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. MrNuck
    Nov 14, 2011
    5
    As a Avid fan of the Call of duty franchise i must say i am fairly let down with the latest release of MW3. You say you listened to the fan base and on some fronts yes i would say you did but on others you did not. And those area's you didn't really can make and break the game. First and foremost I am a PC gamer i started playing the franchise on PC and i always will. But i feel you areAs a Avid fan of the Call of duty franchise i must say i am fairly let down with the latest release of MW3. You say you listened to the fan base and on some fronts yes i would say you did but on others you did not. And those area's you didn't really can make and break the game. First and foremost I am a PC gamer i started playing the franchise on PC and i always will. But i feel you are pushing us aside and not doing us justice. WE are the players that have the best hardware etc and the graphics are well as they say so yesterday. You have little to no abilities to edit the PC graphics to a point where if you have a high end system that you can get the best out of the game. everything is locked. Max frames ( max fps ) etc. i believe this is due to the fact that now instead of building for pc first then porting to 360 etc you build it for the lesser hardware system in this case consoles then try to port it to the PC at the last minute. Ill give it to you in the fact you did break the pc version like black ops did when they ported the game to PC. But at least we had the ability to adjust things like FOV, Max fps, Max packets ETC. These things i can overlook but the single most important thing i cannot.

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

    Instead of just porting the game from 360/ps3 to PC look at the past games and take the good build on that and take the bad remove it and build on it as well. The lack of non ranked dedicated servers is probably one of the main reason PC players are unhappy. Next to that it is the graphics or lack of them. We as PC players Demand a higher Caliber of game standards that YOU as a company lacked to give us. Most PC players think this is just mw2.5 with less graphics and more lag issues. If you say you really listen to the people Listen to some of the core points i am posting about they are essentially what is bringing your game down. ill review perhaps the key points
    1) No servers or lack of Primary Ranked Servers ( such as the ones that are loved in black ops )
    2) Lack there of graphics and graphical tweaking
    3)Lack of a way to deal with hackers.
    4)The feeling we are getting the metaphorical shaft when it comes to a PC game. Stop porting you games from console to PC instead design it from ground floor up with PC as the key factor then port it down to the lesser hardware systems aka CONSOLES. You will make more money in the end that way as more PC players will buy the game and if the game is as good as the rest in the good respects the Console players won't even know the difference. Sincerely Angry but happy gamer MrNuck    … Expand
  2. joshyman
    Nov 21, 2011
    5
    I can't say its really a BAD game, considdering modern warfare and mw2 were good. but its just stale.

    nothing feels knew. it feels like MW2 with new maps. Single player is MEH at best. To be honest, im kind of tired of COD in general. It always feels the same, which isn't bad, but it just gets old. It almost feels like they just want to realease a new COD every year, like an anual thing,    I can't say its really a BAD game, considdering modern warfare and mw2 were good. but its just stale.

    nothing feels knew. it feels like MW2 with new maps. Single player is MEH at best.

    To be honest, im kind of tired of COD in general. It always feels the same, which isn't bad, but it just gets old. It almost feels like they just want to realease a new COD every year, like an anual thing, and make a ton of money off it. I'd LOVE to see a NEW IP from infiniti ward and sledgehammer, because they are tallented studios, but COD is just getting old, and you can really tell with MW3    … Expand
  3. gMcizzLe
    Nov 8, 2011
    5
    I pre-ordered both BF3 and MW3, trying not to be a fanboy to either in this comparison.

    BF3 isn't perfect but MW3 is a complete joke, especially on PC. If you are even thinking about MW3 on PC, forget it, just buy MW1 or Black Ops and have at least a 10x better experience. No ranked dedicated servers? Check. No adjustable FOV? Check. No real innovation from MW2? Check. I'm not really    I pre-ordered both BF3 and MW3, trying not to be a fanboy to either in this comparison.

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

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

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

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

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

    Overall, BF3 is definitely worth $60 where MW3 is definitely not worth $60.    … Expand
  4. Gladio77
    Nov 10, 2011
    6
    Yet again rate " professional critics " this game very high while we consumers , in general , think it sucks. These reviewers have lost all perspective and insight in what their readers think and expect . The argument now by "professional reviewers" is that "fans"of BF3 are posting negative comments . I am 35 year old consumer who buys games and am no fan of any corporate entity orYet again rate " professional critics " this game very high while we consumers , in general , think it sucks. These reviewers have lost all perspective and insight in what their readers think and expect . The argument now by "professional reviewers" is that "fans"of BF3 are posting negative comments . I am 35 year old consumer who buys games and am no fan of any corporate entity or product. If the games are good they get a high score, if they suck they get a low score. I think that counts for most reviewers here as we just want to keep others from spending 60 bucks on a bad product . A computer game is not like buying another product. WE find out after we already paid that we got screwed… Expand
  5. sharktejo
    Nov 10, 2011
    5
    This is not a bad game but it feels like I've played it two years ago. The campaign was short, but it had the same size of MW2, the multi-player is basically the same as MW2, so there is no much motive to begin all over again. The graphics are a little bit better, but is because they implemented SSAO, this graphics engine cannot be more improved than this, it's time to move on to a newThis is not a bad game but it feels like I've played it two years ago. The campaign was short, but it had the same size of MW2, the multi-player is basically the same as MW2, so there is no much motive to begin all over again. The graphics are a little bit better, but is because they implemented SSAO, this graphics engine cannot be more improved than this, it's time to move on to a new engine, there are plenty of them out there.
    Resuming, the fun factor is almost gone from this game, you are basically buying the same game that was released two years ago, I'm afraid that this one can be the beginning of the end in the Call of Duty series.    … Expand
  6. twister87
    Nov 8, 2011
    5
    I'll be frank, I'm a fan of the series. I really like that Activision brought fps war gaming out of WWII and into something that hits a little closer to home. The third instalment has a nice little wrap up to the story, albeit a tad predictable (I honestly think the first MW's story was the better). The co-op is a little tired but the survival mode is fun enough. However, I am once againI'll be frank, I'm a fan of the series. I really like that Activision brought fps war gaming out of WWII and into something that hits a little closer to home. The third instalment has a nice little wrap up to the story, albeit a tad predictable (I honestly think the first MW's story was the better). The co-op is a little tired but the survival mode is fun enough. However, I am once again let down by the major flaw in multiplayer, something called IWNet. Living in Australia with its **** internet, client-side hosting is the worst possible thing you can do to PC users here. It turns what would be quite an excellent and engaging multiplayer experience into a highly irritating and frustrating lag-fest, where you appear to be knifing an enemy in front of you, but in reality he was 5 metres away and shot you in the face. Over and over again. Yes there are dedicated servers this time around but, insultingly, they are unranked, which completely drains the attraction of levelling your skills and unlocking new weapons and abilities. It does get plusses for the inclusion of support pointstreaks and weapon levelling which are great ideas. Long story short: disappointing.

    PS: After reading some of the positive reviews from this and the other platforms, two things: anything bad to say about the game does not a 10 out of 10 make; and anyone who rages about the so called "BF3 Fanboys", your reviews are as much of a fail as theirs may be. For the record, I have played BF3 and it's fine but I don't like it a heck of a lot.    … Expand
  7. beergogglesftw
    Nov 8, 2011
    5
    The good. The engine. Same as its been, but its good. No reason to mess with a good thing.
    The meh. The graphics. These graphics were very nice, 4 or 5 years ago now... now its simply Xbox graphics that don't stand up on the PC.
    The bad. Its not a full retail game. Its DLC or an expansion. Not a lot of changes, just little tweaks here and there. New maps, and a short unimpressive campaign    The good. The engine. Same as its been, but its good. No reason to mess with a good thing.
    The meh. The graphics. These graphics were very nice, 4 or 5 years ago now... now its simply Xbox graphics that don't stand up on the PC.
    The bad. Its not a full retail game. Its DLC or an expansion. Not a lot of changes, just little tweaks here and there. New maps, and a short unimpressive campaign that makes you thinkg "Haven't I played this already"

    If you're playing for multiplayer... there was really no reason for a new game. Its MW2 with new maps and an update patch. COD needs to take a year off and really put some time into a game... but they won't. Its all about getting more and more games out to make more and more money.    … Expand
  8. SnatchReaper
    Nov 8, 2011
    5
    Basically this game is MW 2.1 or 2.5 as spec ops is very enjoyable. Single player campaign is a tired, used, and put away wet rehash of past WM titles. My main complaint is how short/easy (even on the hardest lvl). Finally and most disappointing MP is just plain dated; Black Ops could teach this game something in all aspects (balance, maps design, and getting the most out of the graphicsBasically this game is MW 2.1 or 2.5 as spec ops is very enjoyable. Single player campaign is a tired, used, and put away wet rehash of past WM titles. My main complaint is how short/easy (even on the hardest lvl). Finally and most disappointing MP is just plain dated; Black Ops could teach this game something in all aspects (balance, maps design, and getting the most out of the graphics engine). It is glaringly obvious that with the departure of the core members of Infinity Ward the "sledgehammer" (aka EA retreads) team assembled in haste was not up the task of creating a "new" CoD experience. In all honestly; considering the leap from World ar War to Black Op's (let's face it Black Ops MP trumps MW2); Treyarch would have been a much better team to tap; even though Activision's payout would have been delay. If you are looking for a $60 (low end and I truly do feel for the hardened Ed ppl) expansion then you will enjoy this game. I admit I too fell for the hype plus boredom of needing a new quality FPS fix; but came away with the feeling my score was cut to nothing. I worry with Activision's rush to cash in on the best FPS name in the market; the series will die out. I do hope their greed, lack of innovation, and pushing out unpolished games to meet quarterly profit goals; does not infect their only remaining quality game developer Blizzard. In closing; please do not lose heart or faith that Treyarch can somehow make a worthy game out of these dated graphic and shell of a stand alone sequel.… Expand
  9. Valleymsx
    Nov 8, 2011
    7
    I thought it was impossible to screw further the MW series after MW2. Oh boy, was I wrong. MW3 doesn't even look like MW2, it looks uglier. It takes skill to mess up a game like that. Hell, even the music from the lobby is a cheap ass soundtrack from a 70thies Chuck Norris movie. Really, Zero as score is still overestimating. Pathetic.
  10. xThePezx
    Nov 8, 2011
    5
    Overhyped and repetitious It lives up to its hype somewhat in certain areas of the single player, but the moment you hit multiplayer you realize the developers have just copy/pasted the good aspects of modern warfare 2 and filled the bad ones with even worse. Great campaign presentation filled with huge set pieces that are sure to keep you going that only just make up for its modernOverhyped and repetitious It lives up to its hype somewhat in certain areas of the single player, but the moment you hit multiplayer you realize the developers have just copy/pasted the good aspects of modern warfare 2 and filled the bad ones with even worse. Great campaign presentation filled with huge set pieces that are sure to keep you going that only just make up for its modern warfare 2 look. The story picks straight from where the previous game ended and starts of promising all the way to the end. All loose ends are dealt with, theirs a few small twists and fast paced moments that make up for the dumb AI and problems you know and hate from modern warfare 2, their are still those moments where you feel like your playing follow the leader but theirs no doubt you have more control and as I stated the set pieces are undeniably impressive. That is for the single player at least.
    The moment I hit multiplayer I was to a point horrified at how it actually looked worse than modern warfare 2. And this is running the game max settings@ 90+fps, after playing 5 out of the 15 available maps you can easily tell it has a horrible presentation. The colours are very bland and the textures are almost identical to modern warfare 2. Everything from explosions to smoke effects look the same. The animations have been ripped(literally) from modern warfare 2 (same slip on a banana peel death). The weapon sounds are the same as they were in modern warfare 2 which is no surprise but I don't need to get into that. I never really expect nice visuals from a game such as this but it still doesn't make up for its core aspects. Killstreaks are back and are unbalanced as ever, you now have strike packages that could have worked well but fail miserably due to unbalancing issues. For example the specialist pack gives you a perk for every two kills you get (your a super soldier once you hit 9 kills). The assault pack gives you things such as a Juggernaut killstreak that would take literally a whole M60 clip to kill. If you want zero recoil just throw on a suppressor. Their are so many gimmicks in this game I would need more pages than the bible to write out my essay but I think you get the point. The core COD experience that we love is still their but it simply doesn't make up for its negatives. Their are some aspects that I love that improve further on modern warfare 2s positives but once again are overtaken by all the crap in the game. It also feels very console ported and this is just another big issue I could raise. In the end a game that had potential falls short for the third second time, yes its better than black ops but if you want a true cod experience stick with modern warfare.
    Ok.
    6/10    … Expand
  11. SuperDoD
    Nov 8, 2011
    6
    A new November, a new Modern Warfare. The game, being a 2011 game does not looks good, at all, compared to other games like Battlefield 3, RAGE or the upcoming Skyrim. The gameplay, the shooting mechanics are nearly the same as in Modern Warfare 2. The campaign is pretty interesting, it connects the first MW with the second, and expands the story. It has interesting twists, and itA new November, a new Modern Warfare. The game, being a 2011 game does not looks good, at all, compared to other games like Battlefield 3, RAGE or the upcoming Skyrim. The gameplay, the shooting mechanics are nearly the same as in Modern Warfare 2. The campaign is pretty interesting, it connects the first MW with the second, and expands the story. It has interesting twists, and it motivates you to play through the single player campaign, especially if you have played thorugh MW1 and MW2. The enemy AI isn't the best, there are a lot of times when their act is just stupid. They don't care about their lives, they just run through your allies and want to kill you. As I have said, not every and each time, but it happens a lot. The multiplayer is nothing, it is an expanded MW2 multiplayer, with some new maps, new perks, new weapons, kill confirming and with a database sort of thing named CoD Elite, which basically collects information about your play style, your achievements etc etc.... The SP part of the game is interesting, but I hope that I won't see a new Call of Duty game based on the same engine as Modern Warfare.… Expand
  12. Alcapwn
    Nov 9, 2011
    7
    As far as FPS games go I've played the CoD series almost exclusively over the years logging in literally thousands of hours. Anyone should know before buying this game that you aren't paying $60 USD for a single player game. That being said, it is still frusturating to see them using the same engine with the same outdated graphics over and over. But, as a wise man once said, "if it ain'tAs far as FPS games go I've played the CoD series almost exclusively over the years logging in literally thousands of hours. Anyone should know before buying this game that you aren't paying $60 USD for a single player game. That being said, it is still frusturating to see them using the same engine with the same outdated graphics over and over. But, as a wise man once said, "if it ain't broke don't fix it." Or something like that. There is a reason this is the most popular shooting game in history. There is a reason that 90% of the reviewers who gave this game a score of zero are probably online right now trying to get the next unlock for their weapons. It is a quick, simple, fun to play game that will bring me hours of enjoyment over the next year. So here it is:
    7/10
    -1 for crap singleplayer mode THAT WE ALL KNEW WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.
    -1 for seriously outdated game engine. (Mark my words they will have a new engine next year)
    -1 for no ranked dedicated servers on the PC. (Lobbies? Intermissions? WTF that's lame.)    … Expand
  13. hugamuga
    Nov 8, 2011
    7
    If you are new to the call of duty this is a fantastic game, 5 years of gradual improvements have led to the most refined iteration of the series, although the graphics are somewhat lacking in to comparison to battlefield 3, they are perfectly adequate for the smaller indoor settings with are synonymous with call of duty. multiplayer offers many improvements over the previous modernIf you are new to the call of duty this is a fantastic game, 5 years of gradual improvements have led to the most refined iteration of the series, although the graphics are somewhat lacking in to comparison to battlefield 3, they are perfectly adequate for the smaller indoor settings with are synonymous with call of duty. multiplayer offers many improvements over the previous modern warfare including the return of dedicated servers and even LAN support which is becoming rarer and rarer in modern PC games, the improvements to the kill-streak system are great and overall the game feels more fluid then past call of duty's. singleplayer follows the same formula that has been successful in the past games, and while the story isn't a masterpiece it is defiantly fun and the fast paced scripted campaign is well refined. spec ops returns and once again it includes a great variety of missions in which there is some very well designed 2 player coop, survival mode is also enjoyable but gets boring pretty fast. whether this game is worth buying or not will depend, technically the game is not a huge improvement on previous call of duty's and if you have modern warfare 2, you will probably find it hard to justify the $100us (in Australia) buying price on steam which is quiet frankly ridiculous. but if you are new to the series i would recommend this game as it offers the most refined version of what is, technically a very decent first person shooter.… Expand
  14. Nightmare69
    Nov 26, 2011
    6
    Another COD, another year.
    + Single player is inrtesting,fun and epic
    - Single player lasts only 4.5 hours + Co-Op offers alot of content in which you alone or with a friend can waste alot of time trying to get higher scores,rank up and earn achievments -Multiplayer is unbalanced, Akimbo weapons are OP, Everyone camps, Broken hit detection, OP killstreaks and it has a weak anti cheat    Another COD, another year.
    + Single player is inrtesting,fun and epic
    - Single player lasts only 4.5 hours
    + Co-Op offers alot of content in which you alone or with a friend can waste alot of time trying to get higher scores,rank up and earn achievments
    -Multiplayer is unbalanced, Akimbo weapons are OP, Everyone camps, Broken hit detection, OP killstreaks and it has a weak anti cheat system that nevers bans hackers
    +Even thought the MP suffers from alot of problems it's still playable, it's not as good as COD2's,COD4's or BLack Opse's MP but it still can be fun here and there.
    - Ugly outdated visuals
    - Alot of content in the game is copy pasted from MW2.
    + Good optimization, unlike previous COD titles that were extreamly unoptimized and cheap console ports this COD game runs nice and smooth even on low to mid range gaming PCs.    … Expand
  15. lemafish
    Mar 1, 2013
    5
    ok this review is going to be in 2 parts single player and muitiplayer. first of all single player, is fun campaign is actually enjoyable and there are some fun things in there to do. the next is spec ops, this is actually another good point for the game and finally "surival" you will either hate or love this mode, depending if you like wave defence games or not. so for single play i wouldok this review is going to be in 2 parts single player and muitiplayer. first of all single player, is fun campaign is actually enjoyable and there are some fun things in there to do. the next is spec ops, this is actually another good point for the game and finally "surival" you will either hate or love this mode, depending if you like wave defence games or not. so for single play i would give it a soild 8 out of 10. the next bit of the review is multiplayer..... this had the poeatinoal to be good, but failled masively! firstly, there are deticated servers but they are useless as you do not earn exp. next is the amount of 12 year old kids hacking, quite frankly this pissed me off so much i stopped playing the entire multiplayer all togther, as activision doesnt care and lets the hacker roam messing up all your games. finally the lag in multiplayer is dreadful as it is not a deticated server, you get host migrations? what the hell is this meant to be? oh yeah thats right they use that system on a console, this does not work on pc at all. i would give mulitiplayer a 3. do not get this game if you want to play if for the multiplayer its awful. overall then i would give this game a 6, becasue of its good single player, but avoid its multiplayer.… Expand
  16. aphex187
    Nov 20, 2011
    5
    This only gets a 5 because of the fairly decent OTT SP experience straight from the Michael Bay camp. MP which is what i normally play is a mash up of claustrophobic, tight corridor type maps. Gone are the open types like Overgrown, Afghan etc what we get is uninspiring to say the least!

    Black Op's and even MW2 annihilates this in every way possible! You can sense that the main players of    This only gets a 5 because of the fairly decent OTT SP experience straight from the Michael Bay camp. MP which is what i normally play is a mash up of claustrophobic, tight corridor type maps. Gone are the open types like Overgrown, Afghan etc what we get is uninspiring to say the least!

    Black Op's and even MW2 annihilates this in every way possible! You can sense that the main players of IW have long gone and what we are left is a slight whiff of turd in it's place!

    Oh and for PC: No dedi ranked servers, no adjustable FOV, straight console port.

    Oh and to IGN, have to say your allegiance to Activision is a downright disgrace! How much did they pay you?    … Expand
  17. TrueCritic
    Nov 12, 2011
    5
    No dedicated servers ranking is a joke. Why did they have to ruin this game? Same game basically as the last two is total bull crap. With all the money they make there is no excuse for a game like this. Waste of $60!!!
  18. Markos
    Mar 5, 2013
    5
    It looks and plays pretty much EXACTLY the same as 2009's Modern Warfare 2, even the menus, sound effects, and buildings have been recycled from MW2. I feel extremely disappointed, the campaign and single player were shorter and barely better than MW2. Do not fall for the hype for this game, this game should have been a 15 dollar expansion for MW2, charging 60 for this should be a crime.
  19. mromih
    Mar 6, 2012
    6
    Let's be honest, no game deserves a 0. Nice single campaign, but the multiplayer experience is practically the same as MW2. So, in my opinion, not worthly of paying $59.99 for basically a cloned game.
  20. BFBC2RULZ
    Nov 9, 2011
    6
    Well, here goes. Modern Warfare 3 is certainly not a bad game, not in the slightest. i enjoy how they continue the campaign story and tie it up, but this is the only CoD title I've ever pre-ordered, and i am sad to say I'm disappointed i did pre-order it. MW3, unlike what people thought it would be, is certainly NOT the most anticipated game ever. i literally just bought it, and im on dayWell, here goes. Modern Warfare 3 is certainly not a bad game, not in the slightest. i enjoy how they continue the campaign story and tie it up, but this is the only CoD title I've ever pre-ordered, and i am sad to say I'm disappointed i did pre-order it. MW3, unlike what people thought it would be, is certainly NOT the most anticipated game ever. i literally just bought it, and im on day 2 and i'm already back to Battlefield Bad Company 2. The story is, somewhere in between good and great, but the actual campaign has little to no replayability. of course, i develop close bonds with the main characters, but that doesn't mean i actually enjoy the campaign. The multiplayer is just MW2 with a MW3 coat of paint. granted, this game is MUCH better than Black Ops, but i expected more from the creators of CoD 4 and MW2. PLEASE DONT BUY IT NOW IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY!!!! wait 'til the prices drop, or you will have wasted 20 dollars on what i think should be a 30 dollar product (and that's just being nice). I gave it a 6 just because it bored me even more than it did replaying MW2 for the sixth time over, but on its own, it's pretty good. Of course, the multiplayer AND singleplayer weapons are much more on par than CoDBO's were. Spec ops, even though i havent really done much of it yet, is ok, but the scenarios could be a bit less hard. All that stuff they say about the new multiplayer things, dont get all hyped. It's just same-old same-old every man for himself kinda thing that we've had for the past 7 games. It kills me inside to write this, because am truly a fan of CoD, but i must give the truth. Battlefield: Bad Company 2 is a much better choice, even with all the corporate bullcrap that EA gave it. It also kills me inside to just stop playing after 5 hours of campaign and roughly 30 minutes on multiplayer to go play battlefield, but i just cant stand all the solo, no teamwork stuff that is CoD. But dont believe all the people that gave it a low rating, those are just the younger battlefield fanboys who like CoD, too. FINAL CONCLUSION: MW3 is a rather good game. The campaign story is well put together, but the actual singleplayer gameplay leaves more to be desired. Multiplayer, nothing has changed. remember when you thought Black Ops would be radically different with the points buying guns system? Not only are they back to the same old level up stuff, but i am just depressed with how little they added to the multiplayer. even the maps are the same freaking things. Graphics, jesus christ, they didnt even change the goddamn textures. this game is barely worth $30, based on the previous two, which were totally worth the money. I am sad to say, i slightly disapprove of this game. i hate saying it, especially because its probably the conclusion of the series, but it leaves more to be desired. Thanks a lot InfinityWard, you broke my freakin heart.… Expand
  21. Nt0uki
    Nov 14, 2011
    6
    Ok i'll try to be as fair as possible. If you own MW2 or BO and you don't want to waste money don't buy MW3. Reason is that MW3 is similar to MW2 and there are better games to spent your money out there. Single player campaign is similar to MW2 but with less spice twists and thrills. I was expecting an all out mayhem but instead i get a few "good fights" every now and then accompanied by aOk i'll try to be as fair as possible. If you own MW2 or BO and you don't want to waste money don't buy MW3. Reason is that MW3 is similar to MW2 and there are better games to spent your money out there. Single player campaign is similar to MW2 but with less spice twists and thrills. I was expecting an all out mayhem but instead i get a few "good fights" every now and then accompanied by a few "shocking" scenes ( not even close to the "no Russian" chapter joyful massacre). The campaign kicks in strong but all the intensity and excitement fades away soon. I also think the campaign must be smaller than MW2's or at least it feels like it is. Multiplayer is a review on its own. Graphics are like a polished MW2. Guns may look a bit better but overall its all the same deal as in MW2. No real changes. Soundwise i'll have to say that i really enjoyed the campaign score since it really adds up to the whole experience but tha'ts not enough. All the sounds are the same as MW2 with the exception of the majority of gun sounds. Most are just worse. Especially if you attach a silencer. Rest are the same as MW2. Now as far as gameplay ( which i believe is the most important part of a game. Gameplay > graphics)
    Single player is a linear story line picking up from the point MW2 ends and progresses through the eyes of various soldiers, deltas and so on. Nothing different from MW2. But who cares about Single Player anyway? CoD is all about Multiplayer right?

    Multiplayer. Mixed feelings about it to be honest. One can say that MW3 Multiplayer is a big content patch of MW2. I wouldn't blame him since i get the exact same experience by playing MW2. the new kill confirmed mode is nothing more than a deathmatch with dogtags you have to pick from the dead. No real difference than the actual TDM. Everything else is the same. CTF, DOM, SAB, S&D are all there both in normal and in hardcore. I havent noticed the really "awesome" third person mode from MW2 so i guess devs realized that it was an insult to all intelligent life on this planet so they removed it :) There are only a handful of maps and this stupid voting system remains. They somehow improved it by allowing us to vote between 2 maps per session. There is no more random map selection in case the original selection was voted to skip by the players. It's either this map or that map now. However i get the feeling that there is a limited amount of maps. Also most of the maps are medium to small size urban battlefields suitable for UMP madness and campers and less joy for snipers and such. Now lets see how soon the first DLC will arive.
    Guns. Although they finally added a few of "must have guns" 90% of the MW2 weaponry is here. New additions in all weapon categories. For the complete weapon list just use google :P I do have to say that i dont see a lot of eastern toys (again)..All the rifles are western with the exception of the AK47. Same goes for all the weapon categories.. They also removed the FN FAL :( Weapon handling is identical to MW2. You wont need to get used to MW3 guns at all. Classes. I have to say i really like what they did. In MW3 you get to customize your class to its full extend. I like the fact that you can lvl up weapons now and customize your loadout even further. I also like the new killstreak system and its mechanics. Again you can customize your loadout with a much more efficient way.
    One thing i don't like is the absence of the nuke and the fact that you can reach tier2 and tier 3 killstreak rewards even if you die in the middle since once you reach the first "checkpoint" by obtaining your first killstreak if you die right after the killstreak count is not back to 0 but to its last killstreak checkpoint. In other words if you need 14 kills to call in a AC130 and you reach 5 kills and call in a predator and then you get killed the game will put you back to your 5 killstreak count meaning you ll need 9 more kills to call the AC130 while in MW2 you would be back in 0. Lame. Another thing i really hate and i hoped they would have it fixed (apparently the didn't) is the UMP and the pain it delivers. I think that this weapon is by far the most OP gun i have seen. It's like equipping your BFG and head out to kill everyone. I'ts recoiless it has tremendous accuracy and range it's light and has a superior rate of fire. If you master the UMP then every other single weapon is obsolete.Great balance. Oh and for those that haven't heard. IWnet will be our bff in MW3 as well. Apparently they don't like server based multiplayer in IW and Activision. Suffice to say that Lag and host issues are thriving. Also MW3 hates my router as well. NAT is always strict unless i DMZ my router just like in MW2. If you are addicted like me buy it now. If you use your head and respect both your hard earned cash and your intelligence don't buy it and either buy another game or wait for its price to drop. Hope my review was helpful.    … Expand
  22. metaUser2011
    Nov 10, 2011
    5
    This game has achieved what we thougth almost impossible: it is worse by far than Black Ops.

    The graphics are a joke, they are 2009 graphics. The game doesn't take advantage of the greater capabilities of PC hardware, seems that they've make a port of the console version. The explosions, animations, sounds, all of them worse than Black Ops. The jump animation for instance, is shorter,    This game has achieved what we thougth almost impossible: it is worse by far than Black Ops.

    The graphics are a joke, they are 2009 graphics. The game doesn't take advantage of the greater capabilities of PC hardware, seems that they've make a port of the console version.
    The explosions, animations, sounds, all of them worse than Black Ops. The jump animation for instance, is shorter, slower, and it feels like a man-on-the-moon jump.
    There's no need to bother aiming, just spray and hit. Any n00b can get kills, since the maps are really small, designed for one-vs-one close combat. Snipers won't get fun here, there are no long corridors, and the field of visions feels plain (no deep). Of course there are tons of guys running with sniper rifles and sometimes quickscoping. This is not realistic.
    The movement looks more robot-like, the turns are really unnatural. They have removed the dive movement.
    If you enjoy running in small maps, use an entire reload to kill an enemy, then die becouse a n00b was in the nearest corner and you have lag (since the host is determined automatically), this is your game. Otherwise, rent it a weekend to see the fireworks in the campaign mode, but don't buy it because it is not worth that money.    … Expand
  23. Holstsha
    Nov 15, 2011
    5
    Don't buy Skyrim and CODMW3 together, or you'll wind up playing this for 30 minutes and getting bored as hell, and Skyrim for 8 hours and have a blast.
  24. xboy1024
    Feb 9, 2012
    6
    I enjoyed the single player campaign but it was very very short.
  25. Taiga
    Nov 11, 2011
    6
    MW3 has really lost touch with what makes video games great. I loved MW1 because that game brought so much to the table. That game had big maps, small maps, ranked dedicated servers, so many options that you could play the game however you wanted. Now IW has decided to lock everything down and force people to play the game in very specific ways. NOT FUN AT ALL. I bought this gameMW3 has really lost touch with what makes video games great. I loved MW1 because that game brought so much to the table. That game had big maps, small maps, ranked dedicated servers, so many options that you could play the game however you wanted. Now IW has decided to lock everything down and force people to play the game in very specific ways. NOT FUN AT ALL. I bought this game because I was excited that IW was bringing back dedicated servers to us PC gamers. I boycotted MW2 because they took away dedicated servers, so seeing them return was rather nice. But then I find out that the dedicated servers are NOT ranked, so if I want to unlock anything I have to play the game the way IW wants me to play it. NOT the way I want to play it. I honestly don't understand how IW justifies a 60 dollar price on a game that has less features than MW1 and uses the same graphics engine as MW1 (albeit they improved on this over the years.) The whole game reeks of laziness as I see all the maps are super tiny, and only seem to favor people that like to "run and gun." But what about those of us that like to use a little strategy or have more than 18 people in a map? What about people that don't want to "run and gun" the whole time? I give the game a 6 because of the single player campaign and because the game is not completely broken. But it HAS lost everything that made MW1 great. I am going to try to find a way to get my money back. I am sad that IW has stooped to making this when they clearly know (or used to know) how to make a good game. Shame on you IW, and shame on me for spending 60 dollars for this.… Expand
  26. natsad11
    Apr 4, 2012
    5
    this is game is pathetic, no, almost disgusting I wonder if COD: Black Ops was also nul.J 'love this game a long time but this time it's not very convincing so I recommend you BATTLEFIELD 3 instead.
  27. JakeSTALIN_RUS
    Jun 10, 2012
    5
    Hi.Ive played this game more than a 100 hours and now i am ready to write it.At first I thought the game was perfect.I liked everything and i liked it more than Battlefield 3.But after spending hours and hours on it soon enough ive understood that the plot is boring the multiplayer and even the whole game is just copying MW2.And MW2 is copying Cod4 (Awesome game i must say).So here i go -Hi.Ive played this game more than a 100 hours and now i am ready to write it.At first I thought the game was perfect.I liked everything and i liked it more than Battlefield 3.But after spending hours and hours on it soon enough ive understood that the plot is boring the multiplayer and even the whole game is just copying MW2.And MW2 is copying Cod4 (Awesome game i must say).So here i go - i give it 5 only because ive spent some fun time with my friends here.… Expand
  28. StumpBeefknob
    Nov 9, 2011
    5
    Most expensive map pack ever made. Even looking at it as the standalone expansion that it is, its still not worth the $60 price tag. Basically you pay the usual $15 for the map pack, plus $45 for the 5 hour campaign. Yet, it will still sell millions of units. Stupid compulsive gamers.
  29. PoonApe
    Nov 9, 2011
    5
    You cant give the game a 0.....but you cant give the game anything more than a 5 either. I question the "professional" reviewers and their integrity by awarding this game so highly. At its best its a map pack for MW2. Only buy this game if you after the exact experience you have had for entire MW series. I actually look back and think that MW1 was superior to this entry. It was excitingYou cant give the game a 0.....but you cant give the game anything more than a 5 either. I question the "professional" reviewers and their integrity by awarding this game so highly. At its best its a map pack for MW2. Only buy this game if you after the exact experience you have had for entire MW series. I actually look back and think that MW1 was superior to this entry. It was exciting and fresh. The maps on this are poorly designed and small. It encourages sub machine gun run and shoot play only. The spawn points are just awful. The only people giving this game high reviews are fan boys who dont understand gaming. I will say its a prefessional package and put together with quality.....but the developers should be good at this by now.....they have done it three times in a row.… Expand
  30. Leather99
    Nov 10, 2011
    5
    This is basically a map pack for MW2. I really regret paying £39 for this pile of junk.. With the previous debacle on lack of dedicated servers I was in two minds whether to buy this or not. Having read the reviews I decided to give it a go and it was a mistake. For starters the graphics and the engine are really starting to show their age. Having also purchased BF3 (no I amThis is basically a map pack for MW2. I really regret paying £39 for this pile of junk.. With the previous debacle on lack of dedicated servers I was in two minds whether to buy this or not. Having read the reviews I decided to give it a go and it was a mistake. For starters the graphics and the engine are really starting to show their age. Having also purchased BF3 (no I am not a fan boy) there is a stark difference in the quality of the graphics that is almost emabarrising. The same applies to the sound.

    Secondly the game just feels like an add on for MW2... the weapons feel the same, the whole package feels very similar. Overall this feels to me like they are milking gamers. With such a high selling franchise why haven't they moved this to a more up to date engine? Having made so much money off of this cash cow surely they are in the best position to do this.

    On the plus side the new awards system is a good idea in that it doesn't just focus on kill streaks... that's about it.

    I really don't understand the mag reviews giving this 90%'s etc...    … Expand
prev
Page:

Awards & Rankings

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

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
78

Generally favorable reviews - based on 26 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 19 out of 26
  2. Mixed: 7 out of 26
  3. Negative: 0 out of 26
  1. Computer Games Online RO
    Apr 10, 2012
    82
    Thus, I can't recommend buying this unless you (still) like the fast pace, the customizable weaponry and the short matches, of about 10 minutes each. With the very important mention that, essentially, nothing has changed.
    Read full review
  2. LEVEL (Czech Republic)
    Jan 20, 2012
    80
    Stunning campaign with epic moments makes this third installment of Modern Warfare a great show with the best approach to players. No need to mention an excellent multiplayer. [Dec 2011]
  3. PC PowerPlay
    Jan 9, 2012
    50
    If you own any previous COD, there's little reason to buy MW3. [Jan 2012, p.50]
See all critic reviews »