User Score

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 5501 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 8, 2011
    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 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
  2. Nov 8, 2011
    This game is a sorry ass joke of a FPS. It's over, COD is finished. As of MW1, this game has been spiraling down to a fiery death. Thank God. Last time I fall for buying this trash.
  3. Nov 8, 2011
    The glory days of Cod 2 seem so long ago. Why FourZeroTwo and his cronies insist on giving pc gamers less than IW gave 5 years ago is beyond me. SP campaign is as linear as BF3's except misses out on the great tank levels, is just one interactive cut scene followed by a corridor, then a shooting gallery then repeat till end of level. Its DULL. The AI is beyond retarded, even worse than Crysis. I dont know how a company can screw up a franshice as great as the first 2 Cods were but IW managed it with aplomb, at least MW1 had a great SP, this game has nothing, except a cut n paste building from MW1 (the African level).

    Utterly dreadful. Maybe the mp can give it a little pickup, but if its anything like the perk / killstreak driven nonsense previous MW's have been, I very much doubt it.

    A dire, dull, drab, console orientated shooter with less complexity than 1993's Doom.

    Hell, even their website forum sucks ass.

  4. Nov 8, 2011
    Bought this game on steam and was really looking forward to play it, but boy was i WRONG. Its actually a copy pasta of MW2 with just a new packaging, They charge us $99 for the same game just a few extra maps dont even get me started on the campaign its an absolute JOKE! Oh did i mention you will expect to pay $15 for 3 new maps that they will so called release? Dont waste your money.
  5. Nov 8, 2011
    Absolute rubbish, don't waste your money. This should be a DLC not sold as a new game. Complete rip off and looks dated and bland on the best PC you could build. I want my money back !
  6. Nov 9, 2011
    Be warned, there is no ranked play on dedicated servers. What this means is that the majority of players will be using the public matchmaking system and cheating will be as rampant as it was in MW2. I wasn't aware of this when I pre-ordered this game, had I been I would have not ordered it. Black Ops has actual decent multi-player, so when they said MW3 was going to have dedicated servers I was hopeful, however this one piece of information was held close to the chest until just weeks before release.

    Also the campaign takes about 3 hours to beat and isn't really worth spending $60 for alone. It's impossible to justify buying the game without a viable multi-player mode.
  7. Nov 9, 2011
    Uh.... Hear me out lol. This isnt because of some fanboy thing. Truly, considering the roughly 500 developers, that they would pull through. make it better you know? Of course, the campaign still hits you dead on; its fun and stuff, but its the same thing. The multiplayer is.... wrong. The gun perspectives look strange, animations are stale, and the sounds are horrible. Elite isnt revolutionary enough to need a whole team behind it. Expect the exact same game, with similar animations etc. I guess you could say that you will pay to keep playing MW2 with a new campaign and weapons. DLC material. Too short, a little lacklustre. Dont believe the reviews, I reckon that they are payed and they kind of tricked me. I knew this was coming and i got it cheap but I still feel a little wronged . Of course, I still have BF3 to keep me busy, but expect similar problems (except with multi and coop, they are flawless) but the campaign was a ltittle strange. I wont elaborate on the IW engine and the Frostbite 2 one, because this is not a rant, although i dont give details. The IW engine is borderline ok; it still looks fine, and there is a clear 60fps being consistent , but it shows that its a bad effort, as the swift controls and user friendly design was done badly on MW3.
    Look at the user reviews; take away around a quarter from pos and neg and you get rid of the fanboy crap. Still its bad. Activision knew that this would happen, considering Black ops had also bombed in actual worthiness so they hyped up MW3 with advertising and paying off reviewers eh.
    Expect a **** of kids who will infuriate you with obviously better guns. Expect to be screaming at the tubers and cheap deaths. Instead of ridding the MW franchise of the stupid kids its embellished it. If you love to the point that its all you talked about on Nov 7, buy it, Otherwise dont. It couldve been so much more, but it wasnt. (the console versions suffered more, i heard) Kids will flood it, ruin it, but if you are 12 go nuts.
  8. Nov 9, 2011
    Video game critics are no longer video game critics. They are video game salesman.
    That's all they do, give good games below average scores and bad games excellent scores.
  9. Nov 9, 2011
    It's just plain a waste of money now, I've bought all the COD from the first one up until black ops and this time it's not even worth spending the 65$ to play the same game i already bought. The campaign is the only thing keeping people attracted to this series but once that's over you have to deal with the crap that is the multiplayer
  10. Nov 9, 2011
    Well, to say the least, well, I AM saying the least - this game flat out sucks. Where the hell is the innovation activision keeps spouting about their games? Clone of MW2. Not worth 60 dollars.
  11. Nov 9, 2011
    Exactly the same game I played at the same time lsat year.... what a waste of my money..... dont bother buying this. Honestly. The graphics arent even good, its been using the same engine since CoD 4.
  12. Nov 9, 2011
    I didn't expect much as the 'franchise' has been in decline for some time, but MW3 falls so far below the bar in just about every regard it's quite literally shocking. The disparity between 'professional' reviews and would be Fans, is all but spelled out in the iteration of canned 'talking points' we see from the shill game press, and just shows to go ya what money can buy. Quit simply this game is awful... Expand
  13. Nov 9, 2011
    Do I have to comment? Its another CoD. For me Call of Duty died with MW2. Black Ops profanated the dead corpse and now MW3 is just 100% necrophillia! The game is clearlly a console port, **** textures, **** antialiasing and **** FOV setting (well, the ABSENCE of option to change FOV). Missing any sense in the campaign story which look like they introduced a "something" to make theyre unbearable game more bearable perhaps? Expand
  14. Nov 9, 2011
    What can I say? I've already played this game 10 times before (literally, I've played each CoD all the way through and they've never changed). It's the same mechanics, same endless stream of units, flashy effects and ill-balanced guns with cap gun sounds.

    I just... I dunno how better to say it than, it's just not fun.
  15. Nov 9, 2011
    Modern Warfare 3 Impressions.

    I recently purchased the new game from the call of duty franchise in high hopes that the latest instalment will be everything I enjoyed greatly about the 1st, and 2nd modern warfare game. The 1st modern warfare game was amazing, which created the success for the 2nd modern warfare game. The 3rd one is based around the setup of the 2nd modern warfare. This
    leads me to the things I dislike in comparison to modern warfare 2.

    Bullet Damage: Modern warfare 2 had very high bullet damage and was consistent for all ranges in the maps 3-4 hits was standard, careful shooting allowed you to kill from a decent distance of 100m + with almost any gun. Modern warfare 3 how ever does not allow for correct range correlation. When I'm firing at targets 10-20-30 metres away from me which is nothing in the real world, with a sub machine gun it is taking 4-8 bullets just to kill someone. This unrealistic frustrating over dramatic affect of bullet range in submachine guns makes them unusable in standard combat and puts them at a great disadvantage to assault rifles.

    Sprinting: Modern warfare 2 had a decent time for sprinting of lets say around 10 seconds (I'm not sure of the exact sprinting times) which was a good amount if you weren't focused on rushing as a main goal, and if you were focused on rushing you had a perfect perk for that sort of game play marathon gave unlimited sprint which was dire for map coverage and aggressive game play. In modern warfare 3 no such perk is available yes extreme conditioning slightly helps the problem but it only increases the initial sprinting time, nothing to do with sprinting recovery so when you get to a certain point it becomes a useless perk. Not giving decent sprinting perks, just decreases the potential of sub machine guns further because doesn't allow proper potential to get into close quarters. Explosives: Okay I will admit modern warfare 2 was quite generous with the explosions and explosive damage but many of them were completely balanced, the grenades had good throwing distance and 100% reasonable damage, you could avoid them if you played carefully. I agree that grenade launcher attachment was quite overpowered and well placed grenades could kill 5-6 people at the start of the game but how often did that really happen? RPG's were rarely used because you had to be the max level to use them and the thumper did decent damage but had little area affect which balanced it perfectly. I agree that the danger close perk did cause imbalances in using most of the explosives, but it gave up the most important perk slot, yes high power explosions were frustrating at times but you never did as much damage as proper run and gunning. Modern warfare 3 has disgustingly pitiful explosion damage, when I throw a semtex in about 10 metres it goes straight to the ground no matter how high I throw it and it never kills ever unless you stand right on top of it, it's damage is a complete joke the only kills I literally have gotten on the semtex were people on incredibly low health and stick kills. Grenade launchers only kill right on there feet or direct hits, secondary rocket launchers are unusable because they are completely underpowered and trying to aim directly at a person to get a kill defeats the purpose of a rocket launcher.

    Title and emblem unlocks: One of my personal favourite things about modern warfare 2 the title and emblem unlocks and the customisations of your "profile" you went through specific challenges some varying in difficulty and you would receive experience, an emblem and/or title. For example kill 1000 people with the stopping power perk, you would receive a title "bite the bullet" and a emblem which has a picture of the stopping power pro icon. This was a nice way to reward the user for continued use of a specific perk and could boast/show these to other players who look at your profile. Modern warfare 3 how ever has displayed no such difficulty in unlocking the emblems or titles for example, I started using the perk assassin and within a couple of minutes I have unlocked the pro version of the perk, and the emblem which displays the perk icon. This is a disgustingly quick form of unlocking something which in modern warfare took hundreds of games to unlock. This causes no form of pride or boast to your profile as in most titles are unlocked in minutes.

    The matchmaking and g
  16. Nov 9, 2011
    This game blows. They've just taken the old game(s) and revamped the UI and added new weapons and such. Really low of them, just so that they may cash in more millions.
  17. Nov 9, 2011
    This game uses the same engine as Modern Warfare 2, doesn't show us anything new, the campaign is patethic, boring and way too easy, the multiplayer is more of the same (as I said already). Also, there will be alot of DLCs. Incredible, this game is probably the worst ever.
  18. Nov 9, 2011
    Modern Warfare 3 is a reskin of MW2 which rehashes the same gameplay yet again with the bare minimum of innovation the developer can get away with, though really should be 'developers' as three developers, the dreggs of Infinity Ward, Sledgehammer Games and Raven Software, were needed to knock out this sequel in their less than 18 month development period.

    The campaign took me 4 hours and
    40 minutes on Regular difficulty, I took my time loking for hidden intel of which I collected 22 of the 46 pieces, it's the shortest Call of Duty campaign yet and the shortest FPS campaign I've certainly ever played. It's full of impressive set pieces with buildings falling down around the player's linear path, but these superficial big budget set pieces barely hide to anyone with experience with MW or MW2 that so much content from them is recycled with just a few minor edits made to the textures to fool the player into thinking what they're seeing is new (case in point: - an entire building from CoD4), this goes for character models, animations, weapons, vehicles, gameplay sequences (for example the boat secion in MW2), a huge amount of content is reused and the game seems to be built around what they could recycle more than what they could create from scratch. The lack of originality or even intention to be original is present throughout the entire game. The story itself is actually quite enjoyable and feels as much a sequel to CoD4 and MW2, making it tie together nicely as a trilogy, though some sections make it feel more like a fanfic than a true sequel (considering that most of the people who worked on MW2 left and had nothing to do with MW3), the last mission was more of a QTE filled joke than a satisfying conclusion. I wonder how different it would've turned out had 40 of the key staff from IW, the original and only true CoD developer, due to Activision's disgusting treatment of the series, the staff and their creation. I won't even go to the clunkily added controversial scene involving the death of a random child that felt tacked on or the fact that everyone the player kills in the campaign is either African or Russian.

    Spec Ops is a mixed bag, the missions are a mix of fun and terrible, and the Veteran difficulty is like that of the campaign, a very lazily added hard difficulty where the player dies to psychic enemies in around 3 bullets, usually within a second of peeking out from cover (and by peeking I mean moving, as there is still no lean function). The survival mode however is a lot of fun, it works well as two player co-op and a lot of the tedium from the other survival mode in the series, Zombies, is removed by taking out the luck factor with the amount of ammo the player can get and which weapons they acquire. There's a lot of fun to be had here with a friend and it runs smoothly online, the same can't be said for the multiplayer though.

    In the previous Call of Duty, Black Ops, quickscoping was removed on the basis it's a cheap exploit of the game's aim assist, and that was a good call, though it annoyed many kids who like to do it in MW2. They brought this back in MW3 to please those kids and without regard for the quality of their game's online, this sums up their approach to the multiplayer. As a reskin of MW2 it of course plays quite similarly, they've made attempts to better balance the game with how effective the knife, grenade launchers and killstreak rewards are (which amongst quickscoping ranked as the biggest complaints of MW2's multiplayer) and the new point streak system is a nice addition, but all of the technical problems with this peer hosted, laggy mess with poor hit detection and terrible matchmaking still remain, taking a lot of the fun out of playing it, along of course with the huge focus on player's stats (made worse by in-depth stat tracking) that has most players approaching the game in as cheap a way as possible to camp themselves to a high kill/death ratio. The new game modes aren't actually to original either, some of them may as well credit other older and more recent games considering they're so close to them in design. The map design itself is a campfest, designed by Raven Software as after the majority of IW including all its creative and technical talent it took the few left at IW and other Activision developer Slegehammer Games to design the bulk of the game and they needed help fitting map design into their tight schedule, as of course a Call of Duty has to be out every single Novemeber in order to monopolise on the Christmas sales.

    Lazily made rehash that might as well urinate on the grave of the original Infinity Ward, Activision's approach to this franchise is a good representation of everything that's wrong with the game industry right now.

  19. Nov 9, 2011
    I'm sorry but I had to register to relay my thoughts on this pice of **** game.

    I have a 2560 x 1440 resolution on my display. I fired up the game and it was like I was playing at 640 x 480 resolution. All setting were maxxed out in the game too. The developers of this game should be shot. Its an extremely lazy Xbox port. Absolutely shocking. I am going to try and get a refund for this
    piece of ****.

  20. Nov 9, 2011
    What I expected from this game was a complete update of graphics that actually tested the high end components. I expect a game that improved upon the previous installment of the same developer. I expected to get $60 worth of gameplay.

    What did I get? Regurgitated vomit that smells exactly of the same wretched garbage that still lingers with a bad taste in my mouth. Graphics are piss poor.
    It lacks zero ingenuity. The interface is the same tired trash that they put out before and even the in-game icons are cheesy and are of the same skill that a high school graphic designer would churn out. I'm sorry, that's inappropriate, I apologize to high school students across the USA, you're work far exceeds this.

    This game is merely a greedy attempt to capitalize upon the Call of Duty franchise name. It feels more like some $14.99 DLC off of steam than an actual standalone game. I would have been happy just moving my profile from MW2 to MW3 and calling it a day. Apparently Black OPS is the true winner of this fiasco. After everyone realizes what this game is and how they just had the wool pulled over their eyes, there will be a surge back to all the Black Ops servers.

    To be fair, I gave this product a 1.0. My reasoning behind this is, the only people that won are the ones that took my money and provided be with one of the worst games I have ever bought to date. Battlefield 3 comes into a close second to the trash that's been churned out this year. Both games are garbage and maybe this is the end of First Person Shooters. Anyhow, thanks DICE or EA or Activision, or whoever screwed me over. I appreciate it. Hope you go bankrupt.
  21. Nov 9, 2011
    As a DLC for MW2 this would get a decent mark. As a flagship 2011 stand alone release it's far short of the 40 quid asking price. I would recommend people to seriously consider only renting this game, as you can complete the single player in a few hours/one evening. The multiplayer is still terrible as it was back in MW2, the spec ops missions and co-op are ok in small doses. Biggest mistake by any video gaming company in 2011?? Releasing a blatant re-hash previous version make over in the wake of the boundary pushing visuals in BF3 (I'm not wildly over excited with the multiplayer gameplay in that either).

    I'm giving it a 1 for the briefly entertaining single player story but in the face of overwhelming pish that is the rest of the game.
  22. Nov 9, 2011
    The linear storyline with its complete lack of dynamic player-interaction is a derison to all gamers.
    Activision pulls of its oh-so-well known marketing scheme, trying selling an unoriginal old turd in an original wrapping. With that being said there is one positive aspect: I must now bestow a minimum of effort in order to play through the entire freaking game in a day.
  23. Nov 9, 2011
    What a **** !!!! Seriously do they're is a way to have my money back !!! This game sucks like no one does.
    Have you guys from activision played it ? You don't imo ...
    Instead of paying "people" to come to your shows, just pay another graphic motor FFS !!!
    I don't give a ****** of watching trailer with actors when the game is a complete joke !!
    We wanna game who makes or graphic card
    crying, we want a game that needs a loan to buy 2x GTX590 to play in LOW graphics modes!!!
    You got two years to bring us a new PGM Game, and you serve us all that ****... so lame
  24. Nov 9, 2011
    Single player is ok, i had no problem with it. But the multiplayer is so **** pathetic/retarded. Terrible maps, terrible map size, terrible graphic, terrible gameplay, terrible guns, terrible gun animation, terrible web interface (seriously, get the **** out of steam and develop a web interface for multiplayer), and so on. I want a refund on my money from buying this piece of **** I should have downloaded it from Torrent instead of buying. Expand
  25. Nov 9, 2011
    This game is exactly what I expected - nothing new or surprising. I had hoped that there would be some 'wow' factor or that the developers would at least master a concept that Counter Strike (circa 1999) had mastered - mainly that players wouldn't get killed by spraying players after ducking behind a solid wall (ex_interp 0). Don't get confused... shooting bullets into a wall with a player behind should do damage based on whether the wall is brick (no dmg) or wood (~70%). But getting killed by a player who you lost line of sight on 5 seconds ago is pathetic. Congratulations to Activision in combination with Sledgehammer, Treyarch, and Infinity Ward (you know, the fake one activision filled out after booting West and Zampella) for making me feel stupid for giving COD a 2nd chance after the blunder that was Black Ops. Won't happen again. Expand
  26. Nov 9, 2011
    this is sad for me the game came as a hope for something that is not there, Dedicated servers are unranked, the MP is the same as MW2 in truth this fell like an update to MW2 but it see to be worse then MW2, I'm just so freaking frustrated why the F*** i payed for this?????
    I wanted an improved MP for PC no another bad port from a console!!! I want ranked Dedicated servers and i want a
    lot more then i got offered here. Expand
  27. Nov 9, 2011
    It's not terrible by any means, however, it is frustrating to see a once great series that contains two of my favourite games of all time (CoD 2 & 4) fail to change. Yes, it's the same moderate quality textures, same unrealistic and pathetic gun sounds, same single player thats as linear as the line y=x., and that's a real shame. Activision's desire for a yearly release gives the developers no time for any real innovation or enough time for a new engine, this is what lets down this game. It's no longer fun to pay for a brand new game, along with 3 compulsory map packs or the elite subscription if you wish to avoid being 'kicked' from MP games, its becoming greedy. The included maps are tacky, small and repedative from my experience on them, and alas, it is clear that IW haven't listened to fans as the dreaded 'Noob Tube' returns as an early unlock which is perhaps my least favourite thing about call of duty. Graphics (7.5/10): Perhaps not as good as MW2, but a clear step up from Black Ops, the engine however doesn't allow for the dynamic lighting that some rivals to this franchise and the textures are clearly copy and pasted from earlier games. As usual, the guns look great themselves, the few high quality textures are devoted to firearms which look much better than anything else, albeit, not quite as good as BF3. One thing I really like is the 60fps, it leaves the game play smooth at all times, and never seems to dip.

    Sound (1/10): Pathetic is the only way to describe them, unrealistic and completely wrong gun sounds return. There are also no dynamic sounds, so a sniper rifle on the other side of a map, 3 blocks away, sounds the same as if it were 5 metres away. Very, very dissappointing.

    Multiplayer (4/10): A quote from MW2: "Same stuff, different day", which is a perfect description of the multiplayer aspect of MW3....its nearly IDENTICAL! Some different guns, some not, same sounds, slightly redesigned maps, same game modes practically. There is a huge hype behind "Kill Confirmed" mode, which would be great for a communicating team, however, I'm told that this has been taken from Crysis 2 (not 100% sure on that) plus a slightly different version of CTF. These add little to the game. The same stupid killsteaks, including the annoying Juggernaught that appeared in spec ops last time. Again, in a few months time, be prepared to shell out the MS point equivilent of US$15/$AU23 for the first of 3 map packs that if avoided will see you kicked from every server (or $50 for the elite service). The maps too, all seem identical bar the NYC map, which, combined with the tiny size ( 6 players per team max usually and the playing area is tiny) leaves one bored VERY quickly. Ah yes, to allow for new and unskilled players, noob tube returns from its nerfing in Black Ops to again leave me wanting to tear my hair out in frustration. "Quickscoping", another frustrating 'innovation' has returned to haunt me, an exploit of the over-helpful aim assist. The P2P servers are a clear step down from dedicated ones, they limit the number of players and lag like hell in Australia, I hate it, it's not as fun as past games.

    Offline (3/10): Meh, another over the top, unoriginal story. Unbelievably short, finished on easy in 4 and half hours, contrary to most "professional" critics who say it takes 8. However, at least IW tried to do something new with a rip off of zombies along with some more co-op spec ops, however, no co-op will ever compare to Treyarch's Zombies. As a whole, the offline component appears half baked and tired.

    Overall, I was going to give this game 6 or 7 out of 10, however seeing as its part of a series, it is a rediculous copy of the last one, hence its low rating. The "professional" critics who raved so highly need to get a grip and loose their bias, as a once CoD fanboy myself, I am very disappointed and will be trying out BF3 in the near future as I return this 'new' game. A pathetic money grab, if you enjoy CoD, play MW2 or MW1, they're by far better than this.
  28. Nov 9, 2011
    The game was awful, full of cliche. The boring save the USA/Western civilization stuff.
    The Story line is even worse than a world war simulation on youtube.
    The gameplay is okay, but getting bored with QTEs. And it's getting old, this game not added anything new to the Call of Duty legacy....
  29. Nov 9, 2011
    Call of Duty as it stands now is not a game, it's a franchise being milked for all that it is worth, and it shows in the execution of the game. As it stands the single player is simply broken on the PC, after about 25% of the game is done I encountered a showstopper bug that I could not find a workaround for, it is incredible that such a blunder made it through CQ. As far as visuals are concerned the graphics have not changed a single iota from MW2, textures are blurry, animations are awkward and stilted, the audio is still lifeless and bland and if you so much as look at the enemy be prepared for BLOODY SCREEN, SO REAL. Expand
  30. Nov 9, 2011
    This is a re-release of the game before. It offers absolutely nothing new or ingenious at all. The sad part is that I can't even blame the publishers for doing this. The fans demonstrated that they will buy anything, and this is what they got. Hopefully by the next release cycle people will realize that there is no reason that they cannot have games like Quake, and Ocarina of Time, and Duke Nukem 3D every year. Expand
  31. Nov 9, 2011
    What isn't wrong with this game? Everything everyone is saying is true. The campaign is short, the graphics are terrible, and overall it just seems like a poorly done console port. On budget cards that are able to run Crysis 2 on medium to high butter smooth, this game stutters like the kid from billy madison, and all the while the textures look like something from 2004. Especially the foliage! God the jagged foliage!

    Honestly the only thing that was good about this game was the story. Honestly it was like watching a movie, with some gameplay sprinkled in. Over the top and ridiculous, but amusing for me at least.
  32. Nov 9, 2011
    Another rehash of the same game, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, except that Sledgehammer implemented IWnet again which means the multiplayer is rampant with lag, hackers, and hacked lobbies. They state that they are listening to gamers but their actions say otherwise as they are clearly in this for the money. Their financial plan may to be release copy paste games for as long as they can before actually attempting to develop something new. We may see this 'new' game in 2013 after the dust from this trash has settled and people come to terms with what they've bought. Expand
  33. Nov 9, 2011
    This game is the same thig has COD MW2, if you already have it, there is no need to buy this one.If you played one, you've played them all. Same thing. Its really sad actually. I had no expectations and i was disappointed
  34. Nov 9, 2011
    Every year, same thing. Activision spits out another one of these. It's frustrating, but they know they can do it because millions of 12 year olds the world over are going to buy it.

    It really just feels like a glorified map pack at this point. I feel like I've played this 3 times and this is just an expansion pack for Modern Warfare 1 and 2. I'm pretty disappointed. The campaign
    doesn't feel like it's done anything new, and the multiplayer is the same old thing. Oh well, at least I've been playing my brother's game and I didn't end up spending any money on it :) Expand
  35. Nov 9, 2011
    this is supposed to be a game in late 2011. technically outdated, conceptually outdated and just a repackaging of an old game , yet charges 60 bucks for it. wow man, wow
  36. Nov 9, 2011
    The campaign of this game is terrible. Its linear, has bad writing, generic gameplay, and the graphics are showing its age. The whole game is you going trough narrow paths and shooting bad guys. One good thing about it is that the campaign lasts only 3 hours.Mordern Warfare 3 is the exact same game with a different name, terrible Campaign that you finish in 3 and half hours, with the most irregular irritating little maps that you literally spawn on your enemy's shoulders. The lack of vehical's and broken class system creates a very very dry and plain expirence. Expand
  37. Nov 9, 2011
    I feel like I've played this game before. Oh wait, I have...twice. The graphics are pathetically outdated, having changed little since the first modern warfare. Why even play this game on PC? The hardware advantage (or lack thereof in this case, as nothing about this game really justifies beefy rigs) does not justify the inconvenience of installation and other BS that can be skipped on consoles. The physics feel cheap and flimsy, as the guns do not actually recoil realistically and animations look unnaturally robotic. Being able to go full auto at someone with a machine gun while having the reticule barely budge makes the gunplay feel unrealistic and cheap. Sound effects are equally messy; gunfire sounds more like a fruitblender than anything else. Firing the weapons has no weight behind them due to the muffled, unrealistic sound effects and the robotic physics, giving little to no satisfaction in landing hits. At 60 bucks, IW is robbing us of our money. This is almost the same game, with the same engine, the same graphics, and same gameplay as the previous two. I feel like there is an immense lack of effort and dedication put in by the design team; in its third iteration, i expect a game to at the very least have technological improvements over its predecessors. But even there I am disappointed. I find it hilarious that the Glen Schofield has the balls to ask for higher user ratings on Metacritic after pumping out this product on so much hype. So here I am, voicing my opinion to spite him when I otherwise would have stayed silent. Do yourself a favor and go play skyrim or something Expand
  38. Nov 9, 2011
    It is quite absurd frankly how much has not changed since 2009. Same menu, same screens, same multiplayer, same sounds , same graphics. What i intend to point here is there are many annually launching games out there more in the sports genre like FIFA and NBA which fell different even after a year but nothing much has changed for Modern warfare 3 from MW2 ( unless we look at the contrast and brightness).

    Just because a formula works it doesn't mean u use it all the time. The menu's could have easily been changed to at least give the a feeling that the game is different and not a mod created by some awesome community, The single player although good has lost its lustre from MW2. The excitement from MW2 has just died down. Events are more predictable now and the 9/11 reference was just badly used. Same hordes of enemies and same sounding guns, dialogues do not help much. I could even say Black Ops had a better campaign. Seeing familiar characters does bring back some memories from past titles but that just reduces the effect of the current game. Also i don't see many people coming for a replay to the campaign. The solution to that is Spec-Ops , if you find a friend who is willing to join you ( not that difficult online) but again this gets repetitive quickly and one or more deaths is easy to get you agitated to start all over again.

    The Multiplayer is quite frankly the strongest and the weakest link of the game. The game is selling for its multiplayer but is going to lose many players slowly as people realize they might as well stick to MW2 and Black Ops. The biggest problem problem of MW3 multiplayer is its familiarity. After 3 games of the same type of multiplayer , we need a change. Changeable scopes, new killstreaks and Dog-tag pick up (Kill - confirmed) mode does not count as change but only as minor add ons.

    It is quite clear many are disappointed with the game and if they gave me a refund for dissatisfaction i would take it, but just to show my faith in COD, i won't and hopefully next year they do change some things and win back their fans.
  39. Nov 9, 2011
    The only way this franchise will be saved is a remake of COD4. There has not been a good game in it since. This game is piss poor and craps right on the faces of PC gamers. The damage is completely unreliable, the maps are atrocious, and the kill streaks still as stupid as MW2. Infinity ward and Activision have not released anything of worth since COD4 and never will again. I give up on 90% of developers now days that pay 0 attention to what their customers want. Congratulations on selling enough copies to pay for the game because it flopped and I highly doubt you will keep a community in the future. Just stop making call of duty. STOP!!! Expand
  40. Nov 10, 2011
    As an avid fan of call of duty since COD1 over ten years ago I have loved the COD series although the last 3 games released have got increasingly repetitive for me. They are basically all the same game, I have basically bought three map packs over recent years at full price. MW3 seems to be the worst of this re-using buildings from as far back as COD1 even, cmon 10 year old models used over and over again!

    Start from scratch infinity ward and build a whole new game, that is if you can without the original guys who made call of duty in the first place. You have milked this cash cow enough
  41. Nov 10, 2011
    Nov 10, 2011
    This is te best of the series yet. Infinity Ward has delivered the Special Ops for co-op gameplay and this is one of the best additions to the series. The singple player is as always as roller coaster ride and multiplayer delivers an even more balanced experience. The map are great and the smaller thighter maps at launch will provide new players with an fyn
    experience. Veteran player no longer has the possibility to noob tube and spawn close to team mates are great. Overall this is a more balanced game than any other military shooter on the market with a technical finish others only can dream off. Expand
  42. Nov 10, 2011
    Downrating to 1 to balancing out the ****storm of console gamers bombarding the PC REVIEW AREA. You dont need to copy/paste your 360 review. We PC Gamers have a whole set of issues beyond what you have, dont artificially inflate it. I lost my whole post before, but long story short, problems with the game: Lies about dedicated servers; horrible console port that is painfully obvious; Using VAC as anti-cheat (should have used PunkBuster like MW1); No CoD Elite. I think that sums up my earlier post. Activision has lied to us point blank about so many things, PC gamers! Its time we take action and stop letting them fleece us for money. I would have returned my preorder, but I loaded the MW1 copy I got for free, and I got stuck with it. Expand
  43. Nov 10, 2011
    amazing game....just registered to counter the ridiculous false score.....btw havent even played the it certainly does'nt deserve such low scores...I loved call of duty 2,mw, this i know will be amazing as well..
  44. Nov 10, 2011
    Do. Not. But. I have signed up on metacritic just to write a review on this game. I own every game from the call of duty franchise and like always I pre ordered this hoping that all doubts in my head would be squashed upon release... I was wrong...

    This is a console game, nothing more than a port to PC, the maps are small, the weapons are awful unless your a fan of close quarter weapons
    and everything about it just makes it feel like a DLC for MW2.

    The day of release I felt robbed of my money and sadly in this age on PC there are no refunds.

  45. Nov 10, 2011
    Really really good game that doesn't stop the action for 1 second. You will be on your toes having fun for the whole time. Don't forget about the worlds best multiplayer, and the PC version has dedicated servers!
  46. Nov 10, 2011
    After the subdued tone of Black Ops, Modern Warfare has burst back into life. Visceral, frantic action makes this a must have title. The IW team have taken what was good about MW2 and added additional layers of complexity, making each character that much more diverse. A+
  47. Nov 10, 2011
    Its a great game.I like this game more than battlefield 3, this it the best FPS shooter franchinse in the world its so awesome everybody is a retard who say the opposite to hell with the haters
  48. Nov 10, 2011
    I see no reason to buy this game if you own even Modern Warfare 1 on the PC. This game doesn't even have lean. This is little more than MW2 with some wax applied to it and a 60 dollar price tag attached. Welcome to the era of 60 dollar mods.
  49. Nov 10, 2011
    It just mw 2.1. Nothing new, boring campaign, boring multiplayer, terrible textures and dat twentieth century game engine just hackwork and spitting in the gamers faces. 0/10.
  50. Nov 10, 2011
    I have never really played COD games too much but I received this game for free with some RAM that I bought so thought it would be great to give it a shot. If you read no further than this then DON'T spend your hard earned cash on this game.

    The campaign is laughably short, I thought that 7 hours was short for a campaign in other games but 4 hours really has reached an all new record!
    It is a very linear, scripted, funneled experience with no real surprises. Some of the set peices are nice but they can't save a poor single player. The graphics in MW3 for a high spec computer are terrible, this game could literally have been released 5+ years ago and graphically you would not know any differently. Innovation has really stagnated with this game. On to the multiplayer - there are a number of issues I have with this on the PC. Lack of dedicated servers for rank play, unable to change the FOV (its stuck to a very narror 50ish!) and I absolutely hate kill and death streaks. Worst idea in an FPS I have ever encountered. I have also had a number of disconnects and other glitches that I helped to ruin my online experiences with this game. Gun play seems fairly tight but the maps are so small and samey that it feels almost claustrophobic.

    Clearly this game is made for consoles and the PC version really suffers for this. I no longer have any faith in game reviews, some of them are so blantly being funneled cash for great release date reviews.

    Give this one a miss, there are plenty of other games out there on the PC that have had a lot more consideration for the platform.
  51. Nov 10, 2011
    Excellent!!!Just another cash in of a tired old franchise. Re-releasing a video game every year and making millions is just a slap in the face to real developers who actually take the time to make a decent video game, with a good engine, great online, and a good story.
  52. Nov 10, 2011
    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
  53. Nov 10, 2011
    Everyone that said it is a the same as MW2 is an idiot or hasn't played the game, the only thing the same is the graphics, new campaign, new spec ops, new multiplayer features and the graphics make all the difference? Get real everyone.
  54. Nov 10, 2011
    Everything that was wrong with the previous games, is repeated here. MW3 is essentially a money making cow full of terrible rehashes (some models and textures are outright COPIED from MW2 and CoD4) that's targeted at one of the worst audiences. The price is absurd, the gameplay is stale, the campaign is simply boring, and the only thing this thing SHOULD have going for it is multiplayer, which is populated by either 13-year olds or idiots and operates on incredibly frustrating mechanics. Expand
  55. Nov 10, 2011
    To be honest with the campaigns being the same tired old nonsense with a plot that's convoluted and ridiculous the single player isn't even worth rating. It's a series of rather stunning set pieces at times same as every other game but that's short lived. Multiplayer however this might aswell just be a map pack for the very first modern warfare. New game modes add little and I'm glad I've just borrowed this as I will never pick it up again. Expand
  56. Nov 10, 2011
    Where do I start? The campaign is short and boring, and the Multiplayer is exactly the same as it was 5 years ago.. The dedicated servers are completely useless, empty most of the time and the match making is no better than it was in MW2. Its quite obvious they took MW2 and added some new maps, single player and re skinned the entire game. Even the menu is the same as MW2. Do not buy this game for PC. a complete waste of money. Collapse
  57. Nov 10, 2011
    This game is exact the same thing than MW2, except the name...

    The campaign lasts only 3 hours and you will never play it again.

    Save your money for Rage or Skyrim.
  58. Nov 10, 2011
    What a decline and contrast from the CoD 4: MW campaign that got me hooked, to the present day MW3 garbage campaign. Script and dialogue was tiresome and repetitive, AI was often poor and clueless. The engine itself is now clearly showing it's age, especially in comparison to the (often discussed) Frostbite 2 engine. Damage and action sequences definitely do not have any 'wow' qualities to them due to looking so outdated. I purchased primarily for the campaign, and considering they hyped this up so much (if not more than multiplayer), I can't help but feel ripped off. Get back to the drawing board devs, and completely up your owe it to the 'fans'. Expand
  59. Nov 10, 2011
    Modern Warfare 2.5 . Really they just copy-pasted models from previous games . Environmental objects from CoD4 , hud from MW2 , hit detection from Black Ops . Singleplayer was good . But multiplayer just sucks , mw2 was better . FOV looks low and you can't even change it . No Ranked Dedicated servers . Iwnet is really bad . Laggy games all the time . Just a waste of money and time . Next time they must change their graphic engine , make new models and release it 2 years later . Expand
  60. Nov 10, 2011
    Essentially the same game as MW2, still has the same flaws like no dedicated servers. MP feels slow and unoriginal, is full of campers and there are hacks already popping up. all in all makes for a very unpleasant multi player experience, and i didn't buy this game for its single player.
  61. Nov 10, 2011
    This isn't worth the 60$ price tag, it's basically an expansion pack. I guarantee within a couple months there will be MW3 maps on CoD4, which will be more fun than playing it on MW3. Modders on CoD4 did it with MW2 maps // guns, I expect the same to happen again.
  62. Nov 10, 2011
    Ive played every series so far and im starting to wanna go back to black ops. IT seems like you can tget around a corner in Mw3 without dying, the damage is ridicoulous, ive never had to rely on my connection as much. The spawn system is terrible its the one thing that messed up mw2 and after 2 years it isnt fixed.
    Maps is terrible smalls.
  63. Nov 10, 2011
    People don't know what they're talking about. I played black ops a little and stopped, but this game drives me to play more.

    Compared to previous COD's this game has fine tuned a lot of experiences that you don't visually see, and they can't see that and that's why most people rate this game low. Also the co-op mission are great and have a variety of experiences!

    I didn't play the
    Campaign yet, and im not planning too.

    p.s. every call of duty is a clone to its former release. That's why they are both called COD...
  64. Nov 10, 2011
    I must say... I expected a lot more when I purchased this game... $66 down the drain... With some graphical improvements and a few ported structures here and there... It's been one foggy memory after another resurfacing in my head. Would have been a great DLC for $10 in my opinion.
  65. Nov 10, 2011
    "Just another cash in of a tired old franchise. Re-releasing a video game every year and making millions is just a slap in the face to real developers who actually take the time to make a decent video game, with a good engine, great online, and a good story."

  66. Nov 10, 2011
    I don't generally write reviews for games, but when I saw the obscenely low user scores across all platforms, I felt I had to stick my nose in here. Modern Warfare sports a brief, yet cinematic and climactic campaign that's difficult not to enjoy. Spec Ops provides a lot of variety and challenge and I was glad to see it return for this sequel, with even more goodness as it spreads the satisfaction of leveling up in the multiplayer, which is as exciting, entertaining, and addictive as ever. Yes, it sticks closely to what previous titles did, but more of a good thing isn't always bad. Personally I can't wait to finish this sentence and get back into the action (at least until Skyrim comes out tomorrow.) Expand
  67. Nov 10, 2011
    From a Battlefield 3 Fan Perspective this game is very good, it's not a DLC of MW2 the MP has improved over with the spec ops giving the shine it is just as good as zombies and the unlocks will keep you going on for a while and Prestige and 80 levels will definitely be alot of time too., COD Elite is just as good as Battlelog everything is good (MP is a dead heat) and Campaign is a bit cliche but slightly better than BF3s I will see you guys on the BATTLEFIELD and the MODERN WARFARE, THIS GAME IS **** AMAZING! Peace out Fans and trolls :P Expand
  68. Nov 10, 2011
    $100 Map pack. Over-rated. This game has not changed much over the time and it seems that it is just trying to gain the money from the brand name. Fan boys would be the only people to rate this highly. With such games as BF3 there can be no question that this game will not be GOTY and will and should not even rate with in the top 10. Also many people claim this to be a realistic fps. The people that call dual ak-47's with no recoil realistic should be shot. Games such as Counter strike, quake and battlefield have skill and over the time have changed in enough ways to make each game its own. The new addition of a tomahawk in Black-ops was the tell tail sign that the CoD series had given up on trying to make a good game Expand
  69. Nov 10, 2011
    Terrible game from a terrible publisher. Acticrap struck again with this turd. Are they REALLY still selling call of duty 4 as a new game for the FIFTH time ? Not only that but this is again a stinking console port on the PC. Here we are with amazingly fast machines and Acticrap is still pushing out a game on seven year old engine with console port crap graphics, no dedicated servers and just plain arcadey, junvenile and non-challenging multiplayer.

    Actifail. This franchise will soon go the way of guitar hero and tony hawk, and good riddance to it. Pile of trash lacking any innovation.
  70. Nov 10, 2011
    This game doesn't deserve the score the game got. While shipping the game to the reviewers, I'm sure there were some extra goodies in that bag such as $10,000.

    This game is not that great, the graphics are like 360p quality, and rare moments 480p. I don't think I need to prove it to you guys. If you have the game already, you already know what I'm talking about.

    The gameplay is not that
    great in multiplayer. If you've played it, you might notice that within 20 seconds, you'll encounter at least 2 - 4 enemies. The flow and respawn of the gameplay is just awful. The game officially requires no tactics whatsoever. This game deserves a 1/10. Expand
  71. Nov 10, 2011
    It gets a 3 in my books. 1 Point for Spec Ops Survival mode 1 Point for Spec Ops Mission mode 1 Point for the Uninstall button in control panel. This is MW 2.1 without question. Heck even some of the error messages that you might and will later encounter refer to the game as MW2 and not MW3. Nice lazy Dev code there. Let's start with the facts. P2P DOES NOT, CAN NOT, and WILL NOT EVER, work for a pc Based FPS Multiplayer game. Sure it's fine for co-op, or at least a SMALL number of players in a versus mode, but that still introduces host advantage. As a competitive Multiplayer game, there is no chance it will ever work. Please remove all instances of this crap from any future games from your stable IW. I cannot see in my right mind how IW thinks it's sufficient to play a FPS game with 100+ ping every single round, its absolutely absurd. In my first hour of playing alone I encountered 2 Aimbotters, which could have been dealt with by Admins, but seeing that There are none in P2P, they spoilt the game for us all until we EVENTUALLY found a new playlist. Atleast the addition of dedicated servers rectifies this, but IW jumps in and even limits us on these, being unranked and all.
    Also Loving the fact that that your only sound options are Volume and speaker setup, no way to turn down music or menu sounds. The visuals are not on par with anything from this year, as it actually looks worse than MW2 and Black Ops due to the fact that levels are bigger and more intricate, so the textures have to be downscaled (or so it seems) for the console players to achieve sustainable frame rates. Fantastic job guys, really.
  72. Nov 10, 2011
    Well the game loads. It gets a point for that. But I can't help but wonder why it loads a degraded looking version of MW1. Maybe that's why the Steam purchase came with MW1, to share the common files! It took a big developer a year to develop what really is some slight changes to a base game. I've seen modders come up with bigger innovations in the same development time! Yet another linear on-rails campaign that feels like it's mostly cutscenes designed to look good on a "gameplay" trailer, and yet another multiplayer that takes its map designs from Pac-Man and adds nothing really new in terms of gameplay innovation, but instead removes some of the customization it had previously. All with outdated graphics, fake as hell plastic sounds and a community made up mostly of people not old enough to play the game. £40 please. I think I could have given it more points if Activision gave me a financial incentive similar to the critics'. But they didnt, so....honesty it is. Expand
  73. Nov 10, 2011
    A nice round-up for the Modern Warfare trilogy in an incredible, cinematic and engrossing single player campaign mode. Multiplayer is the best it has ever been and the new Spec Ops levels and modes are awesome. Ignore the negative reviews from people who have most likely not played the game (they're mostly Battlefield 3 players that are upset that once again their favourite game has sold less than a Call of Duty game). Expand
  74. Nov 10, 2011
    Why do people hate good media just because its popular and succesful? MW3 is a better game than Battlefield, its made by much more talented developers and isn't published by games hating EA. The low user score here is from bitter battlefield fans that their game wasn't anywhere near as good as they had hoped. Infinity Ward are extremely talented and have worked hard to create an extremely fun game. Again. Expand
  75. Nov 10, 2011
    Cash Cow game much? Tried so much to get into this game but it is terrible, i love reading all of the comments by the children that play it "oh you only be hatin' because of BF3 blah blah blah". This game is clearly a copy and paste job, i feel bad for the people that genuinely bought it and not just because their friends did (so they had to be popular). The graphics are terrible, look like PS2 textures sometimes and to me that's quite bad. Controls, no change... Gameplay, no change... Perks, minor change. Lucky for me my friend bought this game before i did so i never lost any money really.
    As for the IGN review, please, what a pure kiss ass review, single player campaign is visually stunning? It's just stripped levels from the old games slapped in with horrible textures and nasty auto aim.
    Well after my rant, i'll give this game a 0 out of 10, it is not worth anyone's money, not even the fake chocolate kind.
  76. Nov 10, 2011
    I bought this game thinking it was about answering the call of nature and dropping a deuce in the toilet. Instead it seems to be about a guy that shoots others with no remorse.Very misleading title!!!
  77. Nov 10, 2011
    Normally you'd go for the "When its not broken don't fix it" motto but this does not work here. An aging game with aging game play mixed with a far too young player base to play this game legally makes it a dull and frustrating experience. There is no wow factor and for such a high price tag this truly feels like a con.
  78. Nov 10, 2011
    There are two types of games companies in the world. Those who respect their player base and strive to truely create titles that can be respectfully crowned as AAA, and Infinity Ward.

    Pushing technology to it's limits, creating truely immersive environments and designing experiences that players do not forget is the challenge that this game not only fails to reach, but did not plan for
    from the start. Apparently Infinity Ward seem to think that players enjoy games that force set cinematics on the players, have zero choice throughout the levels and contain zero character progression.

    This game makes baby Jesus cry.
  79. Nov 10, 2011
    Once again a bad rehash by Nintendo, which doesn't bring anything new to the table. It's just the same old game copypasted with a new name to get money from the youngsters who can't see this. Good job, Miyamoto!
  80. Nov 10, 2011
    Ctrl + C, Ctrl + V. This games deserves a 0. It's a copy and paste, no originality, bull crap singleplayer, same multiplayer. $60 price tage, with multiple $15 rehashed map packs. Game gets a 0.
  81. Nov 10, 2011
    I played about 4 hours of MP last night after work and so far I am enjoying it, most of the maps are well done, weapons feel very tight. My biggest disappointments are the P2P, got several bad hosts last night and not being able to adjust the FOV. After awhile of playing ranked P2P a few clan mates and I decided to jump in a dedicated gun game server and had a blast. I think I might just forget the whole "ranked' thing and just play dedis from now on...I could care less about leveling and unlocking stuffz anyway. I just like hanging with my clan mates and having FUN. I am happy with my purchase and will be spending lots of time in MW3. Expand
  82. Nov 10, 2011
    I made an account for this website just to show how disappointed I am with this latest installment of a franchise I thoroughly enjoyed since the original modern warfare. I wasn't troubled too much with the fact that this game was almost a carbon copy of MW2, but it was the little changes that annoyed me the most when they are all piled together. The gun swaying while running is laughable, you actually move a lot slower then compared to MW2 - removing the fluidity of this game while doing so. The music score for the game is garbage compared to MW and MW2, and the campaign is horribly written, stale, and predictable. The only positive thing I have seen is a reduction of grenade launching game play. The graphics are basically the same but personally that doesn't bother me too much. This game was not worth it at all, and Activision / IW made a killing off of this game. You can tell that when they sat down to discuss how they were going to make MW3, they went with the business model of: try to keep everything the same to cut production costs. All in all, I'd recommend staying away from this game. Ignore what the editors for news articles say. This is NOT worth it. Expand
  83. Nov 10, 2011
    It's a great game if you like this type of shooter. Multiplayer feels slightly faster than Black Ops, and overall a good experience. I would recommend this game if you like MW2 or Black Ops, but it is not a game for everyone.
  84. Nov 10, 2011
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. MW3 isn't a very intresting game. It has the same gameplay as with all the other MW game, with that I am fine, a title should stay true to the gameplay it has. This is the only reason I'll be willing to give the game 1 point. I also like the new gamemode but it isn't close to enough. The game is not well balanced, it has huge lag issus, the sound is anything but pleasing compared to other FPS titles, the graphics more or less the same as with BO but you can't change your FOV. This makes the game feel slower than it is, not a good thing for a run'n gun game. It also means that people will get pain in their eyes after playing for a time period longer than 8 minutes (look at TotalHalibut´s video :WFT is modern warfair 3? to get a more in deapth descussion about the matter). MW3 also has left out many of the good things that BO intruduced. When playing MW3 you ask yourself why you don't just play MW2 or a mod of CoD4. The game doesn't bring anything new and fresh to the series and it just feels old and mossy. As a gamer it is impossible to accept that the series is getting less and less content for every new game, but sadly that is what has happend to the CoD series after CoD4 and MW2. The money I put on MW3 was money poorely spent. The next CoD game better have a new up to date engeien, better graphics, a new tutch on the gameplay (without loosing the run'n gun feel). In other words, the next time another CoD is anounced I don't want an over priced mod. MAKE COD GOOD AGAIN! Expand
  85. Nov 10, 2011
    I just registered to say this. I have been a hardcore COD fan for a long time. This is the last COD I will ever buy unless things change. Graphically this game is a piece of **** worse than black ops by far. No FOV, the aspect ratio seems messed up, a complete disgrace. Please do not waste 60 bucks on this crap, you will regret it like me.
  86. Nov 10, 2011
    Game Chronicles review is so untrue, I'm amazed how they can right this stuff, Perfection and so on, come on guys, we are not retards, give us honest reviews, stop being bought by the Pubs, Forgo your swanky hotels in Palm Springs, Just write honest reviews instead of the **** you publish. The game looks very old, the ranked servers don't play well, and to top it off, they looked down most of the dedi servers options, very much unlike COD4 if you want my opinion Expand
  87. Nov 10, 2011
    bad, bad, bad. old graphics. the singleplayer is simply shallow and boring. unreal/predictable story line. multiplayer lame as well. childish perks, fast experience bar. can't apply any strategies with team/ other players. and very basic shoot-die-re deploy kind of game.
    pretty much like the old games (black ops/mw 2), just in new box.
  88. Nov 10, 2011
    Do yourself a favor and start MW2 and you won't know the difference.No dedicated servers makes it hard for us Aussies to get decent connection.I just wonder why the professional reviewers score this MW 2 map pack that highly. Afraid they won't get the junket next year?
  89. Nov 10, 2011
    Copycat of the previous titles, where is the innovation? Honestly this is not a video game, because once PC and console games was more then just products the developers can make money of, they were more like piece of art. Nowadays moneymaker Activision does not give a crap about art design, music, new game play elements, and innovation, they just try to sell as much as they can, without maintaining the quality. Expand
  90. Nov 10, 2011
    Where to start? I have been playing COD since the very first game on PC, and IMO Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is the best COD game in the entire franchise. What happened Infinity Ward? Modern Warfare 3 is the same as Black Ops / Modern Warfare's just more of the same. This game really could have been released as a $30 expansion (or something like that). I don't really understand what all the hype is surrounding this game (IMO there are much better ones just released and that are coming out). The single player is poor, multiplayer is more of the same, and SpecOps feels like it was tacked on.....There is just not enough here to justify a $60 game. If it was going for $40, ok....that would change this review a bit. To give Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer Games credit, they did do a remarkable job with the graphics (this is at least a four year old engine), and you can tell they worked extremely hard to deliver this. Bottom line, buy this, yes or no?: No - Save your money and play COD: Modern Warfare if you need your "war" game fix. Expand
  91. Nov 10, 2011
    Fantastic game, best of the 'modern' series, yes, similar to the others but with extra sexy 'more of the same' ie detailed belieavable and known locations (NY, London, Paris etc) rather than 'some jungle/desert somewhere'. Campaign takes about 5 hours to complete on normal difficulty but don't feel cheated as its like playing a blockbuster movie which are usually only one and a half hours. Far fetched? - yes. A rollercoaster? - yes. fans of the series will love it. If you played any of the others and didn't like them then simple, avoid this or you will only write a poor review - as I opened, its a sexier more of the same - which suits me fine. Expand
  92. Nov 10, 2011
    yes graphics is old, but game is SUPERB! TOTAL FULL ACTION LIKE NO OTHER! BF3 is sooo boring and slow, MW3 ROX and does have great campaign! I love it like any Modern Warfare Activision game!
  93. Nov 10, 2011
    A big disappointment overall with MW3. Basically its a re-skin/map pack of MW2. Same layout, same fonts, same game engine &the same pos IWNet. I bought MW3 because they said it will support dedicated servers (which they semi lied to me). You can play on dedicated servers but they are non-ranked. Therefore your unlocks will not carry over & you wont get experience. If you want to play on a ranked server, you'll have to use the pos IWNet (someone hosting). Its the same ole mindless run n' gun prestige crap that you've seen. Very little innovation.

    Stick to MW2, better yet BLoPS since they support dedicated servers. You'll save yourself the 60 bucks because this expensive skin/map pack isn't worth it!
  94. Nov 10, 2011
    I play COD for the single player and Bf for the multi and COD was the same crap different year. If even ended the same with the quick time left right, e crap and where everyone bites the bullet. Some parts were very cool and I like and cared about the story being told but the critics overrated this game way too much. The campaign was too short and the ending just pissed me off. Multiplayer is even worse and is almost exactly like MW2 with a few additions and a very cool reward system which is accessible if you're very good at this kind of arcade style shooter. COD2k11 is the madden of shooters and we all saw how that was received. I will think twice before buying another COD game for £40. Expand
  95. Nov 10, 2011
    The current scores on here are pathetic. You may not like the game but very few games deserve these kind of scores. Just because its popular and similar to the last installment doesn't warrant these scores. A good series is a good series and many very well reviewed games on here are equally as similar as cod is. It's childish, besides in its own right its a great game, deserves 9/10 but for obvious reasons to make up for the score I'm giving 10/10. Expand
  96. Nov 10, 2011
    This is another copy and paste game, i was extremely disappointed with this game. The campaign was terrible, as RazielDe described it quite accurately. The Multiplayer is exactly like the previous game (MW2) with a few tid bits added it to make it seem different than MW2, but they are not fooling anyone. The Maps are Horribly designed , resulting in almost all of the game being indoors.
  97. Nov 10, 2011
    This game doesn't deserve all the hate BF trolls give it lol
    Too bad they are just jealous and they do not play their own game sucks?
    CoD may have **** graphics,but the multiplayer and the single player is so far the best in the series...
    Just tell s...What change dou you want,apart from graphics?I bet you cannot say any normal stuff.
  98. Nov 10, 2011
    Nothing ground breaking about this game, If you enjoyed the previous CoD's then you'll like it. The Multiplayer is an improvement over MW2. Maps, weapons, killstreaks, perks, etc are better and more balanced. The Graphics are good but not an improvment over previous titles except I do like the character animations, especially faces, they looked revamped. I wish dedicated servers were ranked and there was a way to adjust the field of View. Have not finished the SP nor have I started any Co-op as of yet. Expand
  99. Nov 10, 2011
    What can I say about this game. Wonderful, spectacular, cinematic and many more things, can still remember the first time I played Call of Duty was an experience our glorious why I say that Call of Duty is not a simple fps he is the king of all graphs is both recycled or not so I know the game is so wonderful but leaves you with so much that I like to ask more.and biz
  100. Nov 10, 2011
    The brand of CoD is so powerful, they don't even need to add much compared to previous games to sell millions of copies to make a lot of profit. This results in a game that we've already had here before (MW2, Black Ops).
  101. Nov 10, 2011
    Where do I start? The campaign is short and boring, and the Multiplayer is exactly the same as it was 5 years ago.. The dedicated servers are completely useless, empty most of the time and the match making is no better than it was in MW2. Its quite obvious they took MW2 and added some new maps, single player and re skinned the entire game. Even the menu is the same as MW2. Do not buy this game for PC. a complete waste of money. Collapse

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
    If you own any previous COD, there's little reason to buy MW3. [Jan 2012, p.50]