish all the spec op missions followed this structure but some are just copy paste and pick up these things on the way.

    The online multiplayer i have very mixed feelings about. I am level 57 currently, so i have decent experence with the online. the strike packages idea is great. but the assult package is so flawed that over the comming weeks as players pick these things up it could ruin the multiplayer experence. The Assult package, what should be a high risk high reward set up is actualy low risk with very high reward. To prevent the loss of your streek you want to reduce the chances of your death, this means to be sucsessful with this package the player is best suited to perks that prevent equipment or killstreek deaths, aswell as useing silences and uav jamers /prevention perks. This realy encourages camping, 5 kills in a row is enough to get you steamrolling. this is a massive problem in there new gamemodes such as kill confirmed or classisc domination in wich players need to pick up objects to score / prevent score or be at specific locations.
    The "MLG Pro" culture CoD is pushing dosent help much eather. the community is full of "xXxpr0scop3zxXx" and "MLGn00bHuNtEr" that is equal parts sad tofrustrating seeing people on your team trying over and over again for "no scopz" and "kn1fe only" while i can see this could add a degree of chalenge for a player that they may enjoy, the more x's and z's in there name the more likely it is that they are trying to get footage.

    apart from that The multiplayer is MW2, not bad, not that great eather. but if you get in to it prepare for as much grief as success.

    Other grips with the game are:
    -minor graphical issues, and slightly dated graphics.
    -same ui assets, text fonts, etc.
    -character voices always rushed
    -military lingo used at every opputunity in and out of context.

    but these things are so very minor that they dont realy effect how I would score the game, they just feel a little tacky. Like timber vinal in a car.

    CoD is becoming the Justin Biber of the gaming world, Everyone but its super dedicated fanbase is seeing its problems. The currecnt fps's of today are all ready to drift to the background. CoD is lucky that there is nothing new or fresh in the market to compeate because sadly this will be the only online console fps realy played this season.
    Expand
  32. Feb 22, 2012
    6
    Let's get one thing straight, gentlemen and gentlemen; Call of Duty is a franchise that cannot be changed, no matter whatsoever. The games are repetitive, the single player is unispired, terrible lag servers are spread across the internet.... But then, there are the **** idiots like me who still enjoy and embrace the decent resolution and gun control of the game. I really hate ActivisionLet's get one thing straight, gentlemen and gentlemen; Call of Duty is a franchise that cannot be changed, no matter whatsoever. The games are repetitive, the single player is unispired, terrible lag servers are spread across the internet.... But then, there are the **** idiots like me who still enjoy and embrace the decent resolution and gun control of the game. I really hate Activision for all the **** they made, but think about this; we really have no choice; take it or leave it. For me, I'm taking this **** Expand
  33. Nov 8, 2011
    6
    I've played CoD since 2003 when the first one came out. Every year i couldn't wait for the next title to come out. CoD2 and CoD4 (BF2 as well) were the greatest shooters i ever played. This all changed with MW2. The game became a console game, Activision forgot about the PC community, removed dedicated servers and just made the multiplayer a crap experience. I expected Black Ops to fixI've played CoD since 2003 when the first one came out. Every year i couldn't wait for the next title to come out. CoD2 and CoD4 (BF2 as well) were the greatest shooters i ever played. This all changed with MW2. The game became a console game, Activision forgot about the PC community, removed dedicated servers and just made the multiplayer a crap experience. I expected Black Ops to fix that. It failed. Infinity Ward put my hopes up saying they will make it 'more like CoD4' and 'dedicated servers'. Unranked dedicated servers - waste! unranked dedis is like a kick in the balls to PC gamers. MW3 is a copy of MW2 with new guns and maps. Only thing I'm happy about is campaign, which i always enjoy in every CoD (even if the story is braindead - Black Ops), and Spec Ops. I like survival mode, its a nice addition. Due to the good singleplayer, i'm giving this game a 6, but Activision really should make multiplayer 'more like CoD4'. Expand
  34. Nov 15, 2011
    6
    First off, MW3 isn't a bad game. Granted, it's not great... the (alleged) "Hollywood blockbuster" single-player campaign, while mildly enjoyable, is a little bit tired and very predictable and the multi-player, which most would consider the real reason for buying any MW game, is a slightly more refined version of MW2. The strike packages and the additional game modes are an interestingFirst off, MW3 isn't a bad game. Granted, it's not great... the (alleged) "Hollywood blockbuster" single-player campaign, while mildly enjoyable, is a little bit tired and very predictable and the multi-player, which most would consider the real reason for buying any MW game, is a slightly more refined version of MW2. The strike packages and the additional game modes are an interesting addition though it does feel like more of an expansion of MW2 than an entirely new game (and the brief single player certainly doesn't warrant the additional cost). The number of maps included with the game was certainly a pleasant surprise.

    If you've never played a MW game before, you certainly can't go wrong with MW3 but you might be better off picking up the original MW/CoD4 as it is (in my opinion) the best game in the series so far.

    Activision need to avoid driving this series into the ground (like they have with other titles) and take a couple of years off. Spend some time listening to the players and come back with some fresh ideas for the next MW game.
    Expand
  35. Nov 9, 2011
    5
    Technically sub par with severely overrated gameplay and missing platform features.

    That sums up Call of Duty experience on the PC. The franchise is a technology dinosaur when it comes to the FPS genre, especially on the PC which hasn't stayed the same since 2007's release of the console centric Modern Warfare. It doesn't set the bar, in fact it's behind the curve significantly, and if
    Technically sub par with severely overrated gameplay and missing platform features.

    That sums up Call of Duty experience on the PC. The franchise is a technology dinosaur when it comes to the FPS genre, especially on the PC which hasn't stayed the same since 2007's release of the console centric Modern Warfare. It doesn't set the bar, in fact it's behind the curve significantly, and if you're a PC gamer it's going to be instantly noticeable and painful. Painful because of how much of a bad console port it truly is. Elite service is missing outright. Ranked dedicated servers don't exist. It's back to console technology of peer-to-peer multiplayer networking. No advanced graphical technology or redesigned anything for increased player counters either.

    PC gamers should really not have to accept such things especially in a genre that was born on the PC. Continuing to purchase Call of Duty on the PC when every year the games lose more features for the PC platform specifically isn't going to change anything. Quit buying awful console ports with missing features PC gamers or else that's all you're going to have in the end. Support developers who incorporate the PC's strengths and are willing to go the extra couple of feet with multiplatform releases. 5: It functions and decent production values. It does nothing new, missing features, and significantly behind other competitors out there.
    Expand
  36. Nov 9, 2011
    6
    So, tis the season for another Call of Duty game. Last years Black Ops was a hit, i enjoyed it thoroughly, the multiplayer levels had space, and were entertaining. Although Black Ops was good in its own ways, Modern Warfare 2 was the company's best hit. I rushed out at 11:45pm on November 7th, spilling my change on the counter, drooling over the package itself. After i pop it in, thatSo, tis the season for another Call of Duty game. Last years Black Ops was a hit, i enjoyed it thoroughly, the multiplayer levels had space, and were entertaining. Although Black Ops was good in its own ways, Modern Warfare 2 was the company's best hit. I rushed out at 11:45pm on November 7th, spilling my change on the counter, drooling over the package itself. After i pop it in, that drool puddle seemed to turn into sweat, being so nervous that this was a flop. Don't get me wrong, the campaign had its high-points after the jumbled ala-carte 30% mark, it just did not leave a lasting impression. I beat the campaign in four hours give or take. The multiplayer i was hoping would rescue this title from the growing shadow of its older brother MW2. The level design on is cramped. I find no creativity in the levels, or even depth the levels should add to the basic gameplay. No, i was fully let down by this game. Decent Campaign, Not enough creativity, or new additions to please me. Sorry Infinity ward, but you guys let me down. Expand
  37. Nov 20, 2011
    5
    I picked up this game on launch day and ran through the campaign. Single player took about four and a half hours to finish which was somewhat disappointing. The game felt like a Micheal Bay film plenty of explosions and action. But like all Micheal Bay films it lacked a coherent story and if this is your first Modern Warfare Call of Duty game then you could care less about the characters.I picked up this game on launch day and ran through the campaign. Single player took about four and a half hours to finish which was somewhat disappointing. The game felt like a Micheal Bay film plenty of explosions and action. But like all Micheal Bay films it lacked a coherent story and if this is your first Modern Warfare Call of Duty game then you could care less about the characters. Only thing I'm content with about this game is that it is finally over. The series was wrapped up as sloppy as possible but at the very least the story was concluded. As for the multiplayer aspect of this game, on PC it is beyond horrendous. There are dedicated servers which is a step up from Modern Warfare 2 but they are unranked. Meaning that you can't level as you would a ranked matched game. So it takes out the whole point of playing on a dedicated server unless you want to get away from the hackers. Oh boy there are a lot of hackers in this game. 7 out of 10 games feature at least 3-4 hackers. Ranging from wall hacks to aim bots even rank hacks. How could someone prestige to the 10th tier if the game has been barely out a month? What's even more disappointing is the ranked matches are horrible done. If your host you most certainly get the jump on everyone and have the higher score at the end of the round. Assuming of course the match isn't filled with hackers.

    Overall this game is somewhat mediocre. No innovations and not even better graphics. Same engine and same gameplay. It is the last MW3 in the saga and thank goodness for that.
    Expand
  38. Jan 19, 2012
    6
    This actually, wasn't too bad, but probably only worth it to finish up the Modern Warfare storyline.

    I've always favored Infinity Ward iterations of the COD franchise, and to be honest, I wasn't expecting MW3 to actually be released after that issue a while back of Activision kicking quite a few of the Infinity Ward team off the project. Now, the single player of MW3 is very good, voice
    This actually, wasn't too bad, but probably only worth it to finish up the Modern Warfare storyline.

    I've always favored Infinity Ward iterations of the COD franchise, and to be honest, I wasn't expecting MW3 to actually be released after that issue a while back of Activision kicking quite a few of the Infinity Ward team off the project.

    Now, the single player of MW3 is very good, voice acting is nice, the storyline isn't hard to follow, even ties in with scenes from COD4 and MW2, the graphics are crisp and rich in detail, not to mention the campaign's ending was actually quite satisfying. The gameplay is more or less the same as MW2 with new weapons, a new campaign that continues right where MW2 left off, and adds a few new characters. Whether or not you class this as a bad thing is up to you, I'll personally admit yes it did get a little repetitive later on in the game.

    I'm quite reclusive and most of my internet time was spent on dialup / satellite internet so I never quite got around to playing multiplayer, but I hear a lot of complaints about the matchmaking system. To be honest I feel the matchmaking should stay with the game consoles.. or as a secondary option with the choice of a server browser, so you have a choice with either a casual match with random people or a good game with people you know from a clan. (Off the record.. Just my opinion, Call of Duty's multiplayer is not deep like the fans say. To be honest it hasn't really changed much since COD4.)

    And of course, I'm going to cite my protest at Activision with their greed. 15 dollars for a DLC is insane, I could wait for one of Steam's holiday sales and get 3 or 4 full games for the price. Hell, I even grabbed BOTH Mass Effect 1 and 2 for a total of 5 dollars less than one of the Call of Duty DLCs. Not to mention their absolutely stupid decision to cancel popular game series' like Guitar Hero, Its a no brainer why EA is kicking their arses royally right now.
    Expand
  39. Dec 27, 2011
    6
    A lot of people thought this game of 2011 is worse than DNF, but technically that is wrong by far. Although there's nothing significantly new with recycled content from the previous MW game, the big upside is the popularity of this game overhyped by players giving low scores. This game could beat the most popular movie of all time which is Avatar. But the only features that owe up theA lot of people thought this game of 2011 is worse than DNF, but technically that is wrong by far. Although there's nothing significantly new with recycled content from the previous MW game, the big upside is the popularity of this game overhyped by players giving low scores. This game could beat the most popular movie of all time which is Avatar. But the only features that owe up the obsolete content in MW3 are dedicated servers and modding support. Overall this game isn't worth the $60 price tag with additional cost on future DLC. Expand
  40. Nov 23, 2011
    5
    It's an average shooter, nothing really stands out. Infact it's lacking even compared to older FPS games and that's before considering how badly it's ported to the PC.


    The campaign is short and the story could have come from a once off comic book for gun ho teens, presuming it could even keep them interested.

    Only good part worth mentioning is one point in the game where the playerIt's an average shooter, nothing really stands out. Infact it's lacking even compared to older FPS games and that's before considering how badly it's ported to the PC.


    The campaign is short and the story could have come from a once off comic book for gun ho teens, presuming it could even keep them interested.


    Only good part worth mentioning is one point in the game where the player is heavily armoured which is fun and changes things up, other than that there's nothing good to mention about Modern Warfare 3. It's beating a dead horse, that died in a previous game. Expand

  41. Nov 14, 2011
    6
    This is essentially CoD Black Ops with a different storyline. It plays smooth and the single player experience goes from one "over the top" moment to another. However, that is pretty much all it has going for it. Gaming atmosphere is ok. Story is pretty bad. Graphics are average and pretty bad in comparison to BF3. Not sure how the magazines are doing their reviews if they don't see that.This is essentially CoD Black Ops with a different storyline. It plays smooth and the single player experience goes from one "over the top" moment to another. However, that is pretty much all it has going for it. Gaming atmosphere is ok. Story is pretty bad. Graphics are average and pretty bad in comparison to BF3. Not sure how the magazines are doing their reviews if they don't see that. On the technical side MW3 is far behind BF3. I especially like BF3's environment damage, but they also make good use of elements like smoke and light to add new tactical options.
    Multiplayer has turned into a circus for players not meeting the age requirement of MW3.
    Expand
  42. Nov 13, 2011
    5
    MW3, well to review this game you could have just played MW2 its exactly the same with a few minor changes. I've played a lot of cod over the years since cod 4, about 80 days worth so i know and love cod especially the multilayer, ive maxed out prestige in all the games since cod 4. MW3 is exactly the same as MW2 same game engine, same graphics, same sounds, same guns, with a few new addedMW3, well to review this game you could have just played MW2 its exactly the same with a few minor changes. I've played a lot of cod over the years since cod 4, about 80 days worth so i know and love cod especially the multilayer, ive maxed out prestige in all the games since cod 4. MW3 is exactly the same as MW2 same game engine, same graphics, same sounds, same guns, with a few new added little perks and what not but it just seems that they have put absolutely no effort in game development over the past 2 years, with such a big market share and big budgets you would think they would produce something new and innovative to liven up the cod series but they haven't its the same as MW2. Its still fun though and if you liked MW2 you will like MW3, prestige in this game is said to have greater rewards which is something ive always wanted, but i wont be playing this game, something unusual for me as ive played every other cod game to death but its just the same game repackaged every year. go buy cod 4 instead. im gonna go play skyrim. Expand
  43. Nov 13, 2011
    5
    I'm playing COD since COD 1. I share the opinion of many before that COD is geting more and more bad. Only look at the graphik and level design in the mp and than compare to BF 3, who are interested in creating a really great graphik with great levels. There are worlds between it. Try to sniper in the little maps of COD. Its nearly impossible. Than the spawn system. Just stay for no 10I'm playing COD since COD 1. I share the opinion of many before that COD is geting more and more bad. Only look at the graphik and level design in the mp and than compare to BF 3, who are interested in creating a really great graphik with great levels. There are worlds between it. Try to sniper in the little maps of COD. Its nearly impossible. Than the spawn system. Just stay for no 10 sek somewhere. I swear you'l be knifed by someone who spawns beside you. Its no playing, its nothing more than dying-spawning, dying-spawning.....and clearly, it's programmed, because the maps are big as a little shoe-box. Than dedis, but not ranket. What the hell is this ?? Let the player decide . . bla bla bla ... It really makes no fun for me any more. It's the last COD I've byed . Sorry... Expand
  44. Nov 14, 2011
    6
    Not bad, the single player is really good, i enjoyed it a lot. Multiplayer is as always addictive, and the new survival mode is fun to play as well. There are also 16 spec ops missions for 2 players which is nice.
    Would have given a 9 if there was an option to change field of view which is terrible.
  45. Nov 15, 2011
    6
    Having played through all the aspects of MW3 now I can safely say that the game isn't completely what I expected from it. Ever since the game went towards consoles as its main focus (I'd say the turningpoint was post-CoD 4) I have had a certain amount of dissapointment whenever I played through a new call of duty. In this installment there seem to be alot of small things that add up to aHaving played through all the aspects of MW3 now I can safely say that the game isn't completely what I expected from it. Ever since the game went towards consoles as its main focus (I'd say the turningpoint was post-CoD 4) I have had a certain amount of dissapointment whenever I played through a new call of duty. In this installment there seem to be alot of small things that add up to a very flawed game. Don't get me wrong, I liked the campaign (even though it took me only roughly 4 hours to complete it, which is in all honesty very, very short). And i'm having a blast in some parts of the multiplayer. The specialist streak is fun, and i'm very happy sniping is back to the way it was pre-blackops. That's basicly what I have to say about the good stuff. On to the bad stuff, with a focus on the multiplayer part of the game.

    The first multiplayer thing I tried out was the Survival coop. In the very first game I played something went wrong with the game's netcode and me and my partner got desynced, causing very strange (a bit funny) behaviour. This has happened quite often again, and it's ruining the coop experience. Hope this gets fixed asap.

    The online multiplayer, here we go, commence the ranting:
    - The maps are too small, too cluttered and too dense. When you create a weapon balance without stopping power that relies on all weapons killing extremely fast, you should not have very small maps where you spawn on top of each other. When you are playing well defending an objective and you can get attacked from 4 diffrent angles due to faulty spawns and insane killspeeds, this takes away a large part of the skill ceiling, keeping it very low. Bad players can just spawn behind a good player and kill him with no chance to retaliate. This is bad, and very counter-intuitive for competitive gameplay.
    - weapon balance is off, but this is to be excpected. I won't drag the rating down because of this, we'll have to see how fast IW responds with patches.
    - The titles and emblems are (like alot of other things in the game) copies and pastes of the previous MW installment. In many cases the emblems even correspond the same old challenges from before. This comes over as very cheap and lazy. It can't be very difficult or costly to have a few artists spend some days creating new art, achievements and challenges.
    - IWNET. On the PC, as much as they would like for this to work, it really, really doesn' t do it. Latencies are terrible, even with good connections. Wait times are enormous. (1 minute after every game, searching takes up to 5 minutes, etc...). This was the only thing Blackops did right in my opinion. Dedicated servers, like the unranked ones, are the only true solution for a PC platform. Oh, and using "piracy, anti-cheat and rank hacking" as excuses for using IWnet are garbage. It is possible to change the rate at which you gain XP simply by editting a TEXT file on the CLIENT side. So if you really wanted to put in an effort to reduce these things, you would have. Making sad excuses is not going to convince the intelligent people amongst the gaming populace.
    - There are more, smaller more detailed flaws, but for the sake of legibility of this comment-review I will not go into them. Feel free to contact me if you want to know more ;)

    All in all it's certainly not a bad game. The biggest problem is that it looks, plays, sounds and acts like someone just took the work of the previous IW team, MW2, fiddled around with it a bit, added some things here and there, broke some things here and there and then released it to the public as a new game. As i said before, it all looks a little "cheap".

    I hope the people from IW/Sledgehammer read this review and realise that it's not yet too late to fix a number of issues, and to listen to the community and not wait until the next MW installment to fix general problems. The metacritic scores given here, while drastic, do reflect a general gamers concensus about this game. Talk to us, listen to us and who knows, maybe you can go back to creating the game that COD used to be in the COD 2/ COD 4 days.

    Banorac.
    Expand
  46. Nov 25, 2011
    6
    Where to start with this game? Maybe it's all the **** running around with Akimbo FMG9's owning all and their mother's from ridiculous range's. Or maybe its the 'Lag Compensation' the worse abomination known to man, that thing should of been shot at birth. Making anyone with a decent connection suffer for that privilege, giving all the scrub's free kill's.

    Maybe Its the player base
    Where to start with this game? Maybe it's all the **** running around with Akimbo FMG9's owning all and their mother's from ridiculous range's. Or maybe its the 'Lag Compensation' the worse abomination known to man, that thing should of been shot at birth. Making anyone with a decent connection suffer for that privilege, giving all the scrub's free kill's.

    Maybe Its the player base which seem's to have been scraped from the underside of the ballsack that is the current Call of Duty fanbase.

    I don't know what it is about this game that produces such hatred in me and why i keep coming back for more punishment. Like an abused spouse i still love this game.

    Even after all its fault's the Call of Duty series is my game serie's and i will always come back for more.

    This game is ****
    Expand
  47. Jul 16, 2013
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. oing beyond "run and gun corridors," "monster-closet AIs" and static worlds, BioShock creates a living, unique and unpredictable FPS experience. After your plane crashes into icy uncharted waters, you discover a rusted bathysphere and descend into Rapture, a city hidden beneath the sea. Constructed as an idealistic society for a hand picked group of scientists, artists and industrialists, the idealism is no Expand
  48. Dec 25, 2011
    7
    I really enjoyed the single player campaign in MW3. It kept my attention and offered enough challenge to want to play it to the finish. I thought it was a great ending to the Modern Warfare trilogy. Some say the graphics are outdated, but if it works, then don't try to fix it. The mulitplayer is another story. I play it, but it's not my favorite. I prefer Battlefield 3 and COD BlackI really enjoyed the single player campaign in MW3. It kept my attention and offered enough challenge to want to play it to the finish. I thought it was a great ending to the Modern Warfare trilogy. Some say the graphics are outdated, but if it works, then don't try to fix it. The mulitplayer is another story. I play it, but it's not my favorite. I prefer Battlefield 3 and COD Black Ops multi over MW2 and 3. The Co-op Survival and Resistance is innovative and fun. Expand
  49. Nov 8, 2011
    5
    Look at it from a different point of view. This game has spent 2 years in development! And this is the best they can come up with. Christ! my Nan could make a better go at a MW then IW. To start with the maps are as small as my back garden and encourage camping the the nth degree. Noob tubes have been toned down (thank god) but corners have been increased (not good). The guns feel sluggishLook at it from a different point of view. This game has spent 2 years in development! And this is the best they can come up with. Christ! my Nan could make a better go at a MW then IW. To start with the maps are as small as my back garden and encourage camping the the nth degree. Noob tubes have been toned down (thank god) but corners have been increased (not good). The guns feel sluggish and weak and with a level cap of 80 is going to be hard to hit with out going crazy. In the time it would take to get to level 80 I would recommend learning and instrument or something because its not worth it. Maybe the first 50 levels, but it gets old fast. Dont like comparing other games to this but BF3 creams all over this title. Expand
  50. Dec 23, 2011
    7
    Yes the Graphics are a bit dated, yes the campaign could use work, and yes it is in much the same formula as the other COD games, but lets be honest this is what most people were expecting, and most would have been upset if the game had radically changed itself between installments. If you were expecting something different from the formula you were deluding yourself, they wont change theYes the Graphics are a bit dated, yes the campaign could use work, and yes it is in much the same formula as the other COD games, but lets be honest this is what most people were expecting, and most would have been upset if the game had radically changed itself between installments. If you were expecting something different from the formula you were deluding yourself, they wont change the game drastically until it stops making money, and at that point they will stop producing the series or they will shake it up and make something different. Who knows. Expand
  51. Nov 20, 2011
    7
    MW1 was great, MW 2 a bit less great, and MW3 a bit less great. Still a nice game if you've never played MW before. This is more of a nice expansion to MW2 really. Not worth the full game's price or title.
  52. Nov 15, 2011
    6
    If you are a fan of fast-paced shooters, and/or enjoyed MW2, you'll like this game. Haters gonna hate, but the fact is that the Call of Duty franchise does not make GOOD games, they make FUN games, which is why I play games.
  53. Nov 16, 2011
    7
    It's a solid game with the strongest singleplayer of the entire series with some amazing moments and decent visuals for the ageing engine. Coop is solid with survival mode and spec op missions. The multiplayer maybe more of the same but thats not a bad thing as the majority still love it.
  54. Nov 21, 2011
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. RIP Sandman, Soap, Ghost, Yuri. Graphic: same as all ways so you want be disappointed but you wont be thrilled. Story: great storyline since cod4 and i think that it got epic ending. Music: epic in the right moments. Characters: love them and miss them. Gameplay: absence of some kind of training but because game is same as previous titles its not so hard to get .. SP is maybe short but every fps is short lately (MoH, BF3) Also this is review of someone who hates all COD games and activision.. MoH forever!!â Expand
  55. Nov 20, 2011
    7
    The game in and of it's self is solid, but there is still an apparent lack of innovation, the campaign as always, pretty epic, but the multiplayer really doesn't add anything new, if anything it takes features that were established in Black Ops, a currency based staggered unlock system meant you could unlock what ever you felt fit your play style straight away, rather than waiting for it.The game in and of it's self is solid, but there is still an apparent lack of innovation, the campaign as always, pretty epic, but the multiplayer really doesn't add anything new, if anything it takes features that were established in Black Ops, a currency based staggered unlock system meant you could unlock what ever you felt fit your play style straight away, rather than waiting for it. The PC release is rather sloppy, bugs plague it, we get stuck with IWnet if we want to earn those shiny unlocks, it's pretty poor. While these things can be added down the track, I'm not entirely sure it will happen if only because in 12 months time a new Call of Duty will hit store shelves and they will want us to fork out another $100 minus cost of DLC. If pricing wasn't so terrible in Australia I wouldn't complain, but I would like to get my moneys worth out of a game not feel ripped off. Expand
  56. May 31, 2012
    7
    When it comes to competative multiplayer, I'm much more of a Battlefield guy. But when it comes to singleplayer, MW3 wins. I also enjoy the Spec Ops and survival mode, but nothing beats zombies. So I still play Black Ops for that.
  57. Nov 9, 2011
    7
    I think we should all leave out the SP in modern FPS. Devs decided that having internet means we don't want SP or even Co-op for some reason. I guess i belong to the few that i wasn'r expecting anything more,i am pleased with the game but as a PC gamer i really can't understand the fact that the in-game server browser has only unranked games. -1 for this. Aesthetically nothings changed,allI think we should all leave out the SP in modern FPS. Devs decided that having internet means we don't want SP or even Co-op for some reason. I guess i belong to the few that i wasn'r expecting anything more,i am pleased with the game but as a PC gamer i really can't understand the fact that the in-game server browser has only unranked games. -1 for this. Aesthetically nothings changed,all icons flags/arrows w/e are the same as before. Yes,i would love even the illusion that somethings different from previous games. -1 All maps are small.Good cause it gives little room for camping (even if i think the term is invalid...) and makes game more high paced but still,a couple bigger maps would add variety and thats always good i think. Still there are many maps so... +1 New additions like "Kill confirmed" are great,new perks etc.All good there. Still it feels more like an upgrade,nothing more. I'm not demanding so this is ok for me,not in that price tag though. -1 for what the game offers in that price Expand
  58. Nov 10, 2011
    7
    I've finished both bf3 and cod mw3. In my opinion both games aren't special. Bf 3 has excellent graphics but campaign lacks good action, on the other hand mw3 graphics sucks but single mode is quite fun. Campaign last around 6h and it's good conclusion for hole series.
  59. Nov 21, 2011
    7
    I've only ever played the first Modern Warfare and skipped the line to this one and its not as bad as everyone is making it out to be, sure it feels like an expansion pack but the fact is that it isn't. It works and has a somewhat new storyline and there are new elements included. Sure that doesn't make it the next amazing shooter and a perfect 10 but with so many shooters out there whatI've only ever played the first Modern Warfare and skipped the line to this one and its not as bad as everyone is making it out to be, sure it feels like an expansion pack but the fact is that it isn't. It works and has a somewhat new storyline and there are new elements included. Sure that doesn't make it the next amazing shooter and a perfect 10 but with so many shooters out there what haven't you seen in a shooter? What are they supposed to do? They've added some fun new content and the game works. It's a retread sure, but its a Modern Warfare game and I got exactly what I expected some new elements. I was able to play the game all the way through without a crash or some annoying visual bug and that's alot better than dozens of other AAA games out there. Expand
  60. Nov 18, 2011
    7
    This game is exactly what I expected it to be. Not ground breaking but still a solid COD title. As far as initial releases go, there have been few problems. The lobby system has been moderately improved in that your entire party leaves lobbies/games together when initiated by the lobby leader. Unfortunately the hackers were present within 48 hours of release. Hopefully Valve will do aThis game is exactly what I expected it to be. Not ground breaking but still a solid COD title. As far as initial releases go, there have been few problems. The lobby system has been moderately improved in that your entire party leaves lobbies/games together when initiated by the lobby leader. Unfortunately the hackers were present within 48 hours of release. Hopefully Valve will do a better job of providing a cheat free environment than they did with MW2. The single player campaign is exactly what you'd expect, albeit kind of short. But since I'm a 98% MP player I feel I'll ge my $60.00 worth out of this game, whether or not I'll turn it into a $90 game via DLC as I did with MW2 is currently undecided, but I doubt I will. Expand
  61. Nov 24, 2011
    7
    I have never really been a follower of the Call of Duty games; Back in the day, it was Medal of Honor or nothing, but since EA managed to practically destroy that series, like they did with many others (think C&C), I have been forced to look elsewhere. So here I am at Modern Warfare 3. Because I am somewhat lazy, I am just going to create a list of some dot-points.

    *It's the first COD
    I have never really been a follower of the Call of Duty games; Back in the day, it was Medal of Honor or nothing, but since EA managed to practically destroy that series, like they did with many others (think C&C), I have been forced to look elsewhere. So here I am at Modern Warfare 3. Because I am somewhat lazy, I am just going to create a list of some dot-points.

    *It's the first COD game I have played competitively online and I am enjoying the experience; aside from some bugs. One thing that does annoy me is that there is no big maps, so you are usually forced to use close-to-medium range guns. I can also understand why IW didn't change the multiplayer experience too much - it would have alienated the fan base. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", comes to mind here.

    *I do agree with most people here - the engine for this game is aging too much. Sure it has improved slightly over each game, but no matter how many labels IW slaps on the engine, its still the same thing. "No matter how much you polish turd...". The colours are dull and washed out, textures are flat and low resolution, shadows are horrible, the foliage does not look great, and the overall definition of the game ain't there. It's time for a new engine - one that actually looks decent on a 1080p screen.

    *Let's be honest here, I didn't buy COD for the campaign, so I don't care how mediocre it may seem, but as long as there is one I am not fussed. The storyline itself was extremely short and full of almost every cliche known to man. One big Hollywood explosion-fest. Where are the war games that actually make you feel the real emotions of war and the morals behind it all? A game that really makes you think about your actions or question what is happening in front of you. I know it might be hard to portray in an interactive media like games, but I'm sure its probably not entirely impossible.

    To sum it up, future COD games need a new engine, better story lines, and more map sizes and varieties. I'm not saying it has to compete with BF3 in terms of gameplay, like most people here ( That would be like comparing apples to oranges. One game offers large-scale multilayer with vehicles, the other is more like a death match arena game), it just has to improve it's core - what made it great in the first place. My decision to purchase Modern Warfare 3 was simple; I haven't owned a COD game before, and wanted to experience what the fuss was all about by purchasing the latest installment. I couldn't really careless about the previous games (although I did like World at War).

    And about he contrasting scores here on Metacritic - it was insane what the critics rated the game, I don't think it deserves that high of a score. As for the user reviews, most are people who compare it to BF3 or who feel betrayed, let-down, or conned by IW/Activision by not delivering a game that lives up to its very own hype, or the users own expectation. At the end of the day, who is more likely to voice their opinion? Someone who has something positive to say, or someone who has something negative to say?
    Expand
  62. Nov 19, 2011
    7
    As most Launch titles are these days they always require a bit of patching. A lot of the Imbalance in MW2 was eliminated by Nerfing and Removing certain elements, but compensated by the extra perks, point streaks and Unorthodox Maps. Gameplay still retains it's tradition with a few new extras.
    Love the idea with having Both Matchmaking and Dedicated Servers but disappointed on not being
    As most Launch titles are these days they always require a bit of patching. A lot of the Imbalance in MW2 was eliminated by Nerfing and Removing certain elements, but compensated by the extra perks, point streaks and Unorthodox Maps. Gameplay still retains it's tradition with a few new extras.
    Love the idea with having Both Matchmaking and Dedicated Servers but disappointed on not being able to use console commands.

    In my Opinion Activision Should Follow the Paths of Blizzard and Valve Alike, Make only a few games and patch them on a regular basis. But when Money is involved i dnt think thats going to happen Overall An Ok game at that, might wait till it's ben patched a bit better.
    Expand
  63. Nov 20, 2011
    7
    This game, like the other Call of Duty games is a lot of fun and it is probably actually worthy of an 8.5-9 score. However for people who fork out money on these call of duty games each time they are released will see it differently because it is practically the same thing over and over. To someone who is new to call of duty they will love this game but for those who are familiar with theThis game, like the other Call of Duty games is a lot of fun and it is probably actually worthy of an 8.5-9 score. However for people who fork out money on these call of duty games each time they are released will see it differently because it is practically the same thing over and over. To someone who is new to call of duty they will love this game but for those who are familiar with the franchise will feel like they have been robbed and like myself will feel that they have purchased a glorified map pack or DLC. If the reviews and ratings of a game are an influence in some gamers decision to buy a game, and therefore the sales numbers will encourage developers to continue recycling their old games then i think its a bit of a 'slap in the face' to those who have supported the franchise. Expand
  64. Dec 1, 2011
    7
    The game itself, i regret was rather poorly done. With those outdated graphics it kind of felt like a rehash of Modern Warfare 2. However i can tell you it is actually enjoyable to play and has those usual COD moments where you think "OH YEAH!!". The multiplayer is poorly done with its lack of dedicated servers, but still delivers the kick that you can expect from a COD game. A nice game,The game itself, i regret was rather poorly done. With those outdated graphics it kind of felt like a rehash of Modern Warfare 2. However i can tell you it is actually enjoyable to play and has those usual COD moments where you think "OH YEAH!!". The multiplayer is poorly done with its lack of dedicated servers, but still delivers the kick that you can expect from a COD game. A nice game, but could have been better. (also why with the Battlefield fanboy reviews, it kind of annoyed me how obviously bias the reviews where, it wasn't just COD 2.5. there was a lot of differences.) Expand
  65. Jan 8, 2012
    7
    While I thoroughly enjoyed playing the game itself, one of my biggest gripes is with the prelude narration which sounds like it's being spoken by someone who's about 16 or 17 years old. Other than that, it's a great game with a lot of action and cinematic sequences.
  66. Nov 23, 2011
    5
    I gave it a shot, and as soon as I started.. BOOM; it felt very stale from the get go. However, they do know how to suck you in and do a great job of creating over the top action. The flaw is, MW4 wasn't this over the top. It had good pacing and felt smart. MW3, on the other-hand is like a kid with AA that keeps talking and jumping around. I get bored of playing it quick, because it justI gave it a shot, and as soon as I started.. BOOM; it felt very stale from the get go. However, they do know how to suck you in and do a great job of creating over the top action. The flaw is, MW4 wasn't this over the top. It had good pacing and felt smart. MW3, on the other-hand is like a kid with AA that keeps talking and jumping around. I get bored of playing it quick, because it just doesn't stop yelling at me. The missions feel for the most part, to short and just to much **** going on to take anything in. All the games like usual have some great ideas and gameplay moments, its just sad to see them all wasted in this game. Expand
  67. Nov 9, 2011
    5
    I will be calling my credit card company today because for some reason I was charged $60 for this DLC. Must be an accounting error, I am sure of it, because no sane company will charge a full-game price for what appears to be a quickie expansion, right?

    Don't get me wrong - the game is good, it is just not $60-good. Amount of work that was put into this game is a fraction of what it
    I will be calling my credit card company today because for some reason I was charged $60 for this DLC. Must be an accounting error, I am sure of it, because no sane company will charge a full-game price for what appears to be a quickie expansion, right?

    Don't get me wrong - the game is good, it is just not $60-good. Amount of work that was put into this game is a fraction of what it typically takes to release a AAA title. So, why should Activision/IW/Sledgehammer be paid 3x more for 75% less work when compared to competition? Why is it ok to keep ripping off loyal fans year after year while delivering marginal content and minimal post-release support?

    I would have given this game a 9 if it cost around $20-25, but a quick expansion selling for $60 will only get a 5 from me. I will try to sell my copy of MW3 and will not touch another COD in the future.
    Expand
  68. Nov 20, 2011
    7
    Singleplayer was nowhere near the standards of Black Ops, I'll give Treyarch that. However, the survival mode is a completely new experience, bar the copy and pasted textures from mw2 and cod4. Undoubtedly, everyone gets this game for the multiplayer, and to me they didn't do as great a job on the level design, but the balance has actually been better. Sometimes, you get the occasionalSingleplayer was nowhere near the standards of Black Ops, I'll give Treyarch that. However, the survival mode is a completely new experience, bar the copy and pasted textures from mw2 and cod4. Undoubtedly, everyone gets this game for the multiplayer, and to me they didn't do as great a job on the level design, but the balance has actually been better. Sometimes, you get the occasional cheap weapon that sprays you down and makes you rage for a good 5 minutes but that's not to say that the fun you get out of the game actually overpowers the anger. Who cares if the graphics are the same though, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Although many of you would like to see an improvement, I actually do not mind. In my personal opinion not having dedicated servers doesn't matter. The matchmaking system allows you to play with your friends in a party and find other players within your area providing you with usually consistent ping. I'm pretty sure alot of these reviews are coming from BF3 fanboys, so I wouldn't personally trust them... Expand
  69. Nov 20, 2011
    7
    Nothing new but still fun, same game as MW1-2 so single player is fun but not going to change the world of gaming. Graphics looks slightly better than MW1-2 but is quite dated now (especially compared to BF3). Multiplayer is still as fun as ever - only real complaint (other than lack of ranked dedicated servers) is all maps have been shrunk so no need to use anything other than an smg.Nothing new but still fun, same game as MW1-2 so single player is fun but not going to change the world of gaming. Graphics looks slightly better than MW1-2 but is quite dated now (especially compared to BF3). Multiplayer is still as fun as ever - only real complaint (other than lack of ranked dedicated servers) is all maps have been shrunk so no need to use anything other than an smg. MW1-2 had a few more open maps which where annoying with snipers but did mix the gameplay up. So perfect if u like to run and gun/spray and pray all other game play is pretty useless now. Fun game but nothing new (which isn't bad, just means I'm less likely to come back to the series next time). Expand
  70. Nov 21, 2011
    7
    The campaign is great if a little short and the multiplayer is just as good as always. Yes it plays almost identical to the last few games but this doesn't make it bad. There are lots of weapons, customizations, and killstreak options in multiplayer to suit your specific style of play. You'll either love or hate the maps but they all seem to follow the same "square arena" format, if theThe campaign is great if a little short and the multiplayer is just as good as always. Yes it plays almost identical to the last few games but this doesn't make it bad. There are lots of weapons, customizations, and killstreak options in multiplayer to suit your specific style of play. You'll either love or hate the maps but they all seem to follow the same "square arena" format, if the makes sense. They're good if you like to run and gun but bad if you like to take high ground and get the drop on enemies or take the hidden path around the map and pop up behind enemy lines. BF3's sound puts this game's sound to absolute shame, but unlike BF3 MW3 has more interesting cooperative game modes in case you get bored of straight up competitive multiplayer. Expand
  71. Dec 25, 2011
    7
    If you like the of Duty sega where is no doubt you'll love this game. However if you never thing call of duty as a great game than skip it and buy BF3.

    This game was made for mone.... I mean for the fans so for that I'll give it three different scores Fans score - 9 Less fans- 7.5

    People who had never interesting in the call of duty Sega - 6-5
  72. Apr 3, 2012
    6
    Overall it is a Good game. But it plays almost exactly the same as the previous Call of Duty games. If you already own MW2 or Black Ops do not buy, you are wasting money.
  73. Nov 12, 2011
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I agree with some of the criticism offered by some users. Yes, MW3 doesn't feel like a new game: it's more like an expansion pack for MW2. Yes, the graphics don't look that great for a game released in 2011. Yes, the gameplay is not innovative, but this is not necessarily a bad thing: both MW2 and its carbon copy MW3 have great gameplay. I have only 2 issues with MW3: 1) US$ 60 for a MW2 expansion pack (i.e., MW3) is a rip-off, and 2) despite of my system configuration (I7-2600, GTX-580, 8GB RAM, Creative Labs Titanium discrete audio card, 25Mbps/25Mbps broadband), the game lags too much when I happen to be the host (MW2 had the same problem due to P2P). These are the only 2 reasons for me to give it a 7 out of 10. Another thing: If IW ever releases a paid Elite service for PC, just pass - it's not worth 50 bucks. Expand
  74. Nov 8, 2011
    7
    Do not innovated anything. Except in merchandise! The producer could invest more into the coop and multiplayer! Thanks for the excellent hihistória certainly worth a hollywood movie! I hope that the franchise is renewed! Graphics similar to the previous engine and identical!
  75. Nov 8, 2011
    7
    Not as bad as a zero but not a ten also, Single player ties the story up and is ok but not worth £40 if all your doing is single player. Multiplayer will give you enough hours of fun though and from what i have played so far it seems good, yeah it's like MW2 but what do all expect all FPS games are the same... point, shoot, kill is BF3 any different at the core?

    But yeah i
    Not as bad as a zero but not a ten also, Single player ties the story up and is ok but not worth £40 if all your doing is single player. Multiplayer will give you enough hours of fun though and from what i have played so far it seems good, yeah it's like MW2 but what do all expect all FPS games are the same... point, shoot, kill is BF3 any different at the core?

    But yeah i still play MW1 and BF 1942 (DC Mod rules!!)
    Expand
  76. Nov 10, 2011
    7
    A good action filled game. Not much have changed since Modern Warfare 2, but the campaign is as amazing as the ones in the first two games. Have not played multiplayer. If you are only interested in multiplayer and own another Call of Duty game from the last few years you will not find much value in this game.
  77. Nov 10, 2011
    6
    This if nothing else met my expectations to the letter. It has the same old formulaic and improbable single player with the action movie feel, I would imagine would be fresh and enjoyable to someone new to the franchise. But to the veterans out there it much like bf3's single player just leaves the player going through the same motions to the point of numbness. Serviceable but notThis if nothing else met my expectations to the letter. It has the same old formulaic and improbable single player with the action movie feel, I would imagine would be fresh and enjoyable to someone new to the franchise. But to the veterans out there it much like bf3's single player just leaves the player going through the same motions to the point of numbness. Serviceable but not memorable.
    The multilayer too suffers from the feeling of deja vu. The game is still meat grinder completely lacking in anything more than the most basic teamwork mechanics. It's still the twitch shooter with the tiny maps and instant death weapons. It has the kill streaks and they are just as annoying as they were in cod4 and mw2. As a bonus the graphics look as they were four years ago. The bottom line is that mw3 is a 60 dollar expansion pack. If you want to fork over 60 dollars for the same thing , go right ahead , at the very least the stuff that is there is slightly more refined. but if you are short of money or even just want to save up for other games , then just go back mw2 or black ops your wallet will thank you.
    Expand
  78. Nov 10, 2011
    6
    I don't know if I believe the other scores here or if people are just fed up. I think the game is fun in the campaign (although much too short like the rest in the series) the last mission is pretty amazing tbh. Multiplayer unfortunately feels a bit too samey for my tastes. The graphics are alright, although they definately need a new engine now. Overall I think critics rated this too highI don't know if I believe the other scores here or if people are just fed up. I think the game is fun in the campaign (although much too short like the rest in the series) the last mission is pretty amazing tbh. Multiplayer unfortunately feels a bit too samey for my tastes. The graphics are alright, although they definately need a new engine now. Overall I think critics rated this too high and it should get an average of around 70 %. Expand
  79. Nov 9, 2011
    6
    Pro's Set pieces are enjoyable Multiplayer is balanced Con's Very poor graphics considering technology now at developers disposal Dated engine which has not had any changes since 2008 (Frostbite 2 is practically a generation ahead)
    Nothing groundbreaking or innovative Feels more like an expansion pack than a full game Having played through a large chunk of the SP game and starting my
    Pro's Set pieces are enjoyable Multiplayer is balanced Con's Very poor graphics considering technology now at developers disposal Dated engine which has not had any changes since 2008 (Frostbite 2 is practically a generation ahead)
    Nothing groundbreaking or innovative Feels more like an expansion pack than a full game Having played through a large chunk of the SP game and starting my multiplayer experience tonight (will feedback on that another time but initial thoughts are same game different colour log in screens) I must say I am a little underwhelmed by what is on offer for a game which retails much higher than most other titles on the market. It seems that IW totally forgot that technology has come on leaps and bounds since their last release, I am shocked how bad the graphics are in comparison to other titles released this year (Crysis 2, Battlefield 3). Yes, i know that graphics are not everything but some sort of effort to make it look like that actually have actually bothered to move things forward in the last few years would of been nice. Direct X 11 wold of been nice, destructible environments maybe?

    As for the campaign at times it felt like a chore which just involved running / shooting / dying and no WOW factor whatsoever. Most the time I would just end up getting killed from some random enemy who appeared out of nowhere. Some parts were OK and showed a bit of quality (the plane crash) but some were just so boring. Getting a Steam achievement at the end of each level was more like a thank you for not getting bored and turning the game off in frustration. I would love to expand a little more but don't want to add any spoilers. I have played through BF3 and thought that was more engaging, maybe this was down the the better more advanced engine that took advantage of my graphics card (A GTX 570). BF3 had it's flaws but it felt like a new game in comparison to BFBC2 which made it feel like money well spent. It also felt like EA treated PC gamers with a little more respect by giving us something extra and make us feel a little bit special (64 player multiplayer). Though I must admit the leveling on BF3 is a little slow and I am cannot fly any of the helicopters / planes no matter how many tutorials I watch :) I really do feel short changed (I got really hyped up and geeked out over the COD launch stream on IGN) but now wish I would of saved my money in reflection, I am not sure if all the reviews on here are from trolls (1.4 is a little low) but it certainly does not feel like it deserves the 90% (I feel 6 is a more realistic score) it has scored through professional review sources (are Activision really nice to reviewers or something, I baffled to how it gets such a high score). COD has a huge market share at present and this release feels like Activision take this for granted. This is a Medal of Honour waiting to happen (can you remember when Cod was the underdog). I really hope that the next release pushes the boundaries, is a little more daring, brings us something new and gives back that value for money feeling earlier titles brought. Otherwise I can see that market share diminishing and another title entering the market and becoming the new king of the FPS genre. I don't think that this would be Battlefield as it will always have the COD vs BF fan's that will stay loyal. I think it will be a new IP that attracts gamers from both camps. Also a good idea at this point is not to piss off PC gamers as it is a growing market (once again) with consoles starting to show their age and a good few years before anything next gen is on the shelves. We are not all pirates (in fact I have over 160 Steam games, check my profile) but If PC gamers do not feel value for money then future releases will just get downloaded off Pirate Bay for free! Activision, please change or see this much loved game die!
    Expand
  80. Nov 13, 2011
    7
    COD MW3 it´s not a bad game, but only if you don´t have MW2 or black ops, for the type of game it´s overpriced, maybe 40 dollars will be a more realistic price for this game.
  81. Nov 14, 2011
    7
    Let's begin this review with the positive content. The games looks nice, the storytelling as always is pretty good, captain price is a strong character, nice graphics despite the same engine, but with this consoles generation is all they can do, a console port. But still, the graphics looks pretty good in a medium/high end rig.

    Negative points. If you put IMAGE QUALITY on EXTRA as always
    Let's begin this review with the positive content. The games looks nice, the storytelling as always is pretty good, captain price is a strong character, nice graphics despite the same engine, but with this consoles generation is all they can do, a console port. But still, the graphics looks pretty good in a medium/high end rig.

    Negative points. If you put IMAGE QUALITY on EXTRA as always been pretty good graphics, the graphics gets worse, so you do have to change for NATIVE, to get a better quality.

    Makarov should be more badass, we see him just a few moments in the game, and despite the storytelling is pretty good is more the same. MULTIPLAYER= This is really pissed me off, CHEATERS everywhere, they know where you are, I've got a guy in my team, who had 122/5 in a 12 players TDM in less than 2 min, this is just impossible.

    The multiplayer should be better, with some real improvments as Veihicles and that sort of thing, I know COD is more Frag, but , still, we need at least a real helicopter experience, we saw this pretty good in BLACK OPS single campaign. So why they keep avoiding to using this in Multiplayer. Is the consoles limit?

    So I think for the Single Player campaign the game deserves 8.0 and for the Multiplayer if they take care of cheaters 8 as well if not, I'm gonna give a circular ZERO.
    Expand
  82. Dec 10, 2011
    6
    Vanilla repetitive shooter with a really shallow story. The multiplayer kinda fun though and the survival mode is pretty fun especially with friends. Its playable and kinda enjoyable, but it looses its appeal really fast. 6/10
  83. Nov 10, 2011
    7
    MW3 feels slicker than MW2 and nearly all 16 maps are great, the new games modes add some freshness to the series and they're enjoyable to play with friends. MW3 feels like a fixed version of MW2 and that's not a bad thing, but the price should have reflected that, £40 for a glorified expansion is a little much. The main negative right now are once again the matchmaking on PC,MW3 feels slicker than MW2 and nearly all 16 maps are great, the new games modes add some freshness to the series and they're enjoyable to play with friends. MW3 feels like a fixed version of MW2 and that's not a bad thing, but the price should have reflected that, £40 for a glorified expansion is a little much. The main negative right now are once again the matchmaking on PC, it still picks bad hosts and it still puts me with foreigners instead of other Brits. Matchmaking with dedicated servers would be perfect, like what is used in Left 4 Dead. Another problem is hackers, I've only seen a few but there's no way to report them like their is on console. Expand
  84. Nov 8, 2011
    6
    If your looking to run and gun this is a total frag fest and you'll get your fix for sure. Looking for anything else forget it cant help feeling like you've seen it all before and well you have if you weren't told it was MW3 you would be forgiven for thinking this was MW2 or even Black Ops. A little bit of a disappointment and with no elite for pc gamers max FOV of 65 and a whole host ofIf your looking to run and gun this is a total frag fest and you'll get your fix for sure. Looking for anything else forget it cant help feeling like you've seen it all before and well you have if you weren't told it was MW3 you would be forgiven for thinking this was MW2 or even Black Ops. A little bit of a disappointment and with no elite for pc gamers max FOV of 65 and a whole host of other PC issues I'm afraid this isn't worth the money I don't see myself playing this in six months time and yet I am still playing Call Of Duty 4 everyday. Expand
  85. Nov 9, 2011
    5
    There were a couple things I was actually excited about for the PC version: 1) Dedicated servers, 2) Specialist play style, and 3) Support play style. However, I tried it on my friends Steam account and all three were a let down. Dedicated server lag was definitely better, however there's no incentive to play on those servers because of no ranking...therefore barely anyone to play with. IThere were a couple things I was actually excited about for the PC version: 1) Dedicated servers, 2) Specialist play style, and 3) Support play style. However, I tried it on my friends Steam account and all three were a let down. Dedicated server lag was definitely better, however there's no incentive to play on those servers because of no ranking...therefore barely anyone to play with. I did join a fun gun game server (reminds me of Black Ops), kept me entertained for about an hour.

    Specialist package was fun for a bit in FFA...trying to stay alive then getting all the perks you can't decide on...but in the end I still didn't feel wowed or anything.

    Support package didn't seemed as overpowered as it was lol. Killstreaks have slightly higher requirements but still, play style didn't feel innovative.

    Same Sh!t, Different Title. Keep your money and ignore the super biased "critic" reviews; they're probably paid to give 100% scores. CoD 4 was the only true "Game of the Year."
    Expand
  86. Nov 11, 2011
    7
    It's a great game, or better, DLC. They are only selling a DLC with a price game. Campaign very exciting, but there's nothing revolionario, same graphics, the sound can not help but compare with BF3, BF3 is that the more real. Is it worth buying when the price down, or have a good promotion on Steam.
  87. Nov 20, 2011
    7
    good game bad multiplayer system the peer-to-peer is good for the consoles not for the PC version like Modern Warfare 2 good game bad multiplayer system for the campaign the story is good for the graphics its the same for all CoD since Modern Warfare
  88. Nov 11, 2011
    7
    Not so bad as people are saying... With the financial security they have could be a lot better though. I think the engine should be different from the mw2 but it´s almost the same with only minor changes. The story is great!
  89. Nov 13, 2011
    7
    The Call of Duty creators must be criticized for having the greatest opportunity in the industry with unlimited resources to only coming up with a half good product. CoD is value for money but is lacking in original creativity. The special Ops is well done, the story pretty much sucks (no excuses - it sucks and you have brain damage if you think it's a good story), and the multiplayer isThe Call of Duty creators must be criticized for having the greatest opportunity in the industry with unlimited resources to only coming up with a half good product. CoD is value for money but is lacking in original creativity. The special Ops is well done, the story pretty much sucks (no excuses - it sucks and you have brain damage if you think it's a good story), and the multiplayer is the same as ever with little innovation. I do recommend MW3 due its surface fun and value for money but it lacks to what should have been something much much more. Expand
  90. Nov 11, 2011
    7
    No game can get a 0, however bad it is. I am aware that BF3 is a superior game when it comes to MP, but MW3 certainly does not deserve a 0, or a 3 for that matter, because of such a silly reason.

    I haven't played MW3 yet, but according to what sense I've read, the campaign is decent, and the multiplayer is basically the same as it used to be. Still, whoever bought MW3 should have seen
    No game can get a 0, however bad it is. I am aware that BF3 is a superior game when it comes to MP, but MW3 certainly does not deserve a 0, or a 3 for that matter, because of such a silly reason.

    I haven't played MW3 yet, but according to what sense I've read, the campaign is decent, and the multiplayer is basically the same as it used to be. Still, whoever bought MW3 should have seen this coming. Since the beginning of the "CoD revolution", little has changed. The core gameplay has remained the same, and most importantly, the MP has seen only minor changes. So, instead of wasting your time ruining MW3's Metacritic score for no justifiable reason, play some BF3 and enjoy yourself, because extreme prejudice isn't going to get you anywhere.
    Expand
  91. Nov 24, 2011
    7
    After playing both (BF3 and MW3) the same Situation as allways if BF and MW pulls out new Releases of their Blockbuster.

    Ok - the Graphics are not as spectacular as in BF3 - but anyway - MW3 has the better Graphic for Shooting and get a clear overview about the Maps and straight Gameplay with a medium Skill. BF3: ++ Graphics -- Gameplay MW3: ++Gameplay +Graphics Only thing missing is
    After playing both (BF3 and MW3) the same Situation as allways if BF and MW pulls out new Releases of their Blockbuster.

    Ok - the Graphics are not as spectacular as in BF3 - but anyway - MW3 has the better Graphic for Shooting and get a clear overview about the Maps and straight Gameplay with a medium Skill. BF3: ++ Graphics -- Gameplay
    MW3: ++Gameplay +Graphics

    Only thing missing is the Serverbrowser from BlackOps - but we all know they will never learn it. Because of this only a 7/10.
    Expand
  92. Jan 16, 2012
    6
    The single-player that was once innovative and memorable is now banal and repetitive. None of the moments in Modern Warfare 3 will be as eternal as when you first sneaked by enemy gaurds with Cpt. McMillan or when you first took controls of the guns behind an AC-130. While it's still fun and well-polished, it lacks the excitement "edge-of-your-seat" excitement of Black Ops. Furthermore,The single-player that was once innovative and memorable is now banal and repetitive. None of the moments in Modern Warfare 3 will be as eternal as when you first sneaked by enemy gaurds with Cpt. McMillan or when you first took controls of the guns behind an AC-130. While it's still fun and well-polished, it lacks the excitement "edge-of-your-seat" excitement of Black Ops. Furthermore, none of the multiplayer improvements in Black Ops like character customization or creative game modes make a return in multiplayer. However, the new Survival mode is a blast to play with a friend, as you level up and buy weapons and killstreaks as the game goes on. This instills an excellent feeling of progression that most survival modes lack. However, Survival mode is only playable with two people, which is a shame considering how much more fun the game would be with four. Overall this game is definitely not worth the $60 price tag, but if you've got a friend who you'd like to blast AI buddies with, maybe pick it up after a price drop. If you're looking for a better multiplayer mode however, you won't find much here that's better than Black Ops, likely worse. Expand
  93. Nov 13, 2011
    5
    Having played the complete series both campaign and multi-player, I have to say its nice to have a new game but why so soon? They could have spent a lot more time between games thinking of something a little more original. I mean when I got to the second or third scene in the campaign I felt like I was playing MW2... While I like the faster pace during the missions or maybe its that IHaving played the complete series both campaign and multi-player, I have to say its nice to have a new game but why so soon? They could have spent a lot more time between games thinking of something a little more original. I mean when I got to the second or third scene in the campaign I felt like I was playing MW2... While I like the faster pace during the missions or maybe its that I selected a difficulty higher than NOOB, I don't know.. I would give the single player a 6 just because I'm sure a lot of work went into it and its not glitchy at all. I am going to have to say the multi-player is a 4 and the same game graphically as the last 2 (I know the dev's will rage because I said that but its true, move on, get a new engine please) Welcome to 2011. Expand
  94. Nov 12, 2011
    5
    After thinking about the original score I gave this (a zero) I decided to at least be nice and award it a 5. Five because you will have fun (just don't buy it at 60 bucks) but its something we've seen before (and something we'll see in 2012 as Activision ALREADY announced the new one). Some would say, don't fix something that isn't broken but there must be something wrong if people areAfter thinking about the original score I gave this (a zero) I decided to at least be nice and award it a 5. Five because you will have fun (just don't buy it at 60 bucks) but its something we've seen before (and something we'll see in 2012 as Activision ALREADY announced the new one). Some would say, don't fix something that isn't broken but there must be something wrong if people are giving it such a low rating. If you respect the gaming community (by not milking money out of us) we'll respect you, a pretty easy concept to remember Expand
  95. Dec 8, 2011
    6
    I'm probably re-stating everything everyone else has said about MW3........it's essentially MW2 with the ending. I wasn't expecting anything innovative or new as we all saw the game trailers (or lack therof) and saw that this was still the same game. There wasn't the huge push for this game like MW2 so I went in with moderate expectations. I enjoyed the game albeit as short as the singleI'm probably re-stating everything everyone else has said about MW3........it's essentially MW2 with the ending. I wasn't expecting anything innovative or new as we all saw the game trailers (or lack therof) and saw that this was still the same game. There wasn't the huge push for this game like MW2 so I went in with moderate expectations. I enjoyed the game albeit as short as the single player campaign was. They tweaked the multiplayer somewhat but it's still the console port and lone wolf running around that MW2 was. I do like the special forces portion of the game and continue to actually play that when BF3 is acting up (which seems to be all the time now). I would recommend purchasing the game when it goes on sale as it is worth playing. Expand
  96. Nov 10, 2011
    5
    The game is still fun to play specially the multiplayer and survival mode but the downsides is so much more in this title that you just can't ignore them and start to regret that you bought it for $60. The support for PC version is so poor, you cant play on ranked servers, you can't adjust fov, horrible textures, and again the stupidest thing is back and worse the damn Iwnet with laggedThe game is still fun to play specially the multiplayer and survival mode but the downsides is so much more in this title that you just can't ignore them and start to regret that you bought it for $60. The support for PC version is so poor, you cant play on ranked servers, you can't adjust fov, horrible textures, and again the stupidest thing is back and worse the damn Iwnet with lagged matches. The problem is not that it is just more of the same is how poor the pc version is and how they don't care about what players want. Expand
  97. Nov 9, 2011
    6
    If you are sick of mw2, then dont buy mw3, its not the game for you. There are new maps, new guns and new game modes but not much innovation in terms of graphics, single player campaign and game play is more or less the same. The developers of the game have stuck with the same formular that made mw1 and 2 so popular but they have refined and made certain tweaks to the Multiplayer areanaIf you are sick of mw2, then dont buy mw3, its not the game for you. There are new maps, new guns and new game modes but not much innovation in terms of graphics, single player campaign and game play is more or less the same. The developers of the game have stuck with the same formular that made mw1 and 2 so popular but they have refined and made certain tweaks to the Multiplayer areana that fanboys will love. As for me I didnt buy this game (I played on a friend's PC) as i knew what to expect already from all the youtube vids out there. i was already disappointed with Black Ops so i decided to put a hold on getting mw3. Will get this game on Steam when there is a sale but for fans who have played more than 800 hours on mw2 and still want more, then mw3 is the game for you. Expand
  98. Nov 16, 2011
    5
    Call of duty is a franchise that has always been close to my heart. And within the franchise I have always enjoyed the infinity ward games, modern warfare was fresh, fun and overall a new experience given the many world war themed games we were used to playing. The multiplayer was quick paced and competitive. Then came along modern warfare 2 which used the formula of the first game , butCall of duty is a franchise that has always been close to my heart. And within the franchise I have always enjoyed the infinity ward games, modern warfare was fresh, fun and overall a new experience given the many world war themed games we were used to playing. The multiplayer was quick paced and competitive. Then came along modern warfare 2 which used the formula of the first game , but made it better, the story was gripping and the developers used the engine to its potential by making a creative campaign gameplay be it climbing cliffs, driving snowmobiles of them, or throwing knives. The game did extremely well because it was a worthy sequel to a great game. When modern warfare 3 was announced I was thinking what would they do next? To be honest, they didn't do anything new, same engine, same characters , aging physics and predictable plot. The story continues where mw2 left off and the makers did a good job of making the campaign exciting. But like many have pointed out, it feels like a dlc. Missing were the creative mode of gameplay, it left me with a stale feeling considering the trailer looked so good. But all the epic parts of the game were included in the trailer, the collapsing buildings, the underwater level the train sequence, other than those cut scenes it was basically going through rooms and shooting people dead. This happens till the very end. I don't think infintiyward's heart and soul were in this game. Knowing they fired 2 senior members of the team, it has taken its toll. Battlefield 3 is superior when it comes to graphics, physics and the fact that the listen to the gamers in further tweaking the game to make it enjoyable. Activision does not do this. They have assumed that the franchise's history will be the selling point of the game. But battlefield 3 has made sure that doesn't happen. The cod fans are not in for a treat with this one but they will not be entirely disappointed.my final verdict is buy the game only if you are itching to know how the story ends or you feel like playing some new cod maps. If you are looking for the next-gen platform in multiplayer war gaming just go with battlefield 3 Expand
  99. Nov 16, 2011
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Game has major flaws in multi player gameplay. Akimpros very OP, maps too small, hacks out since day 1, same bad p2p system as MW2 on occassion, too noob friendly with adding in a free perk to the gun. Singple Player game was good but short with a little open plot hole at the end. They gave a convenient character for Price to use. have not tried spec-ops. Hoping it's as good as MW2 was which was terrific.

    Multi player is what people buy this game for so I gave it a 6.
    Expand
  100. Nov 10, 2011
    5
    PROs
    * Single player good as always
    * Game is stable with launch, have not had any crashes * Liking the new pointstreaks, guns and items * Multiplayer maps and game modes are very nice CONs * P2P system still sucks and should never be used for PC gaming, give Ranked Dedicated servers and it will be added to the PROs list. * Game is too similar to MW2, even the errors are still referring
    PROs
    * Single player good as always
    * Game is stable with launch, have not had any crashes
    * Liking the new pointstreaks, guns and items
    * Multiplayer maps and game modes are very nice


    CONs
    * P2P system still sucks and should never be used for PC gaming, give Ranked Dedicated servers and it will be added to the PROs list.
    * Game is too similar to MW2, even the errors are still referring to MW2, which brings me to
    * Selling Price is to high for a game this similar to MW2
    * Outdated Graphics Engine
    * COD Elite not working, with launch.


    Suggestions to improve ratings:

    * Give Ranked Dedicated servers
    * Release high texture pack perhaps to improve graphic quality
    * Fix your COD Elite

    This game surely has potential, if only IW listened to the public the score would have been a better. In my books if Ranked Dedicated servers were given and a bit better graphics and additional settings like FOV, i would have rated this game between 8 to 9, however unfortunately this is not the case.
    Expand
  101. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Waited until 2 am for this game to finish downloading and all I recieved was MW2 with different maps. This is definitely not worth 60 bucks and should have been released as DLC instead. The online now has 9 death streaks instead of removing them altogether. The storyline is garbage and everything in the campaign has been done in previous CoDs. Sledgehammer asked the community for ourWaited until 2 am for this game to finish downloading and all I recieved was MW2 with different maps. This is definitely not worth 60 bucks and should have been released as DLC instead. The online now has 9 death streaks instead of removing them altogether. The storyline is garbage and everything in the campaign has been done in previous CoDs. Sledgehammer asked the community for our honest reviews and here is mine. Collapse
Metascore
78

Generally favorable reviews - based on 26 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 19 out of 26
  2. Negative: 0 out of 26
  1. 82
    Thus, I can't recommend buying this unless you (still) like the fast pace, the customizable weaponry and the short matches, of about 10 minutes each. With the very important mention that, essentially, nothing has changed.
  2. LEVEL (Czech Republic)
    Jan 20, 2012
    80
    Stunning campaign with epic moments makes this third installment of Modern Warfare a great show with the best approach to players. No need to mention an excellent multiplayer. [Dec 2011]
  3. PC PowerPlay
    Jan 9, 2012
    50
    If you own any previous COD, there's little reason to buy MW3. [Jan 2012, p.50]