Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

 PC
User Score
3.1

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 5706 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1,201 out of 5706
  2. Mixed: 740 out of 5706
  3. Negative: 3,765 out of 5706
Buy Now
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
view
per page
  1. cryhax
    Nov 9, 2011
    4
    This game is exactly what I expected - nothing new or surprising. I had hoped that there would be some 'wow' factor or that the developers would at least master a concept that Counter Strike (circa 1999) had mastered - mainly that players wouldn't get killed by spraying players after ducking behind a solid wall (ex_interp 0). Don't get confused... shooting bullets into a wall with a playerThis game is exactly what I expected - nothing new or surprising. I had hoped that there would be some 'wow' factor or that the developers would at least master a concept that Counter Strike (circa 1999) had mastered - mainly that players wouldn't get killed by spraying players after ducking behind a solid wall (ex_interp 0). Don't get confused... shooting bullets into a wall with a player behind should do damage based on whether the wall is brick (no dmg) or wood (~70%). But getting killed by a player who you lost line of sight on 5 seconds ago is pathetic. Congratulations to Activision in combination with Sledgehammer, Treyarch, and Infinity Ward (you know, the fake one activision filled out after booting West and Zampella) for making me feel stupid for giving COD a 2nd chance after the blunder that was Black Ops. Won't happen again.… Expand
  2. liho1eye
    Nov 13, 2011
    4
    None of the big issues from BO and MW2 were fixed. The MP is still based on listen servers. Yes, you can play on dedicated servers, but you can't unlock anything there, so you HAVE TO endure craptacular hit reg until you hit max level and unlock everything you need. Respawn system is still hard at work to make you claw your own eyes out. The rest of seems like a copy-paste of MW2, whichNone of the big issues from BO and MW2 were fixed. The MP is still based on listen servers. Yes, you can play on dedicated servers, but you can't unlock anything there, so you HAVE TO endure craptacular hit reg until you hit max level and unlock everything you need. Respawn system is still hard at work to make you claw your own eyes out. The rest of seems like a copy-paste of MW2, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but hardly worth the price of a full game.… Expand
  3. foresterLV
    Nov 14, 2011
    4
    I bought this game for improved MW2 multiplayer, however I found that:
    a) maps are too small comparing to MW2 and are too "connected". This bloodbath is quickly getting bored without some big maps for sniping or long range relief.
    b) they introduced lag compensation which sucks monkey balls! If you have 5 bars connection, and you are host - you are screwed because of the some kind    I bought this game for improved MW2 multiplayer, however I found that:
    a) maps are too small comparing to MW2 and are too "connected". This bloodbath is quickly getting bored without some big maps for sniping or long range relief.
    b) they introduced lag compensation which sucks monkey balls! If you have 5 bars connection, and you are host - you are screwed because of the some kind prediction game engine is doing for bad connection players. To play this game you need to run torrents in the background!
    c) shotguns were nerfed beyond recognition. They added so much recoil to them so it just make sense to use knife instead. In overall this is not improvement, it is more like reduction of MW2 multiplayer fun.    … Expand
  4. DaveOnrefni
    Nov 13, 2011
    4
    Singleplayer was a cinematic blast as it always was and the survival mode is a great addition. However, multiplayer is plagued by lag due to ranked games only being peer-to-peer as the standard for the console systems. I don't understand why the programmers for this game didn't learn the lesson from MW2. There isn't even a chat room during the lobby screen. I appreciate the additionSingleplayer was a cinematic blast as it always was and the survival mode is a great addition. However, multiplayer is plagued by lag due to ranked games only being peer-to-peer as the standard for the console systems. I don't understand why the programmers for this game didn't learn the lesson from MW2. There isn't even a chat room during the lobby screen. I appreciate the addition of the dedicated servers, but they are only available for unranked play. In addition the Server List option is hidden by default, only accessible after digging through the options menu. I can't give this game a 0, because I do enjoy parts of it. The gun play seems great so far, aside from the lag, and I enjoyed the single player, but I don't feel like this game was worth the money I dropped on it. I don't think I can see myself reaching max rank with how hindered I am with latency and turned off by it. They even left thing ping "bars" in instead of giving us actual numbers again. Why couldn't these guys give us ranked servers with similar "play now" functionality of everyone's favorite hat-themed-war-simulator? Click the button, ask for game-type, drop you into a server with that criteria. (That game is now free and still very fun)
    I wish that Call of Duty recycled maps, in addition to giving us these new ones. I mean, what harm can including old maps do? We'll probably have to pay for them. I likely won't buy them, then I'll likely get booted from every game I try playing because I "do not own this DLC" (It's happened with MW2. It once took about 20 minutes trying to find a game I could even join. Then when I finally did, I had one, "red" ping bar. It was terrible.)

    Well, if you stuck around this far, I might as well mention things I -do- like. I do like that my favorite guns are in this game. I like the throwing knife. I like the riot shield.    … Expand
  5. Gracamac
    Nov 13, 2011
    4
    Briefly intro, I've owned Call of Duty II and been an avid fps player for many years now. This is game is mediocre. It was worth the money, but only because I got it for 40% less by buying it overseas. First the single player is fun, but the formula is the same as every other call of duty before it, and i can't help but feel that I've played this before. The graphics are the same asBriefly intro, I've owned Call of Duty II and been an avid fps player for many years now. This is game is mediocre. It was worth the money, but only because I got it for 40% less by buying it overseas. First the single player is fun, but the formula is the same as every other call of duty before it, and i can't help but feel that I've played this before. The graphics are the same as before, but I can't dislike the game for this, the graphics don't make the game. The multiplayer is a joke. The maps are small, the player count is small. There is no strategy. For a PC game i would expect a mature gaming community, but it is all campers. The match making service leaves me with no community, no regular server to go back to. I'm so disappointed with the multiplayer in this game.… Expand
  6. PseudoElite
    Nov 14, 2011
    4
    This isn't a rant from a review "bomber" as the media is putting it, this is a review from a truly disheartened Call of Duty fan and PC gamer. Modern Warfare 3 is unbelievably disappointing for a franchise which used to be the leader in innovation for the FPS genre. Yes the graphics, menus, sound effects, and just about everything else are identical to Modern Warfare 2. I can forgive theThis isn't a rant from a review "bomber" as the media is putting it, this is a review from a truly disheartened Call of Duty fan and PC gamer. Modern Warfare 3 is unbelievably disappointing for a franchise which used to be the leader in innovation for the FPS genre. Yes the graphics, menus, sound effects, and just about everything else are identical to Modern Warfare 2. I can forgive the game to a certain extent for the recycling, but what I cannot accept is how bad the map design, respawns, and matchmaking system is. The maps are smaller than ever, circular mazes of narrow alleys littered with random junk and enemies respawning behind you. 80% of your deaths will be someone who respawned and shot you in your back. Apparently Infinity Ward learned nothing from the failure of the matchmaking system in Modern Warfare 2 as the exact same system is back in full force, and that once again means you cannot kick the many hackers, cheaters, racists, and flamers you will inevitably meet, this of course not counting the fact that you will often experience lag in games where you will shoot half your clip only to see in the killcam that you were standing like an idiot and only managing to fire off 2 bullets. The inclusion of dedicated servers would have fixed 1/2 the issues of what is an "okay" game, but sadly it is not to be. Avoid the PC version, it's not worth the heart ache.… Expand
  7. MellerYeller
    Nov 8, 2011
    4
    While the successful formula is still there, this game is just plain lazy. Sorry. Graphically the game hasn't gotten any better since CoD4 (if not worse). The SAME sounds, SAME animations, SAME guns, and almost everything is recycled and it's painfully obvious. It's sad because it's even more recycled than previous CoDs whereas Black Ops actually looked quite a bit different, there is noWhile the successful formula is still there, this game is just plain lazy. Sorry. Graphically the game hasn't gotten any better since CoD4 (if not worse). The SAME sounds, SAME animations, SAME guns, and almost everything is recycled and it's painfully obvious. It's sad because it's even more recycled than previous CoDs whereas Black Ops actually looked quite a bit different, there is no difference between this and previous titles in the series. I mean, it's a fun formula but this kind of laziness is inexcusable.… Expand
  8. Dee-Jay
    Dec 21, 2011
    4
    Contrary to those who trashed this game without even playing it, I decided to write a balanced review after splashing out on it and putting in some hours.

    MW3 has a decent single player campaign (although typically short and linear) and reasonable co-op modes, but for me (and most players), it shall be judged upon its multiplayer mode. Now I don't care that it's similar to the last game    Contrary to those who trashed this game without even playing it, I decided to write a balanced review after splashing out on it and putting in some hours.

    MW3 has a decent single player campaign (although typically short and linear) and reasonable co-op modes, but for me (and most players), it shall be judged upon its multiplayer mode. Now I don't care that it's similar to the last game (why change a formula which is good?), but several key problems crop up. Probably the same things as everyone else, but never mind (do you get it yet, IW/Sledgehammer/Activision?). They are:

    - No Field of View (FOV) setting in the menu. I dont suffer from motion sickness, but prefer a higher FOV and this game can be a bit disorienting because of the tunnel vision of the narrow forced setting.

    - The maps are rather small, and feel rather "samey". Think Favela from MW2, or Showdown from MW. Like Overgrown from MW and MW2? Forget it - nothing that big here.

    - Some of the weapons seriously need to be balanced better (twin machine pistols are back!!!).

    - The matchmaking is rubbish, seemingly even worse than in MW2! Dedicated servers were put in the game, following the outcry after MW2, but guess what, they're unranked, rendering them pointless to the millions of gamers who play for the rewards of unlocks etc.

    Once again, this should've been a return to form for the CoD franchise, but I'm left disappointed. It's perhaps unfair to blame the developers - they've probably been driven to the wall by Activision to get the game out on time, and reduced their efforts on the PC to get the lucrative console stuff up to scratch.    … Expand
  9. Comanglia
    Dec 15, 2011
    4
    No innovation same old same old, campaign is terrible (unlike the usual mediocre). Still uses basically the same engine as CoDMW2, but for some reason call it something other than IW5. Graphics are okay, but I blame the lack of development in consoles for that. With that in mind MW3 is way to focused on consoles, controls just feel awkward on the PC. Not to mention that MW3 is still usingNo innovation same old same old, campaign is terrible (unlike the usual mediocre). Still uses basically the same engine as CoDMW2, but for some reason call it something other than IW5. Graphics are okay, but I blame the lack of development in consoles for that. With that in mind MW3 is way to focused on consoles, controls just feel awkward on the PC. Not to mention that MW3 is still using basically the same weapons as CoD4 (one of my biggest pet peeves for the recent CoDs). Multiplayer, is p2p still (WTF). Seriously their really isn't much that is done right with MW3. Luckily after playing this game for about 2 hours, I went back to the store and returned it for store credits which I used for Saints Row 3 and some other small stuff.
    Really wish a big name critic would give this 40 or lower, and simply put "We're tired of this ****    … Expand
  10. 8ung
    Nov 8, 2011
    4
    Feels more like a Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1.7 Beta Version. Dated graphic and animation, dated gameplay, heavily (and to make it worse) very obviously scripted events, too many cheap death e.g. by falling. On the technical side inconsistent framerate although meeting optimal hardware requirements. Almost feels as playing a low budget shooter e.g. from City Interactive, which onlyFeels more like a Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1.7 Beta Version. Dated graphic and animation, dated gameplay, heavily (and to make it worse) very obviously scripted events, too many cheap death e.g. by falling. On the technical side inconsistent framerate although meeting optimal hardware requirements. Almost feels as playing a low budget shooter e.g. from City Interactive, which only costs a third. So it may be ok to buy it for 20 $, but not the ridiculous high price they want.… Expand
  11. Rockdrummer357
    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 andWell, 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
  12. HELLBOUND
    Nov 8, 2011
    4
    Ok, so based off the game as if it were the first time we've ever seen this...

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

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

    Now, lets break it down some

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

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

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

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

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

    Single player 1
    Multiplayer 1
    Graphics 1
    replayable 1

    OVERALL = 4    … Expand
  13. sami
    Nov 8, 2011
    4
    -Graphics 4/10
    Outdated. The game has no place on PC with its current price. However, it's well made within its current limitations. On the pc, it's still unacceptable in 2011, almost 2012.
    -Sound design 5/10 Outdated. We've already heard these sounds in cod4 and all of its sequels. -Music, Voiceacting 8/10 Solid music. Solid voiceacting. -Story 0/10 Personally, I don't like it. It's the    -Graphics 4/10
    Outdated. The game has no place on PC with its current price. However, it's well made within its current limitations. On the pc, it's still unacceptable in 2011, almost 2012.
    -Sound design 5/10
    Outdated. We've already heard these sounds in cod4 and all of its sequels.
    -Music, Voiceacting 8/10
    Solid music. Solid voiceacting.
    -Story 0/10
    Personally, I don't like it. It's the typical american over-the-top slapstick war movie. It makes no sense. At one point, you're wasting the life of dozens of people in an attempt to save one guy. IW also has no dignity whatsoever, killing off a child simply to cause controversy and gain attention in the media. Disgusting and disgraceful.
    -Interface 7/10
    Intuitive. Solid.
    -execution of singleplayer 5/10
    It's a railshooter with no freedom. There are infinite spawns, everything is heavily scripted and the NPCs are incredibly stupid. That being said, it's still enjoyable, like playing time crisis in an arcade with lightguns.
    -execution of multiplayer 5/10
    It's solid but nothing to write home about. The unlocks feel tedious and kill the fun, the maps are mostly corridors. I miss big open areas. But, it accomplishes what it tries to accomplish, being a run&gun, brain-off shooter.
    -special mention 1/10
    The game is accompanied by a horrible infantile community that likes to trashtalk and is incredibly annoying. Previous titles have been plagued and ruined by hackers. The singleplayer is incredibly short and easy, even on veteran.
    -Price 0/10
    Frankly, on PC, with this price, it's a scam.

    -Conclusion 3.8/10
    It can be a fun time killer. It has heavy flaws and lags behind technologically. The pricing is unacceptable.    … Expand
  14. Katagena
    Nov 9, 2011
    4
    What a deception ! it's again the same **** ! how the hell this game could be rated 90 ?? In 2006 this game would be awesome.. in 2011 it's the crappiest thing i have ever seen... so lame!
  15. caaiquee
    Nov 9, 2011
    4
    Modern Warfare 3, i was waiting for it, and now i see, the same as Modern Warfare 2, without Nuke and **** " point streaks " come on point streaks ? Just a waste of time and money, i am a big fan of Call of Duty and because of this my score is 4.0. I really hope that activision update de game with killstreaks and some graphics
  16. Boomer8u
    Nov 9, 2011
    4
    Ok to some this game up, just play that two or so games in the series. For starters lets look at the campaign, I would much rather play the first chapter in the original Crysis. Even in a game thats almost 4 years old, Mw3 gets its $!*# rocked as far as graphics go. As a lot of people have said the campaign is like walking down a hallway shooting pop up bad guys with explosions every fewOk to some this game up, just play that two or so games in the series. For starters lets look at the campaign, I would much rather play the first chapter in the original Crysis. Even in a game thats almost 4 years old, Mw3 gets its $!*# rocked as far as graphics go. As a lot of people have said the campaign is like walking down a hallway shooting pop up bad guys with explosions every few minutes. The only reason Im giving this game a four is the online play. A lot of people are comparing it to the last few fames and saying that it sucks but, the modern warfare games are almost a hands down winner. The fun in a lot of games now is the online play and Infinity Ward (or what's left of it), Sledgehammer Games and Raven Software have recognized that and capitalized on that. But like i said before, the graphics, your ability to interact with everything, and any thing else left such. To some this whole review up in a few word, everything sucks besides the shooting online.… Expand
  17. clarky112
    Nov 10, 2011
    4
    So another year comes around, and another re-hash of the tired and worn Call Of Duty Series is released. The same old and short campaign of... Run and shoot here... 50 explosions there... everything gets messy... and 90% of the squad you are with ends up dead. Multiplayer brings the same old experience, adding nothing new to the table, with the lackluster maps, and a couple of new perks,So another year comes around, and another re-hash of the tired and worn Call Of Duty Series is released. The same old and short campaign of... Run and shoot here... 50 explosions there... everything gets messy... and 90% of the squad you are with ends up dead. Multiplayer brings the same old experience, adding nothing new to the table, with the lackluster maps, and a couple of new perks, which aren't at all that exciting. As for the look of the game, nothing has changed since, nor does it stand out, which again dampens the experience (especially when comparing to the likes of other newly released games such as Battlefield 3 and Uncharted 3). The only thing remotely enjoyable was the 'reinvented' Spec Op's mode, which is practically only enjoyable whilst playing with a friend. Experiencing the same mode through random joins i found myself to be doing most of the work, with many neglecting the focus of 'teamwork'. Yet as much as this was enjoyable, the mode becomes stale and repetitive (much like the franchise) very quickly. In hindsight, this game rates very poorly compared to other shooters available on the market today (both new and old). The game is stale and bland and short, whilst at the same time highlights the need for change, if the series wishes to survive and compete within future markets.… Expand
  18. mikeh
    Nov 10, 2011
    4
    A really repetitive campaign with hardly any memorable moments. Out-dated visuals which look like a game from 4 years ago. Mediocre music and sounds.

    The multi-player feels slower than MW2 and the maps are just downright terrible. Lots of models, buildings and textures just copy-pasted from MW2. Overall, I'm seriously disappointed in this and i expected more from IW. Don't waste your    A really repetitive campaign with hardly any memorable moments. Out-dated visuals which look like a game from 4 years ago. Mediocre music and sounds.

    The multi-player feels slower than MW2 and the maps are just downright terrible. Lots of models, buildings and textures just copy-pasted from MW2.

    Overall, I'm seriously disappointed in this and i expected more from IW. Don't waste your money on this, you'd be better off buying MW1 or 2 as both are superior games.    … Expand
  19. nschlip
    Nov 10, 2011
    4
    Where to start? I have been playing COD since the very first game on PC, and IMO Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is the best COD game in the entire franchise. What happened Infinity Ward? Modern Warfare 3 is the same as Black Ops / Modern Warfare 2....it's just more of the same. This game really could have been released as a $30 expansion (or something like that). I don't really understandWhere to start? I have been playing COD since the very first game on PC, and IMO Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is the best COD game in the entire franchise. What happened Infinity Ward? Modern Warfare 3 is the same as Black Ops / Modern Warfare 2....it's just more of the same. This game really could have been released as a $30 expansion (or something like that). I don't really understand what all the hype is surrounding this game (IMO there are much better ones just released and that are coming out). The single player is poor, multiplayer is more of the same, and SpecOps feels like it was tacked on.....There is just not enough here to justify a $60 game. If it was going for $40, ok....that would change this review a bit. To give Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer Games credit, they did do a remarkable job with the graphics (this is at least a four year old engine), and you can tell they worked extremely hard to deliver this. Bottom line, buy this, yes or no?: No - Save your money and play COD: Modern Warfare if you need your "war" game fix.… Expand
  20. Totenkopf04
    Nov 10, 2011
    4
    I note 5 : I really waited its release with all the beautiful promises made. I like the graphics (even if we could expect more after MW2). Some changes in the gameplay bring an added attraction (COD is COD, it's hard to revolutionize completly).
    However, the black spot worthy of a scam from Infinty Ward is their promise that we will have dedicated servers. And what we have : matchmaking    I note 5 : I really waited its release with all the beautiful promises made. I like the graphics (even if we could expect more after MW2). Some changes in the gameplay bring an added attraction (COD is COD, it's hard to revolutionize completly).
    However, the black spot worthy of a scam from Infinty Ward is their promise that we will have dedicated servers. And what we have : matchmaking (a horror : no possibility of managing the cheaters (and they are present), hard to play in team, trouble connecting...) and dedicated servers but UNRANKED : where is the interest. Why don't do like on BO, why have backtracked ???? Because IW is not interested in what we want but just the money they bring. For me it's the last time !!!!! P.S. for IW : don't be surprised, you have what you deserve. I hope that a boycott of your game will arrive and make you understand somethig.    … Expand
  21. Teng
    Nov 10, 2011
    4
    Nice Single Player so far but too short. The rest is the same as every year. I sold it and play Modern Warfare 2009 instead. But it doesn't matter what all the people are writing here, as long as everyone buy this Map-Pack for 60â
  22. BDA
    Nov 11, 2011
    4
    I somewhat enjoyed Call of Duty back when the series first started. It had a lot of charm and the first few sequels brought something new to the table. Unfortunately, This game didn't bring anything new to the table compared to the last few games in the series. It sickens me how much this series has gotten away with re-releasing the same formula with barely any changes for so long. I canI somewhat enjoyed Call of Duty back when the series first started. It had a lot of charm and the first few sequels brought something new to the table. Unfortunately, This game didn't bring anything new to the table compared to the last few games in the series. It sickens me how much this series has gotten away with re-releasing the same formula with barely any changes for so long. I can easily buy an Indy game for 10 Dollars that can give me more innovation and gameplay than any of the Call of Duty games combined. The fact that this game even has a 60 dollar price tag is baffling, considering it is pretty much exactly like the past 2 games in the Modern Warfare series. I give credit that Modern Warfare 2 has a better amount of content than the first one but this game is the exact same if not worse than the title that came before it. It's funny to me how the press and Infinity ward think this is somewhat of an "attack" on the series but I think this is more of an outcry that we want to see better. Sadly, I don't think that's ever going to happen.… Expand
  23. Elsingo
    Nov 11, 2011
    4
    The reason i wont rate this higher then a 4 is that its not a game, its like alot of ppl say an overpriced mappack. One thing that realy anoys me with mw3 is all the junk and stuff lying around everywhere to "prevent camping" when it does the oposite thing, it gives campers even more spots to hide. All i can do now is hope that the next game in the series gets a new engine and more focusThe reason i wont rate this higher then a 4 is that its not a game, its like alot of ppl say an overpriced mappack. One thing that realy anoys me with mw3 is all the junk and stuff lying around everywhere to "prevent camping" when it does the oposite thing, it gives campers even more spots to hide. All i can do now is hope that the next game in the series gets a new engine and more focus on the PC version.… Expand
  24. SpandexOC
    Nov 12, 2011
    4
    Like a lot of people I purchased both BF3 and MW3 and, actually, hoped both would be great games. I guess the Jury is still out on BF3 for me, but it has potential. MW3 however is nothing short of appalling. The 'whack-a-Mole' concept has reached critical mass in this game, there is nothing else. Tie this into a neat little bundle with an aging graphics engine and another UnrealLike a lot of people I purchased both BF3 and MW3 and, actually, hoped both would be great games. I guess the Jury is still out on BF3 for me, but it has potential. MW3 however is nothing short of appalling. The 'whack-a-Mole' concept has reached critical mass in this game, there is nothing else. Tie this into a neat little bundle with an aging graphics engine and another Unreal Tournament style multi-player (yep, no skill, tatics or team work required - can't you just wait for the YouTube glut of auto sniper mega fast hacks..... uh, I mean kills to appear) and what you have is a regurgitated pile of tat.

    Someone wanted to squeeze the last few bucks out of a tired engine and game model. Please no more, in an age where the arguments against piracy are shouted from every moral pulpit perhaps the evangelists should look at what they are providing for sale - quality always provides a decent argument for revenue.

    So its back to BF3, oh and for controversies sake, I still think the last MOH game had the best and most fulfilling multi-player of recent times, its just a shame it did not do SP Whack-a-Mole well enough to please the paid critics.    … Expand
  25. Mongoliat
    Nov 12, 2011
    4
    I rate the game a 4 in total (Multiplayer 2, Single Player 6)

    I find the menus very nice and the layout is pretty nice as always. It's easy to get an overview of what you need to do to unlock your next weapons, attachments etc and the new "Lobby Leaderboard" feature gave this part a huge plus. I would still like to see some more Callsigns and Emblems to the game from the Spec Ops part,    I rate the game a 4 in total (Multiplayer 2, Single Player 6)

    I find the menus very nice and the layout is pretty nice as always. It's easy to get an overview of what you need to do to unlock your next weapons, attachments etc and the new "Lobby Leaderboard" feature gave this part a huge plus. I would still like to see some more Callsigns and Emblems to the game from the Spec Ops part, but well... Overachiever is pretty nice.

    The multiplayer gameplay would be great if they hadn't done the exact same thing in their two previous Modern Warfare games. The graphics seems to be somewhere between MW1 and MW2 and the weapons are pretty much the same (except for a huge damage decrease on UMP). This was not what I expected at all and after playing it for some hours I had feeling that I was playing Modern Warfare 2 and not an entirely new game. My personal feelings towards this is that 90% of the game is old content taken from previous games to make a cheap solution to something with great potential.

    The game also has the features Survival Mode and Spec Ops. Every CoD fan knows what this is (I presume), and the Survival Mode is extremely fun to play with your friends. It's split up in difficulty maps, and this works great. The Spec Ops are as they were on MW2 except that they have removed the last few missions with the juggernauts, which makes the Spec Ops overall easier than before. Even though I missed that insane challenge, I had a blast playing through all the missions.

    I rate the game a 4 in total (Multiplayer 2, Single Player 6) and if you consider buying this game, you should only buy it because of Spec Ops, Campaign and Survival Mode - Not because of the multiplayer part.    … Expand
  26. Snuffle1upagus
    Nov 14, 2011
    4
    MW3 Review: The Good: Took all of the good things out of MW2 and Black OPS and made them into a game. The fluidity of the game is amazing. The game is gun on gun most of the time with a less amount of killstreaks in the air.

    The Bad: Then they took the bad things out of Black OPS and magnified them x5. Maps are terrible, besides 1 or 2, everyone camps, and everyone uses akimbo. There    MW3 Review: The Good: Took all of the good things out of MW2 and Black OPS and made them into a game. The fluidity of the game is amazing. The game is gun on gun most of the time with a less amount of killstreaks in the air.

    The Bad: Then they took the bad things out of Black OPS and magnified them x5. Maps are terrible, besides 1 or 2, everyone camps, and everyone uses akimbo. There are already hackers and quickscoping is easier that ever before. The spawning system is the same as it was in Black OPS, you are running around the map and people are spawning right behind you.

    The Ugly: Although they introduced Kill Confirmed (aquire dogtags), camping in this game is worse than MW2 or Black OPS COMBINED! Due to the amount of added obstacles and buildings into the game, it begs for campers. Players of MW3 are only concerned about their K/D. I was amazed at the amount of players that don't even go after the dogtags of the players they kill. They wait for one of their teammates to get it for them.

    Overall: Fluidity is better. Funfactor is not.

    Grade: 4/10    … Expand
  27. tULLY
    Nov 14, 2011
    4
    I can't believe that there is no console and commands with config editing or mod tools, the guys that devlopeped Cod2 can't srsly be sitting there while they sell out and destroy every aspect of what made Cod on PC worth playing. I can see you're all trying but just stop trying to make PC like console. Its not accecptable. Mod tools with acess to console along with the commands we had theI can't believe that there is no console and commands with config editing or mod tools, the guys that devlopeped Cod2 can't srsly be sitting there while they sell out and destroy every aspect of what made Cod on PC worth playing. I can see you're all trying but just stop trying to make PC like console. Its not accecptable. Mod tools with acess to console along with the commands we had the ability to change until Mw2 I promise that this score wouldn't be so incredibly awful. Two years in a row, after being able to use Black Ops as a cheat sheet. Wtf..… Expand
  28. Wzzzz
    Nov 14, 2011
    4
    I like the dedi servers in cod4 and i like the ks and how smooth its in mw2. When mw3 was coming out, i thot its gonna be the best of mw series -- dedi servers(ranked like its in cod4) plus good mp experience. BUT when i got into mw3 mp game, i found that its not wat its supposed to be! Developers didnt hear wat the community were talking about. P2P system sucks all the time! Lag andI like the dedi servers in cod4 and i like the ks and how smooth its in mw2. When mw3 was coming out, i thot its gonna be the best of mw series -- dedi servers(ranked like its in cod4) plus good mp experience. BUT when i got into mw3 mp game, i found that its not wat its supposed to be! Developers didnt hear wat the community were talking about. P2P system sucks all the time! Lag and stutter are worse in mw3! If IW and Sledgehammer want their game to be long life and have good sales on their DLCs, they must fix this!… Expand
  29. NoXous
    Nov 14, 2011
    4
    I was incredibly excited about this game, and the game would be very good (despite being a clone of the past MW games) if a few things were fixed.

    First: I've never been in so many lagfest matches in any CoD on any system, PC or console, and I've owned every one of them. Of course the hacking is back on PC (to be expected), and sure they gave us dedicated servers, BUT THEY AREN'T    I was incredibly excited about this game, and the game would be very good (despite being a clone of the past MW games) if a few things were fixed.

    First: I've never been in so many lagfest matches in any CoD on any system, PC or console, and I've owned every one of them. Of course the hacking is back on PC (to be expected), and sure they gave us dedicated servers, BUT THEY AREN'T RANKED.

    The obvious solution to me would have been to have official dedicated servers much like Left 4 Dead where the rules are enforced, and they are ranked. The multiplayer is so incredibly hit or miss with the number of crappy hosts that's it's unplayable a good portion of the time.

    Also a vote-change-host feature would be nice.    … Expand
  30. Colo
    Nov 14, 2011
    4
    MW3's release was one I was both hoping and dreading. Having played every game in the series, I've been an unwilling witness to IW's slow decline. Every new release I've played since CoD:MW has been progressively worse. Not terrible, but slowly degrading, like an emphysema patient in ICU.

    And that last sentence gets to the crux of my review; the first Modern Warfare was the best. I    MW3's release was one I was both hoping and dreading. Having played every game in the series, I've been an unwilling witness to IW's slow decline. Every new release I've played since CoD:MW has been progressively worse. Not terrible, but slowly degrading, like an emphysema patient in ICU.

    And that last sentence gets to the crux of my review; the first Modern Warfare was the best. I believe there are 3 reasons for this:

    1. GAMEPLAY. MW's gameplay was superior because it had PACING. Many game developers seem to forget what this is in favour of flashy graphics and stupid awards. In MW you could set up a sniping position, pick off a few targets and then probably get taken down by a savvy player who had spotted your position and used the appropriate cover to get there. CoD:BO, MW2 and MW3 killed this concept by creating confined levels with dedicated fire lanes, meaning that snipers are regularly killed before they even get off the first shot. Combine this with sniper rifles and the gameplay abomination that is "quickscoping", and all you see is players RUNNING around with sniper rifles. Hell, once they learn the Assault Rifles are more accurate, you don't even SEE sniper rifles in use. Running with a sniper rifle doesn't seem realistic or even fun to me.

    2. SPAWNING. The spawning in CoD:BO multiplayer was bad, but the spawning in MW3 is execrable. Two steps forward and the player that's spawned behind you shoots you in the back. And that's if only one enemy player spawned near you. The original MW OCCASIONALLY had a similar issue when battle lines were fluid, but generally it cunningly used a combination of well designed maps and spawning areas to create battle lines. Yes, BATTLE LINES. Not running like a loon from one end of the map to the other, simply because you knew someone would be spawning on your head in the next 5 seconds. I have fond memories of dodging between heaps of trash in "Bog" as I tried to flank enemy snipers and MG's, and similar happy moments while running or sniping in "Bloc" and "Vacant".

    In a nutshell; it may be fun for 30 seconds to run headlong around a map shooting at everything because you have to. There are whole worlds of enjoyment to be had in defending positions, flanking snipers, setting up battle lines, creating enfilades, etc. Run and gun is only enjoyable for a short period of time, and isn't how EVERYONE wants to play.

    Also, women are correct: when it comes to multiplayer maps, size really DOES matter.
    3. You've all heard it at some point - DEDICATED SERVERS. I applaud IWnet for trying something new, but until the world standardizes everyone's internet connection and CPU speed, you're flogging a dead horse...

    Now I have mostly negative comments for the multiplayer, but I have to say that I quite liked the Single-Player experience. IW haven't lost their edge there, and it's fun, fast and engages the audience. It could have been a bit longer, but I can see why IW kept the story to the length they did. I thought I'd at least end on a positive... :)

    Colo    … Expand
  31. spifli
    Nov 17, 2011
    4
    As a pc user I feel completely neglected. It is quite clear that activision does not care about pc users and that the game is purely made for consoles.(BAD graphics, BAD sound effects, loading screens and menu's that look like a 3year old made, they could of just copied mw2 menu's and it would of looked 10x as good, and no PC version of COD Elite (not that I would of payed for somethingAs a pc user I feel completely neglected. It is quite clear that activision does not care about pc users and that the game is purely made for consoles.(BAD graphics, BAD sound effects, loading screens and menu's that look like a 3year old made, they could of just copied mw2 menu's and it would of looked 10x as good, and no PC version of COD Elite (not that I would of payed for something that SHOULD BE FREE).
    My score of 4 goes to the singleplayer which, neglecting the bad graphics, was very entertaining and had a nice atmosphere due to awesome effects, music and action.    … Expand
  32. InfiniteCake
    Nov 17, 2011
    4
    Okay, first off, I don't hate Call of Duty. In fact, I really like the CoD series games. The gameplay mechanics, guns, single player, and multiplayer, practically everything. In MW3, the single player campaign is pretty alright. Spec Ops is fun to play for a while. The multiplayer in MW3 is, to say the least, TERRIBLE. I'm not sure about console versions, but on the PC, the game isOkay, first off, I don't hate Call of Duty. In fact, I really like the CoD series games. The gameplay mechanics, guns, single player, and multiplayer, practically everything. In MW3, the single player campaign is pretty alright. Spec Ops is fun to play for a while. The multiplayer in MW3 is, to say the least, TERRIBLE. I'm not sure about console versions, but on the PC, the game is generally UNPLAYABLE. Lag is so abundant that the game is NO fun to play multiplayer. That goes for multiplayer Spec Ops as well. This game would get at least an 8 from me if Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer got their acts together and fixed the multiplayer.… Expand
  33. dinohunterpat
    Mar 6, 2012
    4
    The COD series has been milked a lot and while sticking to an established formula offers familiarity, MW3 goes too far. Sure there are few minor changes, but it's still running through linear corridors in campaign and fighting some juvenile man-child in multiplayer. The visuals and setpieces aren't bad but starting to show their age. And why do they keep pulling off the same cliches likeThe COD series has been milked a lot and while sticking to an established formula offers familiarity, MW3 goes too far. Sure there are few minor changes, but it's still running through linear corridors in campaign and fighting some juvenile man-child in multiplayer. The visuals and setpieces aren't bad but starting to show their age. And why do they keep pulling off the same cliches like an extraction chopper being shot down or a slow-mo kill. Also what the point of the child's death? It doesn't prove any point that hasn't been reiterated (i.e. terrorism) and it doesn't further the story (the massacre in MW2 makes sense because it lead to WW3 in MW3). If you like COD, you'll like MW3, otherwise maybe pick this one up at a lower price. Also survival mode isn't a new innovation because it's just multiplayer with single-player enemies thrown.… Expand
  34. RECON-UK
    Nov 24, 2011
    4
    I will be very honest with this game.
    firstly it runs great on my pc and is very well optimised.
    The bad things are everything else. There is no dedicated servers, people are already hacking and their are many prestige 10 people after 3 days!!. I have gotten to level 40 (rank) in multiplayer and have had such a frustrating time due to the same old thing as MW2. Example:    I will be very honest with this game.
    firstly it runs great on my pc and is very well optimised.
    The bad things are everything else.
    There is no dedicated servers, people are already hacking and their are many prestige 10 people after 3 days!!.
    I have gotten to level 40 (rank) in multiplayer and have had such a frustrating time due to the same old thing as MW2. Example: Tubes,UMP,prestige 10 hackers,wallhacks and general disregard to any pc user in this modern day and age.
    The graphics are ok but nothing new.
    The gameplay is mediocre due to it been the same as MW2.
    I wanted something different like black ops was to MW2, but no they failed with this release.
    Only true die hard fanboys and kids with no sense will play this game all the way through.

    For the above reasons this game scores a 4 out of 10.    … Expand
  35. mob0103
    Nov 24, 2011
    4
    Multiplayer seems unbalanced at the moment and the respawns are terrible. Improvements have been made in the lobby system, have had no random dropouts or long wait times which I always had a problem with in MW2. If the spawns are addressed and the weapons fine tuned ( FM9 Akimbo WTF!! ) then my opinion may change. I actually prefer Black Ops to the latest release. I NEVER thought I wouldMultiplayer seems unbalanced at the moment and the respawns are terrible. Improvements have been made in the lobby system, have had no random dropouts or long wait times which I always had a problem with in MW2. If the spawns are addressed and the weapons fine tuned ( FM9 Akimbo WTF!! ) then my opinion may change. I actually prefer Black Ops to the latest release. I NEVER thought I would think that..… Expand
  36. lordofthebumz
    Dec 1, 2011
    4
    Single player was ok. The first level was excellent and thats about it. I got about 60% of the game finished and had to force myself to play the rest. I couldn't feel the excitement from sneaking past guards when u attacked Makarovs hideout. The game was holding my hand to much. The hardest difficulty is to easy. With mouse and keyboard I couldn't find a challenge. I got bored of justSingle player was ok. The first level was excellent and thats about it. I got about 60% of the game finished and had to force myself to play the rest. I couldn't feel the excitement from sneaking past guards when u attacked Makarovs hideout. The game was holding my hand to much. The hardest difficulty is to easy. With mouse and keyboard I couldn't find a challenge. I got bored of just running through the levels at super speed. Multiplayer: I got to about level 40 in multiplayer and I don't want to ever play again. In MW2 i got to prestige 3 and BLOPS I got prestige 6. Its just run and gun and at lightning speed. All maps feel like nuketown of BLOPS. The levels are to small. Not really any new MP mechanics. Only a few new attachments and a few new kill streaks. Tired of guns with no recoil. Graphics are terrible for this game. With the amout of money they spent to make it they could invest in some upgrades. Its really looking outdated now. DO NOT BUY THIS GAME WASTE OF $60 ! Also the map packs? 3 of them for 15 each? So you need to spend $105 + tax to buy this?… Expand
  37. ccrngd1
    Dec 1, 2011
    4
    If you have only played MW games, its fine. There isn't much that is new from MW2 and several of the problems from there have carried over (IWnet, stupid game play quirks, etc). There does not seem to be enough new stuff to make it worth playing, new game types are nice but fall short of what a new title should be made of. Further, most of the people that rave about the game continuallyIf you have only played MW games, its fine. There isn't much that is new from MW2 and several of the problems from there have carried over (IWnet, stupid game play quirks, etc). There does not seem to be enough new stuff to make it worth playing, new game types are nice but fall short of what a new title should be made of. Further, most of the people that rave about the game continually compare it to MW1/2 or say this is their first. That's fine, and with that in mind it is an enjoyable game. If you've played BF, MoH, CoDBO, or CoDWaW, there is a lot left to be desired.

    There are nice new features such as the killstreaks that are customizable for each load out. Some of the streaks are left overs but they all seem familiar. The hardcore tends to be a bit nurfed compared to previous versions of CoD (MW series and Treyarch series).    … Expand
  38. Rockstorm
    Dec 4, 2011
    4
    Compared to the previous games in the Call of Duty franchise this game can be pretty much summed up as a glorified map pack that removes several good features in the process. You'd do better buying CoD4 instead as it has pretty much everything this game has and a bit more. And it's a whole lot cheaper as well.
  39. ABNMP
    Jul 14, 2012
    4
    I bought the game on sale. Despite the overwhelming amount of negative reviews, I thought I would give it a go since I was frustrated with BF 3 and the rampant hackers there. I lasted less than 5 minutes in an online match. BF 3 is sadly a superior product at this point. MW 3, like many have said, is just like CS or any twitch FPS. If you want depth and hackers go with BF 3. If you wantI bought the game on sale. Despite the overwhelming amount of negative reviews, I thought I would give it a go since I was frustrated with BF 3 and the rampant hackers there. I lasted less than 5 minutes in an online match. BF 3 is sadly a superior product at this point. MW 3, like many have said, is just like CS or any twitch FPS. If you want depth and hackers go with BF 3. If you want arcade candy and hackers go with this. First impressions are vital and this title left me feeling like I wasted my money.… Expand
  40. RJavier
    Dec 8, 2011
    4
    They should just sold the game as an optional map pack for mw2 that comes with new weapons and kill streaks rather than paying upfront for 60 bucks. Same engine, lame maps, unbalanced multiplayer, lag compensation, hackers roaming around like there on a picnic. There is so much negativity in this game that it outweigh the game's positive experience(if you can find any). The developers justThey should just sold the game as an optional map pack for mw2 that comes with new weapons and kill streaks rather than paying upfront for 60 bucks. Same engine, lame maps, unbalanced multiplayer, lag compensation, hackers roaming around like there on a picnic. There is so much negativity in this game that it outweigh the game's positive experience(if you can find any). The developers just copy pasted m2 put a single player campaign, tweaked the mechanics of the game and added some stupid maps= 60usd profit. It is like a straight up daylight robbery.… Expand
  41. KitFistto
    Dec 25, 2011
    4
    Before I start, I gave this game a four because of my disappointment in the game compared to the hype and everything else they should have learned from their previous games. If this was the first game in the franchise, and it wasn't just a juggernaut to make Activision money then this game would get a 7 from me, because in gameplay and everything, its a decent game. Fun, but not to fun orBefore I start, I gave this game a four because of my disappointment in the game compared to the hype and everything else they should have learned from their previous games. If this was the first game in the franchise, and it wasn't just a juggernaut to make Activision money then this game would get a 7 from me, because in gameplay and everything, its a decent game. Fun, but not to fun or innovative. But since they got rid of some of the new things black ops added and just pretty much did the same thing as MW2, just some new perks and killstreaks, I gave it a lower score. Don't be fooled, if you played MW2, you played this game, same lone wolf style multiplayer (unless you make your own team with friends or a clan), same formula on the campaign except now its getting predictable and boring, and really rushed. Nothing changed, they hyped it up and people bought it. And now people can see that it is stupid, which is why people came here like me to put a bad review on it. Me and the other 3,437 people. I like more of a thinking mans fps, I like to have a lot of communication when I play online and strategies. Multiplayer on this came is all about how you yourself can be better, and not what you can do to help the team and win, its all about YOUR Kill death ratio, and things like that. So I would much rather play Battlefield 3 which has a lot more strategy to it. More thinking. But don't get me wrong, I have a place for these games, I get bored and just want to run around a knife some people without thinking too. Which this game does well, but thats about it. If thats all you want then go buy this game. But for me, and some others, we want more, not the same game every year, with a new case for 60$.… Expand
  42. Xenent
    Dec 31, 2011
    4
    While Campaign is really nice and survival is a good, but unoriginal addition. It's easy to see that this game was meant for multiplayer. The multiplayer is...very very sad. I'm a natural run n' gunner, but this COD game makes fun of that. It's just camping and spraying. There's a grey tint to everything, and yes, everything. Graphics aren't very good either. Guns use the same sound fromWhile Campaign is really nice and survival is a good, but unoriginal addition. It's easy to see that this game was meant for multiplayer. The multiplayer is...very very sad. I'm a natural run n' gunner, but this COD game makes fun of that. It's just camping and spraying. There's a grey tint to everything, and yes, everything. Graphics aren't very good either. Guns use the same sound from past games and all of them sound the same. There was even a unique sound for the silenced AK in the campaign, but the devs decided not to include it. I dislike this game, and I am going to uninstall it right now. Unless you're a guy who runs around spraying ammunition or camping with a close-range weapon, this game is NOT for you.… Expand
  43. W3XC
    Jan 1, 2012
    4
    MW3 is just like any other call of duty, when i play this game i get exact same feeling than when i have the same underpant on for a week, and that smells bad, and is sooo ****
  44. donaramu
    Sep 19, 2019
    4
    Worst cod ever, Even MW2 which was a good game other then no dedi is better then this crap..This is just a cheap copy of MW2 they rushed out.. it seems like only the hardcore fanboys like it and even then they talk themselves into it by saying how they just had to get use to it. It really makes me sick seeing CoD coming from a great fast pace shooter this a cheap no good rip off of crap..
  45. Snegovich
    Sep 9, 2012
    4
    Overview: This game is looking like an add-on to Modern Warfare 1. Five hour campaign, small changes in multiplayer, story full of cliches. And what is the price of this add-on? 60$! And when i realized this, i was like: "WHAT!? SIXTY BUCKS FOR THIS!?". Previously i bought MW2, and i had same feelings. Story: It's full of cliches, and hasn't any originality. Really, how many films aboutOverview: This game is looking like an add-on to Modern Warfare 1. Five hour campaign, small changes in multiplayer, story full of cliches. And what is the price of this add-on? 60$! And when i realized this, i was like: "WHAT!? SIXTY BUCKS FOR THIS!?". Previously i bought MW2, and i had same feelings. Story: It's full of cliches, and hasn't any originality. Really, how many films about bad Russians have you seen? Hundreds? Maybe more. And this game is about bad Russians too! This isn't even a game, it's an interactive film. Because in campaign you do only what you have to do. I mean, you can't choose, you're just walking through a corridor, and then watching a cut-scene.
    Gameplay: Pretty boring, but sometimes game gives you something unusual. Most of time you're just shooting stupid bots, that can't even kill you without hordes of them. But lots of weapons are making this game a bit better. Multiplayer: This is the best part of the game. Even if multiplayer looks like it's predecessor in MW2, it's still can bring a lots of fun. But it's nothing special at all, though. Zombie mode is pretty good too, it isn't so good as L4D2 is, but can be played for few hours.    … Expand
  46. yodagyo
    Oct 25, 2012
    4
    the game is repetitive and annoying. all the critic reviews are paid and this isnt what people should be getting from a company that makes billions. f
  47. Broyax
    Apr 17, 2017
    4
    Toujours la même recette depuis le premier Call Of Duty il y a une dizaine d'années (!) et la série est au bout du rouleau. De la surenchère permanente, de la caricature, du grotesque... cette campagne est certes "spectaculaire" mais sans le côté technique éblouissant d'un Uncharted 3 par exemple. On s'y surprend à y jouer tout de même sans faire trop attention, à l'insu de son ignoranceToujours la même recette depuis le premier Call Of Duty il y a une dizaine d'années (!) et la série est au bout du rouleau. De la surenchère permanente, de la caricature, du grotesque... cette campagne est certes "spectaculaire" mais sans le côté technique éblouissant d'un Uncharted 3 par exemple. On s'y surprend à y jouer tout de même sans faire trop attention, à l'insu de son ignorance sans doute. On ne peut pas dire non plus qu'on s'y ennuie totalement. Mais on ne s'y amuse pas non plus. Surtout sur ce pathétique final en QTE...

    Il reste le multi qui lui est varié dans ses modes de jeu et toujours aussi solide, il est clair qu'il a définitivement mis les Counter-Strike au placard. Parfois drôle, injuste, énervant, bourré de kévins et de tricheurs mais c'est le lot de ce genre de jeu multi-joueurs, on n'y peut rien ! Les cartes sont bien conçues, y a eu du travail là dedans quand même.

    Juste un mot pour finir sur la partie audio plutôt décevante (hors VF toujours excellente) et le manque de sensation des armes, très en deçà d'un Crysis 2 ou Rainbow Six Vegas : ils auraient pu faire un effort entre deux explosions et trois ponts qui s'effondrent !    … Expand
  48. VampireIdle
    Jan 14, 2018
    4
    Since this Game has 3 Sections, my review also will be divided by 3.

    Singleplayer: The Singleplayer Campaign was in my experience a nice addition to the second Modern Warfare and I did enjoy it alot. It took me 10 Hours to complete it on Normal Mode, which is about the Average amount of time for a Triple A Singleplayer Game. Co-op: I'm not quite sure if Modern Warfare 2 had a Co-op    Since this Game has 3 Sections, my review also will be divided by 3.

    Singleplayer:
    The Singleplayer Campaign was in my experience a nice addition to the second Modern Warfare and I did enjoy it alot. It took me 10 Hours to complete it on Normal Mode, which is about the Average amount of time for a Triple A Singleplayer Game.

    Co-op:
    I'm not quite sure if Modern Warfare 2 had a Co-op Mode but this one is alot of fun that means, if its working. You can play Survival with a friend together, defending waves of enemies coming in & with each Wave survived you become a more powerful weapon, however the enemies will also be more powerful.

    Whilst this Mode is alot of fun it also is very broken as it comes out of sinc within the first 5 Minutes making this Mode almost unplayable.

    Multiplayer:
    As I Already said, this was one of my first Call of Dutys to get into the Series and also the Reason to get a Steam Account. Before I bought Modern Warfare 2 (2 Weeks before this MW3 got released) I had not heard of Steam before.

    The Multiplayer was at the time for me alot of fun especially with friends, I have spent over 1000 hours of Multiplayer Game time together and did enjoy my time.

    However for nowerdays standards the Multiplayer is not good anymore for the following Reasons:
    -No Dedicated Servers
    -No FOV Slider
    -No Anti Cheat (yes VAC is enabled but I dont think anybody gets banned anymore)
    -Mainly Hackers online
    -Hacked Lobbies (they can't get you banned)

    I surley did get my money out of the Game but I still do not recommend it as of nowerdays standards.

    I only recommend this Game for people that want to play the Singleplayer Campaign and see what happens after Modern Warfare 2. But do yourself a favour and buy it from a Keywebsite for 4€ Because even on Sale this Game is to expensive for what it gives you.

    If you are looking for a good Call of Duty on PC I do recommend you to get Black Ops 2 as it was the last good Call of Duty that still is to this day banning cheaters and having dedicated servers + a build in fov slider.    … Expand
  49. Gelaos
    Sep 19, 2018
    4
    I played MW3 only to finish the story of MW trilogy. If you played MW or MW2, then MW3 won't offer ANYTHING new for you. Finished the singleplayer in 5 hours and uninstalled it immediately after last story cutscene ended. CoD is dead series for me from now on.
  50. rezo_21
    Sep 18, 2021
    4
    ====================IIIIIIIIII GAME SCORE : 43 IIIIIIIIII====================
  51. bucefalo33
    Jul 8, 2020
    4
    My rating:
    Sound 6/10
    Graphic* 5/10
    Gameplay 5/10
    Replay value 2/10
    Story 3/10

    Total 4/10**

    * Graphic rating has to be contextualized for the year of the release.
    ** Total is a weighted average rounded up where the weight for every element is:
    Sound 1
    Graphic 2
    Gameplay 3
    Replay Value 1
    Story 3
  52. Suprizer
    Apr 22, 2023
    4
    I liked the way story ended and the beginning mission still slaps to today its great fun to play killing russians in submarine is embeded in my mind forever but first and last missions are just the two good missions.
  53. scarh791
    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
  54. casshern09
    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.
  55. cambria
    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
  56. thequailboy
    Nov 9, 2011
    3
    Why could they not update the engine? Its really become tired. I cant be bothered to watch this cheese any more. WE WANT TO PLAY. WE WANT TO MAKE THE ACTION OUR SELVES otherwise why not just watch a film? The single player is better than bf3's TERRIBLE single player but its still below the standards we used to expect from FPS. What a disappointment.
  57. Sarra
    Nov 22, 2011
    3
    I didn't even buy BF 3 as planned, for some obvious reasons, but lets just say Origin to keep me from going on a rant. But BF3 being bad aside, this, this isn't even a PC game, it's a console port that was supposed to have dedicated servers. And it does, but it for un ranked. I have no idea what the hell they are thinking, but it certainly isn't to make good games. Gameplay wise, it's theI didn't even buy BF 3 as planned, for some obvious reasons, but lets just say Origin to keep me from going on a rant. But BF3 being bad aside, this, this isn't even a PC game, it's a console port that was supposed to have dedicated servers. And it does, but it for un ranked. I have no idea what the hell they are thinking, but it certainly isn't to make good games. Gameplay wise, it's the same as MW2, which was liek COD4 but with a bunch of stupid gimmicks. Save your money, rent for your PS3/360/Wii, but don't get for PC, please.… Expand
  58. checkeredhat09
    Nov 9, 2011
    3
    What isn't wrong with this game? Everything everyone is saying is true. The campaign is short, the graphics are terrible, and overall it just seems like a poorly done console port. On budget cards that are able to run Crysis 2 on medium to high butter smooth, this game stutters like the kid from billy madison, and all the while the textures look like something from 2004. Especially theWhat isn't wrong with this game? Everything everyone is saying is true. The campaign is short, the graphics are terrible, and overall it just seems like a poorly done console port. On budget cards that are able to run Crysis 2 on medium to high butter smooth, this game stutters like the kid from billy madison, and all the while the textures look like something from 2004. Especially the foliage! God the jagged foliage!

    Honestly the only thing that was good about this game was the story. Honestly it was like watching a movie, with some gameplay sprinkled in. Over the top and ridiculous, but amusing for me at least.    … Expand
  59. Flastie
    Nov 12, 2011
    3
    I have a multiple points of view on this COD. First is the gameplay and whole "feeling" from game. Its great, the story, the feeling, its like you play a movie. A true cinematic experience in your control. For that i give 8/10. But that is all. What is much worse is graphic. and inovations in this game Horrible resolution of textures, awful 2d background, 2d fences. My god is this a 2011I have a multiple points of view on this COD. First is the gameplay and whole "feeling" from game. Its great, the story, the feeling, its like you play a movie. A true cinematic experience in your control. For that i give 8/10. But that is all. What is much worse is graphic. and inovations in this game Horrible resolution of textures, awful 2d background, 2d fences. My god is this a 2011 game? Indie game developers with much less budget can create graphics better than this. Another problem is MP. Nothing new, just recycled previous COD. I believe if they spend more time on the technical side of this game, i would give it 9/10, but for this "dinosaur" graphic and no inovation im giving 4/10. That graphic is just LOL, 2004 games have much better graphics like this. nobody wants crysis graphics, but they should give us at least graphic from this decade, not from the last 00s.… Expand
  60. vahn
    Apr 27, 2012
    3
    Once again, I'll skip the single player, since...well, I'm actually playing the multiplayer due to a promotion and this is a review made in about 48 hours of gameplay (not literally, but I think it's enough, and I'll explain why). So let's go to the multiplayer...and well, once again, you can see the effort put into this game, because there is little or none of it. Personal criticismOnce again, I'll skip the single player, since...well, I'm actually playing the multiplayer due to a promotion and this is a review made in about 48 hours of gameplay (not literally, but I think it's enough, and I'll explain why). So let's go to the multiplayer...and well, once again, you can see the effort put into this game, because there is little or none of it. Personal criticism apart, I knew this game wasn't going to be any good at all, and for many reasons. First of all, lots of stuff is blocked from the very start, and I mean LOTS (even playmodes...really?), making you play for unlocking first the class customization, then modes, and veeeery slowly the weapons, perks, and so on...Didn't I see this game somewhere? But really, I can't stand a game where you have to play so much for unlocking FEW things, and those few things so far very USELESS (i've unlocked about 3-4 perks, and none of those were any useful, and the few weapons I've got I barely used half of them) and since now the levels are 80 (without counting the 20 prestiges), the grinding will be immensive. The arenas are...actually kinda better than the previous game; they aren't great but I really didn't complain so much about them than the previous game, and some of them are also good for different modes. Too bad campers still exist, and they'll exploit, once again, any blind corners in order to easily win, and once again if they try to say that this was actually planned, then I'll continue to say that they should think twice. And make much better maps. Ok, a good improvement are the levels on the weapons: the idea is very nice and actually makes you want to improve that particular weapon, but as I said I've been using a total of 3-4 weapons, and they were a lot similar to each others. I don't like to compare to other games, but this is basically the same game once again, and as I said before even though I played for a little time, I could see the major similarities between this and the previous game (which I played for about 4-6 months), with so few changes that it's hard to not notice; I would have highly suggested this game if it wasn't for the HUGE price and if it costed like 20 or 30 euros, but really, for 60-70 euros/dollars for a game that barely lasts one year and also for a game that rarely gets cheaper, I'll strongly advise to skip it and spend that money for any other game: it will be worth of your money.… Expand
  61. CrockD
    Nov 9, 2011
    3
    I'd love to know why Metacritic is now not displaying the user review score for this years Madden...umm I mean Modern Warfare iteration. The way this whole thing has gone down (high critic reviews, low user reviews) says a lot about the current model for gaming reviews. The reviewers are WAY to cozy with the game creators and publishers and it shows when critics continue to give veryI'd love to know why Metacritic is now not displaying the user review score for this years Madden...umm I mean Modern Warfare iteration. The way this whole thing has gone down (high critic reviews, low user reviews) says a lot about the current model for gaming reviews. The reviewers are WAY to cozy with the game creators and publishers and it shows when critics continue to give very high marks for what is essentially a repackaged version of the same game every freaking year. Battlefield 3 has its issues (Battlelog, Origin, etc) but at least DICE and EA provide something new that drives gaming development (Frostbite 2.0). Activision just executes the ol' annual payment model for the same crap. Give them their due, it's a great racket, but it leaves a very bitter taste in the mouths of gamers who want something new.… Expand
  62. GregA
    Nov 10, 2011
    3
    No dedicated servers. Not all the SP guns are in MP. Getting an error and the game keeps crashing on the same level. Hamburg map if I took one route I'd get kicked to the menu and have to restart. Froze once, had to restart my PC. COD reset my controls to default in both MP and SP. Still better then the abortion Black Ops is.
  63. Chapa9dj
    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
  64. CollegeGamer
    Nov 11, 2011
    3
    Woops, I gave it a 10 when I meant a 3. My bad. Anyways, the solo in this game, the solo in BF3, the solo in Black Ops, the solo in MW2 all are not worth more than $7.00.
  65. DrGreatJob
    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    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
  66. Burty101s
    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,    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
  67. Seibab
    Feb 18, 2012
    3
    Copy and paste.
    Copy and paste.
    See, I can do it too Infinity Ward/Activision! Call of Duty 4 was an innovative, very addictive and fun game, and so are all of the call of duties after it up to Modern Warfare 3, because essentially they are all the same game, especially in multiplayer where new maps and a few new guns are the only difference. Also, with this being a new game, I'm surprised    Copy and paste.
    Copy and paste.
    See, I can do it too Infinity Ward/Activision! Call of Duty 4 was an innovative, very addictive and fun game, and so are all of the call of duties after it up to Modern Warfare 3, because essentially they are all the same game, especially in multiplayer where new maps and a few new guns are the only difference. Also, with this being a new game, I'm surprised by the muddy visuals and drab textures/colors, even compared to past games in the series.    … Expand
  68. Blackhamer
    Feb 27, 2012
    3
    I'm giving this game 3 out of 10. If I had to comment MW 3 in one sentence I'd say: Modern Warfare 2 with terrible technical problems and with less fun. I don't recommend it to anyone, if you want a shooter badly try MW 2. This review will be mostly MP beacuse I finished single player in about 10 hours on hard difficulity and I bought it mostly for MP like other cod games. Major flaws ofI'm giving this game 3 out of 10. If I had to comment MW 3 in one sentence I'd say: Modern Warfare 2 with terrible technical problems and with less fun. I don't recommend it to anyone, if you want a shooter badly try MW 2. This review will be mostly MP beacuse I finished single player in about 10 hours on hard difficulity and I bought it mostly for MP like other cod games. Major flaws of the game:
    - Absolutely no innovations !!! It's MW 2 again with minimal innovations, and bad ones only
    - TERRIBLE PROBLEMS WITH RUNNING THE GAME PROPERLY !!!
    bugs and problems such as those: very hard to play with friends because of stupid matchmaking system, random game crashin during loading, 2 times during about 6 weeks of playing it my game stopped working and I had to reinstall it, it often crashes on launch too, I have a very good hardware so it's fault of the game
    - NO DEDICATED RANKED SERVERS - meaning that you have to use matchmaking, so you can't choose the map you want to play on, people you want to play with because there is no "party system" or whatever to connect you and ur friends together to the same lobby, it's hard even to play with 1 teammate cuz of that
    - TERRIBLY DESIGNED MAPS - thats true, maps are terrible VERY SMALL and pretty much RIDICULOUS I thought Black Ops maps was very bad, at least it had Nuketown and you were allowed to choose a map, well not in MW 3
    - CHEATERS PLAGUE a month after game's relase when I bought it at least 4 out of 10 games was with a cheater using aimbot. If you have ever played with aimbot user then you know it's ridiculous. If 40 % of games was with aimbots think how many was with people using less noticeable cheats like wallhacks...
    - VERY BAD GRAPHICS AND SOUND terribly outdated graphics and very bad sounds, I guess the developers forget to improve it again...since cod 4 it's the same graphics with minimal changes, and the sounds are refined version of those from cod 4 and mw 2
    - VERY IRRITATING THING ABOUT SOUND: YOU CAN ONLY MUTE ALL OF THE GAME SOUND - that means you can't listen to music while you play because you can't for example just disable in-game music (WHICH SUCKS BADLY, BO HAD IT MUCH BETTER !) and shooting sounds, no there is only one slider so you can play with your own music but then no in-game sounds which srsly handicaps your gaming skill
    - WORSE CHARACTER CREATING THAN BO AND PREVIOUS MW 3 thats right - not only no innovations but it's also very badly designed and there are a few OP guns while the rest sucks badly, same situation with perks

    SUMMARY: IF YOU WANT A SHOOTER BADLY, GO TRY MW 2 IT'S CHEAPER AND HAS LESS FLAWS, TRUST ME THIS ISN'T WORTH $ AND TIME YOU SPEND ON IT !    … Expand
  69. Artomoz
    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 notMultiplayer: 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
  70. cubiclewarrior
    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 timeGFX 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
  71. Exodus1989
    Nov 12, 2011
    3
    I held off until I'd played for a while until I wrote this so I could give it my full opinion.
    The engine is exactly the same. Models are copy pasted from MW2. The singleplayer is rout with bugs, poor graphics and mechanic issues. Geometric glitches prevent some movement, team mates cannot hit targets and they push you from cover. The spec ops missions are fairly all right, but the    I held off until I'd played for a while until I wrote this so I could give it my full opinion.
    The engine is exactly the same. Models are copy pasted from MW2. The singleplayer is rout with bugs, poor graphics and mechanic issues. Geometric glitches prevent some movement, team mates cannot hit targets and they push you from cover. The spec ops missions are fairly all right, but the survival mode is really good considering the rest of the game. The multiplayer has been destroyed by the fact that iwnet still exists. Games automatically matchmake with level 50's, and from different countries. It also preferences games over 100ms ping. The game feels very rushed and seems to be because the developers wanted to compete with bf3. They should NOT have attempted to release the game in such a poor state. They should have utilized the PC as the platform of choice so that they could then downsize the graphics etc for consoles. That way the game would have potentially had good competition against BF3. Instead the game is cliche, recycled and carelessly created. Sad, it had potential.    … Expand
  72. MSkriver
    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.
  73. Honelith
    Nov 8, 2011
    3
    So here we are, MW3 is here, right next to BF3. Being a multiplayer FPS gamer couldn't get any better right? Well, I wouldn't be so sure.

    MW3 seems to be what MW2 should have been, and rather then patching MW2 to be more balanced, they'd rather ask you to rebuy it with zero DLCs and will no doubt have to buy the countless map packs to carry on playing on the popular servers. All that    So here we are, MW3 is here, right next to BF3. Being a multiplayer FPS gamer couldn't get any better right? Well, I wouldn't be so sure.

    MW3 seems to be what MW2 should have been, and rather then patching MW2 to be more balanced, they'd rather ask you to rebuy it with zero DLCs and will no doubt have to buy the countless map packs to carry on playing on the popular servers. All that money and time invested in MW2 with it's 2 DLCs down the drain.

    At least BF3 had the courtesy to give us a new engine to enjoy, MW3 looks dated and very inferior when played right next to BF3. Teamplay is very minimal and the only lasting appeal is unlocking the goodies.

    It's a shame, they should have given something new for MW3, but instead, we got a cheap remake of MW2 at the full asking price.    … Expand
  74. Fuby
    Nov 9, 2011
    3
    This franchise is a total disgrace from it's roots. After COD 4 it has gone straight down hill. This use to be the best modable game for FPS shooters.. it's now no skills needed run and gun and die on the smallest maps you ever seen.. terrible DLC looking games being released as FULL over priced games on a yearly basis. They need to fire the whole lot and get back to what made the seriesThis franchise is a total disgrace from it's roots. After COD 4 it has gone straight down hill. This use to be the best modable game for FPS shooters.. it's now no skills needed run and gun and die on the smallest maps you ever seen.. terrible DLC looking games being released as FULL over priced games on a yearly basis. They need to fire the whole lot and get back to what made the series popular.. community mods and servers with actual content and cutting edge additions. You can sell ferilizer all day at the flower shop markets..looks like fertilizer is now sold daily in the video game market as well. Wait a few years and see if they return to their senses.… Expand
  75. rishistorm
    Nov 9, 2011
    3
    It is quite absurd frankly how much has not changed since 2009. Same menu, same screens, same multiplayer, same sounds , same graphics. What i intend to point here is there are many annually launching games out there more in the sports genre like FIFA and NBA which fell different even after a year but nothing much has changed for Modern warfare 3 from MW2 ( unless we look at the contrastIt is quite absurd frankly how much has not changed since 2009. Same menu, same screens, same multiplayer, same sounds , same graphics. What i intend to point here is there are many annually launching games out there more in the sports genre like FIFA and NBA which fell different even after a year but nothing much has changed for Modern warfare 3 from MW2 ( unless we look at the contrast and brightness).

    Just because a formula works it doesn't mean u use it all the time. The menu's could have easily been changed to at least give the a feeling that the game is different and not a mod created by some awesome community, The single player although good has lost its lustre from MW2. The excitement from MW2 has just died down. Events are more predictable now and the 9/11 reference was just badly used. Same hordes of enemies and same sounding guns, dialogues do not help much. I could even say Black Ops had a better campaign. Seeing familiar characters does bring back some memories from past titles but that just reduces the effect of the current game. Also i don't see many people coming for a replay to the campaign. The solution to that is Spec-Ops , if you find a friend who is willing to join you ( not that difficult online) but again this gets repetitive quickly and one or more deaths is easy to get you agitated to start all over again.

    The Multiplayer is quite frankly the strongest and the weakest link of the game. The game is selling for its multiplayer but is going to lose many players slowly as people realize they might as well stick to MW2 and Black Ops. The biggest problem problem of MW3 multiplayer is its familiarity. After 3 games of the same type of multiplayer , we need a change. Changeable scopes, new killstreaks and Dog-tag pick up (Kill - confirmed) mode does not count as change but only as minor add ons.

    It is quite clear many are disappointed with the game and if they gave me a refund for dissatisfaction i would take it, but just to show my faith in COD, i won't and hopefully next year they do change some things and win back their fans.    … Expand
  76. prmaguiar
    Nov 10, 2011
    3
    Let me start by stating I am NOT a Battlefield fanboy. In fact, I couldn't care less for BF3 as of now, since I'm one of the thousands of Steam users boycotting EA's Origin. And I didn't enjoy Bad Company 2 either. That said, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is a bad game in almost every aspect. I don't much care for the dated graphics: they still look rather acceptable and make for a smoothLet me start by stating I am NOT a Battlefield fanboy. In fact, I couldn't care less for BF3 as of now, since I'm one of the thousands of Steam users boycotting EA's Origin. And I didn't enjoy Bad Company 2 either. That said, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is a bad game in almost every aspect. I don't much care for the dated graphics: they still look rather acceptable and make for a smooth experience on my also dated rig. Now to tthe actual game modes. The campaign manages to be shorter than MW2's (which is to say, it's REALLY short). If only it had a nice story like its predecessors, though, it would be a good campaign. It doesn't, and you get bored despite the epic scale the war raging around you has reached. It's all been done before, some missions are almost carbon copies of MW and MW2 ones. It's cliche-ridden, full of predictable "scenes" where your character barely survives (you get knocked down with a scripted explosion, some NPC helps you up, the camera tilts as if to show you're dizzy, then you're fully recovered and back on the frontlines). There are no real plot twists or anything memorable in this campaign whatsoever. I played on "veteran" difficulty and felt the AI was pretty good though. But it is in no way an actual challenge. Now for the multiplayer mode... this deserves a little background. When I bought MW2 upon launch, I hadn't read any previews about it. I just bought it because I was still hyped from COD4, which had an amazing campaign and awesome multiplayer. So I had no clue MW2 wouldn't be getting dedicated servers. I was in for a MAJOR disappointment. I was like "MATCHMAKING??? REALLY???" But the worst thing was, maps were terrible, felt like carousels with annoying players (a maximum 18 of them, to be precise) running around with no tactics or teamwork at all. TERRIBLE stuff. I only managed to endure a couple hours of it, and vowed never to buy a MW game again. But then it was announced MW3 would be getting dedicated servers again. Being fond of the campaign storyline as I was, and hoping the multiplayer would go back to what it was in 2007, I immediately broke my word and pre-purchased it. Then, just a few days before launch day, I read an article at GameSpy saying dedicated servers wouldn't be ranked (meaning you can't level up or unlock guns, items, etc on them) and once again, the player limit would be 18, which is utter garbage. If COD4 had 32 players (some DEDICATED servers allowed even more somehow), why can't we have those 4 years later? Maps also look and feel terrible. MW3's multiplayer is a BORING and frustrating experience. I cannot even understand how this game appeals so much to the masses. It's not entertaining at all. Also, with no leaning AGAIN, gameplay is horrible. Bottom line (multiplayer-wise) is, MW3 = MW2 with even worse maps. The only thing remotely good about this game is the Spec Ops mode, which doesn't even come close to making MW3 worth the 60 bucks I spent on it. This game should cost 10 USD, tops. No joke. I'll tell you what IS a joke though. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3.… Expand
  77. KapteinKnipmes
    Nov 10, 2011
    3
    It gets a 3 in my books.
    1 Point for Spec Ops Survival mode
    1 Point for Spec Ops Mission mode 1 Point for the Uninstall button in control panel. This is MW 2.1 without question. Heck even some of the error messages that you might and will later encounter refer to the game as MW2 and not MW3. Nice lazy Dev code there. Let's start with the facts. P2P DOES NOT, CAN NOT, and WILL NOT EVER,    It gets a 3 in my books.
    1 Point for Spec Ops Survival mode
    1 Point for Spec Ops Mission mode
    1 Point for the Uninstall button in control panel.

    This is MW 2.1 without question. Heck even some of the error messages that you might and will later encounter refer to the game as MW2 and not MW3. Nice lazy Dev code there. Let's start with the facts. P2P DOES NOT, CAN NOT, and WILL NOT EVER, work for a pc Based FPS Multiplayer game. Sure it's fine for co-op, or at least a SMALL number of players in a versus mode, but that still introduces host advantage. As a competitive Multiplayer game, there is no chance it will ever work. Please remove all instances of this crap from any future games from your stable IW. I cannot see in my right mind how IW thinks it's sufficient to play a FPS game with 100+ ping every single round, its absolutely absurd. In my first hour of playing alone I encountered 2 Aimbotters, which could have been dealt with by Admins, but seeing that There are none in P2P, they spoilt the game for us all until we EVENTUALLY found a new playlist. Atleast the addition of dedicated servers rectifies this, but IW jumps in and even limits us on these, being unranked and all.
    Also Loving the fact that that your only sound options are Volume and speaker setup, no way to turn down music or menu sounds. The visuals are not on par with anything from this year, as it actually looks worse than MW2 and Black Ops due to the fact that levels are bigger and more intricate, so the textures have to be downscaled (or so it seems) for the console players to achieve sustainable frame rates. Fantastic job guys, really.    … Expand
  78. TECSmith
    Nov 10, 2011
    3
    As an avid follower of this shooter I collected all but 'Black-Ops' on the PC.

    I will conclude my 'Call of Duty' collection with this title, and really hope that this is the last we see of the series, as it appears a lot of loose ends were tied up from the previous 'Modern Warfare' games. Whilst I did enjoy the single-player and special operations mode, I realize there is very little in    As an avid follower of this shooter I collected all but 'Black-Ops' on the PC.

    I will conclude my 'Call of Duty' collection with this title, and really hope that this is the last we see of the series, as it appears a lot of loose ends were tied up from the previous 'Modern Warfare' games.

    Whilst I did enjoy the single-player and special operations mode, I realize there is very little in the way of any major game engine changes - a few sparkles here and there.
    I didn't expect much, and really was only keen on seeing how it all ended in the storyline... Yes, the gameplay could have been a bit longer though!

    Overall, there were some good story telling ideas and strong character backgrounds. But in my opinion Activision should now look toward building a new franchise for 2012.
    Thank you and goodnight!    … Expand
  79. Dens4U
    Nov 10, 2011
    3
    Pas d'innovation pour le mode multijoueur, MW3 est un simple patch de MW2.
    Moteur graphique à la ramasse. Tout comme les messages d'erreur du jeu qui lorsqu'ils pop sur votre écran indique que Modern Warfare 2 à planter...
    Le solo est toujours aussi agréable, explosif!!! et intéressant!, mais toujours aussi court    Pas d'innovation pour le mode multijoueur, MW3 est un simple patch de MW2.
    Moteur graphique à la ramasse. Tout comme les messages d'erreur du jeu qui lorsqu'ils pop sur votre écran indique que Modern Warfare 2 à planter...

    Le solo est toujours aussi agréable, explosif!!! et intéressant!, mais toujours aussi court malheureusement, j'ai surtout aimé me balader dans plusieurs grandes villes du globe! pour un dépaysement total!

    Je lui met 3/5 pour le solo et 0/5 pour le multijoueur qui est un simple copier coller de MW2.

    Messieurs d'EA arrêtez avec vos sorties annuels, vous allez finir par tuer votre poule aux oeufs d'or.    … Expand
  80. kristoficus
    Nov 10, 2011
    3
    This review is based entirely on the multiplayer element because that is the true value of a game, especially when it's campaign is 'only' about 3-4 hours. I have not yet played the campaign but if it's anything like previous CoD games, it should be varied, fun & interesting... probably with a bad ending...

    Okay, first impression was insanely bad. I have a 460GTX 768MB so I turned all    This review is based entirely on the multiplayer element because that is the true value of a game, especially when it's campaign is 'only' about 3-4 hours. I have not yet played the campaign but if it's anything like previous CoD games, it should be varied, fun & interesting... probably with a bad ending...

    Okay, first impression was insanely bad. I have a 460GTX 768MB so I turned all settings up to their max on a 1080P resolution. FPS was not an issue, but the graphics certainly were! Horrible anti-aliasing, really poor textures... it looked like a 10 year old game. And then I discovered an illogical and backwards 'native' image quality actually made the game look semi-decent. Now it only looks like a 6 year old game... well, I guess in a way it is, since it runs on a modified/updated IW Engine from 2005.

    Call of Duty games have always been good for their "jump in, shoot, end game" style where you can complete an entire game in about 5 minutes, easy to kill and get a good score making you think you are amazing (when in fact just mediocre). Sure, you have fun doing it but it lacks style and substance.

    Compare it to Battlefield 3 (amazing, by the way!) which has massive maps and unique game styles. If you play as a medic you actually need to think like a medic. Play as a sniper and think like a sniper. With CoD, it's nowhere like that. Where are the vehicles? Such a disappointment compared to BF3. Please forgive me for what looks like I'm slating this game, but I used to be a die-hard CoD fan and I have to admit right now, I've not had much fun with previous Battlefield games. But if you do a direct comparison between CoD:MW3 and BF3, the difference is night and day. In fact, in making the comparison I am only showing further just how good BF3 is, and how MW3 shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence.

    Please Activision... Stop using CoD as your yearly cash cow. Can you remember the first Call of Duty, where it was PC only? Yeah, you used your PC gaming base to build on an amazing foundation which carried onto united offensive, and to an extend... CoD 2. Your first venture into the console market with CoD 3 was a major slap in the face not only to PC gamers who couldn't get it, but the console gamers who were given a poor experience.

    Go back to your roots - get rid of the nade spam, do away with the stupid perks... Bring us back a realistic and authentic FPS gaming experience and please don't treat those you BUILT the CoD fanbase and foundation like a used plaster. WE are the reason your franchise is so successful so don't give us poor console ports! Make CoD fun again, because if you don't... I may very well swallow a difficult pill and completely turn my back on you. DICE and EA (even with their shoddy Origin...) are looking very easy to build a new allegiance with, and I hope you can turn things around.

    We want:

    A brand new engine (no modifications, no updates!) to give us true next-gen graphics and visuals
    Unmatched realism - high quality textures, authentic sounds, true-to-life gameplay
    Longer and more immersive campaigns that play like an epic cinematic movie
    Better multiplayer "hit points" (if I put a single bullet in someones head they really should die...)
    Do away with perks. They don't help with realism! Take things back to basics - a soldier, a gun, and nothing but the gamers skill.

    Ohh the list goes on... but we've been asking this for years so why continue when it's clear you are in the business of making money rather than giving your fans what they want...    … Expand
  81. The_Cools
    Nov 10, 2011
    3
    This game was built on rankings; Infinity re invented that process and made it better with each installment of MW. Taking away rankings from PC players on dedicated servers just so they can plug their pay service Elite, is turning there back on the people who made the game a success, the players. With no improvement on the engine the game looks dated and in my opinion, fails to achieveThis game was built on rankings; Infinity re invented that process and made it better with each installment of MW. Taking away rankings from PC players on dedicated servers just so they can plug their pay service Elite, is turning there back on the people who made the game a success, the players. With no improvement on the engine the game looks dated and in my opinion, fails to achieve the vision of the original Infinity founders. I don't know any of any clan members who played the single player campaign since the original MW, so I don't think that is important at this time.… Expand
  82. Bondy
    Nov 10, 2011
    3
    I play COD for the single player and Bf for the multi and COD was the same crap different year. If even ended the same with the quick time left right, e crap and where everyone bites the bullet. Some parts were very cool and I like and cared about the story being told but the critics overrated this game way too much. The campaign was too short and the ending just pissed me off. MultiplayerI play COD for the single player and Bf for the multi and COD was the same crap different year. If even ended the same with the quick time left right, e crap and where everyone bites the bullet. Some parts were very cool and I like and cared about the story being told but the critics overrated this game way too much. The campaign was too short and the ending just pissed me off. Multiplayer is even worse and is almost exactly like MW2 with a few additions and a very cool reward system which is accessible if you're very good at this kind of arcade style shooter. COD2k11 is the madden of shooters and we all saw how that was received. I will think twice before buying another COD game for £40.… Expand
  83. TheFrin
    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.
  84. loknaster
    Nov 10, 2011
    3
    short campaign that I'm pretty sure I've played before. Honestly, its basically the video game version of a Michael Bay movie. Awful, please don't waste your money like I did.
  85. Dusty_Bottoms
    Nov 10, 2011
    3
    Well I jumped right on the band wagon and bought this game without reading any user reviews I wish I had. Overall I am very disappointed. Maybe the developers felt if it ain't broke don't fix it, but I think they have ended up with a stale game, same stuff repeated. It is not a new MW game its a map pack for MW2 and no more. I can't understand why the dedicated servers are un-ranked. I'mWell I jumped right on the band wagon and bought this game without reading any user reviews I wish I had. Overall I am very disappointed. Maybe the developers felt if it ain't broke don't fix it, but I think they have ended up with a stale game, same stuff repeated. It is not a new MW game its a map pack for MW2 and no more. I can't understand why the dedicated servers are un-ranked. I'm in Ireland and don't have a great net connection but at least with dedicated servers I could find one with good ping but what's the point if you cant rank up on them, so I am forced to go the P2P option, which is, for me at least, a very inferior way of playing. You are at the mercy of lag, whom ever is the host has the advantage. Also with the p2p games it just feels like I am spending more time in game lobbies waiting for players to join than in game and when in game you get the always annoying mitigating host message. I'll stick with Black Ops for my COD kicks, enjoying BF3 at the mo and I'm looking forward to Skyrim tomorrow.… Expand
  86. Scotro
    Nov 10, 2011
    3
    This review is focused solely on the multiplayer experience. It seems there are really only two changes from recent COD games: Perks/Unlocks & Maps. The maps are possibly the most refreshing change. The game boasts a huge rotation of around 16 maps all of which appear to be well laid out. My only complaint is the drab and uninspired color pallet; far too many of the maps remind me ofThis review is focused solely on the multiplayer experience. It seems there are really only two changes from recent COD games: Perks/Unlocks & Maps. The maps are possibly the most refreshing change. The game boasts a huge rotation of around 16 maps all of which appear to be well laid out. My only complaint is the drab and uninspired color pallet; far too many of the maps remind me of Carnival from MW2. At face value, the perks and unlocks appear new and exciting; that is, until you read the description and realize it's the same old perks with new names. The game throws new unlocks and challenges at you at an alarming rate. I found this to be a bit overwhelming and not necessarily a positive, however gamers who love to complete a game 100% and earn every single reward may find this appealing. If I were to appraise the value of the new content in Modern Warfare 3, I'd place it at around $15; the cost of a map pack. In hindsight, it was naive of me to assume that Activision would break the mold with MW3 and I take full responsibility for blowing $60 on a game that I already own two copies of (COD4 and MW2).… Expand
  87. BMW
    Nov 10, 2011
    3
    well as mentioned from other reviewers its the same this as MW2 same engine same buggy game play same messed up on line system of trying to play the game the only diff is it has more. more gay no skill required perks and strike packages the game consistently shows that it was designed for a console with low fov (field of view ) that's ok for a TV but when being viewed from a PC monitorwell as mentioned from other reviewers its the same this as MW2 same engine same buggy game play same messed up on line system of trying to play the game the only diff is it has more. more gay no skill required perks and strike packages the game consistently shows that it was designed for a console with low fov (field of view ) that's ok for a TV but when being viewed from a PC monitor its a bit frustrating not seeing whats off to ur left or off to ur right as far as i see this game has been over hyped and the sires has fallen this game is just a cash cow for IW compared to the first modern warfare which i STILL play mw3 has no class the only thing that is consistent that i love about the sires it lone wolf arcade style of play THAT'S IT… Expand
  88. Wellesley
    Nov 10, 2011
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I give this game a 4/10 because I actually bothered to finish it and it didn't crash to desktop once.
    Now to get on to why the game doesn't deserve a score higher than that:
    1. The graphics are abysmal, have not been improved since Call of Duty 4, and are actually worse on the PC since the render resolution is locked to 720p and upscaled horribly if you set it to a higher resolution than that. This makes it obvious that it's just a bad console port and the appropriate amount of attention was not paid to the PC version.
    2. The gameplay is tired, uninspired and boring. Shooting hordes of enemies with terrible AI that respawn until you move to an arbitrary position on the map may have been fun back in 2003 (hell, it may have been fun in 2007), but it's getting old now. This is the same game as before just in a different place, only now the bad guys are even harder to see and distinguish from enemies because the world is even greyer and everyone is wearing grey.
    3. The story is horrible. The pacing is entirely off and relies on cheap tricks and setpieces that would have been exciting four years ago, but just seem clichéd now. For example, there are so many instances in this game where you'll be heading to the "extraction zone" or whatever and your means of escape will explode. This was only ever exciting once, not the twelfth time you pull it on the player. Another gripe with the story is the horribly put together shock scene involving the death of a child. For a start, the tone was never properly established, so it just seem shoehorned in, it never made sense that there were carefree American tourists on holiday in the UK when their country was being invaded, and the whole scene smacks of a pathetic attempt to create controversy to gain sales. Not to mention that the general plot itself is the same. A Russian guy is trying to create a conflict to take over the world or establish Russian dominance again or something, it's never really clear, and so the merry band of SAS and American soldiers have to team up to stop the nukes. Seem familiar? It should do if you've played Call of Duty 4.
    4. The Multiplayer. It's the same as Modern Warfare 2. If you liked that you'll like this, but if you got used to the improvements made in BlackOps then I have disappointing news for you. The dedicated servers are not ranked and the matchmaking is awful. The gunplay is worse and there are confirmed day-one aim hacks.

    Altogether, this is a lazy game that was obviously rushed out in a year to make truckloads of cash with a minimum of effort. Judging from the preorder sales alone, it has already done that, but regardless of this I do not recommend you buy it. It's a tired rehash of previous games in the series and the loss of the creative minds behind Infinity Ward to Respawn Entertainment shows very much. The only reason to buy this game is if you want more of the same multiplayer experience you got in Modern Warfare 2.    … Expand
  89. Wack_B5
    Nov 11, 2011
    3
    VERY disappointing. I'm a 36yo LONG STANDING COD fan (I like BF but always preferred COD and player COD 90% of the time with many friends in a clan (the majority of our clan is disappointed). There is practically nothing new here worth any $ at all. A few new killstreaks (and killstreak chains), different weapons and unlock system. new maps, Insignificant NON RANKED ONLY dedicated servers,VERY disappointing. I'm a 36yo LONG STANDING COD fan (I like BF but always preferred COD and player COD 90% of the time with many friends in a clan (the majority of our clan is disappointed). There is practically nothing new here worth any $ at all. A few new killstreaks (and killstreak chains), different weapons and unlock system. new maps, Insignificant NON RANKED ONLY dedicated servers, generaly played with the MW2 matchmaking system, Still no way to VOTE KICK jerks or hackers... I've seen more new stuff in a map pack... I'm REALLY DISAPPOINTED...… Expand
  90. Juxta
    Nov 11, 2011
    3
    Any follow on game will have devoted followers who may be disappointed with the new game. Developers change displays and controls for a 'fresh look', etc... However when controls are changed due to the predominance of a certain platform, there is a problem. The changed control(s) that I am speaking about is the ability to 'lean' around the corners and shoot. I am not a RNG guy; I playAny follow on game will have devoted followers who may be disappointed with the new game. Developers change displays and controls for a 'fresh look', etc... However when controls are changed due to the predominance of a certain platform, there is a problem. The changed control(s) that I am speaking about is the ability to 'lean' around the corners and shoot. I am not a RNG guy; I play tactically. Now in this new version, I am forced to expose my body to get a shot off. There are very few hidey holes, you can't blend in with the bushes as would benefit snipers and defenders. Heck - you can't even jump up on top of many of the boxes and desks in a room to get a better angle shot. ACTIVISION - If you are going to build a game that is supposed to mimic wartime, then make a game that mimics wartime and doesn't exclusively cater to the RNG'rs and console players. You want my hard earned money? EARN IT!!! Call of Duty Black Ops was a much better effort than this. I AM DISAPPOINTED AND FEEL AS IF I WASTED MY MONEY.… Expand
  91. jasin39
    Nov 11, 2011
    3
    The Campain looks cool. The online is horrendous. Its the same story. No matter where you spawn , someone is behind you waiting. You shoot someone 5 times at point blank, the hits don't register. They kill you with one shot. The kill cam is joke. I was playing onine PC version and someone calling theirself Suited Penguin would litterally dissappear and then reappear between buildings.The Campain looks cool. The online is horrendous. Its the same story. No matter where you spawn , someone is behind you waiting. You shoot someone 5 times at point blank, the hits don't register. They kill you with one shot. The kill cam is joke. I was playing onine PC version and someone calling theirself Suited Penguin would litterally dissappear and then reappear between buildings. People are already lag switching and boosting each other. It kills the experience for honest players. I feel like I got ripped off for my 60 dollars and I cant return the game.

    There are no ranked servers. A level one player will be tossed into match with people who are level 68.
    The latency is bad as well. Battlefield 3 PC version I often find games with less than 30 ms latency. Modern warfare 3 lowest settings usually start off at 50 ms and just go up from there.

    I visit the game's website. they state to report cheaters, yet leave no clear instructions on how to do so.
    With all these things wrong. I feel as though they should offer people option to buy just the campaign mode (the working part of the game) at a reduced price, or offer a money back guarantee for incomplete game.

    For now I will stick to "the Battlefield".    … Expand
  92. nimrod33
    Nov 11, 2011
    3
    The story is too much cheesy to watch.
    The gameplay is the same old history.
    The graphic are very much the same.
    The music also either.
    I can´t believe that I waste my money on this.
  93. ANK_G
    Nov 11, 2011
    3
    What the bloody hell is it? WM3? Oh, I prefer die... It's the worst CoD I've ever played. Only Survival Mode is not bad at all, though it reminds me of Zombie Mode. The terrible graphics makes me sick. IW5 engine is far worse than IW4 engine. Is it a joke? I hope so.
  94. Ernestei
    Nov 12, 2011
    3
    When I saw the first videos I didn't expect much. Now that I have played it, I can say it: this game is just a DLC of MW2. Let's see: the only new thing is the story mode, which includes a new story - of course - but that's all. Gameplay hasn't goy any change, still the same. For example, when you're running and you press the button to prone, the guy simply stops and prones; in Black OpsWhen I saw the first videos I didn't expect much. Now that I have played it, I can say it: this game is just a DLC of MW2. Let's see: the only new thing is the story mode, which includes a new story - of course - but that's all. Gameplay hasn't goy any change, still the same. For example, when you're running and you press the button to prone, the guy simply stops and prones; in Black Ops you'd kind of jump and fall into the ground, they didn't make a simple improvement like that. The graphic engine is just the same, Black Ops graphics were better IMO and they couldn't improve even that. Multiplayer is simply MW 2 but with new maps and new killstreaks, nothing much.

    In conclusion, Infinite Ward wants us to pay for a game which is just a "DLC" of an older one at full price. I didn't bite, hope you won't.    … Expand
  95. snowbear
    Nov 12, 2011
    3
    The game deserves its low rating on the pc at least. Campain: meh at the most, its short, linear, no improvements in graphical/audio fidelity, and to top it off the story isnt even good. so id give it a 3/10 for that

    Graphics: there is free to play indie games out there that look better. And compared to other games in the same market its poor. 5/10 Functionality: Again nothing new.    The game deserves its low rating on the pc at least. Campain: meh at the most, its short, linear, no improvements in graphical/audio fidelity, and to top it off the story isnt even good. so id give it a 3/10 for that

    Graphics: there is free to play indie games out there that look better. And compared to other games in the same market its poor. 5/10

    Functionality: Again nothing new. MW had more options and that came out in 2007. Very very poor 2/10

    Multiplayer: The most annoying aspect of this game. could have been good. IW were making all the right noises on this one. Then at the last minute ruined all their hard work ten fold. How can you tell your community that you listened to all the feedback from mw2, and then completely disreguard all of what was said. 0/10 as in its current state it might as well not exist. Life span: as there is no multiplayer worth playing and the campain is 4 hours long max. 3/10 Value for money: as i have it on the pc 0/10 as it has no trade in value... This is why the game doesnt deserve to have a good review score    … Expand
  96. ScoxX
    Nov 12, 2011
    3
    Call of Duty Moder Warfere, muito boa a serie, marcou a historia com o MW1, com o MW2 atraiu varias pessoas para o multiplayer e nos titulos seguinte de CoD parece que acabaram a fonte de criatividade. Sem inovação nenhuma no CoD MW3, pouca divulgação do titulo (creio que seja por causa de não ter nenhuma novidade paraCall of Duty Moder Warfere, muito boa a serie, marcou a historia com o MW1, com o MW2 atraiu varias pessoas para o multiplayer e nos titulos seguinte de CoD parece que acabaram a fonte de criatividade. Sem inovação nenhuma no CoD MW3, pouca divulgação do titulo (creio que seja por causa de não ter nenhuma novidade para mostrar.) e é claro que a Activition apostou na força que o titulo tem sobre os varios fans que o Call of Duty possui, principalmente nos console.… Expand
  97. manuelcr
    Nov 13, 2011
    3
    COD:MW3 is a sequel of COD4:MW, but not only with the main story, also with the graphic engine, the way on that you play the game... nothing has changed since we could enjoy the COD4.

    And It is not good, because we have to continue playing 'on rails' when the most of new games give more and more freedom to play. Playing to this COD is bored by moments, because the only challenge is    COD:MW3 is a sequel of COD4:MW, but not only with the main story, also with the graphic engine, the way on that you play the game... nothing has changed since we could enjoy the COD4.

    And It is not good, because we have to continue playing 'on rails' when the most of new games give more and more freedom to play.

    Playing to this COD is bored by moments, because the only challenge is finding the way forward to avoid falling shot.

    Great Story, bad game.    … Expand
  98. charlie412
    Nov 20, 2011
    3
    This is the best map pack yet for modern warfare 2, it comes with an all new campaign and spec ops missions and about 8 new multiplayer maps, yes they are all new and dont use any of the same layouts or buildings as call of duty 4 at all. The thing i like best about call of duty is how easy the multiplayer is, i just sit in a corner and fire until i run out of ammo, you have to buy thisThis is the best map pack yet for modern warfare 2, it comes with an all new campaign and spec ops missions and about 8 new multiplayer maps, yes they are all new and dont use any of the same layouts or buildings as call of duty 4 at all. The thing i like best about call of duty is how easy the multiplayer is, i just sit in a corner and fire until i run out of ammo, you have to buy this game to see its amazing visuals, probably the best ever visuals you will see on an IPAD ever, i dont get how they got this to work its amazing.… Expand
  99. JimCorbett
    Jun 19, 2013
    3
    I went into MW3 expecting just a copy-paste of MW2 (which I honestly enjoyed). What I got was something much, much worse. I play CoD for the story, and the singleplayer in MW3 lasts all of 4 hours and the story itself is totally uninteresting. There were just 1 memorable mission in MW3 that I may go back and play again, compare that to 5 or 6 in the previous installments. The spec ops hadI went into MW3 expecting just a copy-paste of MW2 (which I honestly enjoyed). What I got was something much, much worse. I play CoD for the story, and the singleplayer in MW3 lasts all of 4 hours and the story itself is totally uninteresting. There were just 1 memorable mission in MW3 that I may go back and play again, compare that to 5 or 6 in the previous installments. The spec ops had a lot of promise, I really enjoyed it in MW2. Unfortunately it is done very poorly in MW3. Again, there are no memorable missions, and the missions themselves basically require you to play with a partner. Add that to the fact that CoD matchmaking and latency is god awful, and you have a terrible experience. Survival mode was a good idea, but again, the matchmaking system completely ruins it. I'm not even going to talk about Multiplayer because we all know that it has always been completely broken garbage. I have played every single CoD game (dating back to the PC exclusive original) and I can honestly say that MW3 is the worst.… Expand
  100. Shekky
    Nov 14, 2011
    3
    It seems this company doesn't truely care at what we think as having non-ranked dedicated servers is just complete failure on there part. The game is pretty much just a re-skin of mw2 but **** The guns in mw2 handled better. My only suggestion is that they should of made it so the ranked was privately hosted instead of running off someone else's terrible internet. I have a huge problemIt seems this company doesn't truely care at what we think as having non-ranked dedicated servers is just complete failure on there part. The game is pretty much just a re-skin of mw2 but **** The guns in mw2 handled better. My only suggestion is that they should of made it so the ranked was privately hosted instead of running off someone else's terrible internet. I have a huge problem with this as I live in the middle of no where and get nothing but lag on anyone's connection. Atleast with my dedicated server I get a ping of around 60-100. This game is not innovative in the least bit. I give this a 3 and thats only because I can atleast enjoy TWL on a dedicated server which is the only reason I will play this game. Please release an RCON for dedicated servers would help!!!… Expand
prev
Page:

Awards & Rankings

59
#59 Best PC Game of 2011
4
#4 Most Discussed PC Game of 2011
27
#27 Most Shared PC Game of 2011

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
78

Generally favorable reviews - based on 26 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 19 out of 26
  2. Mixed: 7 out of 26
  3. Negative: 0 out of 26
  1. Computer Games Online RO
    Apr 10, 2012
    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.
    Read full review
  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]
See all critic reviews »