User Score
2.7

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 5255 Ratings

User score distribution:
Buy On

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Nov 15, 2011
    0
    I'm very disappointed. This is the same game, again. No better graphics, no better gameplay, no better multiplayer from MW2. No multiplayer across multiplatforms.
  2. Nov 17, 2011
    10
    Let's be honest, it is a great game. Anyone who has given this game a low score has not truly experienced all the game has to offer. Sure the single player is a bit short and hard to follow, but the investment for multi-player and spec ops is second to none. The multi-player is the best I have seen in a Call of Duty game, the perks are not too overpowered, there is good gun balance, theLet's be honest, it is a great game. Anyone who has given this game a low score has not truly experienced all the game has to offer. Sure the single player is a bit short and hard to follow, but the investment for multi-player and spec ops is second to none. The multi-player is the best I have seen in a Call of Duty game, the perks are not too overpowered, there is good gun balance, the new strike packages are amazing. The new support strike package gives a novice player the opportunity to experience kill streaks and contribute to the team. While assault is still the good old kill streaks, and specialist gives you the opportunity to earn perks that make you a killing machine. Oh and spec ops, wow! One of my favorite features of the new game with missions and the all new survival mode which has its own ranking system complete with its own set of unlocks along the way. The PC version is very good. Runs buttery smooth on my machine and also has support for dedicated servers once the option is selected from the main screen. There are a lot of more options on the PC version vs. the console, with dedicated server support you get game types like gun game, in addition the dedicated server support encourages competitive clean play and bans cheaters and hackers. If one is debating on whether to purchase the game, then wonder no more, buy it, don't miss out on the culmination of the Call of Duty experience. Don't listen to the haters, it really is a great game. Any good competitive PC gamer would love this game, take it from me, I have played it. It is an experience all its own. Expand
  3. Nov 17, 2011
    5
    A quote from the game iteself. "Same s**t,different day." . Everything is same. Graphics,effects,the things that you do.. Even the stunts,bullet times,actions are the same.. Nothing innovative,just played to end up the story. Story is good but not fan of the enviroments.. I miss the old COD's..
  4. Nov 24, 2011
    7
    I have never really been a follower of the Call of Duty games; Back in the day, it was Medal of Honor or nothing, but since EA managed to practically destroy that series, like they did with many others (think C&C), I have been forced to look elsewhere. So here I am at Modern Warfare 3. Because I am somewhat lazy, I am just going to create a list of some dot-points.

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

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

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

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

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

    And about he contrasting scores here on Metacritic - it was insane what the critics rated the game, I don't think it deserves that high of a score. As for the user reviews, most are people who compare it to BF3 or who feel betrayed, let-down, or conned by IW/Activision by not delivering a game that lives up to its very own hype, or the users own expectation. At the end of the day, who is more likely to voice their opinion? Someone who has something positive to say, or someone who has something negative to say?
    Expand
  5. Jan 3, 2012
    0
    Ctrl+C - Ctrl+V this is a copypasta

    60 bucks for a DLC, specially a smely piece of **** DLC, outdated and using the same engine as Quake 3 team arena and that was a better game un early 2000.
  6. Nov 21, 2011
    5
    I can't say its really a BAD game, considdering modern warfare and mw2 were good. but its just stale.

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

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

    To be honest, im kind of tired of COD in general. It always feels the same, which isn't bad, but it just gets old. It almost feels like they just want to realease a new COD every year, like an anual thing, and make a ton of money off it. I'd LOVE to see a NEW IP from infiniti ward and sledgehammer, because they are tallented studios, but COD is just getting old, and you can really tell with MW3
    Expand
  7. Nov 22, 2011
    6
    Modern Warefare 3 is more of the same, that's really the main gist of it. It is the same game Infinity Ward made in 2007. While it was a good game back then, now it just feels stale. The development team took no risks and pushed no envelopes while making this game. Just the same run-gun-hide military shooter the industry has been pumping out ever since Call of Duty 4 was a smash hit. It isModern Warefare 3 is more of the same, that's really the main gist of it. It is the same game Infinity Ward made in 2007. While it was a good game back then, now it just feels stale. The development team took no risks and pushed no envelopes while making this game. Just the same run-gun-hide military shooter the industry has been pumping out ever since Call of Duty 4 was a smash hit. It is rather depressing to see how stagnant the shooter market has become, and I can't help but feel that the Call of Duty series might go the way of Guitar Hero, but bigger. Expand
  8. Nov 24, 2011
    4
    Multiplayer seems unbalanced at the moment and the respawns are terrible. Improvements have been made in the lobby system, have had no random dropouts or long wait times which I always had a problem with in MW2. If the spawns are addressed and the weapons fine tuned ( FM9 Akimbo WTF!! ) then my opinion may change. I actually prefer Black Ops to the latest release. I NEVER thought I wouldMultiplayer seems unbalanced at the moment and the respawns are terrible. Improvements have been made in the lobby system, have had no random dropouts or long wait times which I always had a problem with in MW2. If the spawns are addressed and the weapons fine tuned ( FM9 Akimbo WTF!! ) then my opinion may change. I actually prefer Black Ops to the latest release. I NEVER thought I would think that.. Expand
  9. Nov 26, 2011
    8
    Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 is a good game. Its not innovating, the graphics are not much better then Black Ops and the storyline is over the top. Still this game has a nice campaign, fun multiplayer and a awesome spec ops mode. Everybody who gives this game a 1 is a hater and everybody who gives a 10 is a fan-boy! The game is not perfect but it does what it wants to do!
  10. Nov 29, 2011
    10
    Not worth the hassle. It's like they tried to put a game in a game that was never meant to have set game, you know? It doesn't belong in the Call of Duty franchise and it should never have had the number 3 in it, because it is a fake game.
  11. Dec 12, 2011
    0
    it's a rehash, not worth the money.

    they're just making this game to milk people's hard earned money.

    the best CoD was the ORIGINAL CoD that came out years ago. i still remember playing and actually enjoying it to this day.
  12. Dec 17, 2011
    3
    The single player campaign gets a 6 in my opinion. That is the only factor that offsets the games overall score. It "finishes" the story set in motion by the second game although it is quite tacky. Now the multiplayer is what I really buy these games for. In regards to this, this game is one of the biggest failures I have ever played. I have never in the 20 hours of online game playThe single player campaign gets a 6 in my opinion. That is the only factor that offsets the games overall score. It "finishes" the story set in motion by the second game although it is quite tacky. Now the multiplayer is what I really buy these games for. In regards to this, this game is one of the biggest failures I have ever played. I have never in the 20 hours of online game play connected to a server that was not laggy. I'd fire 5 bullets into a person's chest and before he even got the first shot off I'd have already died. The only reason I can still play this game is because of its hardcore mode, and that too is difficult to play without a proper server to connect to. Expand
  13. Dec 28, 2011
    1
    This game cant even manage a 2. Its just another installment of an already outdated franchise. Playing through the campaign I was able to predict nearly all of the main turning points based off the previous games. It uses the same functions and the only thing that was actually added to the games features was the hybrid sights. Activision had to have paid off critics in order to get highThis game cant even manage a 2. Its just another installment of an already outdated franchise. Playing through the campaign I was able to predict nearly all of the main turning points based off the previous games. It uses the same functions and the only thing that was actually added to the games features was the hybrid sights. Activision had to have paid off critics in order to get high reviews because this game isn't worth the disk its burned on. Multiplayer is the same repetitive junk seen in all CoD games ever since the first modern warfare came out. This is a perfect example of a game gone wrong and I hope that all the other FPS developers see this. This is what made me switch over to the Battlefield franchise. While CoD has just added some minor features they added a whole new layer to multi-player gameplay. And lets face it, multi-player is where a games real value is at anyways. So anyone looking for a good FPS to buy for the coming year. Stay away from Modern Warfare 3!!!!! Expand
  14. Dec 29, 2011
    8
    not sure why all of retards give 0 or 1. I can accept 5-6 for no innovation to older CoD but still solid work. Why you expected something different than previous. It is like you would give 0 to NHL series because it is still only ice hockey.
  15. Jan 12, 2012
    1
    I dont know how this sell millions and millions PEOPLE IS A DLC that cost $60, They not innovate any, all is the same, if you had MW2 you already got this game: the same maps the same in all is pure @$%!
  16. Mar 3, 2012
    1
    This had to be my worst game purchase in recent times. Single player is alright but multiplayer pales in comparison to the other popular shooter out there. After all these years, the gameplay has not changed much and in fact I had more fun in the first modern warfare than this. The use of match making, using random players as hosts result in frequent lags. I have learnt my lesson and IThis had to be my worst game purchase in recent times. Single player is alright but multiplayer pales in comparison to the other popular shooter out there. After all these years, the gameplay has not changed much and in fact I had more fun in the first modern warfare than this. The use of match making, using random players as hosts result in frequent lags. I have learnt my lesson and I will never buy a fps game without dedicated servers ever again. Also, I have encountered more hackers in this game than others and the developer doesn't seem to care. The gameplay does not change much from the previous games in the series, other than poorer maps. There is hardly any tactical or teamwork aspect which makes it stale fast. Moreover, each game lasts 10 mins or less. It's over when you haven't really get started.

    To sum up, this game is NOT worth your money, even if it's on sale. This series actually gets worse with each new edition. There are other shooter out there which deserves our hard-earned money more.
    Expand
  17. Feb 17, 2012
    2
    What the hell were the critics smoking when they gave this game 99%? I think 9% is nearer the mark. The best way I can summarise it is: MW1, released four year earlier, is a much better game. Graphically, this hasn't improved at all, and in terms of quality of writing, length and variety of campaign, available weapons etc., it's actually gone backwards. I presume that they're notWhat the hell were the critics smoking when they gave this game 99%? I think 9% is nearer the mark. The best way I can summarise it is: MW1, released four year earlier, is a much better game. Graphically, this hasn't improved at all, and in terms of quality of writing, length and variety of campaign, available weapons etc., it's actually gone backwards. I presume that they're not planning on releasing a MW4 given the plot, which would make sense, since after this pile of junk I suspect not many people would buy it. I certainly wouldn't. What a sad way to end what was once a great franchise. Expand
  18. EmX
    Feb 20, 2012
    1
    For starters, this is the worst COD game ever released. Why people in the media give it a 7 or above is beyond me. This is a total rip-off. Horrible maps, terrible weapons, consistent lag, with maps loaded with hax, there are so many things wrong with this game, I think even COD fanatics will have a hard time citing the value of this release. This is just a lame rehash of MW2, and a weakFor starters, this is the worst COD game ever released. Why people in the media give it a 7 or above is beyond me. This is a total rip-off. Horrible maps, terrible weapons, consistent lag, with maps loaded with hax, there are so many things wrong with this game, I think even COD fanatics will have a hard time citing the value of this release. This is just a lame rehash of MW2, and a weak attempt to go to the bank one more time for these unimaginative developers. If you want to play a solid Multi-FPS, get BF3. It is light years ahead of this mess Expand
  19. Mar 1, 2012
    0
    it is just a rubbish bug game,waste my money,at first i saw the offical screenshots,i knew it had old bad graphics,so i think maybe it will be fair and real,but i am wrong,it is completely rubbish,bug weapon and **** player,i think 10 dollar is enough or maybe too expensive,the single player maybe good,but soon u will feel boring,unfair multiplayer and boring single player make it muchit is just a rubbish bug game,waste my money,at first i saw the offical screenshots,i knew it had old bad graphics,so i think maybe it will be fair and real,but i am wrong,it is completely rubbish,bug weapon and **** player,i think 10 dollar is enough or maybe too expensive,the single player maybe good,but soon u will feel boring,unfair multiplayer and boring single player make it much worse,cross fire is better than this game,**** player and iw game gun stats designer so fking like ass,hope it lost family ,lol,this game is for child who are very stupid and live a dark and sad life,and somebody has very low intelligence and noone like them,they are just rubbish in the world they play bug game to make other konw them look after them talk to them ,they are lonely,we should stay away from them in real life Expand
  20. Mar 6, 2012
    0
    they mislabeled this game was "mw3" even though it's just mw2. this is an embarrassment to gaming. i wonder how many more rehashes they will produce?
  21. Mar 14, 2012
    0
    keep releasing 1 game per year for 60ââ
  22. Jul 16, 2013
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. oing beyond "run and gun corridors," "monster-closet AIs" and static worlds, BioShock creates a living, unique and unpredictable FPS experience. After your plane crashes into icy uncharted waters, you discover a rusted bathysphere and descend into Rapture, a city hidden beneath the sea. Constructed as an idealistic society for a hand picked group of scientists, artists and industrialists, the idealism is no Expand
  23. Apr 3, 2012
    0
    this is an absolute rubbish console port for the pc. unfair multiplayer with no ranked dedis, bad graphics, no special pc abilities... infinity ward reprinted mw2 with a 3 on the end and activision is digging people's pockets for money. at least the singleplayer's not bad. campaign is crazy as always and spec ops is fun with friends
  24. Jan 15, 2013
    2
    SP is acceptable but very short and havely scripted , the spec ops mission number is reduced compared to mw2 and they are not polyshed , aslo only 2 disigned for 2 players only.... The surviaval mode is a good idea but still not to many maps.... If you bought this game for MP then i say you make a mistake it is worse then mw2 , very lagy game even when you are the host, recently they addedSP is acceptable but very short and havely scripted , the spec ops mission number is reduced compared to mw2 and they are not polyshed , aslo only 2 disigned for 2 players only.... The surviaval mode is a good idea but still not to many maps.... If you bought this game for MP then i say you make a mistake it is worse then mw2 , very lagy game even when you are the host, recently they added lag to the host as lag compansation:) , weapons are very unbalanced , no real filters to the matchmaking like location , weapons etc The maps are preaty weak very unbalaced , piled with camping spots very few open spaces and the spawn system it`s retarded: you get kill you spawn behind the enemy , you kill the enemy the he spawns behind you :)) The only good thing is the dedicated servers but they are unranked... The graphics are outdated it`s 95% mw2 it uses the same engine and hackers rule the game there is no way to stop them so be prepare they kill you outside the map. 1 year + after game release and you can still find bugs in SP and MP like geting stuck in prone AI teleports to you etc... If you buy the game i recomand to not pay more then 10$ i paid 15$ for row version and regret it even dow the co-op is ok . If you have money to burn then try BF3 Premium edition for 30$ when it`s on sale and you get 29 maps and much more fun :D Expand
  25. May 4, 2012
    3
    Modern Warfare 3 fails in every aspect for a sequel with such high "expectations"
    The game has barely been improved, yet, it brags as if it's a masterpiece.

    Only twelve year old's play this piece of crap.

    RIP MW
    2007-2009
  26. Aug 4, 2012
    5
    Typical COD game, fast paced action-run and gun. Controls are easy, smooth, and addicting, like always. Story, yes there is a story, it's a continuation from the previous two games, but it's just an excuse to make the game flow, nothing spectacular or memorable. Graphics maybe a bit better that in MW2, overall quite nice, no lagging on the PC version. For me it lasted 5 hours tops, greatTypical COD game, fast paced action-run and gun. Controls are easy, smooth, and addicting, like always. Story, yes there is a story, it's a continuation from the previous two games, but it's just an excuse to make the game flow, nothing spectacular or memorable. Graphics maybe a bit better that in MW2, overall quite nice, no lagging on the PC version. For me it lasted 5 hours tops, great afternoon fun. Expand
  27. Nov 18, 2012
    6
    I preodered mw3 hoping it would be good since mw2 but i was a bit disappointed with the game. It was pretty obvious that this game wasnt created by infinity ward.I dont there was any good missions in the campaign and there wasnt any good multiplayer maps.
  28. Jan 7, 2013
    2
    First of all the graphics are not so good for game that came out in 2011.Really bad campaign which lasts only 2-3 hours in the lowest difficulties and ok we have a multiplayer with a big playerbase but the multiplayer is just laughable really bad maps in the base game(you can find some good maps in the DLCs which are really overpriced),and in my opinion mw3 multiplayer maps could easily beFirst of all the graphics are not so good for game that came out in 2011.Really bad campaign which lasts only 2-3 hours in the lowest difficulties and ok we have a multiplayer with a big playerbase but the multiplayer is just laughable really bad maps in the base game(you can find some good maps in the DLCs which are really overpriced),and in my opinion mw3 multiplayer maps could easily be a mw2 map pack.The only part of the game that i have fun with was survival which i had fun for some hours,the game clearly is overpriced for what it has to offer so i recommend you previous games of the franchise like MW,MW2 and BO.2/10 Expand
  29. Jul 15, 2013
    0
    Pluses:
    - good voice-acting
    - cut-scenes hide the ugliness of the game well for a few minutes, and then monitor asking for it the display faces down. Minuses: -weak angular ugly low-end textures. -music were strong point of Infinity War not this time, music is weak. - AI if you not move, AI re spawning everywhere every time .. - single-player is awesome boring and short. -
    Pluses:
    - good voice-acting
    - cut-scenes hide the ugliness of the game well for a few minutes, and then monitor asking for it the display faces down.
    Minuses:
    -weak angular ugly low-end textures.
    -music were strong point of Infinity War not this time, music is weak.
    - AI if you not move, AI re spawning everywhere every time ..
    - single-player is awesome boring and short.
    - multi-player is copy of MW2.
    - very bugged flying bodies, blocking doors etc.)
    - ofter crashing to desktop.....

    Summing: Game is a crap.
    Expand
  30. Feb 9, 2014
    6
    MW3 is a fun game at the start,quickscoping is kinda easy,but there are too many LMG w/ Thermal Sight,alot of FMG9's etc.
    Anyways without the community,the multiplayer is kinda boring.I really liked the campaign,with the exception of Soap,Yuri and Kamarov dying.Soap and Kamarov were original characters from CoD 4,so I kinda hated that they died.
    The weapon leveling is,meh. The only
    MW3 is a fun game at the start,quickscoping is kinda easy,but there are too many LMG w/ Thermal Sight,alot of FMG9's etc.
    Anyways without the community,the multiplayer is kinda boring.I really liked the campaign,with the exception of Soap,Yuri and Kamarov dying.Soap and Kamarov were original characters from CoD 4,so I kinda hated that they died.
    The weapon leveling is,meh.
    The only thing that could be fun in this game is the campaign or Infected(without the Striker vs Juggernaut matches)
    Expand
  31. Jul 20, 2014
    0
    OMG soo f*cking bad only ghosts can be worse than this sh*t really it has console FOV 65 which is unplayable on PC the maps suck there are cheaters everywhere, op guns and so on...
  32. May 9, 2016
    7
    Nice singleplayer,the story continues from mw2 and is basicly a basically a conclusion for the series.
    The story isn't as good as the one on mw1 or mw2 but its pretty standard stuff although it may get a bit repetetive.
    The multiplayer is basically copy past from mw2 but its still fine i guess. The big problem is the PC port is a bit crap,definitly get this one on ps3 or xbox if you're
    Nice singleplayer,the story continues from mw2 and is basicly a basically a conclusion for the series.
    The story isn't as good as the one on mw1 or mw2 but its pretty standard stuff although it may get a bit repetetive.
    The multiplayer is basically copy past from mw2 but its still fine i guess.
    The big problem is the PC port is a bit crap,definitly get this one on ps3 or xbox if you're interested
    Expand
  33. Nov 10, 2011
    1
    No ranked dedicated servers, IWNET, 12 year old tech, no vehicles in MP, small maps....essentially the same game as COD4 just prettier. If you played BlackOps, MW2 and World At War...this is just a revision. Not worth the $60. Recommend nobody buys it. IW and Activision need to try harder if they want our dollars. They know what PC gamers want but they refuse to give it to us. If you loveNo ranked dedicated servers, IWNET, 12 year old tech, no vehicles in MP, small maps....essentially the same game as COD4 just prettier. If you played BlackOps, MW2 and World At War...this is just a revision. Not worth the $60. Recommend nobody buys it. IW and Activision need to try harder if they want our dollars. They know what PC gamers want but they refuse to give it to us. If you love COD then by all means buy it...don't come pollute Battlefield with your noobishness. Expand
  34. Nov 8, 2011
    9
    Yes, we know, the graphics are dated! And yes, they may be a downgrade. But once you get past the fact that this game isn't nearly as spectacular to look at as BF3, you realize that this is a really good game.

    For starters, the campaign feels like MW2, but it has much better storytelling that is reminiscent of CoD4 (though that might be due to all the CoD4 characters and scenes that
    Yes, we know, the graphics are dated! And yes, they may be a downgrade. But once you get past the fact that this game isn't nearly as spectacular to look at as BF3, you realize that this is a really good game.

    For starters, the campaign feels like MW2, but it has much better storytelling that is reminiscent of CoD4 (though that might be due to all the CoD4 characters and scenes that return). There are numerous references back to the first two games, and if you didn't play them, you might be a little lost, but they never go overboard with references to the point that those who never played those games would hate the story. Overall, once you get past the first couple of levels (which aren't that great), it is pretty much five hours (not three hours--unless you play on Recruit or seriously rush it) of great enjoyment. Yes, it's linear, but I'm assuming anyone who has any knowledge of CoD would know that before reading a review.

    When it comes to the Spec-Ops, this is definitely the best co-op in CoD to date. The survival mode is a lot more interesting than zombies, and while there's nothing sci-fi about it, you will face a more diverse group of enemies and have a little more to play with. Missions are pretty much the same as Spec-Ops in MW2 with some of them almost being taken directly from the MW2 ones (and one being nearly identical to "Mile High Club" from CoD4). You also can level up and unlock more stuff to use in the Survival mode.

    The multiplayer, as you would expect, is sort of CoD4 meets MW2. Granted, at this point, it is too early to tell how many exploits there will be, but the game has definitely been balanced in comparison to MW2 (knifing and explosives aren't nearly as skill-less, but they also are still effective). It still lacks the level of teamwork of BF3, but that may improve as people learn more about the maps. The good news is that the horrendous lag of Black Ops did not carry over to this game, and while IWNet certainly has its issues, it feels almost refreshing in comparison to BO's ridiculous server issues. It isn't perfect and it is probably the worst feature of the game, but it isn't game breaking either.

    But in the end, this is CoD, and it is definitely catered to the Modern Warfare crowd particularly. If you've enjoyed Call of Duty in the past, this is definitely worth your $60. Sure it has its issues, it probably will never be better than CoD4, and it probably won't take up as much time as previous CoD games have recently (with BF3 having just released and Skyrim coming in a few days). But as a whole, this is a fun game and a great refresher after MW2 and BO were so disappointing.
    Expand
  35. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    Another disapointment. It plays just like all the past modern warfare games and looks just like them too. So why am I paying $60 for a game that feels,looks, and plays just like all the others, I really don't know I bought into the hype again and was wanting a good fps to play after being let down with BF3 but this didn't work for me either. P2P ranked servers among other performanceAnother disapointment. It plays just like all the past modern warfare games and looks just like them too. So why am I paying $60 for a game that feels,looks, and plays just like all the others, I really don't know I bought into the hype again and was wanting a good fps to play after being let down with BF3 but this didn't work for me either. P2P ranked servers among other performance issues have ruined playing COD games on PC for me. The arcade feel to the game had gotten old and nothing is changing here. The story is short and disapointing and multiplayer is a mess with cheaters going rampant. My last Activision game and last COD game ever won't be getting this again. Hopefully CS:GO can revieve my love for fps games cause right now I am disapointed. Expand
  36. Nov 15, 2011
    6
    First off, MW3 isn't a bad game. Granted, it's not great... the (alleged) "Hollywood blockbuster" single-player campaign, while mildly enjoyable, is a little bit tired and very predictable and the multi-player, which most would consider the real reason for buying any MW game, is a slightly more refined version of MW2. The strike packages and the additional game modes are an interestingFirst off, MW3 isn't a bad game. Granted, it's not great... the (alleged) "Hollywood blockbuster" single-player campaign, while mildly enjoyable, is a little bit tired and very predictable and the multi-player, which most would consider the real reason for buying any MW game, is a slightly more refined version of MW2. The strike packages and the additional game modes are an interesting addition though it does feel like more of an expansion of MW2 than an entirely new game (and the brief single player certainly doesn't warrant the additional cost). The number of maps included with the game was certainly a pleasant surprise.

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

    Activision need to avoid driving this series into the ground (like they have with other titles) and take a couple of years off. Spend some time listening to the players and come back with some fresh ideas for the next MW game.
    Expand
  37. Mar 5, 2013
    5
    It looks and plays pretty much EXACTLY the same as 2009's Modern Warfare 2, even the menus, sound effects, and buildings have been recycled from MW2. I feel extremely disappointed, the campaign and single player were shorter and barely better than MW2. Do not fall for the hype for this game, this game should have been a 15 dollar expansion for MW2, charging 60 for this should be a crime.
  38. Nov 14, 2011
    0
    This game sucks and activision knows it. Gave it a 0 because it is obvious activision employees are trying to boost the critic score, this POS needs to go.
  39. Nov 14, 2011
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This is a piece of s**t made for console kids who want to make a 50 killstreak. In PC is even worse than consoles because you can't change anything, we have no servers, etc. DON'T BUY it Expand
  40. Nov 10, 2011
    10
    It's nice to see PC gamers give this the lowest score compared to 360 and PS3 gamers. You will notice that the ratings correlate with the general maturity of the platform users .
    I give this a 0, there's no innovation here. With all the money they have been raking in, they're doing nothing but releasing map packs while other developers are creating whole new games.
  41. 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
    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
  42. Nov 8, 2011
    1
    I have seen people in other user reviews claiming that the cause of the low score is BF3 fanboys coming over to "bash" MW3. This is quite simply not the case. I, for one, never even played Battlefield and have enjoyed my CoDs. I'm also not a troll, as my account name and one other review on this site will testify to. However, that doesn't change the fact that I still believe that MW3 fullyI have seen people in other user reviews claiming that the cause of the low score is BF3 fanboys coming over to "bash" MW3. This is quite simply not the case. I, for one, never even played Battlefield and have enjoyed my CoDs. I'm also not a troll, as my account name and one other review on this site will testify to. However, that doesn't change the fact that I still believe that MW3 fully deserves its low score after having played through most of the campaign and a number of MP matches. Now, let's get the obvious out of the way - the campaign is extremely generic, boring, mindnumbingly linear, handholds you and lets you spend half the time in predetermined cutscenes where you can't control your character at all; to summarize, negligible and entirely forgettable. This is hardly surprising, because even as a CoD fan I acknowledge that the campaigns have always been the series' weakest point by far - at least the MW games, anyway (I know some people like to bash the entire series for this, but personally I enjoyed the Black Ops campaign due to the Cold War setting). The real strength of CoD has always been in its multiplayer. However, this time around the multiplayer offers no significant changes and literally no innovation from the previous iterations in the series. The changes made to the multiplayer are mostly just balance fixes to the flawed MW2 metagame that just as easily could've been fixed with a 50mb patch to that title. The new killstreak system allows you to stack killstreaks through death, further contributing to the sheer dumbness of the multiplayer experience and detracting from any notion of self-preservation or team-oriented gameplay that was left. Personally I don't care much about graphics, so I won't go into detail about them, just say that it's a very blatant console port and leave it at that. Frankly we've reached a point where the developers just churn out annual assembly line CoD releases that offer literally nothing new beyond being a glorified map pack / expansion to the previous iteration, yet still have the nerve to charge full retail price for it, as if this minimal effort somehow warrants a full price tag. Basically, CoD has devolved into the blatant fan-milking that was previously reserved to sports games. I was left with a disgusting taste in my mouth after realising I had contributed to making this business model of theirs a success by purchasing on day one, and I'll be trying to sell my copy of the game to someone who doesn't own it yet, to make sure that there's at least one less game sold. I'm thoroughly disappointed at hte blatant disregard for their consumers and lack of desire to change their game in any meaningful way. Moreover, I'm disappointed in the players for letting them get away with it. Most of all, I'm disappointed in the gaming press for selling out and writing positive reviews for this game due to getting early copies when they bash other games for lack of innovation, which this game obviously suffers immensely from. Not worth the $60 price tag. Perhaps some time, once it goes on sale... Oh wait, I forgot, CoD titles always remain at full retail price until the next release in the series. Cash cow, and all that. My bad. Expand
  43. 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 theWhat 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
  44. 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)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
  45. Nov 13, 2011
    4
    Briefly intro, I've owned Call of Duty II and been an avid fps player for many years now. This is game is mediocre. It was worth the money, but only because I got it for 40% less by buying it overseas. First the single player is fun, but the formula is the same as every other call of duty before it, and i can't help but feel that I've played this before. The graphics are the same asBriefly intro, I've owned Call of Duty II and been an avid fps player for many years now. This is game is mediocre. It was worth the money, but only because I got it for 40% less by buying it overseas. First the single player is fun, but the formula is the same as every other call of duty before it, and i can't help but feel that I've played this before. The graphics are the same as before, but I can't dislike the game for this, the graphics don't make the game. The multiplayer is a joke. The maps are small, the player count is small. There is no strategy. For a PC game i would expect a mature gaming community, but it is all campers. The match making service leaves me with no community, no regular server to go back to. I'm so disappointed with the multiplayer in this game. Expand
  46. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    what a turd game if it does even diserve to be called that, is activision even trying? because, seriously, im 2h into the game and I cant take it anymore, its so bad Im going to ask for a refund
  47. Nov 13, 2011
    0
    Take a hint from your competitors and try something new. Playing the same game every year had wore out its welcome by MW2, now it's starting to get ridiculous.
  48. Nov 12, 2011
    10
    All of the Call of Duty titles play very similarly, in fact there is very little difference in the way it plays going way back to the original Call of Duty. Why are people only just figuring this out? Is that a bad thing? Hell no! The game has been tweaked and tuned to perfection along the way. There is a reason why it's the #1 Franchise. Love it or hate it. MW3 runs brilliantly on allAll of the Call of Duty titles play very similarly, in fact there is very little difference in the way it plays going way back to the original Call of Duty. Why are people only just figuring this out? Is that a bad thing? Hell no! The game has been tweaked and tuned to perfection along the way. There is a reason why it's the #1 Franchise. Love it or hate it. MW3 runs brilliantly on all ports and add's some neat features to keep the fans happy. Not to mention the gritty campaign we have all come to appreciate from all of the Call of Duty titles. It's not perfect, dedicated servers and added pc features such as FoV etc would have been nice. However I'm going to give this a 10 to compensate for all the thoughtless 0's I'm seeing. Good job Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer! I look forward to your next installment. Expand
  49. Nov 10, 2011
    6
    I don't know if I believe the other scores here or if people are just fed up. I think the game is fun in the campaign (although much too short like the rest in the series) the last mission is pretty amazing tbh. Multiplayer unfortunately feels a bit too samey for my tastes. The graphics are alright, although they definately need a new engine now. Overall I think critics rated this too highI don't know if I believe the other scores here or if people are just fed up. I think the game is fun in the campaign (although much too short like the rest in the series) the last mission is pretty amazing tbh. Multiplayer unfortunately feels a bit too samey for my tastes. The graphics are alright, although they definately need a new engine now. Overall I think critics rated this too high and it should get an average of around 70 %. Expand
  50. Nov 12, 2011
    1
    same old engine, same multiplayer as before but still a nusaince to play on the PC without feeling like your just playing a ported game from the Xbox. Story is the same and it just feels like i am playing a game that does not care and is just auto pilot: Chase scenes, explosions music all fine and dandy but can we have SOMETHING NEW ?!
  51. Jan 13, 2012
    0
    No effort or love for the PC. No ranked dedicated servers, really? Hardcore players got the shaft big time on game modes. The multiplayer maps are tiny and linear (Black Ops had better stock maps). All in all, I've taken poops more satisfying than playing MW3.
  52. 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 !
  53. Nov 15, 2011
    10
    The campaign had a slightly compelling story, but was very predictable.
    And speaking about predictable : anyone with half a brain saw most plot-twists coming, especially the chapter where Makarov anticipates the 141 ambush and Soap dies.
    It was also short, much like MW2, it lasted all of 6½ hours before i was done. And that was me taking my time and not rushing through. The
    The campaign had a slightly compelling story, but was very predictable.
    And speaking about predictable : anyone with half a brain saw most plot-twists coming, especially the chapter where Makarov anticipates the 141 ambush and Soap dies.
    It was also short, much like MW2, it lasted all of 6½ hours before i was done.
    And that was me taking my time and not rushing through.
    The amount of re-used material was obscene.

    The special ops were boring, too much repetition again of stuff from the previous game, and just like MW2, it built too much on what you already did in the campaign.
    It's so un-original i am wondering why it took them this long to release the damn thing. and IW/Sledgehammer trying to pull a fast one on us with that Survival mode (zombies rehash minus the zombies, anyone?)... That just ticked me off so much i never even bothered with multiplayer, which, from the looks of other user reviews, means i didn't miss much.
    All in all, glad i got this game for free from my boss, because if i had spent money on this, i'd have been very, very angry.
    Expand
  54. jo3
    Nov 8, 2011
    0
    I have played and liked ever COD apart from MW2 which is basically the same game as MW3 (MW2.1). The GFX r fuzzy and nasty looking even compared to black ops, no ranked dedicated servers in MP only P2P rubbish IWnet, Hitboxes are broken, Maps are to small, FOV is unchangeable (makes me feel sick to play the game), Directional sound has been taken out of the game, guns are all the same, theI have played and liked ever COD apart from MW2 which is basically the same game as MW3 (MW2.1). The GFX r fuzzy and nasty looking even compared to black ops, no ranked dedicated servers in MP only P2P rubbish IWnet, Hitboxes are broken, Maps are to small, FOV is unchangeable (makes me feel sick to play the game), Directional sound has been taken out of the game, guns are all the same, the aim assist has not been taken out for the Xbox game, Ridiculous kill streaks, NO LEAN! :@, Lack of any console commands, skill-less gameplay, to many mines, claymores, helos, nukes, and anything else that will kill for you, unconfigurable config, no innovations, no competitive features at all and the SP is the worst SP I have played since Homefront or medal of honer (i think they were better actually) this game is a cut and paste job from MW2 I do not see what they spent 2 years doing. This game is awful do not buy it. Get COD1,2,4,5 or BO they r all better, if you have them get Battlefield 3, if you don't like Battlefield 3 get Red Orchestra: Heroes of Stalingrad (a realistic WW2 shooter). Do not bother with this game it is not worth it. Expand
  55. 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
    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
  56. Jan 3, 2012
    1
    Ok so lets get one thing straight. Activision really doesn't care about quality anymore. Activision is even supporting the SOPA act to censorship the internet because they are the number 1 selling FPS game made, and they do not want competitors to make other games people enjoy. Now you know about Activision lets talk about the game. Ok first of all im reviewing COD 4 because this game isOk so lets get one thing straight. Activision really doesn't care about quality anymore. Activision is even supporting the SOPA act to censorship the internet because they are the number 1 selling FPS game made, and they do not want competitors to make other games people enjoy. Now you know about Activision lets talk about the game. Ok first of all im reviewing COD 4 because this game is the same thing. New guns ok lets sell the game for 60 dollars there you go review done. This game is a disgrace to the gaming industry. Well truth hurts. If you want to play a real FPS go play Battlefield games or what ever you enjoy, im all about new mechanics and inventions to the gaming industry and this game is ruining progression. Expand
  57. Nov 10, 2011
    1
    EXACTLY THE SAME AS PREVIOUS GAME. If you want to play this game's multiplayer, just play MW2 or even MW1. You are not missing much, except singleplayer and you know how to resolve that. How about put in so effort and develop a newer gaming experience? Some Devs are just shameless, churning out same stuffs every year. Wasted $60, and the last $ they will ever see if this game don't change.EXACTLY THE SAME AS PREVIOUS GAME. If you want to play this game's multiplayer, just play MW2 or even MW1. You are not missing much, except singleplayer and you know how to resolve that. How about put in so effort and develop a newer gaming experience? Some Devs are just shameless, churning out same stuffs every year. Wasted $60, and the last $ they will ever see if this game don't change. No preorder next time. Expand
  58. Nov 20, 2011
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Firstly let me say i am extremely disappointed that this is the highest earning piece of entertainment in our civilization. This is like Justin Bieber and Twilight as they are to music and movies respectively.
    They throw crap at you and they still make a ton of money every year, the reasons for which are beyond my comprehension.
    I still remember playing the first Modern Warfare and being blown away by it. It was a breath of fresh air in the WW2 shooter infested era. That unfortunately was also the last FPS experience i have enjoyed.
    This game just goes on to show how much they have run out of ideas. The engine appears superbly dated and not worth running on a good rig, let alone warrant the full 60 dollar price. I am atleast glad they finished the story once and for all. A lot of ideas have been overused here , the slowmo breaching of countless rooms, following Capt.Price in stupid missions where the AI is so blind they'd walk over you and still not be able to spot you. Most of the missions here start off stealthily and end up becoming long and boring corridor sequences either in a street or a building. The layouts of the environment haven't changed much since the first game in the series and they have overused the idea of killing playable characters gradually over the sequels. The protagonist of the series spends more time on his deathbed in this title and it would have been nice to keep him alive as the series ended. I have to say this is the worst game in the series and the critic reviews just goes to show how you cannot trust these sites these days. How can this game get such a high score. But this series isn't meant for the SP experience and we are yet again given the same experience with micro tweaks and modes. Activision has suffered creatively since the core team left Infinity Ward to form Respawn entertainment and this clearly shows in the game. If you own a decent rig and like FPS, then the game to buy would be BF3 (even though it has its own set of issues). This is definitely a console FPS (yes they should call it this).
    The recoil in a weapon is barely present and the gameplay style is more lonewolf oriented. It is disturbing to see how low the series has gone over the past 2 games. Bottom line : Don't buy this so Activision can stop throwing the same crap at us year over year.
    Now that this game has been laid to rest , i am looking forward to some innovation from their side for the inevitable COD-9 slated for 2012 holiday season.
    Expand
  59. Nov 10, 2011
    1
    Same ole crap of a game,. dedi servers without rank is a joke in it self. lack of ping support funny as can be. Then again it's COD so I had no expectations anyways aside from time to time it is a bit fun.
  60. Nov 14, 2011
    10
    hello i buyed the game for 39â
  61. 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.
  62. Nov 9, 2011
    6
    If you are sick of mw2, then dont buy mw3, its not the game for you. There are new maps, new guns and new game modes but not much innovation in terms of graphics, single player campaign and game play is more or less the same. The developers of the game have stuck with the same formular that made mw1 and 2 so popular but they have refined and made certain tweaks to the Multiplayer areanaIf you are sick of mw2, then dont buy mw3, its not the game for you. There are new maps, new guns and new game modes but not much innovation in terms of graphics, single player campaign and game play is more or less the same. The developers of the game have stuck with the same formular that made mw1 and 2 so popular but they have refined and made certain tweaks to the Multiplayer areana that fanboys will love. As for me I didnt buy this game (I played on a friend's PC) as i knew what to expect already from all the youtube vids out there. i was already disappointed with Black Ops so i decided to put a hold on getting mw3. Will get this game on Steam when there is a sale but for fans who have played more than 800 hours on mw2 and still want more, then mw3 is the game for you. Expand
  63. Nov 8, 2011
    9
    fully optimized compared to mw2 and do not feel lost in the map and is visually pleasing to the eyes.MW3 gives you much fun the reason is your ADDICTIVE MULTIPLAYER, dynamic and competitive... btw you need good reflexes in this game.
  64. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    I thought it was impossible to screw further the MW series after MW2. Oh boy, was I wrong. MW3 doesn't even look like MW2, it looks uglier. It takes skill to mess up a game like that. Hell, even the music from the lobby is a cheap ass soundtrack from a 70thies Chuck Norris movie. Really, Zero as score is still overestimating. Pathetic.
  65. Nov 12, 2011
    0
    No ranked dedicated servers, same mechanics as MW2, reused buildings, boring and overused game play, multi-player is stale, engine is dated, graphics are the same as the original Modern Warfare. People are buying into the hype. Not this guy. This game is worth about $20 if that, yet tons of fanboys will continue to buy it. How sad.
  66. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    This game is a fox-skin ... Same as the second part, to the extent that the other twin was replaced by three numbers .. Very bad game and you should not take with you to avoid Boby cotic fill his pockets full of **** because cod
  67. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    Same old crap... They could have just made it a DLC for MW2... Which was also crap. I seriously don't understand people that are willing to pay more than 15$ for this.
  68. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    I thought COD4 was a great game and MW2 was ok, however this one fails miserably. I got told in an article the game is not "copied and pasted". Indeed its not, its trying to be COD4 with new multiplayer modes, yet it fails to even get close to the greatness of COD4. The maps are horrible, COD: Elite is a total waste of money, it feels rushed, there's a greyish tint on everything in theI thought COD4 was a great game and MW2 was ok, however this one fails miserably. I got told in an article the game is not "copied and pasted". Indeed its not, its trying to be COD4 with new multiplayer modes, yet it fails to even get close to the greatness of COD4. The maps are horrible, COD: Elite is a total waste of money, it feels rushed, there's a greyish tint on everything in the game, textures etc. And for the singleplayer, linear, boring, and incredibly stupid. I liked the story, but the way it concluded in the end was horrible. Stay away from this PoS. The creators has really outdone themselves in screwing people this time. Perhaps they should try to create a new franchise instead of ripping people off. Thank you IW, sledgehammer and activision for letting me down yet again. Expand
  69. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    After playing through the game (yes already), I can honestly say it is short, uninspiring and quite frankly, dull. The story line is unimaginative, the customisation of the graphics options is poor, and the engine the game runs on is years old, giving a sub 2011 (or even sub 2008) standard graphical experience. The multiplayer is repetitive and mainly plays on small maps where spawnkillingAfter playing through the game (yes already), I can honestly say it is short, uninspiring and quite frankly, dull. The story line is unimaginative, the customisation of the graphics options is poor, and the engine the game runs on is years old, giving a sub 2011 (or even sub 2008) standard graphical experience. The multiplayer is repetitive and mainly plays on small maps where spawnkilling is rampant. As another user posted, the experience is very "dry", and does not build, or expand upon previous MW games. Expand
  70. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    I refuse to pay Activision any money after announcing the removal of dedicated servers from MW2. I also find it insulting that they tell us it was by community request to remove them - it was clear from this point that MW1, a great game, was being rinsed for profit. MW3 is just further proof of this - buying it is only showing that you want Activision to do it more.
  71. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    Awful game.

    All they have done is reskinned blackops and added a few gimmicks. Blackops was a reskin of mw2. They publish half arsed games every year just to capitalise on sales. Only sheep would buy such a game. Awful campaign, again. All they have done is port the game over. No console, lean, configs, etc.
  72. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    It's a copy of Modern Warfare 2, nothing new, looks like a DLC. Such games like Shooters require a lot of changes for new chapter of it. For example could be taken L4D and L4D2, cuz L4D2 wasn't so good critisized by community
  73. Nov 8, 2011
    4
    Ok, so based off the game as if it were the first time we've ever seen this...

    3 single player 3 multiplayer 3 graphics 1 yes it's replayable Overall = 10 Now, lets break it down some The single player, while giving twists and turns and some iconic visuals, doesn't expand on what the series has already created. The campaign is shorter, and it seems to feel even more linear
    Ok, so based off the game as if it were the first time we've ever seen this...

    3 single player
    3 multiplayer
    3 graphics
    1 yes it's replayable
    Overall = 10

    Now, lets break it down some

    The single player, while giving twists and turns and some iconic visuals, doesn't expand on what the series has already created. The campaign is shorter, and it seems to feel even more linear than the rest of the COD series.
    -2

    The multiplayer, while enjoyable to those who love the run and gun, no holds bared, everyman for himself gameplay aspect of mw3, it lacks any type of change. It feels more like an expansion on mw2 with new weapons, playstyles and perks. Honestly, these 3 things are the only reason why you can even consider it a new game. During mw1 and 2 and even with World At War, the fun and gun play style was rather enjoyable, but it seems that activision decided to narrow their play base to the pure close quarters players because the mutliplayer maps seem to have gotten much smaller than they already were, almost completely eliminating snipping as a viable option. The lack of bullet physics such as drop lead off mean that it's still possible to snip, but you'll have to have very fast reflexes and a close quarters site.
    The aspect of "he with the fastest internet connection, trigger finger, gun, and lowest recoil (which isn't a huge issue this close quartered) reign supreme.
    Unlike BF3, which seems to have ever more influenced players to work as a team, mw3 seems to have pushed players to even work less as a team.
    Even with the newest, and most enjoyable playstyle, kill confirmed, it's still a mad scramble to out do everyone else.
    You'll find yourself letting someone else go first just so he'll get killed and you can make points off retrieving his dog tags, then you'll race to pick up the dog tags that another teammate gunned down, again, so you'll get the points. While it cuts down on the amount of camping, that's only because you're trying to scramble around and collect more dog tags than anyone else. Dog tags equal points, points equal ranks. Once everyone is ranked up, then expect much more camping. While watching the review on game trailers, you'll see that even they have noticed the best way to get kills is to use a set of tags as bait. (I.E. camping). While again, the multiplayer would have been good had it been something new and interesting, it's nothing more than mw3 with a couple new weapons, gadgets, perks, and maps. Not to mention the extremely overpowering kill perks.
    -2

    The graphics of the campaign do seem to stretch the capabilities beyond what other cod's have, it's only because they cram more into the field of view. Take away an explosion here and there(cause there's a lot of them) and you'll begin to realize that the grpahics are exactly the same as they were before, but perhaps with a little better fps. The graphics in the multiplayer seems to have taken a twist similar to what bf bad company 1 and 2 had. While the cod series used to be good at exstending the awesome graphics into the multiplayer, giving it a look and feel that somewhat surpassed the competition of battlefield multiplayer, they seem to have taken a step in the wrong direction. The graphics in multiplayer seem to have been dumbed down compared to the single player, and they seem to have cut back on coloring and gone more with grey coloring and darker tones, perhaps to give it a more gritty feel. Well, it is more gritty just not in a good way. It actually takes away from the serealism that you got from other cods. Overall, while the graphics are pretty, they're either nothing new, or a step back.
    -2

    For those of you wondering. Is it still replayable? Yes it is, but it would have been a lot easier to enjoy had they just placed it as a stand alone expansion to mw2 and perhaps sold it for around 30 bucks or less as compared to the 60 they're getting just for putting a 3 on it.

    Little more in depth, while I personally am a battlefield fan, it's only because I've been with battlefield since 1942.(pun for those bf fans). However, I enjoyed the cod series quite a bit, and even more so than the battlefield series until the release of black ops(which i traded in my copy cause i broke my copy of bad company 2).
    I figured I would give mw3 a try. While It's not a bad game and can be somewhat enjoyable if you're 100% into that "one man on top" gameplay style, then you'll enjoy it, however, I don't feel you'll think it's worth 60 bucks either. Personally, I'm trading it in and putting the money down on Skyrim, but until then, I'll grind out as much Battlefield 3 as possible.
    Sorry it didn't work out for you Activision.

    Single player 1
    Multiplayer 1
    Graphics 1
    replayable 1

    OVERALL = 4
    Expand
  74. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    I played mw3 for about 6 hours already and I can say only this - epic same **** fail of the year. Game itself is not bad it's horrible pretty much look like mw2 and black **** boring maps gameplay feels like joke no realism at all more like arcade for kids to milk hard even more rip off than any game I can imagine so please dont waste ur money
  75. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    What the **** did you all expect? a new and original game? you idiots will keep buying this **** and these guys will keep bringing em out because people are dumb and will pay Ã
  76. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    Absolute crap. Don't buy this game or even rent it. I wouldn't even be willing to pay $10 for this garbage let alone $50. There's so much recycled stuff from sound to graphics and even the buildings
  77. Nov 11, 2011
    0
    This is a disgrace. How can they be cheating the people, to keep remaking this. 12yo have no brain capacity keep playing it over and over again.

    DO NOT BUY A 4 YEAR OLD GAME!!
  78. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    terrible. same old same old garbage. wake up players. I bought this title with the intention of getting a game that was worth $60. Turns out that it was just a waste of money. Activision should have just released this game as DLC for MW2, because thats basically what it is. Don't waste your money with this game.
  79. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    One word sums it up: rehash. Everything has been done before; not just by other games (which would be awful in its own right) but by the same series! If you value the video game industry, your money and your intelligence please don't make the same mistake I did and buy this game.
  80. 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.
  81. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    The fact they reused models/animations/sound, and even forgot to change the game title from MW2 in the error messages is the reason this game deserves every negative review it gets.
    There is no excuse for the abomination this once great game series has become
  82. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Modern Warfare 3 are u kidding me this engine makes the game look like cod 2, its not nearly as good as modern warfare 2. I am sick of cod fan boys that are lying to everybody that the game looks like mw2, game looks worse , much worse. It looks like u are playing on 800*600 resolution and aspect ratio of 4:3
    on max settings on my new rig (i72600k@4,6ghz, 8gb dd3, 5870 soc).
    To say that i
    Modern Warfare 3 are u kidding me this engine makes the game look like cod 2, its not nearly as good as modern warfare 2. I am sick of cod fan boys that are lying to everybody that the game looks like mw2, game looks worse , much worse. It looks like u are playing on 800*600 resolution and aspect ratio of 4:3
    on max settings on my new rig (i72600k@4,6ghz, 8gb dd3, 5870 soc).
    To say that i am dissapointed is an understatment. Looks like infinity ward, Treyarch left Activision cause of their greed for money. What else can drive them to put out such a bad game with video settings like ur playing on pc from 10 years ago.
    Battlefield 3 is a gamers heaven vs to this ****
    Any game has better graphics than this, like supermariofare3
    Expand
  83. 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
    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
  84. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Shame on Activision for blatant copy paste. I am sure this game will still get record sales. Even for free, I doubt I would play it.

    Single player - they even copy pasted objects and textures from previous installments. There is a youtube video showing how buildings were copy pasted into MW3.

    The story is ridiculous. Multi player - boring and hasn't changed since mw2.
  85. Nov 16, 2011
    5
    Call of duty is a franchise that has always been close to my heart. And within the franchise I have always enjoyed the infinity ward games, modern warfare was fresh, fun and overall a new experience given the many world war themed games we were used to playing. The multiplayer was quick paced and competitive. Then came along modern warfare 2 which used the formula of the first game , butCall of duty is a franchise that has always been close to my heart. And within the franchise I have always enjoyed the infinity ward games, modern warfare was fresh, fun and overall a new experience given the many world war themed games we were used to playing. The multiplayer was quick paced and competitive. Then came along modern warfare 2 which used the formula of the first game , but made it better, the story was gripping and the developers used the engine to its potential by making a creative campaign gameplay be it climbing cliffs, driving snowmobiles of them, or throwing knives. The game did extremely well because it was a worthy sequel to a great game. When modern warfare 3 was announced I was thinking what would they do next? To be honest, they didn't do anything new, same engine, same characters , aging physics and predictable plot. The story continues where mw2 left off and the makers did a good job of making the campaign exciting. But like many have pointed out, it feels like a dlc. Missing were the creative mode of gameplay, it left me with a stale feeling considering the trailer looked so good. But all the epic parts of the game were included in the trailer, the collapsing buildings, the underwater level the train sequence, other than those cut scenes it was basically going through rooms and shooting people dead. This happens till the very end. I don't think infintiyward's heart and soul were in this game. Knowing they fired 2 senior members of the team, it has taken its toll. Battlefield 3 is superior when it comes to graphics, physics and the fact that the listen to the gamers in further tweaking the game to make it enjoyable. Activision does not do this. They have assumed that the franchise's history will be the selling point of the game. But battlefield 3 has made sure that doesn't happen. The cod fans are not in for a treat with this one but they will not be entirely disappointed.my final verdict is buy the game only if you are itching to know how the story ends or you feel like playing some new cod maps. If you are looking for the next-gen platform in multiplayer war gaming just go with battlefield 3 Expand
  86. 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 theIt'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
  87. 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, andThis 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
  88. 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
  89. 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
  90. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Selling this game for anything more than $20 should be a federal crime. The people in charge at Sledgehammer, IW, and Activision should all be placed under citizens arrest for releasing this recycled piece of garbage and labeling it as a new title.
  91. Nov 10, 2011
    10
    It's a shame that MW3 does not offer an option to change the Field of View. Apart from that, this game is another rock solid FPS in the Call of Duty franchise. Most of the maps are very well laid out and offer a good 'flow' when going around the map. The graphics aren't stunningly good, but definitely good enough. But graphics doesn't define a game, gameplay does. Thanks to IW andIt's a shame that MW3 does not offer an option to change the Field of View. Apart from that, this game is another rock solid FPS in the Call of Duty franchise. Most of the maps are very well laid out and offer a good 'flow' when going around the map. The graphics aren't stunningly good, but definitely good enough. But graphics doesn't define a game, gameplay does. Thanks to IW and Sledgehammer for bringing us the best first person shooter to date!! Expand
  92. Nov 10, 2011
    8
    I don't care what other people say about this game-"its the same" "its no different" "its just and expensive map pack"-there is a particular reason why this game has (almost) the same visuals as the previous titles, that's because this game runs at a solid 60 fps on both consoles and the PC, what is the big deal with 60 fps you say?..well 60 Frames Per Second allows smooth game play andI don't care what other people say about this game-"its the same" "its no different" "its just and expensive map pack"-there is a particular reason why this game has (almost) the same visuals as the previous titles, that's because this game runs at a solid 60 fps on both consoles and the PC, what is the big deal with 60 fps you say?..well 60 Frames Per Second allows smooth game play and better fast paced experience, and more over no other fisrt person shooter allows you to easily play with your friends and have a fun time..so what if this game looks and feels like the previous tiles..if it can achieve what other titles in the series coudn't-balanced gameplay-then its worth every penny. Expand
  93. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    To be honest, I wasn't expecting good things at first. But... yeah I was about right. Same game engine since Call of Duty 4. However, this was made even worse when they added the glow effect in Modern Warfare 2 which made everything look like it was covered in an oddly rigid water. Do not buy. Let the poor guy die. He's had enough. Call of Duty had potential, but it was quickly sapped byTo be honest, I wasn't expecting good things at first. But... yeah I was about right. Same game engine since Call of Duty 4. However, this was made even worse when they added the glow effect in Modern Warfare 2 which made everything look like it was covered in an oddly rigid water. Do not buy. Let the poor guy die. He's had enough. Call of Duty had potential, but it was quickly sapped by the greedy publishers. Do not blame the devs. It's all on Activision. Expand
  94. Nov 10, 2011
    2
    I really wish I could give this game a good review, but I cant. Im really sick of having to buy the same game over and over. Sure this game is slightly fresh but i feel like im playing the same game. If you've been playing COD for a long time it's really the same game with a different name. If you've never played COD before and you like FPS games then you will probably enjoy this game.I really wish I could give this game a good review, but I cant. Im really sick of having to buy the same game over and over. Sure this game is slightly fresh but i feel like im playing the same game. If you've been playing COD for a long time it's really the same game with a different name. If you've never played COD before and you like FPS games then you will probably enjoy this game. Otherwise this game is really just another way for the franchise to squeeze more and more money out of consumers. Not sure why I bought this game. It was probably because I have always been a fan of COD, but this is really too much. I think there might be ulterior motives for the distributors due to the amount of re-masking and re-releasing the same game. I feel bad for the developers who have probably been impeded from improving the engine because the distributors realized that making a new name with the same engine without improvements is a major cash cow. Anyways, I hate to sound like another one of these BF3 guys but I have been extremely surprised and amazed with BF3. I've never been a fan of BF series but even release day of MW3 i stopped to play BF3 and didnt even realize how much fun I was having without COD. I would recommend to anyone to check both games out and make your own decision, but it should be pretty clear which game you should really get if you do the research and test both out properly. Thank you DICE for such a great game, you have turned one more COD player into a BF player! Activison... shame on you for ruining COD. You greedy jerks prevent developers like Infinity Ward from making substantial changes worth my $59.99. Expand
  95. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    It's funny how Activision get away with murder. It's blatantly obvious they've changed nothing but single player, a few multiplayer maps and the box art yet it gets amazing reviews. Viewing this title on its own merit, its clear that it has absolutely no originality despite its high production quality.
  96. Nov 10, 2011
    10
    It's Call of Duty! If you like Call of Duty, then you'll like Call of Duty! Sure it looks and feels the same but, Hello???? IT"S CALL OF DUTY!!!!!!! If you want something different, buy something different. If you want the best Online Mulitplayer Experience then look no further!!!! Call of Duty has the largest fan base of any other video game!!! Buy this game, you won't regret it!!!!
  97. 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.
  98. 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.
  99. Nov 10, 2011
    3
    Let me start by stating I am NOT a Battlefield fanboy. In fact, I couldn't care less for BF3 as of now, since I'm one of the thousands of Steam users boycotting EA's Origin. And I didn't enjoy Bad Company 2 either. That said, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is a bad game in almost every aspect. I don't much care for the dated graphics: they still look rather acceptable and make for a smoothLet me start by stating I am NOT a Battlefield fanboy. In fact, I couldn't care less for BF3 as of now, since I'm one of the thousands of Steam users boycotting EA's Origin. And I didn't enjoy Bad Company 2 either. That said, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is a bad game in almost every aspect. I don't much care for the dated graphics: they still look rather acceptable and make for a smooth experience on my also dated rig. Now to tthe actual game modes. The campaign manages to be shorter than MW2's (which is to say, it's REALLY short). If only it had a nice story like its predecessors, though, it would be a good campaign. It doesn't, and you get bored despite the epic scale the war raging around you has reached. It's all been done before, some missions are almost carbon copies of MW and MW2 ones. It's cliche-ridden, full of predictable "scenes" where your character barely survives (you get knocked down with a scripted explosion, some NPC helps you up, the camera tilts as if to show you're dizzy, then you're fully recovered and back on the frontlines). There are no real plot twists or anything memorable in this campaign whatsoever. I played on "veteran" difficulty and felt the AI was pretty good though. But it is in no way an actual challenge. Now for the multiplayer mode... this deserves a little background. When I bought MW2 upon launch, I hadn't read any previews about it. I just bought it because I was still hyped from COD4, which had an amazing campaign and awesome multiplayer. So I had no clue MW2 wouldn't be getting dedicated servers. I was in for a MAJOR disappointment. I was like "MATCHMAKING??? REALLY???" But the worst thing was, maps were terrible, felt like carousels with annoying players (a maximum 18 of them, to be precise) running around with no tactics or teamwork at all. TERRIBLE stuff. I only managed to endure a couple hours of it, and vowed never to buy a MW game again. But then it was announced MW3 would be getting dedicated servers again. Being fond of the campaign storyline as I was, and hoping the multiplayer would go back to what it was in 2007, I immediately broke my word and pre-purchased it. Then, just a few days before launch day, I read an article at GameSpy saying dedicated servers wouldn't be ranked (meaning you can't level up or unlock guns, items, etc on them) and once again, the player limit would be 18, which is utter garbage. If COD4 had 32 players (some DEDICATED servers allowed even more somehow), why can't we have those 4 years later? Maps also look and feel terrible. MW3's multiplayer is a BORING and frustrating experience. I cannot even understand how this game appeals so much to the masses. It's not entertaining at all. Also, with no leaning AGAIN, gameplay is horrible. Bottom line (multiplayer-wise) is, MW3 = MW2 with even worse maps. The only thing remotely good about this game is the Spec Ops mode, which doesn't even come close to making MW3 worth the 60 bucks I spent on it. This game should cost 10 USD, tops. No joke. I'll tell you what IS a joke though. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. Expand
Metascore
78

Generally favorable reviews - based on 26 Critics

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