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
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 »