User Score
2.4

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 5406 Ratings

User score distribution:

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 10, 2011
    0
    what a turd game if it does even diserve to be called that, is activision even trying? because, seriously, im 2h into the game and I cant take it anymore, its so bad Im going to ask for a refund
  2. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Same textures, same animations, releasing game too often, laggy. There is nothing positive about Call of Duty Modern Warfare franchise since Call of Duty 4 yet it's getting so high sales ? Why ... why why why, I really don't understand that. maybe it's becasue of multiplayer which doesn't require any sense of "skill" from player to score a frag, or maybe because it's paradise for campers, glitchers, cheaters and other weak gamers that think they are cool. Questions questions questions ... Luckily most of players are amercinas, that means there is still future for normal games for normal players, let the americans have their sh*tty game. Expand
  3. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Simply the worst game that ever came out. The dev guy asked on twitter for people to rate it up and for that alone it deserves to be downrated to hell.
    Story is bad, gameplay is same as in other ones, this could have been DLC to mw1.
  4. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Same crap, different disc don't buy it, if you love to waste money then here is the best game to do it and have a not fun time same multiplayer and the same crappy storyline if you actually buy this game I would think you should consider a psychologist because you canâ
  5. jo3
    Nov 8, 2011
    0
    I have played and liked ever COD apart from MW2 which is basically the same game as MW3 (MW2.1). The GFX r fuzzy and nasty looking even compared to black ops, no ranked dedicated servers in MP only P2P rubbish IWnet, Hitboxes are broken, Maps are to small, FOV is unchangeable (makes me feel sick to play the game), Directional sound has been taken out of the game, guns are all the same, the aim assist has not been taken out for the Xbox game, Ridiculous kill streaks, NO LEAN! :@, Lack of any console commands, skill-less gameplay, to many mines, claymores, helos, nukes, and anything else that will kill for you, unconfigurable config, no innovations, no competitive features at all and the SP is the worst SP I have played since Homefront or medal of honer (i think they were better actually) this game is a cut and paste job from MW2 I do not see what they spent 2 years doing. This game is awful do not buy it. Get COD1,2,4,5 or BO they r all better, if you have them get Battlefield 3, if you don't like Battlefield 3 get Red Orchestra: Heroes of Stalingrad (a realistic WW2 shooter). Do not bother with this game it is not worth it. Expand
  6. Feb 17, 2012
    2
    Finally played MW3 after it being out for a little over 3 months. This is the first game I have ever deleted from my computer. After playing multiplayer for around 6 hours I had to quit playing. The community is exactly what the comics make it out to be... Everyone I met was drunk, stoned, or prepubescent. The game has not evolved since MW 1. Its ok to use a cookie cutter recipe for a god game but using the same engine for graphics 4 years in a row... I just find that lazy. If you own any of the other games don't bother with this one multiplayer is exactly the same. O I guess there was a campaign that came with the multiplayer... 1 more thing i forgot to mention. Bugs. Idk if it was just me but there were 2 cases in mp where I had a bugged spawn point and could not move. This happens 3 + months after the game has been released. Stick with MW 1 or 2 Expand
  7. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    I expected more from Activision... I expected more from this franchise. This game feels like it was made 3 years ago. The graphics are lackluster.. functional... but not ambiguous at all. Nothing has changed since MW2. I have enjoyed the previous games in the franchise, but now i'm just bored of the game play style. On top of this we all know they are going to release 4 - 5 dlc packs that will be over priced and under developed. PASS ON THIS ONE. Battlefield 3 or Skyrim will be worth the money and time instead. Expand
  8. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    Are you serious with the servers right now? Jesus..... proves why COD was not meant for PC. Seriously, if you have a high end PC this game will look horrible compared to other games with good graphics. Waste.
  9. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    The video game industry comes under constant scrutiny by the public. Roger Ebert himself said that video games are in fact not an art form. This is untrue. Video games have the ability to stimulate players in ways that film and books simply can't and are able to open up new horizons for what is possible for artists to convey to their audiences. However franchises like Modern Warfare not only don't achieve this but they hold the whole industry back. Because of the series financial success many companies are following suit and recycling the same formula over and over to ensure their games make a decent profit. To make things worse many children are now playing Modern Warfare and thinking that it somehow resembles what a quality game should be. If things don't change these kids will grow up never experiencing video games of any complexity of story or characters and will be narrow minded when presented with new concepts.
    Modern Warfare 3 is simply the same money grab we've seen time and time before. I would be inclined to give it a 1 out of 10 just because it is in fact a playable game but that was achieved by it's predecessors as well. This game uses the same engine, the same child pandering game play that has been used to exploit adolescents for years and it is still just as effective now as it was then.
    One would hope that people learn by now that not only is this franchise one of the most destructive forces in the industry but also an insult to our intelligence.
    Expand
  10. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Fail of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 [PC version]

    This is the worst COD ever.. I've bought and played all Cod games since COD 2.. Cod 2 it was good, Cod 4 it was even better (because I like modern fps), cod 5.. it was good.. Cod: Mw2, it was ok for the time, COD: BO it was better than mw2, but I also didn't like many stuff.. COD: MW3 itâ
  11. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    Compared to Console version, PC version has no differences in graphic quality.

    Like someons says, in this board, it is absolutely disgusting graphics. Treyach never, would not make PC version like this.....

    Sledgehammer should take after the policy of Treyach for the PC version Call of Duty.
  12. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    It's not that Call of Duty is necessarily a "bad" game, per se. The mechanics are sound, the gameplay is polished, the graphics are good. The problem is they billed it as "the most anticipated game in history" and then gave us the same exact thing as the previous game. No innovation. Crap story. Rehashed multiplayer. No depth. No thought. The only time this game pushes the envelope is when it attempts to be controversial, in what are CLEARLY cheap attempts to grab media headlines - they understand that any attention is good attention in the gaming business. At this point, the so-called "critic" reviews are a joke. They may go through and give you a rundown on the game's faults, realize that the game's good points are few and far-between, only to completely reverse direction at the end and say, without any trace of self-awareness, "9/10." Because god forbid they be blacklisted from reviewing the next mega-hit that the company puts out (which, ironically, is a trend that they are helping perpetuate). At this point, we as gamers really need to step up and take notice of bias in our gaming sites. We as gamers need to do a lot of things, actually. Most importantly, we have to stop letting them shove media hype down our throats. Is MW3 ACTUALLY bad enough to warrant the zero I give it? No. In reality, it should be more like a three. But we can't compromise anymore. We can't allow constant headlines on IGN to dictate our purchases. We can't allow companies to sell us generic, shallow crap and get away with it. We can't allow companies to copy (more or less verbatim) previous formats and shove them down our throats. It's time that we, as gamers, finally take a little pride for once in our chosen lifestyle and tell the gaming industry that we're not gonna to take it, no, we ain't gonna take it, we're not gonna take it, anymore. Innovation should be celebrated, not labeled as dangerous and used sparingly. And certainly not completely absent, as it is in Modern Warfare three. So when you're at Wal-Mart, or Gamestop, or where ever, do the industry a favor: Do not buy this game. Expand
  13. Nov 8, 2011
    3
    So here we are, MW3 is here, right next to BF3. Being a multiplayer FPS gamer couldn't get any better right? Well, I wouldn't be so sure.

    MW3 seems to be what MW2 should have been, and rather then patching MW2 to be more balanced, they'd rather ask you to rebuy it with zero DLCs and will no doubt have to buy the countless map packs to carry on playing on the popular servers. All that
    money and time invested in MW2 with it's 2 DLCs down the drain.

    At least BF3 had the courtesy to give us a new engine to enjoy, MW3 looks dated and very inferior when played right next to BF3. Teamplay is very minimal and the only lasting appeal is unlocking the goodies.

    It's a shame, they should have given something new for MW3, but instead, we got a cheap remake of MW2 at the full asking price.
    Expand
  14. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    I thought of writing a good explanation on why this game is awful; but it's not even worth it. It's just god awful. The critic reviews have given this game good reviews because Activision paid them out. The game is awful.
  15. Rp4
    Nov 8, 2011
    0
    It's aways the same thing. Same sounds from the guns, same buildings and... same game (and in this time, we even have the same menu!).
    I think Activision is thinks that our money grow up in trees.
  16. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    Same game as before. For new players just buy MW1 or 2 for cheap and it looks and feels like the same game. Don't you fanboys get it... they just want your money. COD elite, map packs, new game same **** every year. They are just like any greedy company. Don't be fooled by the media exposure and celebrity promotions. All this money they are spending on promoting the game won't fool real gamers into buying this copy and pasted game. Expand
  17. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    Aside from being literally EXACTLY the same cookie-cutter, generic first person shooter that the product-sponge of society has come to love so dearly, Modern Warfare 3 is probably the letdown of the century. Having bought every Call of Duty game (which has become as much of an annual release as the sub-par sports games that mar the industry) since Call of Duty 4, I can honestly say nothing has been changed. MW3 could have easily been boxed up and sold as an expansion pack. Literally no improvements were made, and the graphics were actually DOWNGRADED to even muddier and more lackluster textures than Black Ops and MW2. The multiplayer consists of a few new maps and guns, but that is it. The HUD has had NO changes at all, which is disappointing considering the ease and thoughtlessness with which something original could have been implemented. Gun sounds and many models were dug out of older game files and stuck directly into MW3 with new skins. The singleplayer campaign mode is nothing new for CoD games--a linear hallway with meaninglessly controversial and "shocking" plot twists, the corpses of which have been beaten to death by CoD developers so much that the plot in its entirety was easily assumable based on prior knowledge of the excuse for a "plot" that older CoD games have. It even included a now-obligatory slow motion section after many illogically unsurvivable "intense" moments. The final moment of the game could possibly be meant to come across as "epic conclusion, look at what just happened," but passes off for little more than a juvenile attempt at being edgy and brutal. Many of its elements are torn directly out of other popular media such as other movies or games, and it saddens me that society will gluttonously devour this ruined ramshackle husk of what was once a series with some potential.

    TL;DR: Modern Warfare 3 contains literally zero new elements, no innovation, and is/was marketing solely on the underwhelming achievements of its past. It is a reskinned expansion pack to Modern Warfare 2, and its commercial success is sickening.
    Expand
  18. Nov 8, 2011
    1
    As previously mentioned by other reviewers here, there are more than a few "niggles" with this game in terms of everything, from FOV, graphics quality, innovation, game play and even the way multiplayer games are supported and created.

    Textures and sound effects seems to have been ported directly from MW1 and COD 4, no exaggeration intended here, I genuinely think this has been the case.
    Resolution has no scaling, so playing at anything above 1920x1080 yields nothing more than stretched textures and strained eyes. Even if graphics or resolution doesn't usual play a part in your gaming experience, it will matter to you after you witness the eyesore that is MW3 (on PC).

    Gameplay looks and feels clunky, with no real changes what so ever over the previous 4 COD titles in terms of weapon feel, movement or even kill-streaks. All aforementioned characteristics have only changed very slightly, or not at all.

    Servers are Peer to Peer, which while OK some of the time, means that if the host has a house-mate taking a trip to Facebook or Youtube, the whole server will lag out, and spoil the game for everyone. Peer to Peer is a good idea on paper, but in practice it is severely flawed for FPS titles.

    Compare this game to BF3... Well what is the point. One is built on an entirely new engine, has optimised the lighting, shadows and smoke / explosion physics with near perfect results. While the other has re-spun the same garbage engine for the last 5 years.

    This game is nothing more than MW1 in a new box, with a USD$100 (I live in Australia) map pack. Well done Activision, you just killed your own franchise with greed.
    Collapse
  19. Nov 8, 2011
    1
    I was a black ops fan boy. I disliked MW2 in every way, but I really enjoyed black ops. This game feels like MW2.5, simply an expansion. The sound is terrible, the gameplay erratic, and just not much fun. I'll be sticking to battlefield 3, and I never played much of the battlefield/bad company games.
  20. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is probably the worst video i have ever played. First of all, I couldn't fit the game inside my PC. I did everything I could to try to get it to work; Then it turned off my computer. I was so mad, and being a responsible person i took the right action of breaking the disk. I called a repair guy to fix my computer, costing me another 60 dollars, and finally i figured you had to place the disk it. But it was broken! Worst game ever. Expand
  21. Nov 9, 2011
    4
    What a deception ! it's again the same **** ! how the hell this game could be rated 90 ?? In 2006 this game would be awesome.. in 2011 it's the crappiest thing i have ever seen... so lame!
  22. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Modern Warfare 3 are u kidding me this engine makes the game look like cod 2, its not nearly as good as modern warfare 2. I am sick of cod fan boys that are lying to everybody that the game looks like mw2, game looks worse , much worse. It looks like u are playing on 800*600 resolution and aspect ratio of 4:3
    on max settings on my new rig (i72600k@4,6ghz, 8gb dd3, 5870 soc).
    To say that i
    am dissapointed is an understatment. Looks like infinity ward, Treyarch left Activision cause of their greed for money. What else can drive them to put out such a bad game with video settings like ur playing on pc from 10 years ago.
    Battlefield 3 is a gamers heaven vs to this ****
    Any game has better graphics than this, like supermariofare3
    Expand
  23. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Appalled by review scores. Battlefield gets ripped on the fact that they added a singleplayer mode to what is essentially a multiplayer only game, just as an addition to add value to the game, yet Activision gets away with this crap every year. It's all about the money, and they're making a lot of it.
  24. Feb 13, 2012
    2
    Could not say much more then what have alrdy been said, Grafic feel old so as the game. All the positives seems to think that all Negatives are "Fanboys" I would say around 20% is fanboys maby. and lets say 5%of them have played the game.. if they liked it.. they would not give it a bad rewive right?and i would say that 20% of the posetives are "Fanboys" also so it evens up. The critics are the same rubbish also.. giving MW3 higher graphic then BF3. that dosnt make any seens? But if they want the same grafic and the same game over and over again.. yeah.,. give them 10s and let the keep dropping the same game for 5 years more.. or give then Negatives if u like them to make a new enegine or something. But i know im giving this a 2 cuz im tierd of this now. if they would have droped this right after mw2 , they could have goten a 7.. Call me fanboy or whatever u all want... but that gives this game a 10 and QQ about Fanboys here... thats a real fanboys. Sry my english tho. but hope my point got past here Expand
  25. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    $60 for a map pack. Every single thing added in this game from the last one could have been downloadable content. I think all of the call of duty games suck (excluding the first) but I understand if you just enjoy the multiplayer. However, I don't understand why millions of people go out every single year to buy the same game. Do not tell me they added new stuff and changed it; it's the same exact game. I thought PC gamers were smarter than this. It's sad that this is the most successful video game in the world. How far the game industry has fallen. Expand
  26. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    The graphics are awful, the campaign is boring and the game is just overly awful. Not to mention the poor optimization for the PC version.

    The only people who give this game good reviews are the asskissing review sites such as IGN and Gamespot.
  27. Nov 10, 2011
    1
    I was a cod fan, played every single game of cod and mw3 too, but never again, this is a constant deja-vu, and the overpriced dlcs......... is very sad to see how activition kills his franchyses, tony hawk, guitar hero and now COD (R.I.P)
    Don't waste your money in a 60 dollars DLC
  28. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    What a cheap attempt to make money, this is EXACTLY the same as modern warfare 2, with a few maps and guns thrown in. It should be sold for £15, not 40. The sounds are the same as mw2, the voices are the same, gun handling is the same (no recoil), graphics are the same (graphics look like a good ps2 game).
    This game is a joke, you cannot even change the FOV on PC (its capped
    at 65, whereas most PC players like it between 75-85). Just buy BF3 if you're looking for a great FPS, its totally different from other games, i dont even know why people compare it to CoD when its better in almost everyway.

    Bigger and better maps, guns actually have recoil, vehicles like tanks and jets, really good graphics, and you can see they put a big effort into BF3. CoD looks like it has no effort put into it, all they did was take MW2, change the name to MW£ (oops, i meant 3), change the title screen background, add a few maps which they think they can sell after for 4 maps for £15 (whereas on games like counter strike theres thousands of maps created by users FOR FREE, and DICE gives some map packs for free)...
    Expand
  29. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    It's a shame this is what we are left with. I remember when CoD and CoD2 came out, omg now that was CoD. Its just awful that we went from quality work like the original 2 and also CoD4 to this, Modern Warfare 3 is joke, to me it just shows that hey give up when they cant even update or enhance atleast character models. apparantly their business model is "rinse and repeat, charge 60 bucks" knowing the hardcore CoD fans will buy it, trusting in a company that brought them good games before. I remember a big thing with MW2 and PC players was the dedicated servers, and they got ppl pumped for MW3 we will have Dedicated servers this time around.....yea for those who dont want exp and to level up. Ill end this like i started it by saying: What A Shame! Expand
  30. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Same game as Black Ops and MW2. Not worth paying for essentially a reskin with new maps. Terrible single player, same old multiplayer, only now we get the pleasure of paying for CoD Elite. Now the dev is begging for better user ratings. (http://www.gamefront.com/glen-schofield-wants-your-help-boosting-modern-warfare-3s-low-metacritic-user-score/) Ha. MAKE A GAME FIRST, NOT JUST A RESKIN. DO NOT BUY THIS CRAP. Expand
  31. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Single:
    It seems like you have saved game 2 yr. ago and now loaded this save. I forgot what happened in MW2 what the hell is happening here? Where is the story line?

    Multiplayer:
    Poor graphic, terrible sound. It seems like first part of Modern Warfare.
    This game even worst then MW2.
  32. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    This game is terrible. Appears to be an expansion of MW2, still using the same engine as the previous games it provides exactly the same disappointing experience. Along with having to pay for Elite, Activision seems to be making all the wrong desisions to keep this franchise healthy... RiP Call of Duty
  33. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Call of Duty... Such a great series of games which brought whole new level to FPS type of games. Thanks to CoD the shooters look like they look. So where is the problem??

    The problem is the technology. Activision didn't invest any money since CoD 2 to develop new engine (Yes Since CoD 2 its the same engine slightly modified), they managed to improve it up to CoD 4 but then they reached
    limit of it. Did they bother to develop new one? No. Since that time nothing changed. Same animations of characters, weapons and look of maps. They are trying to blind us through doing stuff like replacing zombies with 2 player co-op, new game mode and few new weapons model, but that's all. If you are going to get that game prepare for disappointment. Activision managed to sink all the way to the bottom of the sea one of the best FPS series in history of video games - Well done! From the king to the street beggar. I think it's time for CoD to retire for couple of years and come up with something new. Single player - stopping WW3 sounds great, you have the same characters (that didn't die) from previous version of MW. Map design is simple - get from point A to point B. Don't worry you won't get lost on the way. Guess why... CoD1 offered several different paths to reach objective and that's what should be restored! I don't care about fancy explosions!

    Multiplayer - its just map pack for MW2.

    Conclusion? Get different game because this one is worth only half of it's current price...
    Expand
  34. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    I don't understand why we keep paying for the same game... They should of stopped at cod4 and ended on a good note. I hope that people will learn their lesson this time around and not continue to buy they games anymore or at least till they decided to actually make a new game.
  35. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Modern Warfare 3 has broken sales in nearly all categories upon release, but was it really worth it? Apparently not, considering it's a rehashed version of all of their older games. When designers fail to bring innovation into their game, it's quite difficult to wonder if you should spend your hard-earned cash on the product. Call of Duty has now become a sports game that is released every year. At least EA invests money within their budget to increase the quality of their sounds and visuals. Modern Warfare 3 was created using an outdated engine, which they could have attempted to compete with DICE's new engine, but they chose to hoard as much funding as possible. There is nothing new about this game, other than the revamped Spec Ops mode which has now become Horde/Firefight. Anything original? No. I would suggest that if anyone is debating on buying this game, go ahead and buy a used copy of MW2. You'll get the same experience playing an older game. Now, if you'd like to try something new and exciting, play Battlefield 3. Especially if you game on a PC. Expand
  36. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Rehashed garbage, Infinity Ward created this game, Activision destroyed it, they broke up Infinity Ward and put Sledgehammer games in charge

    Terrible game, avoid at all costs, see high scores from official reviews? Publishers pay them heaps of money to do PROMOS on their website, so they are inclined to get positive reviews, a reviewer on a website once lost his job for giving an honest,
    low score to Kane & Lynch when his website was being paid to give it a promo.

    Oh and its so rehashed, there's actually an article proving the same building model from the now 4 year old COD4 where used in this game, despite it being one of the best selling if not the best selling franchise of all time, they are still so cheap.
    Expand
  37. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Piece of Garbage. Why do people even play this broken, watered down, repetitive, unrealistic and buggy game series? And why are people even BUYING it after all this and sending boat loads of money to one of the laziest and corrupt gaming corporations ( Activision ) and their CEO Bobby Kotick ( Anti-Christ of gaming ).

    I shouldnt be blaming you though, the majority of their revenue are
    from kids between the age of 10-14 who are too close-minded and just follow the crowd and buy the game for the title. Expand
  38. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    If you own MW2 and play it for the multiplayer, there is zero reason to get this game. Don't get me wrong, the game is good in its own right, but there's just no justifying MW3 being its own game. Any other game in the world, and MW3 would have been a minor content and balance patch for MW2, but here?

    This is the exact sort of thing that is the cancer killing modern gaming. Instead of
    the developers waiting until they had enough new content to make an entirely new game with entirely new stuff, someone just decided that enough time had passed since MW2 to get away with making a sequel. Based on time instead of content, the developers were shoved out the door with whatever they had on hand, (which as we can see from MW3, is not much)

    What has actually changed? Well, a few perks are now two perks, two perks were combined into one, and you unlock perks differently. There's a new engine, but it's only noticeable in the single player, and let's be honest, if you're getting this game just for the single player, there are better single player games out there. If you're looking for multiplayer, you're looking to spend 60 dollars to play a game you already own and unlock all your perks again.
    Expand
  39. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    I'm sorry but i played this at my friends house and it was horrible, i seriously cannot begin to describe how mad i am at the developers for simply mixing previous call of duties up, throwing a couple of different things in there and selling it at full price while claiming it is a completely new product.
  40. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    So lets talk about MW2...woops I mean MW3. To be honest, I saw this coming. I knew that this game would just be a MW2 DLC. Unfortunately, the brand "Call of Duty" still attracts the masses of idiots who go for the name not the game. The only reason Activision published this pile of rubbish is because they could have just slapped the name Modern Warfare 3 on a copy of Justin Beiber's DVD and people would still buy it. What it all comes down to is that the console gaming population has an average IQ of around 30. Living in denial that there is no better game than Call of Duty. It is only the rest of the gaming population that tweaks their head to left of the games shelf to realise Battlefield 3 came out too, a MODERN, INNOVATIVE and BRILLIANTLY BEAUTIFUL FPS actually does exist! Don't get me wrong, I have enjoyed the previous Call of Duty games (Treyarch being my favourable developer of the series) but this is just a ridiculous game. In conclusion, the majority of the gaming population (mainly console) has turned stupid, maybe this is why unemployment is such a big issue. I don't buy for a name. I buy for a game. Expand
  41. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Just rented it, to test it out, and it's just the same old crap. Nothing original. Just trying to ride out the money train. Campaign is the same monotonous, "kill generic bad guys to get to the next scripted event", garbage. You can just play any other modern warfare to get the same multiplayer
  42. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Activision is recycling the same game since Modern Warfare 3, the campaign sucks like everything in the game, even the menu is the same as the Modern Warfare 2...
  43. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    12 Hours of single payer game play. Holds true to the COD franchise's lack of content from the past 3 installments. Though those 12 hours of gameplay was more compelling than Black Ops, I still feel incredibly cheated out of $60. Online play is no better than Black Ops. Not just graphically, but the levels almost look like the same levels as BO... Laggy servers, gives laggy movements and firing ingame. Then, they try to sweeten us up with their "Elite" service, but only to find out it will cost you ANOTHER $50. Come on Sledgehammer, can we get a reach around when you're giving us the hammer??? I would say avoid this one... But we all bought it sight unseen already.... Oh well. Expand
  44. Nov 14, 2011
    0
    Just disappointing and nothing more. No improves on graphic, unclear story, control with a lot of rubbish setting.... It is worst in MW1 and MW2..... Even worse than COD 7
  45. Nov 14, 2011
    0
    Played ANY cod game before? then you will have seen everything on offer.
    Fan of MW1? rinse, repeat and save yourself a few quid.

    Same engine, a few new weapons and perks in MP and another chapter in the story.

    This would be a free content patch in a Valve game and DLC by other publishers.
    Recommend you check out BF3 tbh.
  46. Nov 15, 2011
    10
    Well, not superious-hyper-cool graphic, so what? It's looks good and don't eat all CPU resources. Plot, I agree, is not good as it can be. Especially because M1A1 is far worse tanks as T-90. And I don't believe in american bravade, as them wiping Russian forces by ground forces. SP is not my object for judge.
    MP is improved mp of mw2. Rather improved, indeed. I give 10/10, because
    developers rebalanced some weapons, like sub-grenade launchers, removed some cheap perks, and add some kind of RPG system. Still, I think UMP is not balanced from MW2, but other weapons power-uped, so it's not big problem. Expand
  47. Nov 15, 2011
    10
    It's the best. I mean if you liked MW(MW2) - you will like this. I like everything - story(well, it's not the most original one, but it's still good), Spec Ops(it's a lot of fun) and of course the engine of the game(which allows me to have beautiful graphics without change of my PC).

    P.S. Sorry for my bad English.
  48. Dec 15, 2011
    1
    Worst game trilogy ever. Every game is exactly the same. Old graphic, old sounds, old mechanics of game. Why THIS have a price? For what? For replay? Small maps in multiplayer. Even free mmofps better.
  49. Mar 6, 2012
    4
    The COD series has been milked a lot and while sticking to an established formula offers familiarity, MW3 goes too far. Sure there are few minor changes, but it's still running through linear corridors in campaign and fighting some juvenile man-child in multiplayer. The visuals and setpieces aren't bad but starting to show their age. And why do they keep pulling off the same cliches like an extraction chopper being shot down or a slow-mo kill. Also what the point of the child's death? It doesn't prove any point that hasn't been reiterated (i.e. terrorism) and it doesn't further the story (the massacre in MW2 makes sense because it lead to WW3 in MW3). If you like COD, you'll like MW3, otherwise maybe pick this one up at a lower price. Also survival mode isn't a new innovation because it's just multiplayer with single-player enemies thrown. 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 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. Feb 19, 2012
    0
    **** THE CRITICS! HOW CAN YOU GIVE THIS GAME ANYTHING ABOVE 1? THERE ARE SO MANY ****IGN HACKERS, EVERY GAME THERE IS ATLEAST 1 HACKER, BUT USUALLY 2 or 3! ITS UNPLAYABLE. THE LOADING SYSTEM IS CRASHES CONSTANTLY, HACKERS DON'T GET BANNED, THEY TRY TO CHARGE PEOPLE FOR ELITE AND **** THE WORST GAME EVER MADE.
  52. Nov 8, 2011
    3
    3 hour campaign with lots of breaks... nuff said considering the price. play tribes: ascend when it's out, the cbt destroys this "complete" game for half the price.

    Oh and I don't play BF3 so all the fanboy spazzes, you can rest easy. Price to value ratio, this game is triple-bunk. Shoulda spent the marketing campaign funds on a single player campaign, remember when they didn't used to
    just be tutorials but actual stories? Wait til its 3$ on steam sale one lonely afternoon in the next few months. Expand
  53. Nov 10, 2011
    1
    No ranked dedicated servers, IWNET, 12 year old tech, no vehicles in MP, small maps....essentially the same game as COD4 just prettier. If you played BlackOps, MW2 and World At War...this is just a revision. Not worth the $60. Recommend nobody buys it. IW and Activision need to try harder if they want our dollars. They know what PC gamers want but they refuse to give it to us. If you love COD then by all means buy it...don't come pollute Battlefield with your noobishness. Expand
  54. Nov 10, 2011
    1
    Why do I have such a low score? I wanted to give it as high of a score as Modern Warfare 2 (since I thought I was playing that exact game), but when I realized it was not MW2, I had to give it a low score. But in all seriousness, Modern Warfare 3, the third in the series, is direct downgrade from MW2. It's even worse than Black Ops. I cannot believe just how terrible it is compared to Battlefield 3, or any other Call of Duty game out there. Expand
  55. Nov 14, 2011
    0
    This game sucks and activision knows it. Gave it a 0 because it is obvious activision employees are trying to boost the critic score, this POS needs to go.
  56. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Oh dear god why... The only reason I even played this was to know how the story ended, and the story wasn't even good. This is WORSE than the last one.
  57. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    Yet another mod of CoD4 they are releasing to take money from uninformed players. This game brings *nothing* new, fun or interesting to the industry, it just perpetuates the boring respawnfest that is allowing real innovation to happen. I genuinely played it looking for reasons why it's any different from the last 3 identical titles. I honestly couldn't say I found a thing. Hopefully this trend blows over so progress can be made int he industry. Expand
  58. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    A disappointment on all levels. Same as MW2. Nothing new will be added to this series. The developers are mediocre at best. There is no more creativity from these people.
  59. 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 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
  60. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    More re-hashed crap, it's sad and very disheartening when companies such as this are so blatently obvious in their scramble to make cash. The game is just about identical to MW2 and Black Ops, hell it even uses the same game engine!
  61. Nov 9, 2011
    8
    This is a singleplayer only review as I haven't yet had the chance to try multiplayer. I convinced myself I wasn't going to buy MW3 being somewhat of a Battlefield fanboy. I loved Modern Warfare 1 but as a PC player hated MW2 due to lack of dedicated servers. It also had a rather disjointed story which really put me off. I decided to never buy another CoD game again because of the lack of innovation and the fact that it's basically the same game every year. Well I woke up on MW3 release day and impulsively decided to buy it just to see if it lived up to Modern Warfare 1. First thing I noticed was the campaign length. Normally a CoD game takes me only 3-5 hours to complete on regular. This one took me just under 9 hours which I was really happy with. The story truly lived up to MW1 and I enjoyed it much more than MW2. I'm giving it an 8 out of 10 because I really enjoyed it, it was very entertaining and wrapped up the Modern Warfare story quite nicely. I took two points off for dated visuals, lack of any proper physics and other engine-related badness. Also the fact that it's another iterative CoD. Now we just need some real innovation in the future and CoD can move forward the way it needs to. Expand
  62. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. To be brief: i am deeply disapointed! MW is a great franchise and i have played most of their games. Activision has unfortunatelly a pure money driven institution more and more neglecting their clients. MW 3 is - at their best - a MW 2 1.5 trying to make up for an old engine with spectacular scripts, but that is, sorry to say, not enough.

    Especially compared to rival Battlefield 3 the decision for me was easy: i switched to Battlefield which engine is providing players with incredible sound, dust and light effects with bullets whistling next to your head making the adventure so real.

    Forget MW3 buy Battlefield 3. Enter the war and feel it.....
    Expand
  63. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    To put it simply. DO NOT BUY THIS GAME. This game is a copy and paste of MW2 - meaning the servere consolitis which came with MW2 has returned in MW3. Infact, the game probably has worse graphics than MW2 aswell. Seriously, do yourself a favour and just avoid this poor excuse of a game. The story is weak too, it's like a cheap rip off a Michael Bay movie....The whole game is a massive cliche.

    Infinity Ward said they would give us a decent PC port with dedicated servers. They pretty much lied. The MP is terrible. The SP is actually better than the MP, and thats saying something. Overall, poor game. Gameplay for SP and MP is just copy pasted right from MW2. I got bored in the first 3 hours. No variation at all.
    Expand
  64. Nov 8, 2011
    4
    -Graphics 4/10 Outdated. The game has no place on PC with its current price. However, it's well made within its current limitations. On the pc, it's still unacceptable in 2011, almost 2012. -Sound design 5/10 Outdated. We've already heard these sounds in cod4 and all of its sequels. -Music, Voiceacting 8/10 Solid music. Solid voiceacting. -Story 0/10 Personally, I don't like it. It's the typical american over-the-top slapstick war movie. It makes no sense. At one point, you're wasting the life of dozens of people in an attempt to save one guy. IW also has no dignity whatsoever, killing off a child simply to cause controversy and gain attention in the media. Disgusting and disgraceful.
    -Interface 7/10
    Intuitive. Solid.
    -execution of singleplayer 5/10
    It's a railshooter with no freedom. There are infinite spawns, everything is heavily scripted and the NPCs are incredibly stupid. That being said, it's still enjoyable, like playing time crisis in an arcade with lightguns.
    -execution of multiplayer 5/10
    It's solid but nothing to write home about. The unlocks feel tedious and kill the fun, the maps are mostly corridors. I miss big open areas. But, it accomplishes what it tries to accomplish, being a run&gun, brain-off shooter.
    -special mention 1/10
    The game is accompanied by a horrible infantile community that likes to trashtalk and is incredibly annoying. Previous titles have been plagued and ruined by hackers. The singleplayer is incredibly short and easy, even on veteran.
    -Price 0/10
    Frankly, on PC, with this price, it's a scam.

    -Conclusion 3.8/10
    It can be a fun time killer. It has heavy flaws and lags behind technologically. The pricing is unacceptable.
    Expand
  65. Nov 9, 2011
    9
    Guys you made me smile with all those 0/10 ratings. I think most of the comments were written by BF3 fans ("... I'm going back to BF3..." or "When such a amazing multiplayer game like BF3 exists") or some random haters ("...But i havent played it yet..."). Seriously?!... Lets see.
    It uses the same engine as the previous episodes. Yes, the graphic getting old, BF3 and Rage is beautiful, i
    admit, but their optimalisation sucks. The single-player is the same as we seen before, whats the problem with that? They were fast, exciting full of EPIC moments, (and unfortunately too short, yes thats a bad point). The coop part is still fun with a new mode (in the mw series). And finally the multiplayer is still the same intensive fps experience as before(+dedicated servers returned) with many new features and some fixes what we missed from the prev episodes. I'm still smiling and don't get what your problem is:) A bit old and it isn't cheap, but still the best choice if you want some adrenalin-pumping fast action.
    So the conclusion is: Haters gonna hate. Who liked the previous MW episodes (and still don't get bored of them) will love this too.

    Thanks for reading this, that was MY opinion, no offense, Have a nice day.
    Expand
  66. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    As it says right in the games description, "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is a direct sequel to the previous game in the series, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2." It really is a direct sequel, and that is putting it lightly. This game is all about staying tried and true with popular belief. If you own Modern Warfare 2, then you should feel like your picking up right where you left off as this is basically an over the top DLC, with no innovative content to be seen. If you like playing the same game since 2007, be my guest. Expand
  67. Nov 9, 2011
    8
    First things first, I noticed alot of bad comments and reviews on this game. The funny thing is it looks all the same talking about the engine and gameplay and boring story. I highly doubt those people who reviewed the game did actually bought the game. Graphics: They haven't build a new engine for this game, instead they twitched the one they had on MW2. In my opinion its still dated and look pretty good and maps are well designed. Ofcourse, I dont expect Infinity Ward to use it again in the future and build a new one.

    Soundtracks: Brian Tyler did a great job here, nothing more special to say.

    Single player: Still very entertaining and never made me get bored, also the time for completing the story took me a good 7 hours which is very good. However, as most people know the story is pretty much build with the same structure as MW2 and highly predictible.

    The new survival mode has a similar gameplay as Killing Floor. You complete a wave, buy upgrades or weapons and start the next wave. I had alot of fun here so far on my own. I haven't tried multiplayer yet on survival mode.

    Spec Ops, pretty much the same as MW2, it still does its job as expected.

    Multiplayer: Very simular compared to MW2, new killstreaks that looks very cool, slightly changed UI, and more ballanced compared the its predecessors. Perks and weapon leveling are working very well together. Somehow the spawning system still keeps spawning you in front of an enemie sometimes, but much less than MW2.
    Alot of those unfair or really annoying killstreaks and perks are removed, which is good.
    Theater mode like the one from Black Ops does its job for me, I can finally review things I did in a game I played.

    Conclusion: MW3 is absolutely not a bad game, but because of the lack of improvement of its predecessors its getting an 8 instead of a 10. Things to note if they make a new Call of Duty, a new engine is a MUST and a brand new story wouldn't harm the francise. Be creative Infinity Ward!

    That concludes the review,
    warriorjan
    Expand
  68. Nov 9, 2011
    1
    Hm what to say...I havent played bf3 yet, and i probably wont do so in the future, so a comparison would be crap. So well....activision and IW have once again done it...theyll earn millions of dollars with crap that hasnt innovated since mw...mw was a great shooter,the story was just thrilling,even if short, and the multyplayer was plain awesome...to everyone new to cod ill suggest you to get either modern warfare or CoD2...cod2 is just a good game, and with mw youll get the same stuff you would get with mw 3 for about a third of the price (its even better balanced)...its a shame that people keep buying this trash...the single player lacks the intense of previous games, it seems even shorter...and then again the lame try on producing some controversy, just like the airport mission in mw2...just shows that the only thing those **** are aiming for is money....no new graphics, no new aspects,not even improved ones...the multyplayer is exactly in the same state as the singleplayer,the only improvements taken are some additions to kill streaks...which seem to be stolen from either homefront or other fps...LONG STORY SHORT COMPARISON: its ridiculous that they keep on making money with the same crap as before, but because morons buy this trash they will produce the same crap on and on...Im just waiting for the massive whining when they again release dlcs usually worth 3 dollars and sell them for 20 dollars...but then again people will buy it...cod history should have ended after mw Expand
  69. Nov 9, 2011
    8
    I don't get what people were expecting when they rushed out and bought this, but I got what i wanted. Single player campaign is great and continues the story from the first two games. Multiplayer has a ton of new perks and level up options. It runs great on my laptop: Phenom II N970 Quad-Core, 8gb DDR3-1066, 1gb AMD Radeon 6650m.

    There are some gripes I have about the game (no lean, no
    FOV adjustment, no prestige tokens from previous games, no Dew XP promotion, etc.) but seriously these are minor issues and overall the game is pretty damn good. Personally I don't care that the graphics haven't changed much, I always thought they were fine to begin with.

    IDK, I guess I'm supposed to hate it but I haven't run into anything that makes me hate it. All the people complaining just seem like elitists who are getting mad that their beloved series now has mass appeal, just like what happened to punk rock in the late 80s and early 90s. Whatever, deal with it guys.

    Docked 2 points for IW/Sledgehammer/Activision basically skimping out on Elite/Promotional deals for the PC version.
    Expand
  70. Nov 9, 2011
    8
    All the fed up of BF3 players here writing ofc.. Go and play ur GAME like the MW3 players are doing instead of flaming in here. Actually the game ain't that bad. What I've meet there is lots o similar things in earlier CoDs but no it doesn't make the game non-playable. I totally skipped blackops and MW2 eventhough I played CoD1-4 as a active clan player. Well if we compare this to BF3: I did play it on beta (ofc alot of bugs etc.), but nothing wins the game when its PLAYABLE even with high graphics when ur PC ain't very up to date. I agree BF3 has lots better graphics but in my opinion they shouldn't make games to tell people "Hello! Wanna play me? PUT 600 euros to get new hardware first, then buy the game for 50 euros." As a hardcore player I give my points for a game that people can play as a "team" (and no, not public "teams") and without getting in risk of low FPS.

    This is mostly for Multiplayer:
    +8 for the game, working client(steam), system, different game mods, playable with even more worse computers (Low graphics ARE playable)
    -1 for the graphics (maybe would've deserve -2 as '11 game)
    -1 Servers are sometimes **** up as the players host the servers(at least some of the servers, fix me if I'm totally wrong)
    Expand
  71. Nov 9, 2011
    1
    I have played all previous Moder warfare titles including black ops and world at war (in between cod4 and modern warfare 2). I knew from that start the multiplayer looked the same but to my surprise they changed almost nothing. Even the sound effects are the same! are you kidding me!? Still running the quake III engine from 1999! All the texture models are the same expect shiner. However i dident fret i figured the campian is always epic right! NO! They basically held my hand down a straight path and then spoon fed me explosions. Sadly disappointed. If your a fan id wait for the bargain bin. Expand
  72. Nov 9, 2011
    9
    If you liked the previous two games then you will pretty much be getting a very similar title with this game as well. PC of course plays it best, but then again, the same engine is being used from the previous titles also, so it shouldn't even stress consoles, even with the ludicrous amount of explosions happening around you. Campaign is pretty much the same as it has been, but then again, anyone who expected anything else is kind of looking for the wrong thing, considering this says directly on the box that it's the third installment in a series.......go figure. Sorry to those of you out there that bought this game thinking there was going to be mind blowing innovation, did you not watch videos and check screen-shots and reviews in order to find this out before you "blew your $60 on the same game." I can't honestly rate this as low as alot of the ignorant people out there. It IS polished in terms of gameplay and with patches the multiplayer will be fun. Expand
  73. 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,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
  74. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Modern Warfare 2.5 Yes that's how I felt when I wasted my $60 USD on this video game.

    Lets start,
    The story is linear, more linear than black ops, were they afraid that we were too stupid to get a story like MW2? Without spoiling anything, the game has a "no russian" scene and it's in bad taste. Actually, it's purposely put in there, it serves no other purpose than trying to jerk a bad
    emotion out of you.
    The rest of the campaign is mediocre and nothing special.

    Onto the multiplayer,
    They bragged alot about the Call of duty elite service, but it doesn't even work - yet they expect me to PAY for this? Hilarious! Tons of recycled assets. The strike package is a move in the right direction, same with the revamped points system....but death streaks are back...ugh....
    Honestly there's not much different, the graphics are the same, dedicated servers DO EXIST - BUT THEY ARE UNRANKED ONLY.

    Priestieges DO NOT carry on if you were a PC player - Thanks you jerks.

    Honestly I will never buy another Call of Duty game ever so long as Activision holds publishing rights to it. It's obvious why most of Infinity Ward left or tried to move boat. You may as well call it Call of Duty 2011 , because that's what it's become - an annualized game that has minor tweaks - for better or worse, that's for you to decide ultimately. But I feel the series and the developers have hit a wall.
    Expand
  75. Nov 10, 2011
    10
    It's a shame that MW3 does not offer an option to change the Field of View. Apart from that, this game is another rock solid FPS in the Call of Duty franchise. Most of the maps are very well laid out and offer a good 'flow' when going around the map. The graphics aren't stunningly good, but definitely good enough. But graphics doesn't define a game, gameplay does. Thanks to IW and Sledgehammer for bringing us the best first person shooter to date!! Expand
  76. Nov 10, 2011
    8
    I don't care what other people say about this game-"its the same" "its no different" "its just and expensive map pack"-there is a particular reason why this game has (almost) the same visuals as the previous titles, that's because this game runs at a solid 60 fps on both consoles and the PC, what is the big deal with 60 fps you say?..well 60 Frames Per Second allows smooth game play and better fast paced experience, and more over no other fisrt person shooter allows you to easily play with your friends and have a fun time..so what if this game looks and feels like the previous tiles..if it can achieve what other titles in the series coudn't-balanced gameplay-then its worth every penny. Expand
  77. Nov 10, 2011
    9
    the campaign was good nothing great, multi player is where its at i really enjoy kill confirmed mode, we all heard it b4 its mw2.5 so if you enjoyed mw2 multi player you should enjoy mw3.
  78. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Game is absolute garbage. The campaign just felt absolutely forced and was completely forgettable by the end of it. Spec Ops is trash because zombies in WaW and Black Ops was just so much better. Not to mention you were able to play it with upto 3 other people that you know! Where's the fun in fighting endless enemies with only one other person? There is no fun in that. On to multiplayer... the maps are the worst I have ever seen. The graphics are extremely dated, Battlefield 3 just completely slaughters this game. The textures are also horrendous! Everything about this game is re-used from Modern Warfare 2. This game doesn't feel fresh at all. All of the guns and skins are re-used... the menus as well... even some of the buildings and vehicles. The sounds of the guns are still bad, and some are the same as MW2. Battlefield 3 is just so much better. Sorry if the truth hurts. This game is just a bad DLC to a game that came out two years ago. Save your money! Expand
  79. Nov 10, 2011
    10
    Nice graphic, very good sound (better than mw2), singleplayer owns everything, and perfect multiplayer. Guys this game is amazing!!!! I think this game is really good, the best of all modern warfare.
  80. Nov 10, 2011
    10
    Hey This Game Paid Off My Expectations and Really cooled off my anticipation.. the sp is as good as mw2 and mp is satisfying as well.. survival ops is back with a bang too.
    this game one of its own so don't compare it with any other.. just review it.
  81. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Another year, another rehash of an aging game. Singleplayer continues on the same principles from previous games, and is fun for while it lasts (It's very short). Multiplayer is where it falls flat on it's face. It feels exactly the same as previous installments. It feels way to familar very quickly, leading to a dull and dry gaming experience. Graphics, animations and sound look and sound dated, which is no surprise considering the game runs on an old engine. It has fallen way behind the competition in almost every aspect. I genuinely feel ripped off. Expand
  82. 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,
    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
  83. 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.
  84. Nov 10, 2011
    10
    I think it it a great game to be completely honest. I own every call of duty that has been released and I think it has always been an innovative series. I hate hearing "It's just like MW2" It is a sequel! I've had no bugs or crashes, BF3 bugs and crashes constantly! I think the story is moving, and MP is just fun! Fair enough, the graphics haven't come a long way, but I Infinity Ward had done a wonderful job with the engine they had. Who cares if it isn't quite as polished as BF3... at least it runs well, i don't end up staring at my desktop, and the SP campaign is actually fun and involving! Buy it! You won't regret it if you enjoyed any of the previous COD Games!!! Expand
  85. Nov 10, 2011
    10
    i don`t know why the user revies are this bad. the game is awesome and after playing for about 4 hours i can say this is one of the best cod games. the campaign is average but the mp is a blast, as always. i love it.
  86. Nov 10, 2011
    1
    I won't give it a 0 because that is unreasonable. The BIGGEST reason why it doesn't deserve anything higher than 1 is quite simple. Recycled buildings, UI is almost exactly the same as previous games, 3 hours campaign (really?). The game could have been released as a single game. It pains me to see my friend buying it only because "it is the newest one". The game doesn't justify itself for the cost at all. Expand
  87. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    I bought this game and all it is is a hacked peice of **** and it's the same as Modern Warfare 2 in every way, I am never buying another call of duty game again
  88. Nov 10, 2011
    2
    CoD is apparently the best series the West has to offer. What they're offering, of course, is the same exact thing they have delivered every year for the past couple of years - Hollywood style action movie game for people with ADD: Electric Boogaloo. At least they don't seem to make the pretense of this kind of thing being exclusively for "Hardcore gamers" because like Nintendo, the sales mostly come from the exact opposite kind of person. Which is worse, Western devs dominating consoles or the entire FPS genre as a whole, I can't even say. The biggest fear is that THIS GAME could very well be a child's first videogame. And that is extremely depressing. Expand
  89. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Is this seriously what games have become? Just awful. I could see someone having a lot of fun, assuming they took this game out and put in a better one.
  90. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    I bought both Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3 because I'm a big Warfare-Shooter fan and i don't really have a favorite Franchise. Well i didn't, now i do. The Problem with the Call of Duty Series is that, at some point, it turned into a unstoppable hype fueled by the masses. And it was quite profitable for Activision. So what did they do ? Change as little as possible so people don't get scared off, but enough to keep people motivated to play. After Modern Warfare, with the release of Modern Warfare 2, i thought - Yeah that's as far as it should go - but along came Black Ops and Modern Warfare 2. And "nothing" has changed, and by nothing i mean nothing fundamental, because that, again, would be too much of a risk. If you played Call of Duty the last years, this episode won't give you any kicks, same old formula in the campaign, same old formula in the multiplayer, same old engine, and that's getting old. Battlefield 3 on the other hand, even through its flaws, seems much more refreshing and appealing. It doesn't bore me, because i haven't been playing Battlefield 3 for ages. But i have been playing Modern Warfare 3 for years now. No more. Expand
  91. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Sept 14, 2009 - Deutsche Bank Securities Technology Conference, San Francisco - Jeetil Patel, Analyst: "What do you think the retailers' willingness these days is to hold inventory on the video game side? Are they building positions today or are they still very reluctant and very careful of how they are buying?" Bobby Kotick, Activision Blizzard, Inc. - President and CEO: "I don't think it is specific to video games. I think that if you look at how much volatility there is in the economy and, dependent upon your view about macroeconomic picture and I think we have a real culture of thrift. And I think the goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks that we brought in to Activision 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games." .... "I think we definitely have been able to instill the culture, the skepticism and pessimism and fear that you should have in an economy like we are in today. And so, while generally people talk about the recession, we are pretty good at keeping people focused on the deep depression." Expand
  92. Nov 10, 2011
    1
    I put 1. But why.... One? maybe because of the little "innovations" (like the number 2 which becomes 3) that they have promised to us. While playing MW3, I definitly felt that I just bought the MW2, same graphics, same sounds. I'd have put a better mark if MW3 just cost the half of a normal COD. (Like Sims 3, you buy it 60$, but expansions cost the half) Really disapointed, I'm actually trying to sell it in ebay.. Expand
  93. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Call of duty has turned into a sports game basically. They release the same game over and over again every year, still charging full price for last years game. What they are doing is an insult to their fans. The campaign is four hours long with Micheal Bay esq story telling, that is to say there is no story, just explosions and set pieces.
  94. 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.
  95. Nov 15, 2011
    9
    Between Battlefield and COD-MW3 , COD wins with a very small margin. The game's graphics & game play is too good for Battlefield-3. But the problem is the game is too short. And ends when u have just begun to enjoy it. Overall its fun, amazing, and with an engrossing story(Campaign).
  96. Nov 14, 2011
    1
    Oh, hey, a new MW. I'm sure after Black Ops, they'll have dedicated serv- wait, unranked dedicated only? Hmmm. Well then, maybe a new graphics engi- no, the same one? Probably will ditch IWnet in favo- no, still IWnet? This game is basically a 60 dollar map pack for MW2. Now, excuse me, I'll be playing Minecraft official release, Skyrim, and BF3.
  97. Nov 15, 2011
    10
    Le meilleur jeu auquel j'ai jamais jouer! C'est du pure delire, je ne serait pas vous dire mes mots quand je l'ai lancé pour la première fois mais en dans tout les cas une joie immense.
  98. Nov 15, 2011
    9
    I've never been a massive COD addict, but this game is great. The developers clearly spent a lot of time refining the formula, and the gameplay is smooth and rewarding. Don't listen to the naysayers - if you enjoyed COD 4 and MW2, you'll enjoy this one. I was kind of surprised at the negativity surrounding it, especially during launch. If you're totally burnt out on the series, fine! Pick up another game and move on, but stop insulting the people who choose to buy it. To be honest, the single-player campaign could use some improving, but everything else in the game is just as fresh as anything you'd expect from a new game. Graphics are indeed better than those found in MW2, if only by a smidgen. Regardless, MW3 runs at a fluid 60 frames per second on my computer (with parts from 2008). To me, that's incredible! I find it hard to care about graphical innovation from one game to the next - the Modern Warfare series is still a story, not a tech demo. Worth picking up. Expand
  99. Nov 16, 2011
    10
    I like it a lot. Especially the new survival mode is great. No big changes in the multiplayer but it's awesome to.
    The end of the story is just Epic.
  100. 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 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
  101. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    As previously mentioned by other reviewers here, there are more than a few "niggles" with this game in terms of everything, from FOV, graphics quality, innovation, game play and even the way multiplayer games are supported and created.

    Textures and sound effects seems to have been ported directly from MW1 and COD 4, no exaggeration intended here, I genuinely think this has been the case.
    Resolution has no scaling, so playing at anything above 1920x1080 yields nothing more than stretched textures and strained eyes. Even if graphics or resolution doesn't usual play a part in your gaming experience, it will matter to you after you witness the eyesore that is MW3 (on PC).

    Gameplay looks and feels clunky, with no real changes what so ever over the previous 4 COD titles in terms of weapon feel, movement or even kill-streaks. All aforementioned characteristics have only changed very slightly, or not at all.

    Servers are Peer to Peer, which while OK some of the time, means that if the host has a house-mate taking a trip to Facebook or Youtube, the whole server will lag out, and spoil the game for everyone. Peer to Peer is a good idea on paper, but in practice it is severely flawed for FPS titles.

    Compare this game to BF3... Well what is the point. One is built on an entirely new engine, has optimised the lighting, shadows and smoke / explosion physics with near perfect results. While the other has re-spun the same garbage engine for the last 5 years.

    This game is nothing more than MW1 in a new box, with a USD$100 (I live in Australia) map pack. Well done Activision, you just killed your own franchise with greed.
    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. 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. Jan 9, 2012
    50
    If you own any previous COD, there's little reason to buy MW3. [Jan 2012, p.50]