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. sgttris
    Nov 10, 2011
    0
    To start this is exactly like Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops. I personally played the two a bit, but I didn't know this had came out, and came in to see my friend playing it. He hadn't played Cod for a while, so I asked "Hey, why are you playing COD?" He then went on to explain this is the "NEW!" one and how great it is. If I can't even tell the difference between one game and the otherTo start this is exactly like Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops. I personally played the two a bit, but I didn't know this had came out, and came in to see my friend playing it. He hadn't played Cod for a while, so I asked "Hey, why are you playing COD?" He then went on to explain this is the "NEW!" one and how great it is. If I can't even tell the difference between one game and the other then is it a new game? Well technically yes, but really it's no. They might have well made a universal Call of Duty game that they can simply profit from map packs that they can hype all they want.… Expand
  2. Kyou
    Nov 10, 2011
    1
    i was a big fan of the call of duty series since i was a boy since there was always something suprising every time is came out and was a lot of fun, how ever i was very dissapointed in the modern warfare 3 as it pretty much copy and pasted the previous contents such as cinamatics, plots and twists.
  3. MrMan13
    Nov 10, 2011
    2
    After playing MW3 for a bit, i realized it's just a $60 map pack for the last game. not happy not happy at all! I suppose I shouldn't have expected much coming from someone who "didn't balance for lean" but really not to happy throwing money away. Also full well knowing they will probably release another 10 + map packs at $15 .
  4. Steveo97
    Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Not even on the same level as Black Ops. A complete disappointment. Looks like I'll be sticking with Black Ops and BF3 for another year. I feel deceived.
  5. teamsamson888
    Nov 10, 2011
    0
    im suprised activision hasnt upgraded there graphics or engine its the same ol mw1-2 gameplay hacks gallore im sorry to say it but battlefield 3 is crushing this old engine even bc2 is beating this old engine, come on activision atleast use the black ops engine
  6. openmind666
    Nov 11, 2011
    0
    Every review that gives above 0 to this game is an insult to every other game in history. This despicable garbage is the worst game i've ever played. Graphics are outdated severely, the plot is clichÃ
  7. CanardPCnet
    Nov 11, 2011
    0
    The sentence of ACTIVISION:

    "Normally I do not do that, but if you like MW3 go to Metacritic.com and support Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. His note is suspiciously low. Be honest, but help us if you agree."

    MW2.1 is a joke!
  8. TrentC
    Nov 11, 2011
    0
    Every Call of Duty since CoD4 has tried so hard to out-do its predecessor to the point where its made me look upon some of the greatest FPS games ever made, and think they are obselete. It has made me look at games in new ways, and think, "what is this game doing new, and if its not doing anything new, why play it?"

    Its horrible to think that I used to play marathon sessions of games like    Every Call of Duty since CoD4 has tried so hard to out-do its predecessor to the point where its made me look upon some of the greatest FPS games ever made, and think they are obselete. It has made me look at games in new ways, and think, "what is this game doing new, and if its not doing anything new, why play it?"

    Its horrible to think that I used to play marathon sessions of games like Counter Strike, CoD 4, and Halo 3, and now I dont even want to think about them.    … Expand
  9. zlatko
    Nov 11, 2011
    0
    Old game, old engine , outdated graphics, outdated sound, **** GAME, only stupid kids bye this game, wake up people save your money for something good
  10. Milisavp
    Nov 11, 2011
    0
    After seeing some single player footage months ago, i got so excited for MW3 that i pre-ordered it. I still think MW1 was one of the best shooters ever made, revolutionized FPS on so many levels. So MF3 is awesome right? W R O N G! Why? First off, i don't see what 'official' reviewers see... how can this garbage be rated so high? Makes me think they were bribed by Activision mafia. NothingAfter seeing some single player footage months ago, i got so excited for MW3 that i pre-ordered it. I still think MW1 was one of the best shooters ever made, revolutionized FPS on so many levels. So MF3 is awesome right? W R O N G! Why? First off, i don't see what 'official' reviewers see... how can this garbage be rated so high? Makes me think they were bribed by Activision mafia. Nothing has changed in 4 years!!! Same ol' graphics, campaign is boring and predictable and after playing BF3, multiplayer is is just me'h. Again, everything looks and feels the same as each annual version since 2007. so disappointed i spent 60 bucks, will NEVER EVER EVER EVER buy CoD again, i don't care what they do. BF3 isn't perfect by any means, but i'm ENJOYING it and that's what i PAID for.… Expand
  11. Perriwen
    Nov 11, 2011
    0
    There's so much with this game that's flat out wrong I don't know where to begin.

    First off, there's the normal copy/paste aspect, but that's been said so many times before, I think most people get it. But it gets worse. Several things that were once exploits, such as quick scoping, were not only intentionally put back into the game, but buffed to a ludicrous level. Back during XP, they    There's so much with this game that's flat out wrong I don't know where to begin.

    First off, there's the normal copy/paste aspect, but that's been said so many times before, I think most people get it. But it gets worse. Several things that were once exploits, such as quick scoping, were not only intentionally put back into the game, but buffed to a ludicrous level. Back during XP, they boasted that commando pro was being removed..well, they removed the perk, and built it in as a default (not to mention the blink-of-an-eye insta knifing just is wrong on so many levels.)

    Then there's the maps themselves. Back during previous games, they at least had some balance between open-ish maps and tight city maps. Well, this time, it's exclusively cramped city maps where multiplayer is pretty much reduced to running laps around the map. Very tiresome, very quickly. Combine this with poor sound design and a campaign that is completely laughable as it is short (I admit, that IS a good thing with how horrid the story is), and you get a game that is not worth a $60 price tag, nor is it worth the title 'The Most Anticipated Game in History'.    … Expand
  12. lordgraham
    Nov 11, 2011
    0
    The most expensive map pack ever, or maybe not even a map pack as they have copied and pasted even some buildings in the game. It's just the same MW or MW2 we saw some years ago, but this time it have a smaller FOV what make the game horrible beyond measure. Only the blind fanboys from MW series will say that this **** worth paying it's price. Don't buy this pile of trash.
  13. Brosky_McChugs
    Nov 11, 2011
    0
    I couldn't get this game to work on my brotactular Macbook Pro (or as I call it my Macbook Bro). Obviously IW didn't optimize this game for such a brotactular system and thus they cannot receive my Seal of Broproval. Total letdown bros.
  14. kratos1005
    Nov 12, 2011
    1
    A complete disappointment. Nothing has changed. Another addition to the MW2 .
  15. Crashgirl
    Nov 12, 2011
    1
    The graphics are old and dated, it's more like a map pack than a new game. The peer-to-peer for multi-player ranked servers has got to go!!! If the developer had allowed for ranked dedicated servers (even if it was limited to just the rented servers like BF3), then I would have scored this game much, much higher. I did think some of the game modes were unique and fun, like Team DefenderThe graphics are old and dated, it's more like a map pack than a new game. The peer-to-peer for multi-player ranked servers has got to go!!! If the developer had allowed for ranked dedicated servers (even if it was limited to just the rented servers like BF3), then I would have scored this game much, much higher. I did think some of the game modes were unique and fun, like Team Defender and Kill Confirmed, but not all of those modes can be hard core.… Expand
  16. ERSQ_Scarecrow
    Nov 12, 2011
    0
    As a cod fan i can't express how disappointing this game is.I play on pc and again iw have shafted us with there crappy iwnet, peer to peer is for consoles.I'd also add that graphically this game is 4 years out of date but then it was made for the xbox and that is 5+years old games like this should be made for the pc first then dumbed down for the console take BF3 as an example i'm no bigAs a cod fan i can't express how disappointing this game is.I play on pc and again iw have shafted us with there crappy iwnet, peer to peer is for consoles.I'd also add that graphically this game is 4 years out of date but then it was made for the xbox and that is 5+years old games like this should be made for the pc first then dumbed down for the console take BF3 as an example i'm no big fan of the battlefield series but graphically it blows mw3 out of the water and i'd have to say that the multiplayer aspect is so much better than mw3.MW3 is just a lazy development by iw there is no imagination and it is just a re skinned mw2.Can't comment on the single player because i don't buy games for the single player… Expand
  17. vespula
    Nov 12, 2011
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I live in Russia. you should look at it! Advertizing in russian language, but itself game only in other language. The answer from support: Hello Roman, Thank you for contacting Steam Support. As the storefront shows, the only support languages are: Languages: English, German, Italian, Spanish, French
    By the way, Russian words in graffity is all obscene! =) how i can money back??    … Expand
  18. DerpyHooves
    Nov 12, 2011
    0
    An absolute mess of a game, (using the word 'game' here seems a bit of a stretch). Unbalanced multi-player which is essentially MW2 with slightly different maps, keeping none of MW2's strengths and all it's weaknesses. The single player doesn't fare much better either, it's another 'OH NOEZ MUSLIM TERRORISTS ARE GOINGZ TO BLOW UP AMERICA'. Not thought provoking at all, not different toAn absolute mess of a game, (using the word 'game' here seems a bit of a stretch). Unbalanced multi-player which is essentially MW2 with slightly different maps, keeping none of MW2's strengths and all it's weaknesses. The single player doesn't fare much better either, it's another 'OH NOEZ MUSLIM TERRORISTS ARE GOINGZ TO BLOW UP AMERICA'. Not thought provoking at all, not different to previous games at all.… Expand
  19. Soini
    Nov 12, 2011
    0
    Infinity Ward should come up with something new in Call of Duty series and not just pack the old game in the new box and sell it as sequel and sell it for ridiculous high price.
  20. Nepnep
    Nov 12, 2011
    0
    60â
  21. Moistdischarge
    Nov 12, 2011
    1
    Absolute garbage. Same **** over and over again. No improvements in any areas, in fact worse on pc, no innovation and no effort. A blatant cash grab. My biggest concern is that talented developers will take note of activisions financial success here, and just spew out bland, repetitive games year after year as activisions seem to do well out of it. Do not buy this, youll be doing the wholeAbsolute garbage. Same **** over and over again. No improvements in any areas, in fact worse on pc, no innovation and no effort. A blatant cash grab. My biggest concern is that talented developers will take note of activisions financial success here, and just spew out bland, repetitive games year after year as activisions seem to do well out of it. Do not buy this, youll be doing the whole industry a favour.… Expand
  22. BTDUBS
    Nov 13, 2011
    0
    I remember playing this game in 2007, but I think it was called COD4. This games formula is staid to say the least, but I have to wonder what it might have really been like if Infinity Ward hadn't imploded. Oh, and it is a 0 because I don't think a map pack should cost $60.
  23. MasterBeta
    Nov 13, 2011
    0
    Yikes!!! What happened to the Call of Duty I used to love? This game honestly should be called Modern Warfare 2.5!!!! You can see a lot of ctrl C and ctrl V on this release. I've been a supporter of Call of Duty since the very first release, and I have to say, it's such a shame what the CoD franchise has turned into. I'm not saying the game is terrible, but it just seems like theyYikes!!! What happened to the Call of Duty I used to love? This game honestly should be called Modern Warfare 2.5!!!! You can see a lot of ctrl C and ctrl V on this release. I've been a supporter of Call of Duty since the very first release, and I have to say, it's such a shame what the CoD franchise has turned into. I'm not saying the game is terrible, but it just seems like they lost their edge on the last three releases. If you really need a good fix, try Battlefield 3. This just isn't right, when what you're paying for can easily be titled as a map pack for MW2.… Expand
  24. Basem
    Nov 13, 2011
    1
    First off, i want to say that this is not a BAD game, its actually alright. but theres one big flaw in both the multiplayer and most of the singleplayer, i have played it before.
    call of duty has had a reputation for having the most action packed FPS games out, upgrading and outclassing with every new title. only problem is that this game is exactly the same as its predecessor, MW2. its    First off, i want to say that this is not a BAD game, its actually alright. but theres one big flaw in both the multiplayer and most of the singleplayer, i have played it before.
    call of duty has had a reputation for having the most action packed FPS games out, upgrading and outclassing with every new title. only problem is that this game is exactly the same as its predecessor, MW2. its plain lazy how little they have done. and for some reason the gameplay feels stiff and unbalanced, its just not right.
    theres something not right about MW3, and all the extremely positive reviews saying otherwise are just pandering to the now ONLY age group of 13 year old buys who rate a game by how many bullets they can shoot.
    one last thing : i am devostated that they pulled the same stunt with the P2P system. being from a small town this has made my online gaming experience terrible. taking 10 miniutes to access a game of hardcore TDM is not how MW is supposed to be.
    disapoined. bring back treyarch.    … Expand
  25. Ovrful
    Nov 13, 2011
    1
    If this games' score would be based on a "developer effort / price " ratio, it would get absolute 0 score. They are using outdated engine for so long that it makes this game look ugly compared to any newer games on market. I believe they mentioned that dedicated serves are back, well yes they are but you can only gain exp via match making lobbys, how great. They even recyled some objectsIf this games' score would be based on a "developer effort / price " ratio, it would get absolute 0 score. They are using outdated engine for so long that it makes this game look ugly compared to any newer games on market. I believe they mentioned that dedicated serves are back, well yes they are but you can only gain exp via match making lobbys, how great. They even recyled some objects from mw 1 and put them into campaign in mw3. They did almost none improvement to weapons sound, since they all sound almost the same and very unusual and yeh a bad port from consoles since FOV is very low, beacuse of which I couldnt play the game very long, since it is very annoying to me, but I really dont care since the game is boring to me and I will probably never play it again.
    However gameplay Is smooth,fast paced and everything , but paying 60â    … Expand
  26. Ordish
    Nov 13, 2011
    1
    I have enjoyed the cod series over the years and love MW1. When MW2 was released, the series started to lose my favor due to the companies aparrant inability to get rid of the hackers. It was a shame, I loved the maps. Back to MW1 I went. I enjoyed Blackops but that was a different developer. Watching the commercials for MW3 I must admit, I was pretty excited. I finished the totallyI have enjoyed the cod series over the years and love MW1. When MW2 was released, the series started to lose my favor due to the companies aparrant inability to get rid of the hackers. It was a shame, I loved the maps. Back to MW1 I went. I enjoyed Blackops but that was a different developer. Watching the commercials for MW3 I must admit, I was pretty excited. I finished the totally bland sp in just over 4 hours.... Wtf? Okay, I was feling rather let down at this point so I fired up mp. After checking to make sure my graphics didn't accidentally get set to low, I realized the game looked like MW2, but not as good. Yes, I started up MW2 to check. I played for 2 days trying out the game modes and have come to the conclusion that I have been suckered. If they would have just patched MW2, and offered a map pack, it would have been better. I feel dirty. I am certain that I will make more stupid mistakes in life, but buying another MW title will not be one of them.… Expand
  27. slizzy
    Nov 13, 2011
    1
    I ahve been a CoD player for year, and this is the worst attempt at a money grab I have ever seen. I already own this game x2 in the form of mw1 and mw2. The sounds are putrid, graphics old, stale, and lacking any colors. I have buyers remorse like you wouldn't believe after buying this game. It really is just DLC for mw2. Whats worse... they are going to sell you the old maps fromI ahve been a CoD player for year, and this is the worst attempt at a money grab I have ever seen. I already own this game x2 in the form of mw1 and mw2. The sounds are putrid, graphics old, stale, and lacking any colors. I have buyers remorse like you wouldn't believe after buying this game. It really is just DLC for mw2. Whats worse... they are going to sell you the old maps from mw2 and mw1 as DLC... raping you again. GG activision/IW/Sledge, you are truly con artists. I am not a bf3 fanboy either. I havent ever played bf until now. At least they are really developing a game and not cloning.… Expand
  28. Othersider
    Nov 13, 2011
    1
    Modern Warfare 3 is mediocre at best, running on the same engine as the previous 3 Call of Duty games and failing to bring anything new or innovative to the table. To top it off, the game has terrible multiplayer balance issues. Essentially, it is Modern Warfare 2.5.
    If you're bored and want a fast-paced run-and-gun non-tactical shooter to just play around in, MW3 is fine.
    Modern Warfare    Modern Warfare 3 is mediocre at best, running on the same engine as the previous 3 Call of Duty games and failing to bring anything new or innovative to the table. To top it off, the game has terrible multiplayer balance issues. Essentially, it is Modern Warfare 2.5.
    If you're bored and want a fast-paced run-and-gun non-tactical shooter to just play around in, MW3 is fine.
    Modern Warfare 3? More like Money Wasted 3.    … Expand
  29. zebug
    Nov 13, 2011
    0
    wow....how much are these "professional" review companies getting paid to give this game such a high score. MW3 is complete crap. It's a $60 map pack.....AGAIN. Graphics are very cartoon like (not like TF2, but that was the point of TF2). Gun sounds are horrible, maps are slightly bigger than nuketown in COD:BO. Plain and simple, its a bad game and they need to make some seriouswow....how much are these "professional" review companies getting paid to give this game such a high score. MW3 is complete crap. It's a $60 map pack.....AGAIN. Graphics are very cartoon like (not like TF2, but that was the point of TF2). Gun sounds are horrible, maps are slightly bigger than nuketown in COD:BO. Plain and simple, its a bad game and they need to make some serious changes before MW2.2... I mean MW4… Expand
  30. Meteor
    Nov 14, 2011
    0
    an ok game, but just a re-hash of Mw2, dont see how they justfy the $60 outlay. this is rubbish. Bf3 has it faults many of them but this is maddness. yet stupid people will continue to purchase this crap over and over.
  31. EvertR
    Nov 14, 2011
    0
    MW3 is a PC game that fails on a technical level. The game lacks some of the features of its predecessor Black Ops. Namely a FoV (field of view) slider and (ranked) dedicated servers.
    The low FoV in particular makes the game barely playable. It also makes the game look like a cheap console port. Cheap in the sense that no effort seems to have been put into it. Ironic then, that this game    MW3 is a PC game that fails on a technical level. The game lacks some of the features of its predecessor Black Ops. Namely a FoV (field of view) slider and (ranked) dedicated servers.
    The low FoV in particular makes the game barely playable. It also makes the game look like a cheap console port. Cheap in the sense that no effort seems to have been put into it. Ironic then, that this game is one of the most expensive PC titles on the market.

    This issue is so major that it undermines every aspect of the game. Yet is so easily fixed, at least from a layman's perspective, that MW3 PC looks like the ultimate, laziest money grab.
    I'm sorry to see that IW has not mended, what is often called, the consolitis that has afflicted Call Of Duty. Treyarch's Black Ops was a commendable effort as a PC game, and it seems like a crying shame that IW stubbornly refuses to acknowledge the progress their perceived rival has made. Their Laisser faire attitude has cost them the CoD crown already, now it seems only a matter of time before gamers taste in games will cost them their dollars. PC gamers, always a step ahead, are now put into a position where buying MW3 seems like a bad idea. And if they did, writing a glaring review on sites such as Metacritic as a sorts of refund, or payback, seems only fair.    … Expand
  32. igloonaut
    Nov 14, 2011
    1
    I am not even sure why I buy this franchise, perhaps its the hope that they will deliver on their promise, or their hype. Yet another re-hash of the same on-rails single player game. Ok so this time they give us dedicated servers, but this time, you can't rank up on dedis. You have to use the same lame peering system as MW2. Activision and IW turned their backs on PC players after COD4 andI am not even sure why I buy this franchise, perhaps its the hope that they will deliver on their promise, or their hype. Yet another re-hash of the same on-rails single player game. Ok so this time they give us dedicated servers, but this time, you can't rank up on dedis. You have to use the same lame peering system as MW2. Activision and IW turned their backs on PC players after COD4 and this is just goes to prove their commitment to that decision. This is not a full game relase this is Modern Warfare episode 4, and as such should be priced way lower.… Expand
  33. 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
  34. Zbox
    Nov 14, 2011
    0
    CoD seems to be stagnated on time. After the great CoD MW (2007) this game have been stuck in a loop of of copies of itself without bring anything new if not minor changes wich could simply be sold as dlc. overexpensive, graphics are outdated, storyline the same old thing and multiplayer barely changed since 2007. If you want a good multiplayer and campaign, save some money and buy Call ofCoD seems to be stagnated on time. After the great CoD MW (2007) this game have been stuck in a loop of of copies of itself without bring anything new if not minor changes wich could simply be sold as dlc. overexpensive, graphics are outdated, storyline the same old thing and multiplayer barely changed since 2007. If you want a good multiplayer and campaign, save some money and buy Call of Duty 6 modern warfare, its better and cheaper!… Expand
  35. Triums
    Nov 14, 2011
    0
    I'm very disappointed in this game. Why? Because there is so little change in the game since MW2. Paying for brand new game, which isn't cheap, and this is what I get? Stupid. I'd like my money back.
  36. Orkdung
    Nov 14, 2011
    1
    Unhappy with the lack of maps (same maps as Black Ops...) and extremely unhappy about the lagginess and hacking going on in Multiplay. Seriously you havent figured out how to combat cheating yet??
    Single player was a bore. Stopped playing 1/3 of the way through. Unenchanted by the franchise. I feel I wasted my money. Pretty graphics cant sell a game anymore, you must have content!

    .
  37. RUBBERPANTS
    Nov 14, 2011
    2
    This game is just a repacked retweaked version of modern warfare 2 it feels like I am playing the exact same game. Infinity ward made absolutely no innovations to the COD series, and I bet that they won't next year when another calladooky comes out, it has so much hype and it so much suck's.save your money for battlefield 3 now that's a real first person shooter game.
  38. spirit_warrior
    Nov 14, 2011
    3
    I like MW1 and MW2 , I like the black ops too but MW3 the like a DLC of MW2. Nothing new, The sounds of guns is very bad like a toys. Graphics are the same of MW2
    Singleplayer have numerous times with borring moments.
  39. kevpwns
    Nov 14, 2011
    2
    ok, seriously activision... I personally USED to like the CoD series, but now it became utter crap. I don't get why it made millions and millions, but i mean, like everyone says... Its a map pack. Everything is the same... engine, graphics, with athe addition of some killstreaks. Then, i can't even get to the worse part. They make no effort to stop hacking... The game is releashed BOOMok, seriously activision... I personally USED to like the CoD series, but now it became utter crap. I don't get why it made millions and millions, but i mean, like everyone says... Its a map pack. Everything is the same... engine, graphics, with athe addition of some killstreaks. Then, i can't even get to the worse part. They make no effort to stop hacking... The game is releashed BOOM tons of hackers.... every game. No one attempts to fix the bugs, lag... anything on the pc version. I don't even know why i'm giving this game a 2, i think it's just sad how activision is pleading for everyone to raise the score that's currently sitting at 1.9. Everything is boring, the multiplayer, singleplayer, broken game... The only reason this game actually has a score of 1 is because of thefanboys that give this game a 10/10...I wish my friend sent mw Bf3 instead...… Expand
  40. 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
  41. Valfader
    Nov 18, 2011
    1
    I don't think this game deserves any good reviews at all. It's quite simple; they are trying to sell you a game engine from 2007 (which was launched with CoD4) all over again. They haven't done anything about the textures, the game is locked at 55 FOV which makes people literally SICK when playing, the same hacks from MW2 works on MW3 from day 1 as well. On top of that the PC won't beI don't think this game deserves any good reviews at all. It's quite simple; they are trying to sell you a game engine from 2007 (which was launched with CoD4) all over again. They haven't done anything about the textures, the game is locked at 55 FOV which makes people literally SICK when playing, the same hacks from MW2 works on MW3 from day 1 as well. On top of that the PC won't be getting the CoD Elite as promised. Just another proof that they do not give two **** about the PC community which helped them get to where they are. As a plus I'll add that I haven't experienced any game crashes yet, which is always a plus. But if you are spending money on a single video game this year - don't make this one a mistake you'll regret.… Expand
  42. Leaf4Prez
    Nov 18, 2011
    3
    I came here because of the Twitter post. I tried to find everything I possibly could to make my rating higher. I am an avid CoD player, starting back on CoD2 on PC which pretty much built CoD into what it is today. Recently though with my age as well I have stop playing this game more and more... I am no fanboy of any franchise, I play what I like. I don't mind rehashed games, because II came here because of the Twitter post. I tried to find everything I possibly could to make my rating higher. I am an avid CoD player, starting back on CoD2 on PC which pretty much built CoD into what it is today. Recently though with my age as well I have stop playing this game more and more... I am no fanboy of any franchise, I play what I like. I don't mind rehashed games, because I felt the MW2 engine was almost perfect. It was fast-paced, easy to learn, but hard to execute correctly without extensive amounts of practice. I got a story line, a dozen new maps, new guns, old guns reworked, and more ideas. So as far as the 60 dollars go, if you like FPS its worth it; even though you can get more bang for you buck picking up BF3 or even Skyrim( B&A ADS OP). I voted this a 3 because as a PC user this expansion was another insult to me. The PC community does not care about rules especially when it comes to Matchmaking systems. We were grown using DOS Commands and having choices on what we played. In today we are forced to load up through 3rd party programs, which are easier to "hack" than the game itself. Cons: - No Dedicated Servers (we understand you want to "revolutionize the game industry" but, sometimes things are better to improve and not revolutionize. - No Lean Again... Please stop with PC Ports, it takes a whole what? 3 minutes to toss in code to allow lean. Patch the bugs later on when u find them. I know people personally who didn't buy MW2 because of lean.

    - Lack of Security... You allow dedicated servers to be controlled, listen... if people want to do something they will find away. Especially since MW3 didn't get Elite there is no reason to stop people from getting ranks on this new dedicated server, at least so the people who actually want to level up with integrity don't have to deal with auto-aim, walls, or mods in "match made" servers.

    - Maps, for real? The maps are way too controlled. Look at Cod4 maps, and compare them to the completely random, and complicated maps in mw3. There are too many walls, not enough openness, the places that are closed the routes are completely construed by impassable objects (I seriously can't get on top of this taxi that is 1/2 into the ground?), and every route has a completely safe camping corner. In Cod4 Maps most camping spots had at least 180 degree hazard zone, where you could get hit from behind or the side by looking in one direction. Pros -
    You kept the same engine. Thank you. Etc. -
    FPS games should not have extra monitor capability. There is no reason to have a FOV that covers 3 monitors, so you get extra advantages over other players. Especially when you can't edit the FOV settings. There is no reason to get third party fixes to a game setting that shouldn't of been in the game in the first place. Overall, it isn't the graphics, the weapons, the engine, or the storyline(honestly though, I've seen better in choose your adventure books), its the large things PC users(where most of these ratings come from) want into their game not a ported PC game.    … Expand
  43. lugia4000
    Dec 25, 2011
    0
    This game should have been called Recycled Warfare 3, or Copy Pasta 3. Campaign of this game is copy paste buildings of COD4. Multiplayer is a copy paste of COD4+MW2. Spawns are ridiculous, and Spec Ops isnt even fun. The HUD, weapons and sounds are copy paste of MW2. If you want to CUT and paste your money on this ridiculous game, go for it. Otherwise get COD4, the only COD game which isThis game should have been called Recycled Warfare 3, or Copy Pasta 3. Campaign of this game is copy paste buildings of COD4. Multiplayer is a copy paste of COD4+MW2. Spawns are ridiculous, and Spec Ops isnt even fun. The HUD, weapons and sounds are copy paste of MW2. If you want to CUT and paste your money on this ridiculous game, go for it. Otherwise get COD4, the only COD game which is worth playing. To the millions of people buying and supporting this game, congratulations, you guys are the ones that make these devs get millions of dollars while they just copy paste. And I guess you want more, right?… Expand
  44. khyoshi
    Dec 7, 2011
    1
    We are a group of 22 players who together have put this text together.
    This Review is only about the multiplayer part
    I myself have spent near 1800 hours playing mw2 online and it ofcourse has its ups and downs , and mw2 is the only game one really should compare mw3 to. Comparing it to BF3 is just silly , it is not in the same genre, it is not the same kind of battle, it is not the same    We are a group of 22 players who together have put this text together.
    This Review is only about the multiplayer part

    I myself have spent near 1800 hours playing mw2 online and it ofcourse has its ups and downs , and mw2 is the only game one really should compare mw3 to.
    Comparing it to BF3 is just silly , it is not in the same genre, it is not the same kind of battle, it is not the same gameplay.

    Some players say that MW3 is just a mw2 with another map-pack.
    We agree to a point.
    But if this was true that this game would actually be better.

    From an expectation point of view we had really big hopes for mw3, specially since there were promises of dedicated servers and online statistics services.
    Those 2 were really the most attractive features.
    Dedicated servers would rid the problem of cheaters, or atleast help with anti-cheating.

    The dissapointment was huge when the reality proved that the statistics service is not available for PC and that dedicated servers removes the XP-gains.

    In our opinion that were 2 promises not kept.
    In a normal market this would be a simple "product returned for false advertisement, full refund" situation.

    But lets talk about the game-play.
    At first glance we noticed that you are not able to play hardcore out of the box, you first need to play and get ranked up to even have this option.

    This is of course easily dodged by partying up with someone who already has this rank.
    This feature is more of an obstacle than a feature.

    The first experience when actually starting a round was that the graphics looks like something that was developed 10 years ago.
    Perhaps the developers never heard of the expression "Less is more" when putting way too many ugly looking effects in this game.
    In MW2 the graphics actually look better.

    The sounds has a very plastic feeling to it through everything.
    Guns , bombs, voices all lack that genuine feeling that you get with good sound effects.
    The voices sometimes make you laugh while wondering if the producers were serious at all when making this game.

    One thing that was very good in MW2 was that most maps offered variation and good cover.
    This is something that does not exist in MW3.
    Almost every single map (we have 2 exceptions) feels like one room and its just a "first, shoot first kill"-scenario over and over.

    We were promised Prestige Tokens from earlier cod games.
    We have all prestiged in mw2 and yet did not get any tokens in mw3.


    Cheaters............
    We will let you know what the most annoying problem with so many cheaters is.
    Good players get accused of using cheats.
    A good player can have is game totally ruined by someone who (from the vast ammount of existing cheaters) totally cannot believe that the good player acually plays fair.
    This happens almost every time we play.
    This needs to be F.I.X.E.D.

    I will say this straight out.
    We feel robbed and lied to.
    To make this game better you should 1. Fix dedicated servers, 2. look over the graphics, 3. update the sounds, 4. take away the obstacle that makes hardcore unavailable from the start 5. and if not let us into the universial statistics service then atleast give is some way of getting this data from our games so that we can do fun internal statistics within our societies.    … Expand
  45. termin_8_er
    Dec 13, 2011
    2
    Laggy and too many online cheaters with aimbots and wall-hacks; ruins the fun. Just a lot of people running around holding down the fire button, really no tactics involved. Expected a lot more, but based on the previous games and how they didn't address the cheats, its no wonder that this is no different.
  46. Direct4D
    Dec 14, 2011
    0
    I am very very upset when I saw mw3. singleplayer consisted of a corridor with 2-3 shelters, each scene was scripted and the player can`t take no part in it, all that was required from the player - it's kill the stupid bots in the hallway. no diversity. also disappointed many of the details, just copied from the previous parts of the game. it seems that the developers were too lazy to do mw3.
  47. Squall_Rinoa89
    Dec 14, 2011
    1
    Horrible game. First launch was plagued by hackers galore with aimbots within the first hour of play. This game could have and should have been released as a Expansion pack. Little to no variations in terms of being able to tell where the game has developed from its last sequel. Same reused buildings from the past two previous iterations of the "Modern Warfare" Franchise. Loads of serverHorrible game. First launch was plagued by hackers galore with aimbots within the first hour of play. This game could have and should have been released as a Expansion pack. Little to no variations in terms of being able to tell where the game has developed from its last sequel. Same reused buildings from the past two previous iterations of the "Modern Warfare" Franchise. Loads of server problems that wasn't fixed for 6 patches. Cheaters and exploits weren't taken care of in abundance for quite a few weeks. Storyline is shorter and still as linear as ever with very little lack luster to keep you engaged. Graphics and Game engine are old and starting to really show it's age. For $60 or if you got suckered into Call of Duty Elite $100+, its really not worth it for it's price. What would have been considered an Expansion Pack had this game been released 8 years ago would have been priced at $19.99 or even $29.99 which would have been more excusable that it being $60 to $100. This was basically a way for Bobby Kotick to make millions off of with very little development time involved for a big pay out with very little care to the community that helped "Build" the franchise name. It's a slap to the face of every dev including their own at Activision and a major slap in the face to those who purchased this game for its overly priced game.… Expand
  48. StG_Immelmann
    Dec 16, 2011
    0
    Sooo... They charge us $70 plus DLCs to play the same game for the fourth time? Unbelievable. I know franchises are hard to get off the ground, but seriously? At least change SOME content. And no, it's not an improvement.
  49. ms951
    Dec 30, 2011
    0
    As someone who has played the Call of Duty series since the demo of the original CoD, as well as a member of the game series' competition community, it saddens me to see first person shooters come to this. PC games used to be about a lot of things, all of which are dead today. It seems more and more that every PC shooter is a console port, more optimized for an in game friends list thanAs someone who has played the Call of Duty series since the demo of the original CoD, as well as a member of the game series' competition community, it saddens me to see first person shooters come to this. PC games used to be about a lot of things, all of which are dead today. It seems more and more that every PC shooter is a console port, more optimized for an in game friends list than dedicated servers and developer tools/support. It's fun to watch game critics tow the Activision line with this game series. It is also fun to watch the yearly advertising blitz aimed at idiots. I can't even get into the individual changes to this game series in particular over the years. Dots on radar, the disappearance of weapon recoil, the simplification or "idiotification" of many game mechanisms such as health packs turning into hide in a corner and regen health, or acquiring skill at shooting in a PC game being replaced by idiotic perks and killstreaks in the multiplayer. Singleplayer...I see reviews for it. You can't tell me anybody is actually shocked when they sit down and Call of Duty is once again a stupid implausible linear "kill all the bad guys" first person shooter. It has been the same single player experience over and over and over so if you're actually upset about that aspect of the game you should probably castrate yourself now before you infect the rest of our population with your potential genetically inferior offspring. If you're one of the poor saps who actually know what competition is and who is trying to find it in this game, I pity you. First person shooters are dead, but guess what everybody? You killed it. All of you. Every single last person who has bought and complained about this game is complaining about a fate which they have asked for. I didn't buy this game. I played some of it at a friend's house. I refused to buy it, just as I refused to buy Black Ops, MW2, and World at War (all of which can better be known as CoD4 reskin 1, 2, and 2a. MW3 (CoD4.2B) is a pile of crap because you made those games before it best sellers. You buy games you know will be the same old **** crap and you get mad that the game developer has screwed you over once again. Guess what? Buying the game tells them you like it and tells them to continue what they're doing. Before I end this review I want to say two more brief rants: 1. The numbering system is askew. Call of Duty didn't have a number but lets call it the first which warrants a second. Call of Duty 2 was appropriately enough named. Call of Duty 3 never made it to the PC. Call of Duty 4 introduced the sub-name Modern Warfare. The next game in the series was Call of Duty: World At War. This is where things break down. Shouldn't it be Call of Duty 5: World At War? In linear terms, not counting expansions, World at War was the 5th Call of Duty game. Then they released Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. What??? You mean Call of Duty 6? Why did they number CoD4 and assign a sub-name? Why did they do away with numbers, and then re-introduce them to number sub names? In the future could we end up with "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6: Desert Combat 4: Infantry Squad 8"?? 2. The reasoning for a change from WW2 to more modern times was that WW2 was "played out" as a genre. Sadly, the weapons called for better balance between opposing forces so games didn't break down into the chaos of Famas vs. Famas or AK vs. AK in every god damn server. We had CoD, CoD2, and that was it for official WW2 releases. Of course we had CoD3 on the console (largely forgotten as a game) and the expansion to CoD, CoD: United Offensive which was also largely forgotten, but it was 2 major PC releases for the WW2 genre and then it was considered played out. Modern Warfare, Modern Warfare 2, Black Ops, and Modern Warfare 3 have since been released, all of which deal with more or less modern military action. Why is it that 2 WW2 games from 2003-2005 warranted dropping the genre forever other than that horrible World at War re-skin of CoD4, while Modern Warfare, an infinitely less balanced and less interesting area is thrust to the forefront for the better part of 6 years? CoD sucks.… Expand
  50. Glaice
    Jan 4, 2012
    0
    More of the same old **** that came from MW2. I admit that I have played the original MW's single player and multiplayer and found it entertaining, but this is just milking the cow to a new low as there's absolutely nothing new added in this game at all. It's more or less a huge DLC for a DLC (MW2).
  51. Xgashh
    Jul 30, 2012
    0
    It's basically same as MW:2... cmon this game is not even worth 10$. It sucks so much that i even dont have words to describe how much it sux. Better buy Batllefield 3, its worth every penny!!
  52. Speed4Runs
    Dec 18, 2012
    1
    Should I copy and paste the same review as Modern Warfare 2? Well, I try to make it different, but I'll say the same things. This game engine is the same as the CoD 4 Modern Warfare from 2007, nothing has changed, nothing has been optimized. The game is the same as any other post CoD-4 CoD. The gameplay sucks, the singleplayer sucks, the multiplayer sucks, the graphics sucks. The plot isShould I copy and paste the same review as Modern Warfare 2? Well, I try to make it different, but I'll say the same things. This game engine is the same as the CoD 4 Modern Warfare from 2007, nothing has changed, nothing has been optimized. The game is the same as any other post CoD-4 CoD. The gameplay sucks, the singleplayer sucks, the multiplayer sucks, the graphics sucks. The plot is enough good, but not good, since it's not deep and mature. The sound is OK. Avoid these games. There's a CoD every half year (yeah, not even every year, since every 6 months you see a "new", bad, and sad CoD). Sold out games. I do not give this a 0 just because this is not as bad as Call of Duty Black Ops Declassified (45 minutes of SP). CoD MW3 = 0.75, for me.… Expand
  53. LazyDevelopers
    Aug 21, 2015
    1
    Campaign is okay. If I was basing my review on the campaign alone, maybe I'd give a 5/10. it was okay, but not as good as the previous two Modern Warfares. Now for the thing that everyone gets this game for - the multiplayer:

    1. Matchmaking: It's garbage. Rookie players gets matched versus veteran players. Game MVPs are all on one team, while all of those who went negative are on the    Campaign is okay. If I was basing my review on the campaign alone, maybe I'd give a 5/10. it was okay, but not as good as the previous two Modern Warfares. Now for the thing that everyone gets this game for - the multiplayer:

    1. Matchmaking: It's garbage. Rookie players gets matched versus veteran players. Game MVPs are all on one team, while all of those who went negative are on the other. You quit or get kicked from a game, and the matchmaking puts you right back in the same freaking game. It's embarrassing. Oh yeah, also this game puts you into losing games where they LITERALLY JUST ENDED. Not even an exaggeration. You enter a game and the other team had already scored the last kill or are about to. No option to disable this either. And yes, it adds to your losses. Fair, right? You played for ZERO and it counts as a loss for you.

    2. Balance: What balance? Go akimbo SMGs or auto-shotguns and you're set. Very little incentive to use more obscure weapons like 3-burst assault rifles or pistols. Just choose the fastest firing gun, spray and pray, profit.

    3. Hit detection: It's a freaking joke. The game signals (via audio cues) that you shoot a guy 5 times. Or he's completely covered your reticle, you unload an entire magazine into him, yet the killcam shows that zero of those hits made contact. Or the killcam DOES show like 3 bullets hit, yet he's still alive. What the hell is that crap? I swear if even half of the shots registered, my K/D would not be negative right now. Yeah, also, apparently my enemies can shoot through solid texture to get the last bullet in. Not only can they shoot around corners, but apparently only one bullet needs to graze you in order to kill you. Sure,it shows on the killcam it shows he landed like 4 shots, but on YOUR cam, the one that actually matters, you get hit once and die. It's like you just drop dead just because.

    I can understand firing from the hip will be inaccurate. But who in hell programs it so that pointing a sniper rifle right at an enemy and firing at him at POINT BLANK RANGE will miss? What, does the bullet make a 45 degree left turn or something?

    4. Spawn kills: They happen. Not always, but often enough. It's a very frequent occurrence that you spawn RIGHT NEXT to an enemy. Not only that, you can spawn right into the sights of an enemy weapon. I'm not talking about using tactical insertions where you choose where to spawn. I mean "random" spawns where I guess the computer determines where you spawn before you even die. At least in Halo Reach, you spawn guaranteed in a location farthest away from enemies. Nope. Infinity Ward doesn't even do that right. Just spawn randomly and to hell with strategic location. Right in the enemies' sights? Don't care.

    5. Map design: I do not have the DLC maps, so this is only for the default maps. Half are okay, but the other half are just garbage urban maps. The most annoying thing is that there is so much s*** around to impede your movement. There's a can on the ground? You either have to jump over it or walk around it. Can't walk OVER it. Nope. That's just too obvious. Or the developers just randomly tossed crates, debris, and other garbage just to make movement a chore. It's also a common occurrence that you get stuck on a protrusion on a wall. You'd expect that you can just hug the wall nice and easily. But, nope, there's a door frame hanging out from it? You're getting stuck unless you walk away from it. Like really? 5% of your width gets blocked by a small protrusion so your entire body gets hampered? Is it a damn joke?

    6.. Functionality: This is the one thing that you absolutely need to get right when making any game - making sure the game works as intended. That, and being able to play the game (the only thing saving my review from being a zero). There is a "perk" that supposedly makes you invisible to enemy air strikes, drones, etc. Why is it that when I use it, I still see myself as a highlighted target on the enemy POV? Your game must work, IW! YOUR GAME. MUST. WORK!

    Personal gripe: My favourite gun is the Type 95 (in real life known in the West as the QBZ-95). It is reduced to a 3-burst rifle. Using a 3-burst rifle is suicide in this game. Why did they do this? Because it's a Chinese rifle, so they must make it as s*****y as possible?
    This is, what, like the 8th game in the series? How do you make a barely functional game after so many years of experience? How dare you continue to exist as a company and how dare the community continue to support this crummy developer even to today. My only consolation is people are getting tired of the FPS scene and their newest games are only getting average reviews, at least critic-wise    … Expand
  54. TellNoLies
    Nov 8, 2011
    0
    It's not that Call of Duty is necessarily a "bad" game, per se. The mechanics are sound, the gameplay is polished, the graphics are good. The problem is they billed it as "the most anticipated game in history" and then gave us the same exact thing as the previous game. No innovation. Crap story. Rehashed multiplayer. No depth. No thought. The only time this game pushes the envelope is whenIt's not that Call of Duty is necessarily a "bad" game, per se. The mechanics are sound, the gameplay is polished, the graphics are good. The problem is they billed it as "the most anticipated game in history" and then gave us the same exact thing as the previous game. No innovation. Crap story. Rehashed multiplayer. No depth. No thought. The only time this game pushes the envelope is when it attempts to be controversial, in what are CLEARLY cheap attempts to grab media headlines - they understand that any attention is good attention in the gaming business. At this point, the so-called "critic" reviews are a joke. They may go through and give you a rundown on the game's faults, realize that the game's good points are few and far-between, only to completely reverse direction at the end and say, without any trace of self-awareness, "9/10." Because god forbid they be blacklisted from reviewing the next mega-hit that the company puts out (which, ironically, is a trend that they are helping perpetuate). At this point, we as gamers really need to step up and take notice of bias in our gaming sites. We as gamers need to do a lot of things, actually. Most importantly, we have to stop letting them shove media hype down our throats. Is MW3 ACTUALLY bad enough to warrant the zero I give it? No. In reality, it should be more like a three. But we can't compromise anymore. We can't allow constant headlines on IGN to dictate our purchases. We can't allow companies to sell us generic, shallow crap and get away with it. We can't allow companies to copy (more or less verbatim) previous formats and shove them down our throats. It's time that we, as gamers, finally take a little pride for once in our chosen lifestyle and tell the gaming industry that we're not gonna to take it, no, we ain't gonna take it, we're not gonna take it, anymore. Innovation should be celebrated, not labeled as dangerous and used sparingly. And certainly not completely absent, as it is in Modern Warfare three. So when you're at Wal-Mart, or Gamestop, or where ever, do the industry a favor: Do not buy this game.… Expand
  55. Memorable
    Nov 8, 2011
    0
    I thought of writing a good explanation on why this game is awful; but it's not even worth it. It's just god awful. The critic reviews have given this game good reviews because Activision paid them out. The game is awful.
  56. Trebor_UK
    Nov 10, 2011
    0
    To put it simply. DO NOT BUY THIS GAME. This game is a copy and paste of MW2 - meaning the servere consolitis which came with MW2 has returned in MW3. Infact, the game probably has worse graphics than MW2 aswell. Seriously, do yourself a favour and just avoid this poor excuse of a game. The story is weak too, it's like a cheap rip off a Michael Bay movie....The whole game is a massiveTo put it simply. DO NOT BUY THIS GAME. This game is a copy and paste of MW2 - meaning the servere consolitis which came with MW2 has returned in MW3. Infact, the game probably has worse graphics than MW2 aswell. Seriously, do yourself a favour and just avoid this poor excuse of a game. The story is weak too, it's like a cheap rip off a Michael Bay movie....The whole game is a massive cliche.

    Infinity Ward said they would give us a decent PC port with dedicated servers. They pretty much lied. The MP is terrible. The SP is actually better than the MP, and thats saying something. Overall, poor game. Gameplay for SP and MP is just copy pasted right from MW2. I got bored in the first 3 hours. No variation at all.    … Expand
  57. 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
  58. darkfury23
    Nov 8, 2011
    0
    Can't even tell the difference between this and original modern warfare. There's a reason they come out with so many games and so many map packs...its because they want one thing, and it looks like an "S" with a vertical line through it.
  59. Whiskey990
    Nov 8, 2011
    1
    I give it a one for being a good game...several years ago!! Somehow they managed to make the graphics worse than Black Ops, AND MW2!!!! What the heck happened?!? Had they made the graphics impressive, that alone would have at least eased my pain. But no...we simply have a couple old tricks such as an aa12 shotgun, CounterStrike riot shield, and an EMP grenade as if it was some big freakin'I give it a one for being a good game...several years ago!! Somehow they managed to make the graphics worse than Black Ops, AND MW2!!!! What the heck happened?!? Had they made the graphics impressive, that alone would have at least eased my pain. But no...we simply have a couple old tricks such as an aa12 shotgun, CounterStrike riot shield, and an EMP grenade as if it was some big freakin' deal...IT WAS IN 2142! They didn't even bother to change the majority of in-game sounds, effects, voices, etc... They down-sized just about every map to dinky little squares.... BF3 looks 10x better than this and it handles 64 players! I shouldn't even have to compare this to another game...this should not have happened! Now I WILL NOT purchase the next generation Activision game. Not until hell freezes over and they fix the 14GB mess they had me put onto my computer.… Expand
  60. sebastimau
    Nov 8, 2011
    1
    The game offers little innovation overall, both the singleplayer and multiplayer dont offer anything new. The overall balance of multiplayer matches did not hit the spot, like mw 1. I regret ever spending 60 dollars on this game. Although unlikely i hope activition offers a ****ton FREE maps or atleast some interesting multiplayer modes.
  61. NotGunnaLie
    Nov 8, 2011
    0
    I'm not gunna lie, this game is highly disappointing. Also, I've noticed a trend in all the cod reviews. It's basically paid critics vs user reviewers. Obviously the paid ones are going to give the game a much higher score even though it's **** and the users are going to give the game the score it deserves.
  62. BrOkEn_SileNcE
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Fail of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 [PC version]

    This is the worst COD ever.. I've bought and played all Cod games since COD 2.. Cod 2 it was good, Cod 4 it was even better (because I like modern fps), cod 5.. it was good.. Cod: Mw2, it was ok for the time, COD: BO it was better than mw2, but I also didn't like many stuff.. COD: MW3 itâ
  63. daarthreview1
    Nov 8, 2011
    0
    I had the luck to play on every console and pc they all blow.but on pc it was so cheaply ported that its disgusting. does anyone care about pc gamers anymore? well infinity ward does not. call of duty doesn't deserve the crown of fps shooters. look at all the amazing fps shooters out their they might not me amazing
    but they put effort in their games. this games needs to grow up and face    I had the luck to play on every console and pc they all blow.but on pc it was so cheaply ported that its disgusting. does anyone care about pc gamers anymore? well infinity ward does not. call of duty doesn't deserve the crown of fps shooters. look at all the amazing fps shooters out their they might not me amazing
    but they put effort in their games. this games needs to grow up and face reality that they will not be the highest grossing fps title if they keep this up.    … Expand
  64. xSociety
    Nov 8, 2011
    0
    Wow, this game is the same thing, over and over again. MP offers zero competition. 10 year old kids might enjoy this game, but other than that? Steer clear.
  65. CravenKnight
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    First off, I am absolutely OUTRAGED that EA have decided to sell this MW2 Map Pack for $59.99! This release clearly demonstrates that NO progress has been made since the release of COD4: Modern Warfare. The same recycled gameplay for both Single & Multiplayer, the usual cliche story line and the same exhausted game engine. This game is bland to say the least, it lacks any flavor at allFirst off, I am absolutely OUTRAGED that EA have decided to sell this MW2 Map Pack for $59.99! This release clearly demonstrates that NO progress has been made since the release of COD4: Modern Warfare. The same recycled gameplay for both Single & Multiplayer, the usual cliche story line and the same exhausted game engine. This game is bland to say the least, it lacks any flavor at all and this just proves that FPS gameplay has collectively hit a great and impenetrable wall.… Expand
  66. reasonableram
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Single Player is short and mediocre. Multiplayer just fells different in a very bad way. In every other CoD when I would die in Multiplayer I would feel like I made my own mistake, but in this game, it just feels like the game rips you off at least 75% of the time. Spawning blows too.
  67. 12ealDeal
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Terrible Terrible Terrible Terrible. Need I say more? This is a 59.99 map pack for MW2 with some bonus campaign content, an over hyped online add on, and garbage multiplayer maps.
  68. Objectivism
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    The only positive thing I have to say about this game is that it runs smoothly. Beyond that I feel as if I just paid 60 dollars for an expansion pack of rehashed content on new maps. The campaign is exactly what you'd expect from a cod game, completely linear with something crazy happening every 5 minutes to keep this ADD generations attention. Multiplayer removes wager matches and bringsThe only positive thing I have to say about this game is that it runs smoothly. Beyond that I feel as if I just paid 60 dollars for an expansion pack of rehashed content on new maps. The campaign is exactly what you'd expect from a cod game, completely linear with something crazy happening every 5 minutes to keep this ADD generations attention. Multiplayer removes wager matches and brings nothing new to the table. I think people need to avoid the next COD entry as a way of telling them it's time to innovate. I was a huge fan of the original COD and COD2 but am finally losing interest as they're going downhill due to their belief that they can sell the same rehashed game ever year and no one will ever get bored.… Expand
  69. johnweythek
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Poopy. sp is short, it's a mix of shooting gallery scenes and uncontrollable in-game cinematics that took me the short side of an afternoon to play ALL the way through 1st time. Graphics are on par with cod4. And that's maxed out on a PC. MP is ruined by IWNET again. I hope activision doesn't pay you again. Your fault for developing that crappy game. LOVING all the zeros on this board. aPoopy. sp is short, it's a mix of shooting gallery scenes and uncontrollable in-game cinematics that took me the short side of an afternoon to play ALL the way through 1st time. Graphics are on par with cod4. And that's maxed out on a PC. MP is ruined by IWNET again. I hope activision doesn't pay you again. Your fault for developing that crappy game. LOVING all the zeros on this board. a 1.5/10 is too high though. They've made their money though sadly. I'm all about mw and usually a bf hater. But everyone go get bf3 instead. and if you want mw, get the 1st one cause it's the best. pretty soon i'm gonna immerse myself in a REAL game for months and not have to think about this crap anymore. Bring on skyrim!… Expand
  70. metaphase
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Terrible Terrible rehash of the same game they've released over and over again. Bad graphics, bad gameplay (well, bad now because there's nothing new or exciting, if I wanted this I would have played MW1), bad sound (in comparison to current new releases). Just bad all around. Plus the fact that it costs more than other A list titles... I'm sorry but stay well away from this one.
  71. disappointed
    Nov 15, 2011
    1
    Wtf with the guys that gives mw3 a good score??!! Are u guys being payed by activision?
    The game sucks! Period! 1. Short SP
    2. Graphics (dont get me started about that) 3. No new features (just the same **** on a different day) 4. Its a Mappack for MW2 5. MP maps are horrible set 6. They got billions of dollars and came with the same engine as mw1! Was a huge huge fan of COD but    Wtf with the guys that gives mw3 a good score??!! Are u guys being payed by activision?
    The game sucks! Period! 1. Short SP
    2. Graphics (dont get me started about that)
    3. No new features (just the same **** on a different day)
    4. Its a Mappack for MW2
    5. MP maps are horrible set
    6. They got billions of dollars and came with the same engine as mw1!
    Was a huge huge fan of COD but now........ Nuff said!    … Expand
  72. CPLRussell
    Nov 16, 2011
    3
    Single player Gameplay was fun, but PAINFULLY short. Really ?! I can't believe it was done so quickly. Decent engine, but could be better graphics, I could overlook the graphics if the gameplay was better or longer, but really just not worth the money. Dedicated servers not ranked, and unlike Black Ops, only one type of server. How to fix the game so I don't feel ripped off.. 1) MORESingle player Gameplay was fun, but PAINFULLY short. Really ?! I can't believe it was done so quickly. Decent engine, but could be better graphics, I could overlook the graphics if the gameplay was better or longer, but really just not worth the money. Dedicated servers not ranked, and unlike Black Ops, only one type of server. How to fix the game so I don't feel ripped off.. 1) MORE single player content, double it - way too fast of a play for the money 2) balance the weapons. 3) more creative and larger maps Overall not horrible, but not worth the money. at this point it will be my last COD purchase unless it is drastically improved… Expand
  73. Coeco
    Jul 19, 2012
    0
    This used to be a really enjoyable shooter series. Now the only remotely use it has left for sane individuals is a reminder on what marketing does to the quality of games thanks to greedy publishers. Way to go Activision. I can only truly hope that you people will never figure out how to repopulate.
  74. CsendesMark
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    The game was awful, full of cliche. The boring save the USA/Western civilization stuff.
    The Story line is even worse than a world war simulation on youtube.
    The gameplay is okay, but getting bored with QTEs. And it's getting old, this game not added anything new to the Call of Duty legacy....
  75. Ragna
    Nov 14, 2011
    0
    In this game youâ
  76. 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
  77. SilverS
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    What can I say? I've already played this game 10 times before (literally, I've played each CoD all the way through and they've never changed). It's the same mechanics, same endless stream of units, flashy effects and ill-balanced guns with cap gun sounds.

    I just... I dunno how better to say it than, it's just not fun.
  78. Finrandojin
    Nov 9, 2011
    1
    Call of Duty as it stands now is not a game, it's a franchise being milked for all that it is worth, and it shows in the execution of the game. As it stands the single player is simply broken on the PC, after about 25% of the game is done I encountered a showstopper bug that I could not find a workaround for, it is incredible that such a blunder made it through CQ. As far as visuals areCall of Duty as it stands now is not a game, it's a franchise being milked for all that it is worth, and it shows in the execution of the game. As it stands the single player is simply broken on the PC, after about 25% of the game is done I encountered a showstopper bug that I could not find a workaround for, it is incredible that such a blunder made it through CQ. As far as visuals are concerned the graphics have not changed a single iota from MW2, textures are blurry, animations are awkward and stilted, the audio is still lifeless and bland and if you so much as look at the enemy be prepared for BLOODY SCREEN, SO REAL.… Expand
  79. TheGregsterx
    Nov 9, 2011
    2
    Modern Warfare 3 Impressions.

    I recently purchased the new game from the call of duty franchise in high hopes that the latest instalment will be everything I enjoyed greatly about the 1st, and 2nd modern warfare game. The 1st modern warfare game was amazing, which created the success for the 2nd modern warfare game. The 3rd one is based around the setup of the 2nd modern warfare. This    Modern Warfare 3 Impressions.

    I recently purchased the new game from the call of duty franchise in high hopes that the latest instalment will be everything I enjoyed greatly about the 1st, and 2nd modern warfare game. The 1st modern warfare game was amazing, which created the success for the 2nd modern warfare game. The 3rd one is based around the setup of the 2nd modern warfare. This leads me to the things I dislike in comparison to modern warfare 2.

    Bullet Damage: Modern warfare 2 had very high bullet damage and was consistent for all ranges in the maps 3-4 hits was standard, careful shooting allowed you to kill from a decent distance of 100m + with almost any gun. Modern warfare 3 how ever does not allow for correct range correlation. When I'm firing at targets 10-20-30 metres away from me which is nothing in the real world, with a sub machine gun it is taking 4-8 bullets just to kill someone. This unrealistic frustrating over dramatic affect of bullet range in submachine guns makes them unusable in standard combat and puts them at a great disadvantage to assault rifles.

    Sprinting: Modern warfare 2 had a decent time for sprinting of lets say around 10 seconds (I'm not sure of the exact sprinting times) which was a good amount if you weren't focused on rushing as a main goal, and if you were focused on rushing you had a perfect perk for that sort of game play marathon gave unlimited sprint which was dire for map coverage and aggressive game play. In modern warfare 3 no such perk is available yes extreme conditioning slightly helps the problem but it only increases the initial sprinting time, nothing to do with sprinting recovery so when you get to a certain point it becomes a useless perk. Not giving decent sprinting perks, just decreases the potential of sub machine guns further because doesn't allow proper potential to get into close quarters. Explosives: Okay I will admit modern warfare 2 was quite generous with the explosions and explosive damage but many of them were completely balanced, the grenades had good throwing distance and 100% reasonable damage, you could avoid them if you played carefully. I agree that grenade launcher attachment was quite overpowered and well placed grenades could kill 5-6 people at the start of the game but how often did that really happen? RPG's were rarely used because you had to be the max level to use them and the thumper did decent damage but had little area affect which balanced it perfectly. I agree that the danger close perk did cause imbalances in using most of the explosives, but it gave up the most important perk slot, yes high power explosions were frustrating at times but you never did as much damage as proper run and gunning. Modern warfare 3 has disgustingly pitiful explosion damage, when I throw a semtex in about 10 metres it goes straight to the ground no matter how high I throw it and it never kills ever unless you stand right on top of it, it's damage is a complete joke the only kills I literally have gotten on the semtex were people on incredibly low health and stick kills. Grenade launchers only kill right on there feet or direct hits, secondary rocket launchers are unusable because they are completely underpowered and trying to aim directly at a person to get a kill defeats the purpose of a rocket launcher.



    Title and emblem unlocks: One of my personal favourite things about modern warfare 2 the title and emblem unlocks and the customisations of your "profile" you went through specific challenges some varying in difficulty and you would receive experience, an emblem and/or title. For example kill 1000 people with the stopping power perk, you would receive a title "bite the bullet" and a emblem which has a picture of the stopping power pro icon. This was a nice way to reward the user for continued use of a specific perk and could boast/show these to other players who look at your profile. Modern warfare 3 how ever has displayed no such difficulty in unlocking the emblems or titles for example, I started using the perk assassin and within a couple of minutes I have unlocked the pro version of the perk, and the emblem which displays the perk icon. This is a disgustingly quick form of unlocking something which in modern warfare took hundreds of games to unlock. This causes no form of pride or boast to your profile as in most titles are unlocked in minutes.

    The matchmaking and g    … Expand
  80. zelloxy
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    This game blows. They've just taken the old game(s) and revamped the UI and added new weapons and such. Really low of them, just so that they may cash in more millions.
  81. PhineasQ
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    This is a re-release of the game before. It offers absolutely nothing new or ingenious at all. The sad part is that I can't even blame the publishers for doing this. The fans demonstrated that they will buy anything, and this is what they got. Hopefully by the next release cycle people will realize that there is no reason that they cannot have games like Quake, and Ocarina of Time, andThis is a re-release of the game before. It offers absolutely nothing new or ingenious at all. The sad part is that I can't even blame the publishers for doing this. The fans demonstrated that they will buy anything, and this is what they got. Hopefully by the next release cycle people will realize that there is no reason that they cannot have games like Quake, and Ocarina of Time, and Duke Nukem 3D every year.… Expand
  82. huffyrox
    Nov 9, 2011
    1
    Another rehash of the same game, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, except that Sledgehammer implemented IWnet again which means the multiplayer is rampant with lag, hackers, and hacked lobbies. They state that they are listening to gamers but their actions say otherwise as they are clearly in this for the money. Their financial plan may to be release copy paste games for as long as theyAnother rehash of the same game, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, except that Sledgehammer implemented IWnet again which means the multiplayer is rampant with lag, hackers, and hacked lobbies. They state that they are listening to gamers but their actions say otherwise as they are clearly in this for the money. Their financial plan may to be release copy paste games for as long as they can before actually attempting to develop something new. We may see this 'new' game in 2013 after the dust from this trash has settled and people come to terms with what they've bought.… Expand
  83. 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
  84. gl7uc0m3
    Nov 10, 2011
    1
    bad, bad, bad. old graphics. the singleplayer is simply shallow and boring. unreal/predictable story line. multiplayer lame as well. childish perks, fast experience bar. can't apply any strategies with team/ other players. and very basic shoot-die-re deploy kind of game.
    pretty much like the old games (black ops/mw 2), just in new box.
  85. GHOST21
    Nov 11, 2011
    2
    Cod is the best, i loved this game category,the graphic little bit disappointed, but the game play is so enjoyable,the story is still made in good mode... activation keep it up!!!
  86. OmeNu
    Nov 15, 2011
    1
    if you played Modern Warfare 2. you played modern warfare 3... and what can i say im one of those that just didn't care for Modern Warfare 2 Either. as far as im concerned this series hit its peak in the first modern warfare.

    the game brings nothing new to the table its the same repetitive arcade shooter. just with bumped up graphics.
  87. dziurek1008
    Nov 22, 2011
    0
    For me, worst COD ever...it's so glitched, scripted, lame and omg don't know what else !!! The campaign on veteran is so stupid. Everybody shoots directly at you and only you. Naturally teammates are the lamest bots known for PC world as well as the rest of bots there. To be honest, that is a collection of worst things from previous versions od call of duty. For example, respawns areFor me, worst COD ever...it's so glitched, scripted, lame and omg don't know what else !!! The campaign on veteran is so stupid. Everybody shoots directly at you and only you. Naturally teammates are the lamest bots known for PC world as well as the rest of bots there. To be honest, that is a collection of worst things from previous versions od call of duty. For example, respawns are directly from COD4. There are also our favourite deathstrikes and because of the"new" killstrikes it is also "MW3 - only campers multiplayer".
    That is really waste of money and time, so i highly not recommend this thing.

    Buy some candy instead    … Expand
  88. Ghoster
    Sep 29, 2012
    0
    I did it again!!!! After terrible release of Black Ops I though they will fix gameplay and create again good game. For me graphics is not main feature in games, so will not complain about graphics which BTW looks like from 2002.
    But they didn't fix anything. Whole game ooks exactly same.. More like level pack.
    Singleplayer is boring and on multiplayer you can have fun is you love to be    I did it again!!!! After terrible release of Black Ops I though they will fix gameplay and create again good game. For me graphics is not main feature in games, so will not complain about graphics which BTW looks like from 2002.
    But they didn't fix anything. Whole game ooks exactly same.. More like level pack.
    Singleplayer is boring and on multiplayer you can have fun is you love to be shot from the back each time and never able to see what's happend. No matter what's your skill game will respawn enemy ALWAYS behond your back.    … Expand
  89. CjHARGER
    Nov 8, 2011
    0
    Compared to Console version, PC version has no differences in graphic quality.

    Like someons says, in this board, it is absolutely disgusting graphics. Treyach never, would not make PC version like this.....

    Sledgehammer should take after the policy of Treyach for the PC version Call of Duty.
  90. AngryGamer
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    What a piece of ****
    It's just a copy Of MW2!
    Same graphics,same extremely outdated engine,almost the same multiplayer,short and lame singleplayer.
    The console peasants might be pleased with this but i am not!
  91. Bobby_Flamingo
    Nov 20, 2011
    1
    I'm not giving this a one to be obnoxious. I'm simply stating a fact. I like many others bought modern warfare 1 and was blown away by the "revolution" . After a disappointment in world at war I bought modern warfare 2 in high hopes that it would be a worthy sequel, which it kind of was...it added many features tightened the multiplayer and continued the story. I was willing to overlookI'm not giving this a one to be obnoxious. I'm simply stating a fact. I like many others bought modern warfare 1 and was blown away by the "revolution" . After a disappointment in world at war I bought modern warfare 2 in high hopes that it would be a worthy sequel, which it kind of was...it added many features tightened the multiplayer and continued the story. I was willing to overlook the fact that it was ALMOST the same game, they were coming dangerously close to over saturating the series. Inevitably this happened a year later with black ops which was pretty much a clone of all that had been done before. After all this nonsense we hoped for a glimmer, modern warfare 3...a game which we all hoped would live up to the legacy. Unfortunately all modern warfare 3 really is is and exact replica of all that made up modern warfare 1 and 2. Nothing truly original was added to the experience. Activision has gotten all kinds of greedy. Forcing out games yearly at a full retail price knowing full well they are selling an unworthy product...not taking into account whether or not the consumer is getting what they paid for. The fact that the fans will buy it is apparently enough to justify tossing together some explosions and new maps and putting a new number on the end. All I ask is why? I am not a fan boy of one gaming device or the other, or one gaming series or another, just someone who doesn't understand why this is not only acceptable to you fans, but you will actually defend the games quality. Nothing is truly different about this game then the other major call of duty releases every year since 2007, nothing was stopping them from releasing small packages, more maps, more modes...nothing. Instead they put together not an inferior product, but a slap in the face. All of this has been done before. I've bought this before. You've bought this before. Before you think of buying this garbage and support these publishers who think it's ok to take advantage of loyal fans...think of what you could do to force them to make a modern warfare game that truly lives up to the standards of todays games. Was this much of a review? Not so much...not a rant either. I just want people to realize that the graphics are outdated, story still generic, game play rough, sound poor, and multiplayer virtually unchanged not because they can't but because they wont. Take a stand. Play your last call of duty if you have to a little longer until they see they can't treat people like dirt anymore. If you read this far I hope you see where I'm coming from and live up to my hopes that we will one day see a modern warfare 4 WORTH praising, not this thrown together mess, thank you. Collapse Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3… Expand
  92. Priestowar
    Nov 9, 2011
    1
    The linear storyline with its complete lack of dynamic player-interaction is a derison to all gamers.
    Activision pulls of its oh-so-well known marketing scheme, trying selling an unoriginal old turd in an original wrapping. With that being said there is one positive aspect: I must now bestow a minimum of effort in order to play through the entire freaking game in a day.
  93. Vanguardus
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    This game is the same thig has COD MW2, if you already have it, there is no need to buy this one.If you played one, you've played them all. Same thing. Its really sad actually. I had no expectations and i was disappointed
  94. Kaehl0311
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Every year, same thing. Activision spits out another one of these. It's frustrating, but they know they can do it because millions of 12 year olds the world over are going to buy it.

    It really just feels like a glorified map pack at this point. I feel like I've played this 3 times and this is just an expansion pack for Modern Warfare 1 and 2. I'm pretty disappointed. The campaign    Every year, same thing. Activision spits out another one of these. It's frustrating, but they know they can do it because millions of 12 year olds the world over are going to buy it.

    It really just feels like a glorified map pack at this point. I feel like I've played this 3 times and this is just an expansion pack for Modern Warfare 1 and 2. I'm pretty disappointed. The campaign doesn't feel like it's done anything new, and the multiplayer is the same old thing. Oh well, at least I've been playing my brother's game and I didn't end up spending any money on it :)    … Expand
  95. Bootscv
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    I feel like I've played this game before. Oh wait, I have...twice. The graphics are pathetically outdated, having changed little since the first modern warfare. Why even play this game on PC? The hardware advantage (or lack thereof in this case, as nothing about this game really justifies beefy rigs) does not justify the inconvenience of installation and other BS that can be skipped onI feel like I've played this game before. Oh wait, I have...twice. The graphics are pathetically outdated, having changed little since the first modern warfare. Why even play this game on PC? The hardware advantage (or lack thereof in this case, as nothing about this game really justifies beefy rigs) does not justify the inconvenience of installation and other BS that can be skipped on consoles. The physics feel cheap and flimsy, as the guns do not actually recoil realistically and animations look unnaturally robotic. Being able to go full auto at someone with a machine gun while having the reticule barely budge makes the gunplay feel unrealistic and cheap. Sound effects are equally messy; gunfire sounds more like a fruitblender than anything else. Firing the weapons has no weight behind them due to the muffled, unrealistic sound effects and the robotic physics, giving little to no satisfaction in landing hits. At 60 bucks, IW is robbing us of our money. This is almost the same game, with the same engine, the same graphics, and same gameplay as the previous two. I feel like there is an immense lack of effort and dedication put in by the design team; in its third iteration, i expect a game to at the very least have technological improvements over its predecessors. But even there I am disappointed. I find it hilarious that the Glen Schofield has the balls to ask for higher user ratings on Metacritic after pumping out this product on so much hype. So here I am, voicing my opinion to spite him when I otherwise would have stayed silent. Do yourself a favor and go play skyrim or something… Expand
  96. lwyshawn
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    this is supposed to be a game in late 2011. technically outdated, conceptually outdated and just a repackaging of an old game , yet charges 60 bucks for it. wow man, wow
  97. Domineeto
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    The campaign of this game is terrible. Its linear, has bad writing, generic gameplay, and the graphics are showing its age. The whole game is you going trough narrow paths and shooting bad guys. One good thing about it is that the campaign lasts only 3 hours.Mordern Warfare 3 is the exact same game with a different name, terrible Campaign that you finish in 3 and half hours, with the mostThe campaign of this game is terrible. Its linear, has bad writing, generic gameplay, and the graphics are showing its age. The whole game is you going trough narrow paths and shooting bad guys. One good thing about it is that the campaign lasts only 3 hours.Mordern Warfare 3 is the exact same game with a different name, terrible Campaign that you finish in 3 and half hours, with the most irregular irritating little maps that you literally spawn on your enemy's shoulders. The lack of vehical's and broken class system creates a very very dry and plain expirence.… Expand
  98. CL1CKS
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    The only way this franchise will be saved is a remake of COD4. There has not been a good game in it since. This game is piss poor and craps right on the faces of PC gamers. The damage is completely unreliable, the maps are atrocious, and the kill streaks still as stupid as MW2. Infinity ward and Activision have not released anything of worth since COD4 and never will again. I give up onThe only way this franchise will be saved is a remake of COD4. There has not been a good game in it since. This game is piss poor and craps right on the faces of PC gamers. The damage is completely unreliable, the maps are atrocious, and the kill streaks still as stupid as MW2. Infinity ward and Activision have not released anything of worth since COD4 and never will again. I give up on 90% of developers now days that pay 0 attention to what their customers want. Congratulations on selling enough copies to pay for the game because it flopped and I highly doubt you will keep a community in the future. Just stop making call of duty. STOP!!!… Expand
  99. MaXKiLLz
    Nov 14, 2011
    0
    I have played every CoD going all the way back to the first one on PC. MW3 is by far the worst version I've ever played. The map design is atrocious. The lack of RANKED dedicated servers is unforgivable! It's very clear to me the amateurs at Sledgehammer are not CoD players at all. They took MW2 wonder map design and mutilated it. They took Black Ops awesome dedicated servers andI have played every CoD going all the way back to the first one on PC. MW3 is by far the worst version I've ever played. The map design is atrocious. The lack of RANKED dedicated servers is unforgivable! It's very clear to me the amateurs at Sledgehammer are not CoD players at all. They took MW2 wonder map design and mutilated it. They took Black Ops awesome dedicated servers and crippled them. What an absolute disappointment. My hope lies solely with Treyarch. Sledgehammer needs to be dumped by Electronic Arts ASAP!… Expand
  100. Gerbscat
    Nov 10, 2011
    1
    Terrible. same old same old garbage. wake up players. I bought this title with the intention of getting a game that was worth $60. Turns out that it was just a waste of money.
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 »