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. Mar 13, 2012
    0
    I have read every review here. After beating the single-player, prestiging several times in the multiplayer, and becoming and ELITE member myself, I can honestly say it was all one big waste of money. The only reason I bought all that **** was because my friends are obsessed with this garbage. Sure it can be fun at times but wow I was surprised at how quickly things got old. Bottom line is: There are sooooooo many fresher, more innovative games out there. Even many new sequels I know of have brought something legit to the table. Call of Duty MW3 is stuck in 2009. There's not enough NEW innovation to consider this game a worthy standalone game or a sequel to the original two. I suppose after beating Crysis about 50 times back in 2008 I've been spoiled ever since. Well, maybe it was half-life 2? Hell Half-Life 1 is more interesting than this. Ah so many games just **** on this piece of garbage. Expand
  2. Feb 9, 2012
    6
    I enjoyed the single player campaign but it was very very short.
  3. Nov 21, 2011
    9
    Stop rating the innovation. Now stop comparing bf3 to MW3 (cause are different styles of cames [arcade, realistic]). Ok, now the game deserves 9. Its funny. The game is the most played game in PSN, LIVE and steam (losing only to elder scrolls 5), and got THIS amout of negative reviews. too many haters?
  4. Nov 18, 2011
    10
    mw3 is really similar to previous call of duty games, but the multiplayer is really addictive. if the developers changed it too much it wouldn't feel right, cod is easy to play for the very reason that each time a new version comes out, there is very little new to learn. There's a new call of duty each year and all you really need is a little variety with new maps, guns and perks. If it isn't broken, why change it? These game developers work really hard to make these games fun, exciting and accessible for new and experienced gamers, I think they deserve a little praise for their efforts. Bashing a game on the internet is quite a popular pastime for some internet users, the same criticism happened with the pc version of modern warfare 2, and the pc version of black ops was also berated. The people who actually gave mw3 bad reviews are probably playing it hours every day anyway, they just won't admit it. matchmaking on pc mw3 is a welcome relief from all the rules and regulations of dedicated servers, crouch only, no claymores, no aug, no grenade launchers, only the one map that keeps repeating, etc. why not get a life and let me play the game as the developer intended. looking forward to mw4. Expand
  5. Nov 15, 2011
    2
    Tiny maps, arcadish and twitch based gameplay, recycled textures and buildings, the same awful matchmaking system etc. But the real problem is not Activision releasing the same game every year, it's the people buying the same game year after year.
  6. Nov 9, 2011
    4
    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
  7. Jul 19, 2012
    0
    This used to be a really enjoyable shooter series. Now the only remotely use it has left for sane individuals is a reminder on what marketing does to the quality of games thanks to greedy publishers. Way to go Activision. I can only truly hope that you people will never figure out how to repopulate.
  8. Nov 10, 2011
    7
    MW3 feels slicker than MW2 and nearly all 16 maps are great, the new games modes add some freshness to the series and they're enjoyable to play with friends. MW3 feels like a fixed version of MW2 and that's not a bad thing, but the price should have reflected that, £40 for a glorified expansion is a little much. The main negative right now are once again the matchmaking on PC, 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
  9. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Horribleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

    The worst game in history os games

    activision killed COD in MW2.

    This game is a very bad copy and past of COD4, is a terribe game, this game is sick in all aspects
  10. Nov 20, 2011
    8
    This game is far from perfect. However, I don't think it's as bad as the average user score here. It is nothing more than a more polished version of Modern Warfare 2. It has everything to love from MW2, the fantastic and exciting single player, and the fast-paced multiplayer with the removal of a lot of the more annoying perks. A few negatives though. It is surely not worth the $60 price tag if you already own MW2, and the graphics were showing their age in MW2, and now they look downright terrible. I do find it impossible to compare this game to Battlefield 3, because the two games are completely different styles. (I own both.) This game is your average CoD game, fun because of how easy it is to pick up, and the singleplayer is exciting and intense. If MW2 had never existed, this game would definitely be worth the $60, but just as basically a map pack for MW2, it still has room to stand on it's own and is pretty enjoyable in my opinion. Expand
  11. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    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....
  12. Nov 10, 2011
    1
    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
  13. Nov 11, 2011
    0
    To get right to the point. Modern Warfare 3 "IS" Modern Warfare 2.5. All the jokes and criticism you find online about the game are well founded. If this game was released by any other publisher, it would be called DLC, not a new $60 game that milks it's "blind" fanbase for all its wroth. This game is getting constantly compared to Battlefield 3, and having played both, Battlefield 3 if a far superior in many respects. Gameplay, graphics, level of detail, atmosphere, sound, all of it. Yes, MW3 has and will beat BF3 is sales, too many of the aforementioned blind faith fans of the series, most of that fan base being "kids". However BF3 win hands down in all other areas. Taking more industry awards than MW3 and being criticized by more "mature" gamers across the Internet for it pure lack of advancement.

    We all understand this game is 6 years out of date, but there are just so many aspects of the game that are laughable. The same exact textures used time and time again, they did not even bother to slap a texture of a bullet in the clips when you reload. Its just blank. Now, they are begging for help from fans to try and raise the game's Meta Score. I think they need to take this to heart. This is how most real gamers feel about the game, how they feel about Activision. The game is stale at best and the Call of Duty name is more of a joke to many gamers than anything else. I find it sad that such a great series had been reduced to this.
    Expand
  14. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    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.
  15. Nov 14, 2011
    4
    I bought this game for improved MW2 multiplayer, however I found that:
    a) maps are too small comparing to MW2 and are too "connected". This bloodbath is quickly getting bored without some big maps for sniping or long range relief.
    b) they introduced lag compensation which sucks monkey balls! If you have 5 bars connection, and you are host - you are screwed because of the some kind
    prediction game engine is doing for bad connection players. To play this game you need to run torrents in the background!
    c) shotguns were nerfed beyond recognition. They added so much recoil to them so it just make sense to use knife instead. In overall this is not improvement, it is more like reduction of MW2 multiplayer fun.
    Expand
  16. Nov 9, 2011
    3
    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.
    Expand
  17. Nov 14, 2011
    8
    Wow, the only way this game could possibly have that low of a score is if somebody is paying somebody to give it a low score. The game is great, it might be lacking a lot in the originality department, and my online guild has had issues trying to set up our server, but giving this game 2000+ negative reviews, and only 86 mixed? ...that has nothing to do with any issues the game has, and everything to do with some company hiring people to write bad reviews. Expand
  18. Nov 13, 2011
    8
    I enjoyed the SP ride and MP is fun (although I'm getting whacked with regularity). The franchise is taking predictable paths and I suspect the break-up w/Infinity Ward kept this from becoming a great game (it's good...but there's so much more here that could-have-been). I guess the question is whether or not the game is now on Madden-like yearly updates (nothing more than a cash grab) or if it's still a labor of love for those you develop for it. If it's the former, I'm not sure it's worth spending $60 a year on incremental updates. If it's the latter...and we get a more compelling SP story...then I'm in. Also...it integrates so nicely w/Steam that it makes Origin's first shot at a "Steam-Killer" a joke. Expand
  19. JLF
    Nov 13, 2011
    0
    The bane of gaming industry strikes again : this time it's completely same as before.
    I'm surprised this game sold so much on the first week. I'm truly losing hope in humanity
  20. Nov 12, 2011
    0
    I feel cheated. I played this game last year. Also two years ago. Even three, damn, four years ago! Why the hell, Activi$ion, don't you innovate in this game?! You win so much money each day because of those mindless buyers and you don't even manage to have a proper code nor connection. I'm done with this charade. Count me off from this stupid game.
  21. Jan 27, 2012
    0
    Quite simply single player is passable, but it's hard to tell the quality of the multiplayer. This is mostly due to the fact that almost no one can actually connect to the MW3 servers. Waste of money especially considering this has been a problem since launch and nothing has been done.
  22. Nov 14, 2011
    1
    Años rompiendo record en ventas, record en ganacias, la formula CODMW es buena y hay que sacarle provecho, pero ya a esta altura los usuarios nos mereciamos por lo menos un motor grafico nuevo, me parece una burla lo que hicieron. El MW3 es el DLC mas caro del Modern Warfare 2. Darle un poco mas de brillo a lo que existia no es mejorar el motor grafico. Sean honestos con su publico y entreguen algo digno. Expand
  23. Nov 14, 2011
    4
    This isn't a rant from a review "bomber" as the media is putting it, this is a review from a truly disheartened Call of Duty fan and PC gamer. Modern Warfare 3 is unbelievably disappointing for a franchise which used to be the leader in innovation for the FPS genre. Yes the graphics, menus, sound effects, and just about everything else are identical to Modern Warfare 2. I can forgive the game to a certain extent for the recycling, but what I cannot accept is how bad the map design, respawns, and matchmaking system is. The maps are smaller than ever, circular mazes of narrow alleys littered with random junk and enemies respawning behind you. 80% of your deaths will be someone who respawned and shot you in your back. Apparently Infinity Ward learned nothing from the failure of the matchmaking system in Modern Warfare 2 as the exact same system is back in full force, and that once again means you cannot kick the many hackers, cheaters, racists, and flamers you will inevitably meet, this of course not counting the fact that you will often experience lag in games where you will shoot half your clip only to see in the killcam that you were standing like an idiot and only managing to fire off 2 bullets. The inclusion of dedicated servers would have fixed 1/2 the issues of what is an "okay" game, but sadly it is not to be. Avoid the PC version, it's not worth the heart ache. Expand
  24. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    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
  25. Mar 8, 2012
    0
    WHAT THE F*** WERE THEY THINKING - This is a game I will openly admit to pirating, I downloaded this game off the internet without paying *gasp* why? because... copy/paste of modern warfare 2. they bought back dedicated servers for the pc in black ops along with zombies. zombies are the only reason I purchased black ops, the story was interesting but ultimately redundant when you enter the multiplayer only to hear people arguing over who has the bigger **** because they got a 360 noscope. To a point this is funny but its in EVERY cod game, you simply don't get this in battlefied because there are filtered voice channels to cut out the bs HINT HINT...... this is more a map pack than a new game, I may have considered buying this if it was an addon for mw2 for like $10 as I own mw2 (only for the fact that I can't re-sell my cd key) Expand
  26. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    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.
  27. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    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
  28. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    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.
  29. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    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.
  30. Feb 10, 2012
    0
    Horrible game, lackluster multi-player that doesn't feel fresh or fun, short single player campaign and very dated graphics. Not worth the money.....
  31. Nov 15, 2011
    9
    I'm not surely I really understand what amounts to a war between BF3 and MW3 - there is clearly quite a bit of history there but it's all gone safely over my head. My review is of the game (SP + MP) on the PC. I'm not reviewing Activision's ethics or anything else.

    The single player campaign is a blast. It is a little on the short side though - about the same as MW2. The story is utter
    nonsense but the action keeps you going. If you think back to the very best levels on MW1 and MW2 there is plenty of this style of action here. The graphics are slightly better - this isn't a revolution but feels like more of the same. If you enjoyed MW1 and MW2 as much as I did then more of the same will feel fine.

    The gameplay is extremely varied. They will often introduce a new element which will play for 10 minutes or so only to move on to something else. Certainly plenty to keep the interest.

    The mulitplayer feels very similar to MW2 and suffers from hackers and cheaters etc to the same extent which can be quite annoying at times. I don't take it all that seriously but racked over 100 hours on MW2 and would expect al least the same on MW3. Then add in Special Ops and survival modes and it's easy to see several hundred hours of playing here.

    The game is extremely smooth and (for a modern new release) is relatively bug free. If all you are interested in is the MP element I can see why you might be frustrated as it amounts to a fairly hefty map pack and a fwe gameplay tweeks. Taking the package as a whole though I see very good value for money in what is going to be one of 2011's biggest games in terms of sales and impact.

    I am thoroughly enjoying this title. I have not posted "wow this is amazing" or "this sucks" but have stated my opinion with clear reasons and explanations. I think if everyone else did the same we would see a much more balanced score.
    Expand
  32. Nov 10, 2011
    10
    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!
  33. Nov 11, 2011
    0
    Nothing new. It should have been a free dlc to the first game of the series. Don't get me wrong. Call of duty is a fine shooter, but there is nothing to be excited about what we get with this release.
  34. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    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.
  35. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    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 !
  36. Sep 26, 2012
    8
    Singleplayer was average. The compaign was repetitive and unoriginal, Spec Ops missions were better, but nothing overly special. Survival however, is amazing. And makes up for the weakness of the rest of the singleplayer experience. And then there's multiplayer, which had it's unoriginality, but with that aside, was amazing. There's something for every FPS fan here. I see why there are negative user reviews here, but I personally love it (Apart from the campaign and spec ops missions, which were still good) Expand
  37. Nov 14, 2011
    0
    The first CoD: Modern Warfare was a great game, all the others are just really expensive map packs. There's absolutely no innovation, that's the sad truth; Activision destroyed this franchise. Don't ever waste your money on it.
  38. Feb 16, 2012
    0
    If you got MW1, MW2 or MW:BO than you don't need this its the same game really in a new wrapper. There is not much else to say, it Recycles everything and again turn into another "America **** Yea" game.
  39. Nov 11, 2011
    0
    MW3's developer begging on Twitter for users to increase MW3's metascore is on its own cause for a big fat zero... [Quote from IGN] Sledgehammer Games' Glen Schofield has taken to Twitter to ask Call of Duty fans to support Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 on Metacritic. "I don't usually do this but, if u like MW3 go 2 Metacritic.com & help our user score," writes Schofield. "It's suspiciously low. Be honest but help if u agree." [End Quote] Expand
  40. Nov 10, 2011
    8
    Call of Duty MW3: does remember that video games are for fun, where the action and pace of the game does that you lose track of time. Everything is not graphics, in my opinion, the unbridled fun is the essence of video games, is the essence of call of duty
  41. Nov 18, 2011
    7
    This game is exactly what I expected it to be. Not ground breaking but still a solid COD title. As far as initial releases go, there have been few problems. The lobby system has been moderately improved in that your entire party leaves lobbies/games together when initiated by the lobby leader. Unfortunately the hackers were present within 48 hours of release. Hopefully Valve will do a better job of providing a cheat free environment than they did with MW2. The single player campaign is exactly what you'd expect, albeit kind of short. But since I'm a 98% MP player I feel I'll ge my $60.00 worth out of this game, whether or not I'll turn it into a $90 game via DLC as I did with MW2 is currently undecided, but I doubt I will. Expand
  42. Nov 10, 2011
    1
    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
  43. Nov 12, 2011
    0
    Soulless cash grab from a company that has had nothing but contempt for their audience since the removal of dedicated servers for 2. They would have been better off just sticking a sticker on 2 and attempting to resell it.
  44. Nov 9, 2011
    1
    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
  45. Nov 10, 2011
    10
    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.
  46. Nov 12, 2011
    0
    I haven't purchased a CoD game since CoD4. I decided to put aside my biases and pick up "the most anticipated game ever". This was a big damn mistake. This game is so overrated it is sickening. CoD4 is great; the campaign and multiplayer are some of the best there is. I have no idea what has happened over the last few years but this game has completely gone down hill. The campaign is mediocre. Sure, there are explosions everywhere but I never found it fun. The multiplayer is utter garbage. Peer-to-peer is worse than I could have imagined. There is such horrible lag and cheaters are already here. Do yourself a favor and keep away from this one. Expand
  47. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    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.
  48. Nov 10, 2011
    10
    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 because...it 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.
  49. Nov 14, 2011
    0
    Dire game. Just a £40 map pack of MW2. Graphics aren't impressive then again that doesn't surprise much. BF3 in comparison is far better. Granted it does use origin but gameplay wise it's a different game that's improve upon it's predecessor. This hasn't. Given the fact the MP is the same as MW2, if you must play the SP, just torrent the game. Save your money because Activision doesn't deserve it what so ever. Expand
  50. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    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
  51. Nov 8, 2011
    5
    Look at it from a different point of view. This game has spent 2 years in development! And this is the best they can come up with. Christ! my Nan could make a better go at a MW then IW. To start with the maps are as small as my back garden and encourage camping the the nth degree. Noob tubes have been toned down (thank god) but corners have been increased (not good). The guns feel 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
  52. Nov 8, 2011
    2
    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.

    Door
    Expand
  53. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    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.
  54. Nov 9, 2011
    1
    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.
    Expand
  55. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    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 $60 for alone. It's impossible to justify buying the game without a viable multi-player mode.
    Expand
  56. Nov 9, 2011
    1
    It's just plain a waste of money now, I've bought all the COD from the first one up until black ops and this time it's not even worth spending the 65$ 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
  57. Nov 9, 2011
    2
    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
    Expand
  58. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    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: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5dsOn06w1s - 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.

    JM
    Expand
  59. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    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.
  60. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    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 ****.

    AVOID AVOID AVOID
    Expand
  61. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    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.
    Expand
  62. Nov 9, 2011
    1
    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.
  63. Nov 9, 2011
    1
    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.
    Expand
  64. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    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
    Expand
  65. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    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
  66. Nov 9, 2011
    1
    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.
    Expand
  67. Nov 9, 2011
    2
    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
  68. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    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
  69. Nov 9, 2011
    1
    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
  70. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    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
  71. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    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
  72. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    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
  73. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    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
  74. Nov 9, 2011
    3
    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.
    Expand
  75. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    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
  76. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    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
  77. Nov 13, 2011
    0
    Es horrible el juego! campaña pobre y multiplayer repetitivo! No hicieron nada por innovar algo dentro del juego, es pesimo , las texturas son un asco para la epoca, parece que fue creado para chiquitos el juego.
  78. Nov 10, 2011
    10
    Durazell
    Nov 10, 2011
    10
    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
  79. Nov 10, 2011
    1
    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
    Expand
  80. Nov 10, 2011
    10
    amazing game....just registered to counter the ridiculous false score.....btw havent even played the game...lol....but it certainly does'nt deserve such low scores...I loved call of duty 2,mw,mw2...so this i know will be amazing as well..
  81. Nov 10, 2011
    2
    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.
  82. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    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.

    I
    Expand
  83. Nov 10, 2011
    1
    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.
    Expand
  84. Nov 10, 2011
    10
    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+
  85. Nov 10, 2011
    10
    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
  86. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    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.
  87. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    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.
  88. Nov 10, 2011
    10
    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.
  89. Nov 10, 2011
    10
    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.
  90. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    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 game....you owe it to the 'fans'. Expand
  91. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    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
  92. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    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. Expand
  93. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    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
  94. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    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.
  95. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    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.
  96. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    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.
  97. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    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.
  98. Nov 10, 2011
    8
    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...
    Expand
  99. Nov 10, 2011
    10
    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
  100. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    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.
    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]