User Score
2.4

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 5485 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Nov 8, 2011
    5
    I pre-ordered both BF3 and MW3, trying not to be a fanboy to either in this comparison.

    BF3 isn't perfect but MW3 is a complete joke, especially on PC. If you are even thinking about MW3 on PC, forget it, just buy MW1 or Black Ops and have at least a 10x better experience. No ranked dedicated servers? Check. No adjustable FOV? Check. No real innovation from MW2? Check.

    I'm not really
    one to care about graphics, but MW3's graphics are just laughable considering this is 2011. Comparing MW3 graphics to BF3 graphics is like comparing speed between a 1990 Neon and a 2012 Bugatti Veyron. BF3 gets huge props for their innovation in this department.

    Audio is even worse than graphics. As another poster pointed out, the guns literally sound like paintball or BB gun. Again, a joke when compared with BF3 which makes huge innovations here again.

    MW3 does have a much better campaign than BF3 though, and BF3's SP was disappointing considering what they could have done with all the new tech. Not sure how long MW3's campaign is though as I haven't finished it yet.

    Post-launch support from DICE has already been fantastic, and they do truly listen to the community on changes. I remember in BFBC2 Beta, I had an issue specific to my PC relating to low CPU usage, and I got an email from a dev who personally worked with me to resolve it. This fix was including with the final game. I don't have a lot of experience with Activision, but from what I've heard the only post-launch support they give is in paid DLC's.

    Overall, BF3 is definitely worth $60 where MW3 is definitely not worth $60.
    Expand
  2. Nov 8, 2011
    2
    Just another cash in of a tired old franchise. Re-releasing a video game every year and making millions is just a slap in the face to real developers who actually take the time to make a decent video game, with a good engine, great online, and a good story.
  3. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    I have bought every copy of COD since COD 4 - after playing MW2, i stopped playing cod all togther. When black ops came out, i thought eh, ill give it was 2nd try. I played the game maybe for 2 weeks. Never even thought of looking up this game. tested it out at my buddies place and saw that game has not changed since MW2. Same old run and gun. The skillcap is so low that anyone can get the highest kill streaks. Guns sound like a hammer hitting wood. 1/10. Sorry that so many ppl will buy this though. Sorry, Activision but you won't get my money this time around. Expand
  4. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    LOL. Lets see. This game has No battlelog. CHECK. No Origins. Check. A GOOD single player campaign. NO. And a multiplayer game, copying from the last Call of Dutys, which actually also looks and plays good on consoles (which it is purely designed for, and is poorly ported to the pc yet again), AND this game does have bugs and all of the server problems of some other (un-named) games. Its another below average shooter, unlike the other amazing shooter that came out recently. And here come the fan boys to convince you that this game is well optimised, not made purely for console, offers completely different gameplay from the last 4 games and graphics have been greatly approved. With a user score of 1.4 we have a classic case of the people who know what a good game is and isnt. How.....mature! LOL. Too bad this is a bad game. Too bad, this one is the WORSE gaming product. (review correct from orctowngrot's fanyboy review) gaming product. Expand
  5. Nov 8, 2011
    3
    The campaign of the game is not as innovative as it has been in the past, this is a big let down. The multiplayer of the game seems like a re-release of MW:2 with a few tweaks and the game feels generally unsatisfying.
  6. Nov 8, 2011
    1
    After playing this game for a good 4 hours, I noticed that this game felt very familiar, A little bit TOO familiar. Then it hit me that everything in this game from the graphics, the sound effects, the art, is from Modern Warfare 2. It sickens me that Activision thinks that they can get away with just copying everything that the original IW team has worked for and just paste into a new package and call it Modern Warfare 3. Contrary to all the "VIDEO GAME JOURNALISTS" that give this game a 80% or higher this game is nothing new and they should have just called it Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 2011 edition, you are basically paying $60 on a expansion pack, A very poorly made expansion pack. Expand
  7. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    The story is shorter than any MW game before. It's also more dull and VERY linear. MP is pretty much MW2 with new maps and maybe 1-2 extra guns and 1-2 twisted perks. This game does not deserve your 60 dollars, use it to buy map packs for mw2.
  8. 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 spawnkilling is rampant. As another user posted, the experience is very "dry", and does not build, or expand upon previous MW games. Expand
  9. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    The campaign was short. Its story was so generic that even a retarded child can make it. The graphics is worse than CoD4. The sounds are just recycled junk from old CoD all guns sounds like a toy gun. Its streak system become from worst to worstser(i know there's no such word). To make it simple. This game is a joke. Its a CoD4 DLC.. And Cod4 is much better. Save your money and buy other games.
  10. Nov 14, 2011
    5
    As a Avid fan of the Call of duty franchise i must say i am fairly let down with the latest release of MW3. You say you listened to the fan base and on some fronts yes i would say you did but on others you did not. And those area's you didn't really can make and break the game. First and foremost I am a PC gamer i started playing the franchise on PC and i always will. But i feel you are pushing us aside and not doing us justice. WE are the players that have the best hardware etc and the graphics are well as they say so yesterday. You have little to no abilities to edit the PC graphics to a point where if you have a high end system that you can get the best out of the game. everything is locked. Max frames ( max fps ) etc. i believe this is due to the fact that now instead of building for pc first then porting to 360 etc you build it for the lesser hardware system in this case consoles then try to port it to the PC at the last minute. Ill give it to you in the fact you did break the pc version like black ops did when they ported the game to PC. But at least we had the ability to adjust things like FOV, Max fps, Max packets ETC. These things i can overlook but the single most important thing i cannot.

    Servers. in reality you guys have none. Sure you say you do and they are there and you can join them But whats the point of a server if it is non ranked. The point of servers is to essentially provide a medium for players to where they can go and play the game with other people in a non or little lag environment. i do like the party system but it isn't a big deal honestly. day 2 there were already hackers playing the game and without servers you cannot ban them from your server. all you can do is simply report them and wait for them to get banned if they ever do. in the mean time they wreck your experience for days if not weeks on end. With ranked servers players can join game modes ( tdm,dom,ffa) etc with subsets of rules or none at all and know that 1 they are joining a server close to them thus reducing the chance of lag 2 joining a relativity hackless environment because the server admins who run those servers just ban hackers when they see them thus neutralizing the issue and 3 they are joining a server / game mode within the game mode that they wish to play.

    Instead of just porting the game from 360/ps3 to PC look at the past games and take the good build on that and take the bad remove it and build on it as well. The lack of non ranked dedicated servers is probably one of the main reason PC players are unhappy. Next to that it is the graphics or lack of them. We as PC players Demand a higher Caliber of game standards that YOU as a company lacked to give us. Most PC players think this is just mw2.5 with less graphics and more lag issues. If you say you really listen to the people Listen to some of the core points i am posting about they are essentially what is bringing your game down. ill review perhaps the key points
    1) No servers or lack of Primary Ranked Servers ( such as the ones that are loved in black ops )
    2) Lack there of graphics and graphical tweaking
    3)Lack of a way to deal with hackers.
    4)The feeling we are getting the metaphorical shaft when it comes to a PC game. Stop porting you games from console to PC instead design it from ground floor up with PC as the key factor then port it down to the lesser hardware systems aka CONSOLES. You will make more money in the end that way as more PC players will buy the game and if the game is as good as the rest in the good respects the Console players won't even know the difference. Sincerely Angry but happy gamer MrNuck
    Expand
  11. Nov 8, 2011
    1
    They just want to develop new engine...Graphics look the same and same old story. Same Multiplayer with new features and its not even interesting....Please IW u have ability to create a nice game..just invest on new engine
  12. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    this game is such a piece of trash what a waste of $60. I basically paid for the exact same iteration minus a crappy 6 hour campaign last year Plus an even crappier 4 hour campaign. I don't know why I got suckered into buying this game (trash media hype) but can guarantee I'm not falling for this scam again.
  13. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    Horrible game, lackluster multi-player that doesn't feel fresh or fun, short single player campaign and very dated graphics. Not worth the money. Steer clear.
  14. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    This game was a huge waste of money. Do yourself a favour and save your $60 for Bethesda's Skyrim. That game is actually worth the money, and won't let you down like this one. As of November 8th, the first day of release, this game has a 1.4 User Score. 14%, people. The critics haven't reviewed it yet, but I'm betting that because they're all over the COD series dick, it'll get at least an 80%. That's a damn shame, because then people will actually go and buy it. I'm hoping most people just pirate this game. It's not worth buying. It's garbage. Expand
  15. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    To be honest, it's not *bad*, but it's just repetition and regurgitation of the previous incarnations. Terrible and cliched campaign, same old multiplayer with one of the worst online communities and bland maps, same old weapons made to appeal to tacti-cool geardo kids, over-the-top and unnecessary scenes done probably just for publicity, buggy, unoptimized, and overmilked. The campaign itself is predictable. Captain Price dies. Soap lives. Yuri dies. Price kills Makarov. Being predictable won't be so bad if it was executed well, but it was not. Cliched. Over-the-top. Like it was done with a rejected B-grade movie script. Multiplayer offers nothing different either. To boot, this game has what could contend to be one of the worst communities ever. Nothing new. Recycled and regurgitated content. Expand
  16. Nov 8, 2011
    2
    COD:MW3 is pretty much the same game as MW2, and quite similar to MW1. The graphics are similar to MW2, the gameplay is essentially unchanged, and there's nothing else to speak of that is different. That doesn't mean the game is unplayable. To the contrary, its a smooth FPS, but entirely mechanistic: you might as well be shooting pop-up targets in between cutscenes.

    The graphics are
    pretty bad. I don't know why its so hard to simply produce high quality textures and graphic components and then downscale for the obsolete consoles, but it seems that this game takes the opposite approach: which is why a graphics card that you could buy for $50 four years ago (the Nvidia 8600) is still the required card. Despite what the "recommended" stats might suggest, there's no more eye candy for those with a better system- just higher framerates for those who see 60 frames per second and up. This wouldn't be such an issue if the gameplay or story was involving, but its not.

    Overall, a mediocre if competent clone.
    Expand
  17. 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 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
  18. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    Incredibly mundane and boring. Do not buy this. Torrent if you want to spend 3 hours playing a shooter with red jelly on your screen for 2.5 of those hours.
    DO NO BUY.. AT ANY COST..
  19. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    Disappointing on all fronts. It's a reskin of a 2 year old game with a multiplayer map pack and different singleplayer that's riddled with stupidity and cliches in bulk while still being insanely short

    I don't understand how Activision gets away with doing this to people. I understand it's fun to some gamers and they like the series and that's fine, but just throwing money at something
    because it's fun is selfish and they need to tell Activision with their wallets they're tired of getting ripped off every year. Expand
  20. 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.
  21. Nov 8, 2011
    3
    Multiplayer: It feels a bit broken, then again it was Sledge Hammer that made the multiplayer aspect of the game. The servers are laggy. The hit detection is still the same old Modern Warfare you'd expect. Knifing the air gets a kill. Shooting bullets onto an invincible hit box gets a kill, whilst the player is way out of harms way. Hit detection is way off in general. Bullets still do not penetrate thin walls or wooden crates but can penetrate 12 inch thick titanium steel. Character control in general feels a clumsy. Weapons are awkward to work with. Maps are the typical MW maps you'd expect if not worse. Unimaginative, bland, and with bad spawn points. Kills do not feel as rewarding as before and kill streaks are not as amusing. It's a great fast paced game but in general most of it feels like a rehash of MW2 with a blend of terrible Black Ops maps. Single Player: Same old cliche story suitable for people/children who need explosions and chaos to obtain an orgasm and deem it a good game or movie. I was in pain trying to finish this game, instead of enjoying it. I just wanted to get this garbage story to end and to my surprise; the expected MW ending. The AI of this game like always, using the same bad programing can cause some what of a humor. Small scaled linear pathway maps like usual. In conclusions, this game is nothing but a rehash of the old game (including Treyarch's Black Ops) with the number 3 stamped in front. Save your self $60 and keep on enjoying MW2. Expand
  22. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    I see that Activision have bought out the media...What a joke. This game brings nothing new to the table and the critics are praising it. The critics also do a wonderful job of dodging criticising the games flaws (something they have no problem doing to their competitors games) so they can justify their inflated, down-right misleading scores. When the user score is this low, you really have to wonder what is wrong with this industry. Activision are just cashing in on the success of MW1 and have milked this franchise to death. Expand
  23. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    MW3..cod4 graphics..maps worst then MW 1+2..same guns..same engin..same crappy game MW3 = FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIL...SHAME ON U ACTIVATION ...REALLY BIG SHAME..we were waiting for this crapy game since last year..THINK AGAIN
  24. 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 year without really aiming to do anything new. Such a shame to see this happen to a once great series. Expand
  25. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    i give this game a 10/10 for quicky yearly releases and a 0/10 for being totally uncreative and boring. its a cut and paste version of another COD MW.
  26. Nov 8, 2011
    5
    Overhyped and repetitious It lives up to its hype somewhat in certain areas of the single player, but the moment you hit multiplayer you realize the developers have just copy/pasted the good aspects of modern warfare 2 and filled the bad ones with even worse. Great campaign presentation filled with huge set pieces that are sure to keep you going that only just make up for its modern warfare 2 look. The story picks straight from where the previous game ended and starts of promising all the way to the end. All loose ends are dealt with, theirs a few small twists and fast paced moments that make up for the dumb AI and problems you know and hate from modern warfare 2, their are still those moments where you feel like your playing follow the leader but theirs no doubt you have more control and as I stated the set pieces are undeniably impressive. That is for the single player at least.
    The moment I hit multiplayer I was to a point horrified at how it actually looked worse than modern warfare 2. And this is running the game max settings@ 90+fps, after playing 5 out of the 15 available maps you can easily tell it has a horrible presentation. The colours are very bland and the textures are almost identical to modern warfare 2. Everything from explosions to smoke effects look the same. The animations have been ripped(literally) from modern warfare 2 (same slip on a banana peel death). The weapon sounds are the same as they were in modern warfare 2 which is no surprise but I don't need to get into that. I never really expect nice visuals from a game such as this but it still doesn't make up for its core aspects. Killstreaks are back and are unbalanced as ever, you now have strike packages that could have worked well but fail miserably due to unbalancing issues. For example the specialist pack gives you a perk for every two kills you get (your a super soldier once you hit 9 kills). The assault pack gives you things such as a Juggernaut killstreak that would take literally a whole M60 clip to kill. If you want zero recoil just throw on a suppressor. Their are so many gimmicks in this game I would need more pages than the bible to write out my essay but I think you get the point. The core COD experience that we love is still their but it simply doesn't make up for its negatives. Their are some aspects that I love that improve further on modern warfare 2s positives but once again are overtaken by all the crap in the game. It also feels very console ported and this is just another big issue I could raise. In the end a game that had potential falls short for the third second time, yes its better than black ops but if you want a true cod experience stick with modern warfare.
    Ok.
    6/10
    Expand
  27. Nov 8, 2011
    6
    A new November, a new Modern Warfare. The game, being a 2011 game does not looks good, at all, compared to other games like Battlefield 3, RAGE or the upcoming Skyrim. The gameplay, the shooting mechanics are nearly the same as in Modern Warfare 2. The campaign is pretty interesting, it connects the first MW with the second, and expands the story. It has interesting twists, and it motivates you to play through the single player campaign, especially if you have played thorugh MW1 and MW2. The enemy AI isn't the best, there are a lot of times when their act is just stupid. They don't care about their lives, they just run through your allies and want to kill you. As I have said, not every and each time, but it happens a lot. The multiplayer is nothing, it is an expanded MW2 multiplayer, with some new maps, new perks, new weapons, kill confirming and with a database sort of thing named CoD Elite, which basically collects information about your play style, your achievements etc etc.... The SP part of the game is interesting, but I hope that I won't see a new Call of Duty game based on the same engine as Modern Warfare. Expand
  28. Nov 8, 2011
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. As much as die hardcore fan of CoD i consider myself, this time i decided to step back after learning my lesson with Black Ops and its pathetic ammounts of DLCs.
    I'm sick of Activision's moneygrub, i'm sick of the overpriced DLC's that offer little almost nothing and i won't support ELITE!.
    That being said, its time to put a stop to this madness. Their greediness has to stop. I can only hope for this franchise to end up like games such as THPS or Guitar Hero.
    Expand
  29. Nov 8, 2011
    1
    To be honest there is no difference between mw2 and mw3, I just cant believe why all magazines are giving this high rating... maybe Activision paid them to do so... everything is same from menus, scenes, set pieces, missions are same like, plant c4, kill endless waves of enemies who spawn at same place..to everything else, So much hype for a campaign that can be finished in as little as 4 hours, we cant improvise video settings on PC (which is I think one of key advantages of playing on a PC over console). Total waste of £40, only good thing is better graphics.. but repetitive and tedious gameplay. Expand
  30. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    Played this, this morning and its just a desaturated mess of a game, the whole thing needs to be updated to make it good, the textures are low, the shadows are to dark, the lighting is terrible, the only colour seems to be shades of gray and the sounds are just annoying, bad show IW, Sledgehammer and Activition, bad show
  31. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    Hello Modern Warfare 2.5... Feeling like someone re-boxed an old mission pack addon for MW2 somewhat. Other than some slightly polished graphical updates, it's all same 'ol, same 'ol so far... disappointed with the whole game.
  32. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    Call of duty 2011 is ready for your play now go back to the previous game and dont bother with this one save ur self some money. Graphics copied, game play copied, multiplayer copied and the campaign ideas are just bland now.
  33. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    very dissapointed the same game again and again year after after year. basically a cod4 map pack. dont get this youl be dissapointed, 0/10. the user reviews are spot on the critics were paid to give good reviews
  34. Nov 8, 2011
    9
    Decent game, lots of fun with friends. Graphics need work though. But still a fun game in its own right. To each his own. Nothing wrong with a linear campaign as long as it gets the story out
  35. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    Like others, I was on board the hype train, right up until I played the game myself. I was disgusted by what I was looking at...I didn't spend $60 on this reused rubbish! The single player was awful! Story was absolute crap and the characters were just flat. I was hoping the graphics was going to get an upgrade judging from the videos and screens before release but ending up being stale just like the previous CoD games. They need to take advice from DICE who have made an exceptionable engine with superb sound effects. I recommend not buying this rubbish and keep playing MW2 AS ITS THE SAME GAME! Spend your money on Skyrim or BF3 as they are bound to be effortlessly better in all aspects. Expand
  36. 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.
  37. Nov 8, 2011
    3
    This game is riddled with flaws and old game mechanics. Activision needs to learn that the key to keeping a game fresh is a new take on the series. -Campaign-

    Modern Warfare 3's campaign offers absolutely nothing to it's players over Modern Warfare 2, and certainly nothing over Call of Duty 4. It's an extremely shallow experience that consists of nothing but scripted sequences and
    corridors. It seems like there are more times you are riding in a vehicle blasting away at people in comparison to just walking around. It's more a movie than a game. Some twists are present, but the story isn't so good to begin with so the twists are inconsequential.

    -Multiplayer-

    The only part of this game I consider playable. On one hand, it looks like they took a cue from Battlefield 3 - all of the weapons have an experience bar to fill. On the other hand, they didn't take much of a cue from anything else, there's no innovation with respect to actual gameplay. It's all familiar things seen in all of the other games except this time it's called Modern Warfare 3. No thanks, I'll stick to BF3 and Skyrim for my gaming needs for now.

    -Graphics-

    Sad. They're still running the game on old technology, and the game still looks and feels like an old game. I don't want to play a game that looks like it came out in 2007 in 2011. It's sad that Activision won't shell out the cash to license a better game engine. That might actually, you know, take considerable effort on the parts of the developers that need to rehash old code to be able to release a game every single year.

    - Map Design -

    It's okay. The maps don't feel much improved from MW2 or it's DLC. I don't have a favorite because they all feel about the same quality-wise.

    -Overall-

    3/10. I would give it a 1/10, but I did enjoy a bit of multiplayer earlier. That's not to say that the score would improve with repeated playing, I'm just saying that there was something enjoyable about the game. Given that this is the FOURTH time Activision has released the same exact game, I guess that says something. The graphics are bad, the multiplayer is uninteresting, and again, there aren't REALLY dedicated servers. Do not buy this if you are a PC gamer, it's not meant for you. Buy it on your XBOX if you just HAVE to stay up and current with the most current gaming trends. Other than that, if you didn't like the Call of Duty series up until now, you aren't going to start with this game. It's not innovative in any way.
    Expand
  38. Nov 8, 2011
    1
    The only thing I can see slightly good about this game is some of the typical action in the campaign, even then the graphics are the same as mw2, if not worse. There is nothing new in this game, the "new" maps are boring, the multiplayer is the same as mw2 and it uses matchmaking. Crap low res textures, Anti aliasing does not appear to work in this game either. It is an overhyped game that gets old in 5 minutes and was not worth my money. There are better FPS games to be played out there, Black ops is better, BF3 is better etc etc Expand
  39. Nov 8, 2011
    5
    Basically this game is MW 2.1 or 2.5 as spec ops is very enjoyable. Single player campaign is a tired, used, and put away wet rehash of past WM titles. My main complaint is how short/easy (even on the hardest lvl). Finally and most disappointing MP is just plain dated; Black Ops could teach this game something in all aspects (balance, maps design, and getting the most out of the graphics engine). It is glaringly obvious that with the departure of the core members of Infinity Ward the "sledgehammer" (aka EA retreads) team assembled in haste was not up the task of creating a "new" CoD experience. In all honestly; considering the leap from World ar War to Black Op's (let's face it Black Ops MP trumps MW2); Treyarch would have been a much better team to tap; even though Activision's payout would have been delay. If you are looking for a $60 (low end and I truly do feel for the hardened Ed ppl) expansion then you will enjoy this game. I admit I too fell for the hype plus boredom of needing a new quality FPS fix; but came away with the feeling my score was cut to nothing. I worry with Activision's rush to cash in on the best FPS name in the market; the series will die out. I do hope their greed, lack of innovation, and pushing out unpolished games to meet quarterly profit goals; does not infect their only remaining quality game developer Blizzard. In closing; please do not lose heart or faith that Treyarch can somehow make a worthy game out of these dated graphic and shell of a stand alone sequel. Expand
  40. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    It's the most disgusting game that I've even seen. I do not wanna even support this MoneyMakingMilking machine! The engine is terrible, the sound is the worst for the game of 2011. Activision can't even make a new engine as fans asked. They just build the game for people who has 7 years old PCs. Even Crysis 1 in 2007 looks better then this MW3 crap
  41. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    while the new streak packages and classes are a welcome change, its not enough! this game is all about running and spraying ur weapon whenever an enemy appears on your crosshair. not to mention the naderpg spam. for PC gamers since MW2 the series has been a slap to the face. Blops gave us back Dedi servers but the overall game itself was really lacking on the PC, with the game in an unplayable state for the first month past release and Wager matches only playable with stupid sucky matchmaking and limited to 6 people! here comes MW3, another slap to the face, do they give us Dedi servers? yes!!! but wait!!! they forgot to mention that all dedicated servers will be UNRANKED(!) and if u want to play on ranked servers and rank up and unlock stuff u'll have to resort to matchmaking ala MW2!! not enough that this game is using the same engine from CoD4, some say its "improved" but to me its just smokes and mirrors. this was once a beautiful series, strong on both PCs and Consoles. now its just a yearly cash-in for Activision. im sure this game will succeed in sales, there are alot of not-so-smart 12yrs old out there waiting to get there hands on it. but for me, i'll stick to other shooters Expand
  42. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    This FPS has just released? In 2011? Let me laugh !! There is no evolution since CoDMW... Just a new campaign, heavier textures and new weapons, not a new game. More than $15 for this, it's just a joke ! There is no game development and no expensive work to release this game.
  43. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    Played it for an hour. Then deleted. It's simply disgusting. It should be a DLC. I had all the video settings maxed, but yet I checked again to make sure it felt like 2001 or something... absolutely disgusting graphics, gameplay is worse than ever, absolutely not playable in all regards.
    Black Ops was WAY better.
    COD will never trick me into buying again. EVER. I swear!
    RIP
  44. Feb 19, 2012
    2
    Why release a new game if you're not going to change anything. I felt as though I was just playing MW2. The online multiplayer was particularly underwhelming, small maps, all of urban combat. So disappointed.
  45. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    Nothing new, just copypasted single and same multiplayer. Old graphic, old souns, stupid maps, same perks. Black ops is even more fun than this stupid game.
  46. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    Money.
    Wasted.
    3rd time.

    (if you were stupid enough to buy it.)     
  47. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    Game is awful, it like mw2.5 its just a mix between mw2 and black ops with a little extra added on top, they really need to make a new engine and improve the bandwith. But i havent played it yet so :)
  48. 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.
  49. Nov 8, 2011
    2
    This game could only come with recommendation if you own no COD games after COD 4 it is literally a $60 map pack. The graphics are actually even worse than previous COD's and there have been zero gameplay changes whatsoever. The campaign is so bad that it's not worth playing. So really the only reason to pick this up would be if you don't own another COD game, in which case I'd recommend you get another COD over this... Expand
  50. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    Pathetic, same game, nothing new, nothing has changed. They even made something impossible to do. After 4 years they managed to make the COD serie WORST, they managed to sell so much games without bringing real new gameplay improvements. They single player, pathetic storyline. The gaming industry is dead, thank you Activision, FPS will never be what it used to be.
  51. 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 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
  52. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    This game deserved an 8 or 9 the first time it came out. However in school I've learned that turning the same thing in twice in a row gets you a 0 the second time. So that's what this copy/pasted game deserves.
  53. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    Very disappointing game. The SP is bland, linear, and boring. The story is also very confusing, and it's obvious they paid no attention to the campaign portion of the game. The graphics are horrible for a AAA title in 2011, they look exactly the same as in MW2. The Multiplayer, although with new content, offers nothing new or refreshing. They even reuse architecture from COD4 and MW2 in some of the maps. Expand
  54. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    I will be honest. My expectations for this game were not very high at all. Like many people here I am one of the ones who feel constantly let down with the direction the series has taken. COD 1, 2, 4, and WaW are some of my most played and favorite games of all time. MW2 and Black ops were a huge letdown to me but even they still had things that set them apart. To me it seems that Activision spent more money on advertising and marketing hype than development. (Then again what do you expect rushing to finish every game in 12-24 months) Anyhow where to start. Single player... A three hour campaign in any blockbuster title is an insult. One that could be forgiven if the multi-player was not a cut and paste of the same game we all forked 70 bucks for two years ago. The SP suffers from the same "infinite enemies until you move 2 ft forward" problem that plagued all of the previous games. It's incredibly linier which was to be expected. It tries to replicate Die Hard with over the top explosions and This years attempt at controversy is kind of cliche' Overall I felt the SP was a massive waste of 3 hours. As mentioned before the multiplayer is Copy-pasta from previous games. Do not expect the level design quality of IW or even treyarch in this title. It's obvious that it was done by a rookie studio. The maps feel cramped and the spawnpoints are still terrible. If you enjoy getting noob tubed in the face on spawn. Then you will likely enjoy this game. I have thus far not mentioned the main competition BF3, but now I feel I must. While I am a PC gamer and enjoy BF3 on PC. I also play COD on my 360 with coworkers and friends. I cannot comment on the console port of BF3 as I have not played it on consoles. I do know that of the 5 of us who bought the game after work last night 4 of us plan on returning it to gamestop later today and getting the console versoin of BF3. Graphically, do not expect anything different. It's still running on a heavily modified Quake 3 engine that is seriously showing its age. I think its time for the guys to build a new engine unfortunately none of the original talent remains employed at activision. I'm sorry Activision. You have milked this one to death. Please stop making these **** expansion packs and marketing them as new games. It's okay. Take a few years build a new engine we will wait. Expand
  55. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    Modern Warfare 2.5 should be the name of this game. Or "how to loose 60 euros like a boss".
  56. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    I have played the greatest Game of all time and I can assure you that MW3 is no Street Sweeper. Mw3 has none of the variety and originality that Street Sweeper has. The Graphics are about the same but have none of the genius and beauty that Street Sweeper has in droves. And while MW3 has Streets it sadly has no Sweeping mode. Fail, Epic Fail.
  57. 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 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
  58. 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
  59. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    I really had high hopes for this game. I know i should not have but I did and there for i am disappointed. For all intensive purposes it is the same game as MW2. The only differences are the plot of the single player and moderately improved graphics. So you are paying $60 for a old game. I am a self admitted COD fan boy i stared playing COD back with the first one. No not MW1 i mean COD1. I finished the campaign in three hours on the max difficulty and only died twice. If they had waited 5 years to make this game and had major improvements. For example COD2 vs COD4 it would have been better but no they basically went into production the second they stopped production of MW2. People always say don't compare Halo and COD but i am willing to bet that more hours of work went into redoing the graphics on Halo CE then went into the Graphics on MW3. I am also willing to bet my game computer that i will enjoy the Halo remake more than i enjoyed this. My disappointment in this game has forced me to do the unthinkable. I will now go back to playing BF3. Expand
  60. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    Pretty sure I've already played this game.

    This is absolutely shameful. I expect better from the games industry, at least some originality. I thought Battlefield 3 was a bit of a disappointment, but Christ. How do they get away with rehashing the same game every year? They shouldn't.
  61. 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
  62. 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.
  63. Nov 8, 2011
    4
    Well, I wasn't expecting much, but this is a disappointment even for my now-lowered expectations for this franchise. There is essentially NO difference between this and MW2. The other thing that pisses me off is that COD4 was a grittier game that made you feel like a special ops badass. MW2 and MW2: Operation Steal Your Money are games that completely remove that immersion factor and are essentially Unreal Tournament with real guns. Not only that, but the killstreaks and perks are complete crap, they have been mutated and twisted from a cool semi-realistic add on into this RPG-like fantasy gimmick that somehow is MORE popular than the original system. This game is complete and utter trash and the criminals at Activision have pulled it off again. Also, the engine they continue to use without improvements is completely outdated and is far inferior to the likes of the continually supported and updated Unreal Engine 3, the innovative and pretty (but buggy) Frostbite 2 Engine, and the gorgeous CryEngine. It's really a shame and I feel cheated that I was tricked into spending my hard-earned money on this expansion pack. That said, it's still a (kind of) fun shoot-em-up that has it's moments, and if you take it for what it is, it's not a bad game. But still, I don't see myself playing this NEARLY as much as I would have played a real successor to MW2 (updated engine, reworked and WELL THOUGHT OUT multiplayer without stupid gimmicks, and a SP campaign with some effort put into it). This game is most certainly being run into the ground by the thieves at Activision and I will not buy another COD game unless it's been thoroughly reworked. It's a darn shame that Activision, instead of a patient and supportive publisher, has the rights to this game. Expand
  64. Nov 8, 2011
    5
    I'll be frank, I'm a fan of the series. I really like that Activision brought fps war gaming out of WWII and into something that hits a little closer to home. The third instalment has a nice little wrap up to the story, albeit a tad predictable (I honestly think the first MW's story was the better). The co-op is a little tired but the survival mode is fun enough. However, I am once again let down by the major flaw in multiplayer, something called IWNet. Living in Australia with its **** internet, client-side hosting is the worst possible thing you can do to PC users here. It turns what would be quite an excellent and engaging multiplayer experience into a highly irritating and frustrating lag-fest, where you appear to be knifing an enemy in front of you, but in reality he was 5 metres away and shot you in the face. Over and over again. Yes there are dedicated servers this time around but, insultingly, they are unranked, which completely drains the attraction of levelling your skills and unlocking new weapons and abilities. It does get plusses for the inclusion of support pointstreaks and weapon levelling which are great ideas. Long story short: disappointing.

    PS: After reading some of the positive reviews from this and the other platforms, two things: anything bad to say about the game does not a 10 out of 10 make; and anyone who rages about the so called "BF3 Fanboys", your reviews are as much of a fail as theirs may be. For the record, I have played BF3 and it's fine but I don't like it a heck of a lot.
    Expand
  65. 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.
  66. Nov 10, 2011
    2
    A waste of my Alienware rig. Same old B.S Activision have just bundled MW2 in a different box and cut the campaign down even more. A complete P.O.S Even veteran is a walk in the park as though they have watered down the experience for the casual market. I would rather play DNF at least it is challenging
  67. Nov 8, 2011
    3
    Ok first the good, The set pieces in the campaign are epic! Don't get me wrong, they have all been used in past CoD's but they still wow today. Also Dedicated servers makes a return! This has been a much sort after feature, although there are some serious downsides, I will mention them shortly.

    The Bad? Well lets dive into this shall we? First off, the graphics, engine, textures,
    animations, sound effects...Everything is copy & paste from MW2 which in effect was C&P from MW1. Essentially, I just paid £40 to play MW1 all over again. Second, Dedicated servers are not ranked?! this is rediculous and frankly defeated the point of re-adding them in. All in All, an absolute waste of money, if only i could get my money back. If your looking for a game which is fresh, requires a level of skill and has much improves graphics and gameplay, Battlefield 3 is the one to go for. Ignore the fans saying its down to preference, they are both Modern First Person Shooters, Battlefield is definately the better option in this case. Expand
  68. Nov 8, 2011
    3
    GFX are outdated.... Multiplayer matches are too quick.... No real change from the previous Modern Warfare... Very disapointing. I think the developer is scared to try some new features for fear of loosing the masses that have bought the previous versions.... It may just be saturation of the COD brand but I was not impressed with the latest installment. I think they need to take some time off (every 6 months...?) and work on adding features to make for a new experience... These just feel like an expansion pack starting from COD4. Expand
  69. Nov 8, 2011
    1
    Cheesy storyline, cheesy everything. I have every Call of Duty in the series, and this is the last one I've bought. I've had enough of this overhyped **** If you can and want to live off of excited, ignorant children, then fine. You're losing hardcore fans. No, you already did. See you later, I hope so atleast.
  70. 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.
  71. Nov 8, 2011
    2
    There's not much to say about the Call of Duty series any more. They have used the same engine for years, the game itself offers nothing to the FPS industry, let alone the gaming industry apart from disappointment. MW3 seems more of a fix for the previous games and to correct the imbalance during online gameplay. If you ignore the statements above and look at the current state of the game it seems they have been aiming more towards the casual audience with more perks for ease of play that will drive some hardcore players over the edge and seeking other FPS games. Expand
  72. 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,
    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
  73. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    This isn't worth the 60$ price tag, it's basically an expansion pack. I guarantee within a couple months there will be MW3 maps on CoD4, which will be more fun than playing it on MW3. Modders on CoD4 did it with MW2 maps // guns, I expect the same to happen again.
  74. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Another year. another CoD. It is feeling like EA's yearly cash cow, sports games. The campaign is, to wrap it up, Is old. A sense of 'been there, done that', over use of player character death, MW1's nuke death is still the best player character death of series for your information activision, so stop forcing more player deaths in the campaign! it is old now. That is really the only highlight I have of the campaign. a vision of when the series was good, new.

    IF I was reviewing this for consoles I would give it a 2, for the been there, done that already, feel But this is PC. a horrible port at that. Dedicated severs are in! Sounds like something to celebrate. But no, Dedicated severs are unranked, You can not level up using the strong online PC severs, Instead you have to play ranked games the console way: click start and hope the sever is in a nice ping range.
    And than there is just the horrible PC port itself. Just an after thought for more cash cowing.
    Expand
  75. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Waited until 2 am for this game to finish downloading and all I recieved was MW2 with different maps. This is definitely not worth 60 bucks and should have been released as DLC instead. The online now has 9 death streaks instead of removing them altogether. The storyline is garbage and everything in the campaign has been done in previous CoDs. Sledgehammer asked the community for our honest reviews and here is mine. Expand
  76. Nov 10, 2011
    3
    The single player is worth playing, other than that the, multilayer is rehashed crap, go play black ops if you want to play an ok cod game, this is stale beyond belief.
  77. Nov 9, 2011
    8
    I dare you to check the recent reviews of just about anyone on this site who rated this game poorly. Almost all of them rated battlefield 3 with 10 and MW3 0. Do you honestly think any BF3 fanboys actually purchased and played MW3? Probably not. And there are fanboys on both sides, and all of them are just as stupid and ignorant.

    That being said, I'm honestly having fun with this game.
    The controls feel tighter than MW2 did, the maps have more flanking routes, the textures look better (Not nearly close to BF3 though, I might add), and the guns feel more balanced. Saying this is simply a 60$ map pack is nothing short of ignorant, because the last time I checked, map packs didn't add new perks, guns, killstreaks, and gamemodes. Though, I'm not saying this isn't VERY similar to MW2. But is that really a bad thing? Not really. It worked well in the past, and it works well now. If it ain't broke, why fix it?

    Now, I'm not a CoD fanboy. I've played my share of BC2 and enjoyed it, so I picked up BF3 a few days after launch and have enjoyed it. But comparing the two games is retarded, because they're both very different. Do you ever hear people comparing halo and call of duty? No? Well, that's because it makes no sense. Just **** listen to yourselves, you're bashing a game that you haven't even played, which makes no sense. If you have played it enough to know you honestly didn't enjoy it, that's fine, as least you're not one of the ignorant fanboys. I really do like this game, but I also like battlefield 3. And I'm going to be playing both, because both are fun. In their own SEPARATE ways. (BF3 for graphics and realism, MW3 for fast-paced exciting gameplay)
    Expand
  78. Nov 8, 2011
    5
    The good. The engine. Same as its been, but its good. No reason to mess with a good thing.
    The meh. The graphics. These graphics were very nice, 4 or 5 years ago now... now its simply Xbox graphics that don't stand up on the PC.
    The bad. Its not a full retail game. Its DLC or an expansion. Not a lot of changes, just little tweaks here and there. New maps, and a short unimpressive campaign
    that makes you thinkg "Haven't I played this already"

    If you're playing for multiplayer... there was really no reason for a new game. Its MW2 with new maps and an update patch. COD needs to take a year off and really put some time into a game... but they won't. Its all about getting more and more games out to make more and more money.
    Expand
  79. Nov 8, 2011
    2
    YOu know people say that sequel is worse than the original but MW3 is different. It exactly the same. Nothing has changed at all. Absolutely. They just made bunch of new maps for a multiplayer, wrote **** scenario(and if MW2 scenario was good MW3 scenario is much worse. Even worse than Black Ops) and released it as a new game. Graphics is absolutely the same. NOTHING HAS CHANGED ABSOLUTLEY. Ofcourse Activision had paid a lot of money to get high scores in the reviews but MW3 doesn't deserve 9.0 it deserves 7.0 at best and as a simple map pack it doesn't worth 50$. Don't spend your money on it unless you are one of these blind CoD fans. + bugs lags and freezes @ PC version that holds any other moder FPS at 60 fps. What the **** MW3? Expand
  80. Nov 14, 2011
    0
    This game fails on many levels. Too many to name here. A blockbuster robbery of taking our 60 bucks. They repackaged mw2 and changed a perk or 2 and pushed it out the door to sell. I am pissd. I can't believe how they did not listen to one single thing from the PC community. The dedicated servers are not ranked so we have to play with horrible lag that erupts from the terrible iwnet and matchmaking mess that comes with this piece of garbage. I want a refund. I could have bought 2 ubisoft games and had more fun and more support. This game will require 4 patches to make it playable. Expand
  81. Nov 14, 2011
    0
    hollywood strikes again, delivering us yet another copy and paste game.
    yeah you got record sales? so did justin bieber. does that mean anything? nope.

    ugh, so upset i wasted my money on this console game.
  82. Nov 8, 2011
    10
    Great game. I can say that because I actually played it. I like the new point/killstreak system. It really benefits the objective based game type player.
  83. Nov 9, 2011
    7
    As far as FPS games go I've played the CoD series almost exclusively over the years logging in literally thousands of hours. Anyone should know before buying this game that you aren't paying $60 USD for a single player game. That being said, it is still frusturating to see them using the same engine with the same outdated graphics over and over. But, as a wise man once said, "if it ain't broke don't fix it." Or something like that. There is a reason this is the most popular shooting game in history. There is a reason that 90% of the reviewers who gave this game a score of zero are probably online right now trying to get the next unlock for their weapons. It is a quick, simple, fun to play game that will bring me hours of enjoyment over the next year. So here it is:
    7/10
    -1 for crap singleplayer mode THAT WE ALL KNEW WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.
    -1 for seriously outdated game engine. (Mark my words they will have a new engine next year)
    -1 for no ranked dedicated servers on the PC. (Lobbies? Intermissions? WTF that's lame.)
    Expand
  84. Nov 10, 2011
    6
    Yet again rate " professional critics " this game very high while we consumers , in general , think it sucks. These reviewers have lost all perspective and insight in what their readers think and expect . The argument now by "professional reviewers" is that "fans"of BF3 are posting negative comments . I am 35 year old consumer who buys games and am no fan of any corporate entity or product. If the games are good they get a high score, if they suck they get a low score. I think that counts for most reviewers here as we just want to keep others from spending 60 bucks on a bad product . A computer game is not like buying another product. WE find out after we already paid that we got screwed Expand
  85. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Tried this game in a store on a console and was COMPLETELY convinced I was playing MW2 the entire time. this game is an insult to the gaming community, it's a digital Bigmac; it smells and looks pretty tasty but after you've had a taste you just want to puke.
  86. Nov 8, 2011
    7
    If you are new to the call of duty this is a fantastic game, 5 years of gradual improvements have led to the most refined iteration of the series, although the graphics are somewhat lacking in to comparison to battlefield 3, they are perfectly adequate for the smaller indoor settings with are synonymous with call of duty. multiplayer offers many improvements over the previous modern warfare including the return of dedicated servers and even LAN support which is becoming rarer and rarer in modern PC games, the improvements to the kill-streak system are great and overall the game feels more fluid then past call of duty's. singleplayer follows the same formula that has been successful in the past games, and while the story isn't a masterpiece it is defiantly fun and the fast paced scripted campaign is well refined. spec ops returns and once again it includes a great variety of missions in which there is some very well designed 2 player coop, survival mode is also enjoyable but gets boring pretty fast. whether this game is worth buying or not will depend, technically the game is not a huge improvement on previous call of duty's and if you have modern warfare 2, you will probably find it hard to justify the $100us (in Australia) buying price on steam which is quiet frankly ridiculous. but if you are new to the series i would recommend this game as it offers the most refined version of what is, technically a very decent first person shooter. Expand
  87. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Dear Mr.Glen Schofield

    Please go back and make a better game. Please don't use the same sounds, engine, visuals and much much more every year on year. If you want peoples money (even though you already got it) then please treat your costumers with some dignity. Now lets not talk about the horrible campaign that no one will ever remember or care about. But why not focus all your resources
    on the online mode which is what everyone is paying to play. You made 16 maps for this game on launch day and you think they are worth 60$?

    Go back to the drawing board and rethink your strategies. You think that Counter-Strike is what it is because Valve treat their costumers like you?

    Thank you!
    Expand
  88. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    If you want to pay for a new version of a game you've already beaten many times before then pick up Metal Gear Solid HD Collection(It has 3 games remade in HD as well as both Metal Gear 1 & 2 and a third side-game. All for 50 bucks), not this reskin of MW2. Aside from having the most brains-off Hollywood plot ever(the writers basically picked names for the Russian from a list Chechen terrorists and generic Russian names). It has the exact same gameplay as every other recent CoD release and they even reuse the vast majority of the guns from the last MW title, only giving the reused models slight additions and reskins. This game is in no way worth your hard-earned 80 dollars. I bought it and am extremely unsatisfied with my purchase. If you want a high quality modern fps game you should try out ArmA 2 or wait for ArmA 3, these games have been made by people who actually care about their product and will not attempt to use the brand name to recycle the same product and sell it to you for full price each year.

    Disregard the reviews from gamespot and the like, they issue out numbers based on how much advertising a publisher buys on their website as well as the general hype behind the game. They might give MW3 and 85 for a score but I guarantee they had MW3 ads running along the sides of their webpages before their review was even out. It's just another example of shoddy journalism doing nothing to spur advances in gaming, judging by those reviews everyone should be happy with having the same thing year after year with no improvements. It's ridiculous. In closing: Don't buy this game, put your money towards a title that has the dignity not to sell you backwash every year.
    Expand
  89. 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.
  90. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    This game has been copy and pasted since 2007. The campaign is standard for a game in this series, linear and predictable. Nothing significant has changed in the multiplayer. The quality of the graphics has not changed. Still no full co-operative mode.

    As a consumer, I am insulted by the lack of innovation that has been made in this series. 4 years is a significant period of my life,
    spent waiting for something, ANYTHING to happen with this series, that I will never get back. And here I am once again, disappointed with this November's rehash of the game that came out in 2007. Expand
  91. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    This game is just another death knell of the FPS genre. Activision is riding previous success by releasing yet another clone that adds nothing progressive to the series. It's unfortunate that the massive amount of money they make is not being used to create something new. It appears this time they didn't even bother to update the graphics, despite the amazing graphics in their competitor's Battlefield 3. There are many great games coming out in the following months, don't waste your money on this one. Expand
  92. Nov 8, 2011
    0
    After paying $60 on this game I went home and put it in my PS3. After a couple hours of gameplay I realized I had been ripped off! I looked in my DVD rack and grabbed a CoD game I bought 2 years ago, it looked the same but had a 2 on it instead of a 3. I then realized it is the same exact game, with a few minor tweaks. Biggest waste of money ever. Yet, there are still trolls on the internet like Destructoid's own Jimmyx Sterling getting paid big bucks to give it high review scores. Expand
  93. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    The only statement or what is has confirmed is the absolute lack of reliability professional game reviewers hold. A social commentary, of the degradation of the human race. The reason PC gamers judge call of duty so harshly and more than console gamers is the fact that they're is just countless games on the PC that provide actual quality entertainment unlike COD.
  94. Nov 11, 2011
    0
    Why drop $60 on a game which had hacks and aimbots on the first day and which the developer does nothing to fix? Go to Youtube and lookup "First Ever MW3 Aimbot". Also lookup the number of bots/hacks/cheats for Call of Duty 2 you will see plenty of them that are still active and that the developer has done nothing about. That speaks volumes about this company and its' priorities. It is also sad that they are going to charge you an extra charge for their Elite service when the rankings are already skewed due to aimbots. If I am going to spend $60 on this game I want support that will fix these issues and punish those that it finds cheating. They really dropped the ball on this franchise with this rushed, buggy, hacked piece of junk. Expand
  95. Nov 8, 2011
    2
    The same, same...The first year is fantastic, the second good, the thirth aceptable... but next games, identicals... no, thank you. Activision must change or rest for a years and come back with fresh air.
  96. 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 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
  97. Nov 10, 2011
    5
    This is not a bad game but it feels like I've played it two years ago. The campaign was short, but it had the same size of MW2, the multi-player is basically the same as MW2, so there is no much motive to begin all over again. The graphics are a little bit better, but is because they implemented SSAO, this graphics engine cannot be more improved than this, it's time to move on to a new engine, there are plenty of them out there.
    Resuming, the fun factor is almost gone from this game, you are basically buying the same game that was released two years ago, I'm afraid that this one can be the beginning of the end in the Call of Duty series.
    Expand
  98. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Just a rehash of Modern Warfare 2. The campaign is a joke and can be completed in less than 4 hour's. The multiplayer is the laggiest experience I have ever had, even if you are the host. I have a top of the range pc and the best internet connection you can get as a residential customer in the UK 100Mb down and 10Mb up, and I still lag like crazy. The graphic's have had a bit of a improvement over Modern Warfare 2 but, nothing special that I could notice.

    The weapon sound's have not changed other than adding a shed load of bass to them in my oppinion. The multiplayer map's and player count are just to small to actually be able to have any sort of a good gaming experience, because whenever you run round a corner 90% of the time you will run in to the enemy player who has just killed you on the other side of the map within 15 second's of spawning.

    There is just something missing from this game and I cannot give it a better rating than 0 simply because there is nothing new at all in this game, compared to previous versions and it just feel's that it was rushed together by people who did not know what the Call Of Duty gamers wanted from the game.

    If it was not for it being linked to my Steam account and therefore unable to be taken back and traded or sold I would, have done it within the 1st 4 hour's of playing this game.

    I have played all the Call Of Duty games on the PC and I have played them all on the Xbox 360 as well, and I have to say other than the better draw distances on the PC version of the game's I have to say they are all the same game graphically and suffer with the same fault's etc.

    This is the last Call Of Duty game I will ever buy because I will not accept a copy and paste of last year's game with a new name anymore, especially when they don't try to hide it as well.

    For those who have played it and those who wish to play it, this will be abit of a spoiler.

    On a certain level in the campaign game there is a section where you enter a building, and if you look around you will see that it is the same building as the one on Pipeline on Call Of Duty 4, where you could climb a ladder to get on the roof of the warehouse., and that just show's how much of a copy and paste this game actually is.

    To really show how bad thing's are for the PC gamer's they were left till around 2 week's before the release date before being informed that the Dedicated Server's that were being issued with this game would be unranked and therefore to Rank up you have to use the IWNet system of Peer to Peer hosting, on gamers home internet connection's and whilst it seem's the searching for the host has improved it is still suffering from the exact same problem's that it suffered in Modern Warfare 2.

    This game has also been ruined by the amount of cheater's, as well in this game already because the game utilises the Valve Anti Cheat system which just does not seem capable of catching people using the cheat's, and if on the off chance it does it can take anything up to 3 month's to ban them.

    The game engine is tired and need's to be replaced, as does the developers because in my oppinion they have lost the spark that made this game great when it was first unleashed on to the world.

    Maybe in the future Infinity Ward, and Treyarch as well as the other various developer's involved in the production of Call Of Duty game, will actually redesign the whole game and bring back that spark that was so special to the fan's of the series with Call Of Duty 4, but until that day I can only see thing's getting worse for them considering other games are starting to improve and take fan's of the Call Of Duty series away from them.
    Expand
  99. Nov 8, 2011
    1
    this game is an absolute rubbish. the maps are cluttered and there are too many hiding places. making it a camper's heaven. the sound effects is just like black ops ; UNINSPIRING(like you are shooting MATCHSTICKS). in fact everything about is looks and feel so blackopish. it feels like it was made by treyarch rather than infinity ward.spawning is bad (all over the place)and the action is not continuous because you keep looking for your opponent who is camping.
    the reason why i prefer mw2 is that those hiding places are limited and you can easily flush out the campers. a good sniper is usually enough for tubers.the maps are not cluttered with trucks ,crates etc.
    while trying to make the game feel real, the makers have failed to remember one important thing. it is only a game and the enjoyment factor is the reason people buy games.where do i start if i wanted to build a game
    start with mw2 ,limit the no of tube grenade per match to 10. power down some of those weapons like g18, make it harder to hack,new maps and weapons,limit kill streak rewards to one of each per match, include new modes and maybe you will get some good feedback.
    for me in terms of enjoyability mw2 trumps blackops and mw3 because the action is continuous and your choice of weapon , perks and attachment really matters in the game. in mw3 ,the weapons all have the seem to be deadly. you get little feedback when you are being shot at.you are dead before you are able to react. bullet go through all materials in the game etc.i can gop on and on. i can go on and on.
    activision is making the same mistakes EA made with command and command 4. they rip the soul out of it , exploited it and left it a shell of its former self. for me, the £40 spent was a waste of money.
    Expand
  100. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    This review contains spoilers. A laughable campaign, no dedicated servers, outdated engine are just tips of the iceberg of crap that's called MW3. There's no innovation going on, everything it offers you've seen in other games. The child killing scene is just a sad attempt at stirring up controvery once more, because when your game offers nothing interesting you better kill some children to get the media going. Collapse
  101. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    This review contains spoilers. A laughable campaign, no dedicated servers, outdated engine are just tips of the iceberg of crap that's called MW3. There's no innovation going on, everything it offers you've seen in other games. The child killing scene is just a sad attempt at stirring up controvery once more, because when your game offers nothing interesting you better kill some children to get the media going. Collapse
Metascore
78

Generally favorable reviews - based on 26 Critics

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