User Score
2.7

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 5244 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. Feb 25, 2012
    0
    Yet another review, which rants about the CoD franchise? Oh yes! There has been very many studios working on the game and it still hasn't changed enough to feel like a new game. The graphics are outdated, though even very bad computers can run it. The multiplayer maps have way too many corridors and such. The damage is annoyingly high, you don't need skill anymore to play the game. SameYet another review, which rants about the CoD franchise? Oh yes! There has been very many studios working on the game and it still hasn't changed enough to feel like a new game. The graphics are outdated, though even very bad computers can run it. The multiplayer maps have way too many corridors and such. The damage is annoyingly high, you don't need skill anymore to play the game. Same old crap, even worse than before. Expand
  2. Dec 27, 2011
    6
    A lot of people thought this game of 2011 is worse than DNF, but technically that is wrong by far. Although there's nothing significantly new with recycled content from the previous MW game, the big upside is the popularity of this game overhyped by players giving low scores. This game could beat the most popular movie of all time which is Avatar. But the only features that owe up theA lot of people thought this game of 2011 is worse than DNF, but technically that is wrong by far. Although there's nothing significantly new with recycled content from the previous MW game, the big upside is the popularity of this game overhyped by players giving low scores. This game could beat the most popular movie of all time which is Avatar. But the only features that owe up the obsolete content in MW3 are dedicated servers and modding support. Overall this game isn't worth the $60 price tag with additional cost on future DLC. Expand
  3. Feb 9, 2012
    6
    I enjoyed the single player campaign but it was very very short.
  4. BMF
    Nov 10, 2011
    0
    How about you make a new game someday instead of rearranging CoD4 over and over with new box art to make a quick buck. Modders and unpaid map makers do more work then your terrible cash grab of a company and this is what you get for spitting in your consumers faces... a metascore of 1.7. Maybe your console zombies will finaly realise they have been being duped every year and stopHow about you make a new game someday instead of rearranging CoD4 over and over with new box art to make a quick buck. Modders and unpaid map makers do more work then your terrible cash grab of a company and this is what you get for spitting in your consumers faces... a metascore of 1.7. Maybe your console zombies will finaly realise they have been being duped every year and stop supporting this $60 map pack garbage you call a full release! Im sure CoD MW 4 is already on the way with its token one feature change and new box art but I think I speak for all the intelligent people out there when I say take the whole franchise and stick it up your greedy corporate asses! Expand
  5. Nov 10, 2011
    1
    Ya I played this game already. Last year. Campaign is super short and predictable with enemies spawning non-stop until you move up to check points. Multiplayer is ok, but is just too much twitch shooting for me. BF3 single player might be equally ridiculous, but at least the multiplayer is solid.
  6. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Almost identical to MW2, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. Activision released a game with slight tweaks and calls it a new game, I don't understand why the hell "professional" reviewers are giving it anything other than a 1 or a 2
  7. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    A map and texture pack for MW2, which was a map and texture pack for cod 4.They added some garbage killstreak **** and call it a brand new game. I played about 5 hours of this steaming pile of **** at my friends house, and got exactly what I thought I would. Just like MW2, this is a slap in the face to PC gamers everywhere. There is dedicated server support, but guess what. THEY ARE ALLA map and texture pack for MW2, which was a map and texture pack for cod 4.They added some garbage killstreak **** and call it a brand new game. I played about 5 hours of this steaming pile of **** at my friends house, and got exactly what I thought I would. Just like MW2, this is a slap in the face to PC gamers everywhere. There is dedicated server support, but guess what. THEY ARE ALL UNRANKED. In order to advance your character and grab the carrots dangling in your face, you must use the same broken P2P system that consoles use. Locked FOV, locked framerate, and tons of other bugs create the exact same experience PC players had with MW2. Hitscan, instant bullet travel time, along with locked FOV, ensures that the game will never require skill. It is a game for people who don't play video games, and it is an absolute insult to the hard work and innovation of other developers. It is essentially the Family Guy of FPS. Instant gratification for low IQ morons who think they know something. I am by no means a Battlefield fanboy, and I am disappointed in the "sequel" that is BF3, but at least it tried to innovate in all areas of the game. I have a number of problems with BF3, but it is still an infinitely superior game to this pile of dog****. If you plan on buying one or the other, I would highly recommend BF3, regardless of your platform of choice. Expand
  8. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    I was willing to give IW the benefit of the doubt in their claims that the game was vastly improved, and the new features breathed new life into the game.. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case. I can't help but feel like the game I'm playing would be better labeled an expansion pack for MW2, or just MW2.5 at best. IW seems to content now to rehash the same thing year after yearI was willing to give IW the benefit of the doubt in their claims that the game was vastly improved, and the new features breathed new life into the game.. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case. I can't help but feel like the game I'm playing would be better labeled an expansion pack for MW2, or just MW2.5 at best. IW seems to content now to rehash the same thing year after year without really aiming to do anything new. Such a shame to see this happen to a once great series. Expand
  9. Aug 18, 2013
    2
    The singleplayer is ok, they have improved it a little bit but the campaign is still very short (6 hours) and the multiplayer is just a joke. I hate the feel of it, and everything is just unbalanced such as the spawn points, weapon damage, and so on. The only thing I really enjoyed was the survival and challenges. But thats it.
  10. Nov 21, 2011
    9
    Stop rating the innovation. Now stop comparing bf3 to MW3 (cause are different styles of cames [arcade, realistic]). Ok, now the game deserves 9. Its funny. The game is the most played game in PSN, LIVE and steam (losing only to elder scrolls 5), and got THIS amout of negative reviews. too many haters?
  11. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Since few years they dont bring any new. Its so boring so old and only shows how they respct players to cheat them and steal money. They treat us worser then idiots and they think we will buy all crap what they bring. Even xbox users rating it so badly what means they have killed series for ever. great job!
  12. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    It's the same old **** over and over again. If you've played MW1, MW2 or Black Ops you've played this one too. The graphics are starting to get dated as there's been no update to the engine at all, making many of the textures at close range simply look downright bad. On top of this the game lacks attention to detail. The multiplayer is still the same thing redone again, and not reallyIt's the same old **** over and over again. If you've played MW1, MW2 or Black Ops you've played this one too. The graphics are starting to get dated as there's been no update to the engine at all, making many of the textures at close range simply look downright bad. On top of this the game lacks attention to detail. The multiplayer is still the same thing redone again, and not really improved upon. One can argue it's more balanced, but c'mon, it's an FPS. It's about how well you aim, and how your twitch reflexes are. It's not like there's one single gun that simply overperforms. For 60 euro, I think this is practically trying to milk the cow so hard that it will now die on itself. The campaign, of course, is still a 4 hour long Michael Bay movie with terrible writing and characters you don't give a flying **** about.

    Bad game. Developers need to start gearing up and not release the same game AGAIN every year, 'cause we've had enough of this.
    Expand
  13. Nov 14, 2011
    3
    Here's the deal: there really just isn't enough new content here to justify the full $60 price tag. It's the same engine, game mechanics, level design, multiplayer modes, etc that we've seen recycled since MW1. Granted, yes, I'm having some fun with it, but I was still having just as much fun with MW1. I gave my free copy of it away to a friend on Steam and we're honestly having moreHere's the deal: there really just isn't enough new content here to justify the full $60 price tag. It's the same engine, game mechanics, level design, multiplayer modes, etc that we've seen recycled since MW1. Granted, yes, I'm having some fun with it, but I was still having just as much fun with MW1. I gave my free copy of it away to a friend on Steam and we're honestly having more fun revisiting the original Modern Warfare than I am with this thing. Save your money. Expand
  14. Nov 12, 2011
    0
    Game had such high expectations. I atleast expected to enjoy it. Campaign is fun but forgettable. spec ops is fun but cheap. the Multiplayer is FAIL. **** maps. **** gameplay. gfx fail. sound design fail. just its a solid piece of **** well back to BF3 even though that game had a flakey campaign atleast the multiplayer of that one rocks.
  15. Nov 10, 2011
    3
    Refuse to fund anymore Activision games. Played my flat mates copy, just what I thought. Just an expensive map pack. Doesn't deserve any of the high scores some critics are giving it. I'm glad some have the balls to call it like they see it.
  16. May 6, 2012
    5
    I finished the single player campaign of this game the same day I bought it. I don't mind short campaigns if they are fun, but this is very short and boring.
    The game is so heavily scripted it makes it obvious that Infinity Ward is out of ideas in terms of innovative gameplay. They use scripted events as fillers, and on top of that they manage to lack imagination in that field as well.
    I finished the single player campaign of this game the same day I bought it. I don't mind short campaigns if they are fun, but this is very short and boring.
    The game is so heavily scripted it makes it obvious that Infinity Ward is out of ideas in terms of innovative gameplay. They use scripted events as fillers, and on top of that they manage to lack imagination in that field as well. How many times can we enjoy a scene where we get knocked down with the ears ringing and the blurry vision? Sure the part on the boat was awesome but that's about it as far as I'm concerned. For most of the campaign the player has to follow other characters, other than that it's pretty much "Do this! Go there!".
    I really do understand that the focus of this game is online but the game fails to be impressive and innovative on that side as well. I still give this game a 5 for the graphics and the input responsiveness but sadly Call of Duty has not evolved since Modern Warfare 1.
    Expand
  17. 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.
  18. Nov 10, 2011
    1
    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.
  19. Nov 8, 2011
    3
    3 hour campaign with lots of breaks... nuff said considering the price. play tribes: ascend when it's out, the cbt destroys this "complete" game for half the price.

    Oh and I don't play BF3 so all the fanboy spazzes, you can rest easy. Price to value ratio, this game is triple-bunk. Shoulda spent the marketing campaign funds on a single player campaign, remember when they didn't used to
    3 hour campaign with lots of breaks... nuff said considering the price. play tribes: ascend when it's out, the cbt destroys this "complete" game for half the price.

    Oh and I don't play BF3 so all the fanboy spazzes, you can rest easy. Price to value ratio, this game is triple-bunk. Shoulda spent the marketing campaign funds on a single player campaign, remember when they didn't used to just be tutorials but actual stories? Wait til its 3$ on steam sale one lonely afternoon in the next few months.
    Expand
  20. Nov 20, 2011
    7
    MW1 was great, MW 2 a bit less great, and MW3 a bit less great. Still a nice game if you've never played MW before. This is more of a nice expansion to MW2 really. Not worth the full game's price or title.
  21. Nov 9, 2011
    2
    Overall Disapointing. This is Clearly MW2 redone. Many error messages refer to MW2 when it crashes, many of the ini files still say MW2. The graphics are now dated, and nothing has been done to improve them since MW2. the SP story is still as inane and bizarre as always, and very short, it only took me 3 hours or so to complete it. MP is okay, pretty much the same as blops with some newOverall Disapointing. This is Clearly MW2 redone. Many error messages refer to MW2 when it crashes, many of the ini files still say MW2. The graphics are now dated, and nothing has been done to improve them since MW2. the SP story is still as inane and bizarre as always, and very short, it only took me 3 hours or so to complete it. MP is okay, pretty much the same as blops with some new perks and maps. More of the same so many will likeit.

    Over all i dont think this was worth £40, it feels more like a map-pack and new scenario.
    Expand
  22. Nov 10, 2011
    6
    This if nothing else met my expectations to the letter. It has the same old formulaic and improbable single player with the action movie feel, I would imagine would be fresh and enjoyable to someone new to the franchise. But to the veterans out there it much like bf3's single player just leaves the player going through the same motions to the point of numbness. Serviceable but notThis if nothing else met my expectations to the letter. It has the same old formulaic and improbable single player with the action movie feel, I would imagine would be fresh and enjoyable to someone new to the franchise. But to the veterans out there it much like bf3's single player just leaves the player going through the same motions to the point of numbness. Serviceable but not memorable.
    The multilayer too suffers from the feeling of deja vu. The game is still meat grinder completely lacking in anything more than the most basic teamwork mechanics. It's still the twitch shooter with the tiny maps and instant death weapons. It has the kill streaks and they are just as annoying as they were in cod4 and mw2. As a bonus the graphics look as they were four years ago. The bottom line is that mw3 is a 60 dollar expansion pack. If you want to fork over 60 dollars for the same thing , go right ahead , at the very least the stuff that is there is slightly more refined. but if you are short of money or even just want to save up for other games , then just go back mw2 or black ops your wallet will thank you.
    Expand
  23. Jan 16, 2012
    6
    The single-player that was once innovative and memorable is now banal and repetitive. None of the moments in Modern Warfare 3 will be as eternal as when you first sneaked by enemy gaurds with Cpt. McMillan or when you first took controls of the guns behind an AC-130. While it's still fun and well-polished, it lacks the excitement "edge-of-your-seat" excitement of Black Ops. Furthermore,The single-player that was once innovative and memorable is now banal and repetitive. None of the moments in Modern Warfare 3 will be as eternal as when you first sneaked by enemy gaurds with Cpt. McMillan or when you first took controls of the guns behind an AC-130. While it's still fun and well-polished, it lacks the excitement "edge-of-your-seat" excitement of Black Ops. Furthermore, none of the multiplayer improvements in Black Ops like character customization or creative game modes make a return in multiplayer. However, the new Survival mode is a blast to play with a friend, as you level up and buy weapons and killstreaks as the game goes on. This instills an excellent feeling of progression that most survival modes lack. However, Survival mode is only playable with two people, which is a shame considering how much more fun the game would be with four. Overall this game is definitely not worth the $60 price tag, but if you've got a friend who you'd like to blast AI buddies with, maybe pick it up after a price drop. If you're looking for a better multiplayer mode however, you won't find much here that's better than Black Ops, likely worse. Expand
  24. Nov 12, 2011
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I agree with some of the criticism offered by some users. Yes, MW3 doesn't feel like a new game: it's more like an expansion pack for MW2. Yes, the graphics don't look that great for a game released in 2011. Yes, the gameplay is not innovative, but this is not necessarily a bad thing: both MW2 and its carbon copy MW3 have great gameplay. I have only 2 issues with MW3: 1) US$ 60 for a MW2 expansion pack (i.e., MW3) is a rip-off, and 2) despite of my system configuration (I7-2600, GTX-580, 8GB RAM, Creative Labs Titanium discrete audio card, 25Mbps/25Mbps broadband), the game lags too much when I happen to be the host (MW2 had the same problem due to P2P). These are the only 2 reasons for me to give it a 7 out of 10. Another thing: If IW ever releases a paid Elite service for PC, just pass - it's not worth 50 bucks. Expand
  25. Nov 10, 2011
    2
    I'll give them two points for continuing their tried and true formula, but nothing more as that's all they've done here. They just put mw2 in a new box. $60 + $7/month for new maps and perks but nothing new in terms of gameplay or graphics? No thanks. Save your money folks. If you have cod4 than what's the point of this? Not a new game
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. Nov 18, 2011
    10
    mw3 is really similar to previous call of duty games, but the multiplayer is really addictive. if the developers changed it too much it wouldn't feel right, cod is easy to play for the very reason that each time a new version comes out, there is very little new to learn. There's a new call of duty each year and all you really need is a little variety with new maps, guns and perks. If itmw3 is really similar to previous call of duty games, but the multiplayer is really addictive. if the developers changed it too much it wouldn't feel right, cod is easy to play for the very reason that each time a new version comes out, there is very little new to learn. There's a new call of duty each year and all you really need is a little variety with new maps, guns and perks. If it isn't broken, why change it? These game developers work really hard to make these games fun, exciting and accessible for new and experienced gamers, I think they deserve a little praise for their efforts. Bashing a game on the internet is quite a popular pastime for some internet users, the same criticism happened with the pc version of modern warfare 2, and the pc version of black ops was also berated. The people who actually gave mw3 bad reviews are probably playing it hours every day anyway, they just won't admit it. matchmaking on pc mw3 is a welcome relief from all the rules and regulations of dedicated servers, crouch only, no claymores, no aug, no grenade launchers, only the one map that keeps repeating, etc. why not get a life and let me play the game as the developer intended. looking forward to mw4. Expand
  29. Nov 15, 2011
    2
    Tiny maps, arcadish and twitch based gameplay, recycled textures and buildings, the same awful matchmaking system etc. But the real problem is not Activision releasing the same game every year, it's the people buying the same game year after year.
  30. Nov 14, 2011
    0
    This game is pretty good. Better than its predecessor.

    I especially enjoyed the mission called 'No Russian', where you'd destroy an entire airport. That was fun.

    Huh? That wasn't in this game? Oh, that was MW2? There's no difference. Whatsoever. Don't even bother wasting your money on this, go play MW or MW2 instead.
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]