Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 Image
Metascore
88

Generally favorable reviews - based on 39 Critic Reviews What's this?

User Score
3.3

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 5304 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Summary: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is a direct sequel to the previous game in the series, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, with a campaign storyline continuing the struggle of U.S. forces against an invasion by the Russian Federation following the framing of an undercover U.S. agent in aCall of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is a direct sequel to the previous game in the series, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, with a campaign storyline continuing the struggle of U.S. forces against an invasion by the Russian Federation following the framing of an undercover U.S. agent in a terrorist attack on Moscow. Together with classic Call of Duty multi-character control, Modern Warfare 3 contains deep multiplayer support, including two-player Co-op Survival mode. The game also contains all-new Kill Streak categories and customizable strike packages that offer more options for player combat styles and strategies. Expand
Buy On

Trailer

Play Sound
Please enter your birth date to watch this video:
You are not allowed to view this material at this time.
Operation Kingfish Trailer
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 38 out of 39
  2. Negative: 0 out of 39
  1. Nov 8, 2011
    100
    Modern Warfare 3 concludes the trilogy with a solo campaign that goes beyond my expectations, and a multiplayer with subtle yet efficient revisions. It boasts better balancing and takes into account the supportive players more than ever compared to the regular solo guns blazing hero. Quite comprehensive, it also re-introduces the beloved Spec Ops mode, and the launch of Call of Duty Elite grants him the best available service in that category. Even though in terms of production values, and scope of the competitive multiplayer, Battlefield 3 harms Activision's champion, it remains a title that is firmly anchored to its traditional strengths, and doesn't get lazy. The lovers will be ecstatic, the haters gonna hate.
  2. Nov 15, 2011
    90
    Modern Warfare 3 doesn't bring a lot of new stuff to the table, but it has refined single-player and multiplayer experiences to the point where they are as slick as any Hollywood production.
  3. Nov 8, 2011
    90
    Modern Warfare 3 meets expectations. The core elements of multiplayer and the campaign remain fundamentally unchanged, but the game serves as a great example of how many subtle tweaks can add up to an improved overall product.
  4. Feb 10, 2012
    90
    There's a tangible insistence from gamers that this series needs to evolve, but it seems unwarranted when it still leads the FPS class. The engine's definitely in need of an overhaul, but when it comes to thumping set-pieces and addictive multiplayer design, Modern Warfare 3 is still in a league of its own.
  5. Nov 22, 2011
    86
    It's all too familiar to MW2, and the multiplayer hasn't really changed either.
  6. Nov 28, 2011
    85
    Some will be disappointed by the fact that MW3 is not a drastic departure from previous iterations of the series and that is a very valid criticism. MW3 still offers so much content and still proves to be one of the best online experiences around. MW3 is a game that will certainly keep you busy until next year's release.
  7. Nov 8, 2011
    70
    Modern Warfare 3 doesn't reinvent gunpowder, but sticks to the recipe of the previous games in the series. With a decent story and good multiplayer it's a game worth playing, but the lack of willingness to add improvements in gameplay show a laziness often found in a complacent game series.

See all 39 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Nov 8, 2011
    10
    So it's an expensive map-pack? Correct. However you won't find more people online playing a game with a more solid foundation and set ofSo it's an expensive map-pack? Correct. However you won't find more people online playing a game with a more solid foundation and set of mechanics. Shame? Yes. Could they have done more? Yes x2. Is it still going to keep you hooked for months? Yes x3. Expand
  2. May 18, 2013
    10
    well,i had to say,it's a great game,it shocked me when i see your score,cod 8 develop less,but, it's amazing as usual,you know,a game once awell,i had to say,it's a great game,it shocked me when i see your score,cod 8 develop less,but, it's amazing as usual,you know,a game once a year,it's so hard to do ,i thought it's better than most of other FPS games Expand
  3. Nov 29, 2011
    9
    I would firstly start by questioning whether anyone actually realises what a sequel is. Its meant to have many qualities which are similarI would firstly start by questioning whether anyone actually realises what a sequel is. Its meant to have many qualities which are similar while adding and changing certain things and finishing the story. It's a shooter so there's only so much that can be changed. There are a few problems, hence the 9 and not 10 (you dont have to give it a 0 just because its not perfect or what you wanted). There are still flaws in the MP such as knifing through air and lag; and the campaign is too short, but these are redeemed through everything else. Before going on ill also address the whole stupid Battlefield vs MW thing. Why cant people just like both? I do. I prefer MW3 But would never say that BF3 is a bad game. They are so similar in some ways that it makes more sense to either like or hate both. The set pieces in BF3 are weak and feel lifeless no matter how interactive they tried to make them, but the MP is more strategic which is good and so why choose if I had the money id get both but couldnt (have seen BF played through and had a go though). MW3 nicely wraps up the story of the game with plenty of dramatic moments or twists which keep you interested and eager to find out what will happen next. The characters aren't very deep ( the usual macho men that you get in every war game) and yet they still manage to make you care about their fate on more than one occasion.The plot itself could be considered a little thin but does make sense and create an adequate sense of tension. The storyline moves along so quickly that some details are skimmed over and so it's hard to understand what is going on at times; on the other hand the pace keeps things interesting and no level or section of the story drags on for too long and becomes boring. The huge set-pieces in the game deliver such mind-blowing impact that you feel like youre really fighting for your life. There are just the right amount of explosions and things falling down around you to exemplify the destruction of that a third world war would bring without getting ridiculous. Each level has a different atmosphere from the last based on what had happened in the last level or the mise-en-scene of the current level. New York drops you in the middle of a fast-paced shootout through the streets, while Paris is an eerie, ghostown-like environment. Some sounds and textures may be recycled but this does not ruin anything at all. The guns have more of a 'feel' to them than in any shooter i've played. They look and sound lethal and really get you feelinf like youre firing the gun (my personal favourite being the M4A1, it just sounds so good). I don't understand most of the criticism of the visuals, they're good, no worse than any other game out there and are superior to other MW games. Despite the short campaign I did come out of it feeling satisfied because although it only took around 5 hours to finish, they were a damn good five hours and I had no problem moving on to higher difficulties just to have an excuse to play it again. Not only that, the MP and spec ops provide plenty of replatability. Spec Ops has two types now: Missions and Survival. Survival is infinitely replayable and i've actaully never got bored of playing it. Playing with different people creates a different experience and 16 levels is plenty to choose from, and despite not making new levels especially for it the MP maps also fit playing survival (actually better in some cases). The levelling up system to unlock upgrades and weapons for use in survival mode also adds an element which encourages you to play on even beyond the fact that its just genuinely fun, especially with a friend. The missions are more of a mixed bag with some being better than others but generally being very well designed. Most of them become incredibly hard (for me anyway) on veteran difficulty and so there's many many hours more gameplay in trying to complete them; additionally, what's not to like about being able to just pick a mission and jump in to a juggernaut suit anytime you like?

    The multiplayer has plenty of flaws. But every single MP i've played has for the first month or so and there's not too many compared to, say, Resistance 3. Some of the maps are a little poorly designed and too labyrinthine or just having too many, too good camping spots. However the leveling up system is a large improvement on any other MW game. The weapon levels add an extra element to how you have to improve your guns and proficiencies allow further customisation of your class. The prestige shop is a nice little touch aswell. The perks are more balanced than ever before with some countering others and needing to be used more tactically than usual. The new killstreak system with support, assault and specialist packages allow newer players to stand more of a chance and allow there to be a greater variation of killstreaks available while also rewarding players who can get the higher level killstreaks with worthwhile rewards.
    Expand
  4. Nov 9, 2011
    3
    Ok. I will start by saying that I've been a fan of Call of Duty before it even came to consoles. I lowered my expectations for MW3 becauseOk. I will start by saying that I've been a fan of Call of Duty before it even came to consoles. I lowered my expectations for MW3 because of how Black Ops turned out. Both being fun games, but hugely flawed due to Activision being so money hungry and not letting the developers really stretch their legs. From the time of release all I've played is multiplayer, and although it is addictive as its predecessors, it is addictive for the wrong reasons. Some of the reviews for this game say "more unlockables are needed, give me more" but that is the problem. There are way too many options with kill streaks/point streaks/perks that it takes the real fun out of what most people love about FPS. Take Battlefield 3 for example (ya, i know, direct competition), many improvements were made, some little ones coming straight from COD, but they left the core of the game play intact without "whoring out" the franchise and most importantly UPDATED AND IMPROVED GRAPHICS. As one reviewer mentioned the firings at IW being the root of this issue, I say it has little to do with that, and more to do with the addition of Sledgehammer. This game has less server issues than the last few releases, but there is far too much inconsistency with "hitmarkers" (shooting opponents with full clips and no results) and the general feel of shooting ANY gun in this game feels over tweaked, away from how the other MW's felt and the result is obvious; Sledgehammer tried to do too much.

    Although my points here were spotty here, that is a direct result of what they have done to the gamers, and with this franchise. And even though I'll be labeled a hypocrite, i'll still be giving this game chance after chance due to many friends having the game and give the developers more chances to make updates to improve the gameplay.
    Expand
  5. Nov 10, 2011
    1
    Game sucks, nothing new, expected more, game is overated. Read the user reviews, not the reviews that Activision had paid to give them. ForGame sucks, nothing new, expected more, game is overated. Read the user reviews, not the reviews that Activision had paid to give them. For the amount of money they get from custumers from the game, map packs and elite, they should have given us a better game. Expand
  6. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    bonjour excusez moi mais mw3 c est une merde vous avez trop pensez a largent des bonus de merde et des maps de merde on s est fait avoir enbonjour excusez moi mais mw3 c est une merde vous avez trop pensez a largent des bonus de merde et des maps de merde on s est fait avoir en plus de ca vous voulez qu on paye les dlc grosse arnaque !!! Expand
  7. Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Nothing new here, campaign is the definition of generic, co-op has been done way better in other games such as Battlefield 3 and even BlackNothing new here, campaign is the definition of generic, co-op has been done way better in other games such as Battlefield 3 and even Black Ops Zombies, and the multiplayer, dear god, not only is it unbalanced and unoriginal, if you don't have a good Internet connection, GIVE UP, the guns feel sluggish and slow and the community are a bunch of loud, racist, homophobic, 10 year old group of ignorant idiots.

    In short, don't buy, your money is much better spent elsewhere.
    Expand

See all 2249 User Reviews

Trailers

Related Articles

  1. Fall 2011 Videogame Preview: Key Upcoming Releases

    Fall 2011 Videogame Preview: Key Upcoming Releases Image
    Published: September 13, 2011
    We take a look at the biggest games due out between now and the end of the year, from "Uncharted 3" to "Battlefield 3" to "Modern Warfare 3." It looks like three is indeed the magic number.
  2. The Most Anticipated Games of 2011, Part 1: Multi-Platform Titles

    The Most Anticipated Games of 2011, Part 1: Multi-Platform Titles Image
    Published: January 13, 2011
    Our 2011 videogame preview kicks off with a look at the two dozen most-anticipated titles that will be available for multiple platforms, from Portal 2 to Mass Effect 3.