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. Scotty_Bob
    Nov 9, 2011
    9
    People really need to stop being a blind haters, saying lies about the games that they don't have, or haven't played. I am not a fanboy, i have my own view about games. About the engine, i must said it is not actually the same, but basically the same about the result on the screen. PC version does have SSAO option, which help the graphic turn out to be a little bit better in imagePeople really need to stop being a blind haters, saying lies about the games that they don't have, or haven't played. I am not a fanboy, i have my own view about games. About the engine, i must said it is not actually the same, but basically the same about the result on the screen. PC version does have SSAO option, which help the graphic turn out to be a little bit better in image rendering. But if you have played Modern Warfare 2, the IW 5.0 of MW3 gives you kinda the same experience in video quality of the game. But listen carefully, i do understand the background story of IW, why they don't have a new engine this year. If you remember the day that 2 old boss of IW went on court with Activision, IW was freezed, they dont have the right to continue the game, and they just started to develop the game like by the end of 2010, with Sledhammer. You need to know, they have exactly one year, and now we have fresh campaign, fresh Multiplayer, new models, new sound system, now lightning effect... Many people fail to realize that IW tried really hard to bring Soap and Price back for you without delaying. They all know - us - PC Gamers, hate Treyard for not giving a **** for PC community for **** optimitzing Black Ops, that's why they work their butt off for you to have something to entertain for the whole year. But excuses are excuses, they recycle so many stuffs that would turn out to be a little BS. They defenitaly need a new engine for the next game. Personally, i am not pre-ordering for the next CoD from Treyard. The Singleplayer took you no less than 7 hours in Veteran mode, fast-packed, Holywood Action Style. Personally, i think this is the end of the storyline Modern Warfare, i am not gonna spoil anything, i will let you experience it by yourself and try to count how many times you actually said Holy **** during the campaign. The Multiplayer is redesigned, i have experienced 8 hours of Team Deathmatch and Killconfirmed. I must said the game have been balanced a lot, still have several BS spots but overall, it is good. If you are laughing about COD that they have Noob Tubes and BS Killstreak, i would like to tell them that they arent gonna like tubing in MW3 and all killstreak can be taken down easily. The game turn out to be really focus on gun-gun gameplay. I haven;t seen myself a game that a single player can dominate the whole game unless the other team don't give a **** about playing. Afraid of being killed by AC130? get Sam Turret and don't even worry about them. Jug perk? One SMAW and they are gone... Everything has been calculated quite well, except the BS Submachine Gun system need to be redone, i never think Akimbo is a good idea for fast-firing SMG, IW need to make the Akimbo a massive recoil when firing to balance this thing out. Co-op + Survival Mode are fun as hell, get yourself a bud and have fun. You gonna drink less and eat less because Survival Mode make you focus in the game more than making a crawler in Zombies mode and you have all the time in the world. That's is my word. I am not any fanboy. I play FPS, America's Army 3, ARMA II, Battlefield also and Call of Duty. But i just want to say one thing, be a real gamer, don't be such a kid to lie about the experience that you guys never had.… Expand
  2. ThePCStandard
    Nov 9, 2011
    5
    Technically sub par with severely overrated gameplay and missing platform features.

    That sums up Call of Duty experience on the PC. The franchise is a technology dinosaur when it comes to the FPS genre, especially on the PC which hasn't stayed the same since 2007's release of the console centric Modern Warfare. It doesn't set the bar, in fact it's behind the curve significantly, and if    Technically sub par with severely overrated gameplay and missing platform features.

    That sums up Call of Duty experience on the PC. The franchise is a technology dinosaur when it comes to the FPS genre, especially on the PC which hasn't stayed the same since 2007's release of the console centric Modern Warfare. It doesn't set the bar, in fact it's behind the curve significantly, and if you're a PC gamer it's going to be instantly noticeable and painful. Painful because of how much of a bad console port it truly is. Elite service is missing outright. Ranked dedicated servers don't exist. It's back to console technology of peer-to-peer multiplayer networking. No advanced graphical technology or redesigned anything for increased player counters either.

    PC gamers should really not have to accept such things especially in a genre that was born on the PC. Continuing to purchase Call of Duty on the PC when every year the games lose more features for the PC platform specifically isn't going to change anything. Quit buying awful console ports with missing features PC gamers or else that's all you're going to have in the end. Support developers who incorporate the PC's strengths and are willing to go the extra couple of feet with multiplatform releases. 5: It functions and decent production values. It does nothing new, missing features, and significantly behind other competitors out there.    … Expand
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Deadalious
    Nov 9, 2011
    10
    @GlenSchofield asked his followers to come here and give a proper review to this game so here goes.

    Modern Warfare 3 is what I consider to be the Fifa of shooters, however, despite this being a disgusting cut and paste of Modern Warfare 2 they have neglected to fix the problems that everyone brought up during the previous games. This game is a blatant cash grab, the single player lasted    @GlenSchofield asked his followers to come here and give a proper review to this game so here goes.

    Modern Warfare 3 is what I consider to be the Fifa of shooters, however, despite this being a disgusting cut and paste of Modern Warfare 2 they have neglected to fix the problems that everyone brought up during the previous games.

    This game is a blatant cash grab, the single player lasted around three hours, of that about half were cut scenes trying to get the person to really feel some kind of emotion but just seemed to create nothing but cheesy scenes that make the consumer laugh. They pulled off a 'shock campaign' in MW2 and they attempted to do it again, I'm sorry activision, controversy only gets you so far when you're putting out a reused game.

    The most depressing part about this game however is the fact it sold well, it sold ridiculously well which when it comes down to it, is all that matters.

    Activision will learn nothing from this, will neglect to read the reviews, and next year put out the exact same product with a different name next year to rake in the money.    … Expand
  6. julz312
    Nov 9, 2011
    10
    The campaign for this game is truly the same old story, but that doesn't mean it isn't a blast to play. The war zones are amazing and there are a whole bunch of WTF moments with incredible explosions. But the real reason I picked this game up was for multiplayer, spec ops and survival and I 100% assure you they are well worth your money even if you don't play the story at all you willThe campaign for this game is truly the same old story, but that doesn't mean it isn't a blast to play. The war zones are amazing and there are a whole bunch of WTF moments with incredible explosions. But the real reason I picked this game up was for multiplayer, spec ops and survival and I 100% assure you they are well worth your money even if you don't play the story at all you will still get 50 hours at least out of this game… Expand
  7. cthorpe12
    Nov 9, 2011
    10
    Call of Duty is a franchise that gamers love to hate. Regardless, even though I am NOT a Call of Duty fan, developer Sledgehammer Games has created a worthy game for a franchise that annoys me entirely. Even though Activision may be money hungry, the studio who created this game deserves way better respect than this.
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. SYKOVL
    Nov 9, 2011
    10
    Great fun game!
  11. 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.
  12. alpacmon
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    $60 for a map pack. Every single thing added in this game from the last one could have been downloadable content. I think all of the call of duty games suck (excluding the first) but I understand if you just enjoy the multiplayer. However, I don't understand why millions of people go out every single year to buy the same game. Do not tell me they added new stuff and changed it; it's the$60 for a map pack. Every single thing added in this game from the last one could have been downloadable content. I think all of the call of duty games suck (excluding the first) but I understand if you just enjoy the multiplayer. However, I don't understand why millions of people go out every single year to buy the same game. Do not tell me they added new stuff and changed it; it's the same exact game. I thought PC gamers were smarter than this. It's sad that this is the most successful video game in the world. How far the game industry has fallen.… Expand
  13. 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
  14. Koma
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Copy pasta console portage. No thanks. I think it's time this franchise moves on and evolves into something more than a vehicle for map packs. it's sad to see such a storied franchise be run into the ground by greed.
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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!
  18. 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.
  19. shadowchaos
    Nov 9, 2011
    8
    I dare you to check the recent reviews of just about anyone on this site who rated this game poorly. Almost all of them rated battlefield 3 with 10 and MW3 0. Do you honestly think any BF3 fanboys actually purchased and played MW3? Probably not. And there are fanboys on both sides, and all of them are just as stupid and ignorant.

    That being said, I'm honestly having fun with this game.    I dare you to check the recent reviews of just about anyone on this site who rated this game poorly. Almost all of them rated battlefield 3 with 10 and MW3 0. Do you honestly think any BF3 fanboys actually purchased and played MW3? Probably not. And there are fanboys on both sides, and all of them are just as stupid and ignorant.

    That being said, I'm honestly having fun with this game. The controls feel tighter than MW2 did, the maps have more flanking routes, the textures look better (Not nearly close to BF3 though, I might add), and the guns feel more balanced. Saying this is simply a 60$ map pack is nothing short of ignorant, because the last time I checked, map packs didn't add new perks, guns, killstreaks, and gamemodes. Though, I'm not saying this isn't VERY similar to MW2. But is that really a bad thing? Not really. It worked well in the past, and it works well now. If it ain't broke, why fix it?

    Now, I'm not a CoD fanboy. I've played my share of BC2 and enjoyed it, so I picked up BF3 a few days after launch and have enjoyed it. But comparing the two games is retarded, because they're both very different. Do you ever hear people comparing halo and call of duty? No? Well, that's because it makes no sense. Just **** listen to yourselves, you're bashing a game that you haven't even played, which makes no sense. If you have played it enough to know you honestly didn't enjoy it, that's fine, as least you're not one of the ignorant fanboys. I really do like this game, but I also like battlefield 3. And I'm going to be playing both, because both are fun. In their own SEPARATE ways. (BF3 for graphics and realism, MW3 for fast-paced exciting gameplay)    … Expand
  20. Flash_Over
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    60 Dollars for this? Why did I make the mistake even though my instincts told me to save my money?! This game doesn't even have improved graphics! It's just MW2 all over again with an extended story, but in essence the SAME GAME! You just payed full price for a second copy of MW2 which basically what this is! Plus, if the singleplayer wasn't bad enough the multiplayer wouldn't be so60 Dollars for this? Why did I make the mistake even though my instincts told me to save my money?! This game doesn't even have improved graphics! It's just MW2 all over again with an extended story, but in essence the SAME GAME! You just payed full price for a second copy of MW2 which basically what this is! Plus, if the singleplayer wasn't bad enough the multiplayer wouldn't be so terrible if the servers were not filled with 7th grade fanboy kids who apparently know everything.… Expand
  21. Campnjackson
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    No lean. Second citizen pc gamer. As you can see you have lost the pc gamer. First cod I have not bought going back to the beginning. Reminds me of the automakers before they failed. Hubris and arogance.
  22. RapidFireReaper
    Nov 9, 2011
    1
    I have played all previous Moder warfare titles including black ops and world at war (in between cod4 and modern warfare 2). I knew from that start the multiplayer looked the same but to my surprise they changed almost nothing. Even the sound effects are the same! are you kidding me!? Still running the quake III engine from 1999! All the texture models are the same expect shiner. However iI have played all previous Moder warfare titles including black ops and world at war (in between cod4 and modern warfare 2). I knew from that start the multiplayer looked the same but to my surprise they changed almost nothing. Even the sound effects are the same! are you kidding me!? Still running the quake III engine from 1999! All the texture models are the same expect shiner. However i dident fret i figured the campian is always epic right! NO! They basically held my hand down a straight path and then spoon fed me explosions. Sadly disappointed. If your a fan id wait for the bargain bin.… Expand
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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....
  31. 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
  32. 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.
  33. asdfgh
    Nov 9, 2011
    1
    It's not terrible by any means, however, it is frustrating to see a once great series that contains two of my favourite games of all time (CoD 2 & 4) fail to change. Yes, it's the same moderate quality textures, same unrealistic and pathetic gun sounds, same single player thats as linear as the line y=x., and that's a real shame. Activision's desire for a yearly release gives theIt's not terrible by any means, however, it is frustrating to see a once great series that contains two of my favourite games of all time (CoD 2 & 4) fail to change. Yes, it's the same moderate quality textures, same unrealistic and pathetic gun sounds, same single player thats as linear as the line y=x., and that's a real shame. Activision's desire for a yearly release gives the developers no time for any real innovation or enough time for a new engine, this is what lets down this game. It's no longer fun to pay for a brand new game, along with 3 compulsory map packs or the elite subscription if you wish to avoid being 'kicked' from MP games, its becoming greedy. The included maps are tacky, small and repedative from my experience on them, and alas, it is clear that IW haven't listened to fans as the dreaded 'Noob Tube' returns as an early unlock which is perhaps my least favourite thing about call of duty. Graphics (7.5/10): Perhaps not as good as MW2, but a clear step up from Black Ops, the engine however doesn't allow for the dynamic lighting that some rivals to this franchise and the textures are clearly copy and pasted from earlier games. As usual, the guns look great themselves, the few high quality textures are devoted to firearms which look much better than anything else, albeit, not quite as good as BF3. One thing I really like is the 60fps, it leaves the game play smooth at all times, and never seems to dip.

    Sound (1/10): Pathetic is the only way to describe them, unrealistic and completely wrong gun sounds return. There are also no dynamic sounds, so a sniper rifle on the other side of a map, 3 blocks away, sounds the same as if it were 5 metres away. Very, very dissappointing.

    Multiplayer (4/10): A quote from MW2: "Same stuff, different day", which is a perfect description of the multiplayer aspect of MW3....its nearly IDENTICAL! Some different guns, some not, same sounds, slightly redesigned maps, same game modes practically. There is a huge hype behind "Kill Confirmed" mode, which would be great for a communicating team, however, I'm told that this has been taken from Crysis 2 (not 100% sure on that) plus a slightly different version of CTF. These add little to the game. The same stupid killsteaks, including the annoying Juggernaught that appeared in spec ops last time. Again, in a few months time, be prepared to shell out the MS point equivilent of US$15/$AU23 for the first of 3 map packs that if avoided will see you kicked from every server (or $50 for the elite service). The maps too, all seem identical bar the NYC map, which, combined with the tiny size ( 6 players per team max usually and the playing area is tiny) leaves one bored VERY quickly. Ah yes, to allow for new and unskilled players, noob tube returns from its nerfing in Black Ops to again leave me wanting to tear my hair out in frustration. "Quickscoping", another frustrating 'innovation' has returned to haunt me, an exploit of the over-helpful aim assist. The P2P servers are a clear step down from dedicated ones, they limit the number of players and lag like hell in Australia, I hate it, it's not as fun as past games.

    Offline (3/10): Meh, another over the top, unoriginal story. Unbelievably short, finished on easy in 4 and half hours, contrary to most "professional" critics who say it takes 8. However, at least IW tried to do something new with a rip off of zombies along with some more co-op spec ops, however, no co-op will ever compare to Treyarch's Zombies. As a whole, the offline component appears half baked and tired.

    Overall, I was going to give this game 6 or 7 out of 10, however seeing as its part of a series, it is a rediculous copy of the last one, hence its low rating. The "professional" critics who raved so highly need to get a grip and loose their bias, as a once CoD fanboy myself, I am very disappointed and will be trying out BF3 in the near future as I return this 'new' game. A pathetic money grab, if you enjoy CoD, play MW2 or MW1, they're by far better than this.    … Expand
  34. TrollFace_McGee
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Worst game EVER. Of all time.
    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. They try to distract you from how bad it is with big explosions every two seconds but the engine is so    Worst game EVER. Of all time.
    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. They try to distract you from how bad it is with big explosions every two seconds but the engine is so old that they look just lame. Scene where a child is killed tries to generate controversy like the airport mission in MW2 but it fails miserably. The multiplayer is the same thing you already played several times before. Almost nothing is changed from the previous games. The new maps are bland and not worth it. The new modes are nothing special. If you are buying the game for its multiplayer, buy MW instead, its cheaper and better balanced. Also the game suffers from numerous bugs on the PC version. My advice is to stick with the first MW or just play a better FPS like RO2 or BF3.    … Expand
  35. maikhelsson
    Nov 9, 2011
    8
    All the fed up of BF3 players here writing ofc.. Go and play ur GAME like the MW3 players are doing instead of flaming in here. Actually the game ain't that bad. What I've meet there is lots o similar things in earlier CoDs but no it doesn't make the game non-playable. I totally skipped blackops and MW2 eventhough I played CoD1-4 as a active clan player. Well if we compare this to BF3: IAll the fed up of BF3 players here writing ofc.. Go and play ur GAME like the MW3 players are doing instead of flaming in here. Actually the game ain't that bad. What I've meet there is lots o similar things in earlier CoDs but no it doesn't make the game non-playable. I totally skipped blackops and MW2 eventhough I played CoD1-4 as a active clan player. Well if we compare this to BF3: I did play it on beta (ofc alot of bugs etc.), but nothing wins the game when its PLAYABLE even with high graphics when ur PC ain't very up to date. I agree BF3 has lots better graphics but in my opinion they shouldn't make games to tell people "Hello! Wanna play me? PUT 600 euros to get new hardware first, then buy the game for 50 euros." As a hardcore player I give my points for a game that people can play as a "team" (and no, not public "teams") and without getting in risk of low FPS.

    This is mostly for Multiplayer:
    +8 for the game, working client(steam), system, different game mods, playable with even more worse computers (Low graphics ARE playable)
    -1 for the graphics (maybe would've deserve -2 as '11 game)
    -1 Servers are sometimes **** up as the players host the servers(at least some of the servers, fix me if I'm totally wrong)    … Expand
  36. shai182
    Nov 9, 2011
    2
    this is sad for me the game came as a hope for something that is not there, Dedicated servers are unranked, the MP is the same as MW2 in truth this fell like an update to MW2 but it see to be worse then MW2, I'm just so freaking frustrated why the F*** i payed for this?????
    I wanted an improved MP for PC no another bad port from a console!!! I want ranked Dedicated servers and i want a    this is sad for me the game came as a hope for something that is not there, Dedicated servers are unranked, the MP is the same as MW2 in truth this fell like an update to MW2 but it see to be worse then MW2, I'm just so freaking frustrated why the F*** i payed for this?????
    I wanted an improved MP for PC no another bad port from a console!!! I want ranked Dedicated servers and i want a lot more then i got offered here.    … Expand
  37. Yossarian
    Nov 9, 2011
    8
    I don't get what people were expecting when they rushed out and bought this, but I got what i wanted. Single player campaign is great and continues the story from the first two games. Multiplayer has a ton of new perks and level up options. It runs great on my laptop: Phenom II N970 Quad-Core, 8gb DDR3-1066, 1gb AMD Radeon 6650m.

    There are some gripes I have about the game (no lean, no    I don't get what people were expecting when they rushed out and bought this, but I got what i wanted. Single player campaign is great and continues the story from the first two games. Multiplayer has a ton of new perks and level up options. It runs great on my laptop: Phenom II N970 Quad-Core, 8gb DDR3-1066, 1gb AMD Radeon 6650m.

    There are some gripes I have about the game (no lean, no FOV adjustment, no prestige tokens from previous games, no Dew XP promotion, etc.) but seriously these are minor issues and overall the game is pretty damn good. Personally I don't care that the graphics haven't changed much, I always thought they were fine to begin with.

    IDK, I guess I'm supposed to hate it but I haven't run into anything that makes me hate it. All the people complaining just seem like elitists who are getting mad that their beloved series now has mass appeal, just like what happened to punk rock in the late 80s and early 90s. Whatever, deal with it guys.

    Docked 2 points for IW/Sledgehammer/Activision basically skimping out on Elite/Promotional deals for the PC version.    … Expand
  38. jay236
    Nov 9, 2011
    5
    There were a couple things I was actually excited about for the PC version: 1) Dedicated servers, 2) Specialist play style, and 3) Support play style. However, I tried it on my friends Steam account and all three were a let down. Dedicated server lag was definitely better, however there's no incentive to play on those servers because of no ranking...therefore barely anyone to play with. IThere were a couple things I was actually excited about for the PC version: 1) Dedicated servers, 2) Specialist play style, and 3) Support play style. However, I tried it on my friends Steam account and all three were a let down. Dedicated server lag was definitely better, however there's no incentive to play on those servers because of no ranking...therefore barely anyone to play with. I did join a fun gun game server (reminds me of Black Ops), kept me entertained for about an hour.

    Specialist package was fun for a bit in FFA...trying to stay alive then getting all the perks you can't decide on...but in the end I still didn't feel wowed or anything.

    Support package didn't seemed as overpowered as it was lol. Killstreaks have slightly higher requirements but still, play style didn't feel innovative.

    Same Sh!t, Different Title. Keep your money and ignore the super biased "critic" reviews; they're probably paid to give 100% scores. CoD 4 was the only true "Game of the Year."    … Expand
  39. shepard86
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    This is not what a PC FPS should be like. Activision still fails to deliver to the PC players. IWNET matchmaking failed miserably in MW2, and in 2 years Activision did not manage to understand and answer to the PC community, not one little bit. Unranked dedis are like a slap in the face, since the actual multiplayer mechanics have not changed at all. The graphics engine is ancient, and iThis is not what a PC FPS should be like. Activision still fails to deliver to the PC players. IWNET matchmaking failed miserably in MW2, and in 2 years Activision did not manage to understand and answer to the PC community, not one little bit. Unranked dedis are like a slap in the face, since the actual multiplayer mechanics have not changed at all. The graphics engine is ancient, and i mean really ancient. It looks exactly the same as its predecessors, because the engine is the exact same one. Fancier skins and textures don't help with that. I believe Activision will actually continue to release games based on that outdated engine as long as x360 and ps3 exist together with the idiots who buy them and this product... so, congratulations, there will be no innovation and technological progress in the coming years, guaranteed for by every individual who spent money on this. The one thing that really astonishes me though, is that they still release such PC gamer insulting software on the PC... PC gamers really hate Activisions guts for every COD after Modern Warfare 1. If they bother to release on the PC, why is it so hard to understand that players want the multiplayer experience of Modern Warfare 1, with DEDIs AND RANKs together... are they really that retarded?… Expand
  40. cryhax
    Nov 9, 2011
    4
    This game is exactly what I expected - nothing new or surprising. I had hoped that there would be some 'wow' factor or that the developers would at least master a concept that Counter Strike (circa 1999) had mastered - mainly that players wouldn't get killed by spraying players after ducking behind a solid wall (ex_interp 0). Don't get confused... shooting bullets into a wall with a playerThis game is exactly what I expected - nothing new or surprising. I had hoped that there would be some 'wow' factor or that the developers would at least master a concept that Counter Strike (circa 1999) had mastered - mainly that players wouldn't get killed by spraying players after ducking behind a solid wall (ex_interp 0). Don't get confused... shooting bullets into a wall with a player behind should do damage based on whether the wall is brick (no dmg) or wood (~70%). But getting killed by a player who you lost line of sight on 5 seconds ago is pathetic. Congratulations to Activision in combination with Sledgehammer, Treyarch, and Infinity Ward (you know, the fake one activision filled out after booting West and Zampella) for making me feel stupid for giving COD a 2nd chance after the blunder that was Black Ops. Won't happen again.… Expand
  41. FakeLies
    Nov 9, 2011
    1
    Hm what to say...I havent played bf3 yet, and i probably wont do so in the future, so a comparison would be crap. So well....activision and IW have once again done it...theyll earn millions of dollars with crap that hasnt innovated since mw...mw was a great shooter,the story was just thrilling,even if short, and the multyplayer was plain awesome...to everyone new to cod ill suggest you toHm what to say...I havent played bf3 yet, and i probably wont do so in the future, so a comparison would be crap. So well....activision and IW have once again done it...theyll earn millions of dollars with crap that hasnt innovated since mw...mw was a great shooter,the story was just thrilling,even if short, and the multyplayer was plain awesome...to everyone new to cod ill suggest you to get either modern warfare or CoD2...cod2 is just a good game, and with mw youll get the same stuff you would get with mw 3 for about a third of the price (its even better balanced)...its a shame that people keep buying this trash...the single player lacks the intense of previous games, it seems even shorter...and then again the lame try on producing some controversy, just like the airport mission in mw2...just shows that the only thing those **** are aiming for is money....no new graphics, no new aspects,not even improved ones...the multyplayer is exactly in the same state as the singleplayer,the only improvements taken are some additions to kill streaks...which seem to be stolen from either homefront or other fps...LONG STORY SHORT COMPARISON: its ridiculous that they keep on making money with the same crap as before, but because morons buy this trash they will produce the same crap on and on...Im just waiting for the massive whining when they again release dlcs usually worth 3 dollars and sell them for 20 dollars...but then again people will buy it...cod history should have ended after mw… Expand
  42. Hunkerjr
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Single player is ok, i had no problem with it. But the multiplayer is so **** pathetic/retarded. Terrible maps, terrible map size, terrible graphic, terrible gameplay, terrible guns, terrible gun animation, terrible web interface (seriously, get the **** out of steam and develop a web interface for multiplayer), and so on. I want a refund on my money from buying this piece of **** I shouldSingle player is ok, i had no problem with it. But the multiplayer is so **** pathetic/retarded. Terrible maps, terrible map size, terrible graphic, terrible gameplay, terrible guns, terrible gun animation, terrible web interface (seriously, get the **** out of steam and develop a web interface for multiplayer), and so on. I want a refund on my money from buying this piece of **** I should have downloaded it from Torrent instead of buying.… Expand
  43. clubber91
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    What a **** !!!! Seriously do they're is a way to have my money back !!! This game sucks like no one does.
    Have you guys from activision played it ? You don't imo ...
    Instead of paying "people" to come to your shows, just pay another graphic motor FFS !!! I don't give a ****** of watching trailer with actors when the game is a complete joke !! We wanna game who makes or graphic card    What a **** !!!! Seriously do they're is a way to have my money back !!! This game sucks like no one does.
    Have you guys from activision played it ? You don't imo ...
    Instead of paying "people" to come to your shows, just pay another graphic motor FFS !!!
    I don't give a ****** of watching trailer with actors when the game is a complete joke !!
    We wanna game who makes or graphic card crying, we want a game that needs a loan to buy 2x GTX590 to play in LOW graphics modes!!!
    You got two years to bring us a new PGM Game, and you serve us all that ****... so lame    … Expand
  44. MattM
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    A map and texture pack for MW2, which was a map and texture pack for cod 4.They added some garbage killstreak **** and call it a brand new game. I played about 5 hours of this steaming pile of **** at my friends house, and got exactly what I thought I would. Just like MW2, this is a slap in the face to PC gamers everywhere. There is dedicated server support, but guess what. THEY ARE ALLA map and texture pack for MW2, which was a map and texture pack for cod 4.They added some garbage killstreak **** and call it a brand new game. I played about 5 hours of this steaming pile of **** at my friends house, and got exactly what I thought I would. Just like MW2, this is a slap in the face to PC gamers everywhere. There is dedicated server support, but guess what. THEY ARE ALL UNRANKED. In order to advance your character and grab the carrots dangling in your face, you must use the same broken P2P system that consoles use. Locked FOV, locked framerate, and tons of other bugs create the exact same experience PC players had with MW2. Hitscan, instant bullet travel time, along with locked FOV, ensures that the game will never require skill. It is a game for people who don't play video games, and it is an absolute insult to the hard work and innovation of other developers. It is essentially the Family Guy of FPS. Instant gratification for low IQ morons who think they know something. I am by no means a Battlefield fanboy, and I am disappointed in the "sequel" that is BF3, but at least it tried to innovate in all areas of the game. I have a number of problems with BF3, but it is still an infinitely superior game to this pile of dog****. If you plan on buying one or the other, I would highly recommend BF3, regardless of your platform of choice.… Expand
  45. 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.
  46. p3rf3ct0
    Nov 9, 2011
    1
    As a DLC for MW2 this would get a decent mark. As a flagship 2011 stand alone release it's far short of the 40 quid asking price.

    I would recommend people to seriously consider only renting this game, as you can complete the single player in a few hours/one evening. The multiplayer is still terrible as it was back in MW2, the spec ops missions and co-op are ok in small doses. Biggest    As a DLC for MW2 this would get a decent mark. As a flagship 2011 stand alone release it's far short of the 40 quid asking price.

    I would recommend people to seriously consider only renting this game, as you can complete the single player in a few hours/one evening.

    The multiplayer is still terrible as it was back in MW2, the spec ops missions and co-op are ok in small doses.

    Biggest mistake by any video gaming company in 2011?? Releasing a blatant re-hash previous version make over in the wake of the boundary pushing visuals in BF3 (I'm not wildly over excited with the multiplayer gameplay in that either).

    I'm giving it a 1 for the briefly entertaining single player story but in the face of overwhelming pish that is the rest of the game.    … Expand
  47. PapaShroom
    Nov 9, 2011
    9
    I love how all of the Battlefield 3 fanboys get on here to trash MW3. Quit acting like its the same game being released because its not. The game has lots of new features and the same addicting gameplay that helps it to beat the battlefield series year in year out.
  48. daeden
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    What I expected from this game was a complete update of graphics that actually tested the high end components. I expect a game that improved upon the previous installment of the same developer. I expected to get $60 worth of gameplay.

    What did I get? Regurgitated vomit that smells exactly of the same wretched garbage that still lingers with a bad taste in my mouth. Graphics are piss poor.    What I expected from this game was a complete update of graphics that actually tested the high end components. I expect a game that improved upon the previous installment of the same developer. I expected to get $60 worth of gameplay.

    What did I get? Regurgitated vomit that smells exactly of the same wretched garbage that still lingers with a bad taste in my mouth. Graphics are piss poor. It lacks zero ingenuity. The interface is the same tired trash that they put out before and even the in-game icons are cheesy and are of the same skill that a high school graphic designer would churn out. I'm sorry, that's inappropriate, I apologize to high school students across the USA, you're work far exceeds this.

    This game is merely a greedy attempt to capitalize upon the Call of Duty franchise name. It feels more like some $14.99 DLC off of steam than an actual standalone game. I would have been happy just moving my profile from MW2 to MW3 and calling it a day. Apparently Black OPS is the true winner of this fiasco. After everyone realizes what this game is and how they just had the wool pulled over their eyes, there will be a surge back to all the Black Ops servers.

    To be fair, I gave this product a 1.0. My reasoning behind this is, the only people that won are the ones that took my money and provided be with one of the worst games I have ever bought to date. Battlefield 3 comes into a close second to the trash that's been churned out this year. Both games are garbage and maybe this is the end of First Person Shooters. Anyhow, thanks DICE or EA or Activision, or whoever screwed me over. I appreciate it. Hope you go bankrupt.    … Expand
  49. warriorjan
    Nov 9, 2011
    8
    First things first, I noticed alot of bad comments and reviews on this game. The funny thing is it looks all the same talking about the engine and gameplay and boring story. I highly doubt those people who reviewed the game did actually bought the game. Graphics: They haven't build a new engine for this game, instead they twitched the one they had on MW2. In my opinion its still dated andFirst things first, I noticed alot of bad comments and reviews on this game. The funny thing is it looks all the same talking about the engine and gameplay and boring story. I highly doubt those people who reviewed the game did actually bought the game. Graphics: They haven't build a new engine for this game, instead they twitched the one they had on MW2. In my opinion its still dated and look pretty good and maps are well designed. Ofcourse, I dont expect Infinity Ward to use it again in the future and build a new one.

    Soundtracks: Brian Tyler did a great job here, nothing more special to say.

    Single player: Still very entertaining and never made me get bored, also the time for completing the story took me a good 7 hours which is very good. However, as most people know the story is pretty much build with the same structure as MW2 and highly predictible.

    The new survival mode has a similar gameplay as Killing Floor. You complete a wave, buy upgrades or weapons and start the next wave. I had alot of fun here so far on my own. I haven't tried multiplayer yet on survival mode.

    Spec Ops, pretty much the same as MW2, it still does its job as expected.

    Multiplayer: Very simular compared to MW2, new killstreaks that looks very cool, slightly changed UI, and more ballanced compared the its predecessors. Perks and weapon leveling are working very well together. Somehow the spawning system still keeps spawning you in front of an enemie sometimes, but much less than MW2.
    Alot of those unfair or really annoying killstreaks and perks are removed, which is good.
    Theater mode like the one from Black Ops does its job for me, I can finally review things I did in a game I played.

    Conclusion: MW3 is absolutely not a bad game, but because of the lack of improvement of its predecessors its getting an 8 instead of a 10. Things to note if they make a new Call of Duty, a new engine is a MUST and a brand new story wouldn't harm the francise. Be creative Infinity Ward!

    That concludes the review,
    warriorjan    … Expand
  50. MotoNack
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    As it says right in the games description, "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is a direct sequel to the previous game in the series, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2." It really is a direct sequel, and that is putting it lightly. This game is all about staying tried and true with popular belief. If you own Modern Warfare 2, then you should feel like your picking up right where you left off asAs it says right in the games description, "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is a direct sequel to the previous game in the series, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2." It really is a direct sequel, and that is putting it lightly. This game is all about staying tried and true with popular belief. If you own Modern Warfare 2, then you should feel like your picking up right where you left off as this is basically an over the top DLC, with no innovative content to be seen. If you like playing the same game since 2007, be my guest.… Expand
  51. Leonintelex
    Nov 9, 2011
    6
    Pro's Set pieces are enjoyable Multiplayer is balanced Con's Very poor graphics considering technology now at developers disposal Dated engine which has not had any changes since 2008 (Frostbite 2 is practically a generation ahead)
    Nothing groundbreaking or innovative Feels more like an expansion pack than a full game Having played through a large chunk of the SP game and starting my    Pro's Set pieces are enjoyable Multiplayer is balanced Con's Very poor graphics considering technology now at developers disposal Dated engine which has not had any changes since 2008 (Frostbite 2 is practically a generation ahead)
    Nothing groundbreaking or innovative Feels more like an expansion pack than a full game Having played through a large chunk of the SP game and starting my multiplayer experience tonight (will feedback on that another time but initial thoughts are same game different colour log in screens) I must say I am a little underwhelmed by what is on offer for a game which retails much higher than most other titles on the market. It seems that IW totally forgot that technology has come on leaps and bounds since their last release, I am shocked how bad the graphics are in comparison to other titles released this year (Crysis 2, Battlefield 3). Yes, i know that graphics are not everything but some sort of effort to make it look like that actually have actually bothered to move things forward in the last few years would of been nice. Direct X 11 wold of been nice, destructible environments maybe?

    As for the campaign at times it felt like a chore which just involved running / shooting / dying and no WOW factor whatsoever. Most the time I would just end up getting killed from some random enemy who appeared out of nowhere. Some parts were OK and showed a bit of quality (the plane crash) but some were just so boring. Getting a Steam achievement at the end of each level was more like a thank you for not getting bored and turning the game off in frustration. I would love to expand a little more but don't want to add any spoilers. I have played through BF3 and thought that was more engaging, maybe this was down the the better more advanced engine that took advantage of my graphics card (A GTX 570). BF3 had it's flaws but it felt like a new game in comparison to BFBC2 which made it feel like money well spent. It also felt like EA treated PC gamers with a little more respect by giving us something extra and make us feel a little bit special (64 player multiplayer). Though I must admit the leveling on BF3 is a little slow and I am cannot fly any of the helicopters / planes no matter how many tutorials I watch :) I really do feel short changed (I got really hyped up and geeked out over the COD launch stream on IGN) but now wish I would of saved my money in reflection, I am not sure if all the reviews on here are from trolls (1.4 is a little low) but it certainly does not feel like it deserves the 90% (I feel 6 is a more realistic score) it has scored through professional review sources (are Activision really nice to reviewers or something, I baffled to how it gets such a high score). COD has a huge market share at present and this release feels like Activision take this for granted. This is a Medal of Honour waiting to happen (can you remember when Cod was the underdog). I really hope that the next release pushes the boundaries, is a little more daring, brings us something new and gives back that value for money feeling earlier titles brought. Otherwise I can see that market share diminishing and another title entering the market and becoming the new king of the FPS genre. I don't think that this would be Battlefield as it will always have the COD vs BF fan's that will stay loyal. I think it will be a new IP that attracts gamers from both camps. Also a good idea at this point is not to piss off PC gamers as it is a growing market (once again) with consoles starting to show their age and a good few years before anything next gen is on the shelves. We are not all pirates (in fact I have over 160 Steam games, check my profile) but If PC gamers do not feel value for money then future releases will just get downloaded off Pirate Bay for free! Activision, please change or see this much loved game die!    … Expand
  52. Justme005
    Nov 9, 2011
    9
    Guys you made me smile with all those 0/10 ratings. I think most of the comments were written by BF3 fans ("... I'm going back to BF3..." or "When such a amazing multiplayer game like BF3 exists") or some random haters ("...But i havent played it yet..."). Seriously?!... Lets see.
    It uses the same engine as the previous episodes. Yes, the graphic getting old, BF3 and Rage is beautiful, i    Guys you made me smile with all those 0/10 ratings. I think most of the comments were written by BF3 fans ("... I'm going back to BF3..." or "When such a amazing multiplayer game like BF3 exists") or some random haters ("...But i havent played it yet..."). Seriously?!... Lets see.
    It uses the same engine as the previous episodes. Yes, the graphic getting old, BF3 and Rage is beautiful, i admit, but their optimalisation sucks. The single-player is the same as we seen before, whats the problem with that? They were fast, exciting full of EPIC moments, (and unfortunately too short, yes thats a bad point). The coop part is still fun with a new mode (in the mw series). And finally the multiplayer is still the same intensive fps experience as before(+dedicated servers returned) with many new features and some fixes what we missed from the prev episodes. I'm still smiling and don't get what your problem is:) A bit old and it isn't cheap, but still the best choice if you want some adrenalin-pumping fast action.
    So the conclusion is: Haters gonna hate. Who liked the previous MW episodes (and still don't get bored of them) will love this too.

    Thanks for reading this, that was MY opinion, no offense, Have a nice day.    … Expand
  53. bmcclure
    Nov 9, 2011
    8
    I did not have nearly as bad of an experience as many other reviewers. First, you must realize this is what the Call of Duty franchise has become--you know exactly what to expect from any new Call of Duty game, especially when it carries the Modern Warfare brand.

    If you didn't like MW2, why would you expect more from MW3? Thus, if you properly manage your expectations, you can have a lot    I did not have nearly as bad of an experience as many other reviewers. First, you must realize this is what the Call of Duty franchise has become--you know exactly what to expect from any new Call of Duty game, especially when it carries the Modern Warfare brand.

    If you didn't like MW2, why would you expect more from MW3? Thus, if you properly manage your expectations, you can have a lot of fun with MW3, as I did. I have always been a fan of CoD's single player campaigns, and in this case MW3 did not disappoint me.

    I know it's basically a brainless, on-rails, completely-linear experience. I know that the story is entirely unbelievable. I know that the game lacks the absolute latest technical advancements in the shooter genre. But I knew all that going in, and I still chose to pre-order the game. In fact, because I knew not to expect more, that's what I was waiting for!

    The multiplayer experience is still fun as well, but it is starting to get stale. Not enough improvements have been made to make it stand out at all from MW2's multiplayer, and there aren't enough new maps to make it feel like they've really put a lot of effort into that area.

    Overall, I still enjoy the experience--it feels like a Michael Bay summer blockbuster--completely predictable, completely unrealistic even when it tries to be, but enough pretty explosions and epic scripted events to keep your adrenaline pumping and hold your interest from start to finish.

    All of the negative reviews just might help to snap Activision out of this cycle of rehashing similar content, so in that I guess it has a purpose, however I do not feel that the game deserves a 0 rating, so hopefully other reviewers like me will help to offset this.

    I love Battlefield 3 as much as the next person, but to even expect that MW3 would compare technically, or in the multiplayer department, means you are not being very realistic going in. Battlefield 3 is where the innovation is. MW3 is simply the continuation of a series.    … Expand
  54. oldcodfan
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    I was a big cod fan... I was desperate about but gave them another chance. and activision ruined it...If it was released in ... ok, nice game with very good graphics and new gameplay etc. but now almost 7 years later.. it's crap, if you compare it to other games and you should, cause that's concuration. But the biggest fail of them is to say it's a new game, instead of just a **** DLC. 60I was a big cod fan... I was desperate about but gave them another chance. and activision ruined it...If it was released in ... ok, nice game with very good graphics and new gameplay etc. but now almost 7 years later.. it's crap, if you compare it to other games and you should, cause that's concuration. But the biggest fail of them is to say it's a new game, instead of just a **** DLC. 60 euroms and 5 for every month to use elite-.-.. It's the same game as mw2 with new maps. Even the new maps have recycled buildings comming straight from cod4. They are so lazy. I will never fall in this again. All my friends told me but i would them another chance and they ruined it. My friends are right. These people don't deserve the money. F*CK activision. Look for example to DICE and Valve. They care for their comunity and LISTEN to the feedback. Not like this cheepy ass developers which earn milions and do nothing with it.… Expand
  55. UnseenMaster
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Well, at least I'm not the only IDIOT that got duped into buying a $60 game that should have been released in 2001. Same sh!t different toilet if you ask me. MW3 makes Black Ops look like a great game. The story in SP is average. MP is just horrible and the graphics are just so poor that i feel i can run this game on my tablet. BORING BORING BORING. I played every COD/MW game that has beenWell, at least I'm not the only IDIOT that got duped into buying a $60 game that should have been released in 2001. Same sh!t different toilet if you ask me. MW3 makes Black Ops look like a great game. The story in SP is average. MP is just horrible and the graphics are just so poor that i feel i can run this game on my tablet. BORING BORING BORING. I played every COD/MW game that has been release and I dont think I have ever been disappointed over any of their games WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THIS GAME. Back to playing BF3!!… Expand
  56. OzShinDig
    Nov 9, 2011
    8
    This is a singleplayer only review as I haven't yet had the chance to try multiplayer. I convinced myself I wasn't going to buy MW3 being somewhat of a Battlefield fanboy. I loved Modern Warfare 1 but as a PC player hated MW2 due to lack of dedicated servers. It also had a rather disjointed story which really put me off. I decided to never buy another CoD game again because of the lack ofThis is a singleplayer only review as I haven't yet had the chance to try multiplayer. I convinced myself I wasn't going to buy MW3 being somewhat of a Battlefield fanboy. I loved Modern Warfare 1 but as a PC player hated MW2 due to lack of dedicated servers. It also had a rather disjointed story which really put me off. I decided to never buy another CoD game again because of the lack of innovation and the fact that it's basically the same game every year. Well I woke up on MW3 release day and impulsively decided to buy it just to see if it lived up to Modern Warfare 1. First thing I noticed was the campaign length. Normally a CoD game takes me only 3-5 hours to complete on regular. This one took me just under 9 hours which I was really happy with. The story truly lived up to MW1 and I enjoyed it much more than MW2. I'm giving it an 8 out of 10 because I really enjoyed it, it was very entertaining and wrapped up the Modern Warfare story quite nicely. I took two points off for dated visuals, lack of any proper physics and other engine-related badness. Also the fact that it's another iterative CoD. Now we just need some real innovation in the future and CoD can move forward the way it needs to.… Expand
  57. Geomags
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    This game is just awful, best DLC I've ever played but defiantly not worth your £40/$60. For a started the campaign is predictable and boring, as per usual, and does not do anything new what so ever. The multiplayer is the same with some added game modes, this is not innovative, you can get new game modes like these in Call of Duty 4 mods. The engine is the same so theThis game is just awful, best DLC I've ever played but defiantly not worth your £40/$60. For a started the campaign is predictable and boring, as per usual, and does not do anything new what so ever. The multiplayer is the same with some added game modes, this is not innovative, you can get new game modes like these in Call of Duty 4 mods. The engine is the same so the graphics are 2 years old, its just lazy. Last but not least you cannot edit your FOV so your stuck with a FOV of 55 or something which can cause head aches and aching eyes. Not worth a buy, maybe if they priced it the same as DLC it would be worth your cash. For players that played Battlefield Bad Company 2 it's basically like the Vietnam DLC.… Expand
  58. Darkvader75
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Terrible graphics and old gameplay lead one to wonder why this was supposed to be worth buying. Battlefield 3 just set the benchmark for 64 player online massive FPS multiplayer. I guess that benchmark was just set to high for COD. It's not surprising as COD has lagged behind in quality and gameplay since 2003. I would say the grafix in Battlefield 2142 from 2008 look better then CODTerrible graphics and old gameplay lead one to wonder why this was supposed to be worth buying. Battlefield 3 just set the benchmark for 64 player online massive FPS multiplayer. I guess that benchmark was just set to high for COD. It's not surprising as COD has lagged behind in quality and gameplay since 2003. I would say the grafix in Battlefield 2142 from 2008 look better then COD MW3. The movement is terrible. The campaign was such a let down next to BF3 and the gameplay is terrible. The broken class system really stands out next to the revamped BF3 class's.… Expand
  59. rand0m9
    Nov 9, 2011
    2
    I play CoD for the multiplayer and it was a huge let down. I basically loaded up the game expecting something more than a re-skin and new maps. If you are not just determined to own this I would save yourself some money and play a different game. Or go back to mw2 and get the map packs. From what I can tell the graphics are only slightly better and since its back to iwnet the lag getsI play CoD for the multiplayer and it was a huge let down. I basically loaded up the game expecting something more than a re-skin and new maps. If you are not just determined to own this I would save yourself some money and play a different game. Or go back to mw2 and get the map packs. From what I can tell the graphics are only slightly better and since its back to iwnet the lag gets ridiculous at times. I regret buying it.… Expand
  60. moneymaka813
    Nov 9, 2011
    10
    this game is really good and i am good at this game and the campaign is really good and i love the guns but the AK 47 it is really not that good.i would love to have them to make a mw4 and all my friends play this game and idk y everybody is calling this game so bad like are u bad?
  61. B0GiE-uk-
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    I'm sorry but I had to register to relay my thoughts on this pice of **** game.

    I have a 2560 x 1440 resolution on my display. I fired up the game and it was like I was playing at 640 x 480 resolution. All setting were maxxed out in the game too. The developers of this game should be shot. Its an extremely lazy Xbox port. Absolutely shocking. I am going to try and get a refund for this    I'm sorry but I had to register to relay my thoughts on this pice of **** game.

    I have a 2560 x 1440 resolution on my display. I fired up the game and it was like I was playing at 640 x 480 resolution. All setting were maxxed out in the game too. The developers of this game should be shot. Its an extremely lazy Xbox port. Absolutely shocking. I am going to try and get a refund for this piece of ****.

    AVOID AVOID AVOID    … Expand
  62. CODRippedUsoff
    Nov 9, 2011
    2
    This game gets a 2 out of 10. Same Game, same graphics, same sounds, nothing is new but a few lame play styles, No dedicated servers, it lags all the time or loses game connectivity. Its the last time I will be buying a COD game! IF you agree connect to the site I posted and Help the movement to open their eyes!

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/COD-Ripped-US-OFF/314273318589267
  63. 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
  64. SteveMac
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Same boring game as MW2 was. It doesn't look like anything has happened since then - No extra features, or thought has gone into it. Black Ops had more features, dedicated servers, lean, a console, diving, flyable killstreaks, max fps alterations, fov.

    The game has gone backwards - and with P2P game play in multi player, this makes it one of the worst games to date.
  65. chead
    Nov 9, 2011
    1
    So I've literally played COD to death... from the first release.. UO expansion, up to black ops. I've had little quibbles with all the releases but after a day of playing it I've loved all of them, except for this one. One thing that stayed decently constant with COD was the maps... They were all big, and you could tell they spent time thinking them out when they made them. In this newestSo I've literally played COD to death... from the first release.. UO expansion, up to black ops. I've had little quibbles with all the releases but after a day of playing it I've loved all of them, except for this one. One thing that stayed decently constant with COD was the maps... They were all big, and you could tell they spent time thinking them out when they made them. In this newest edition of COD the maps are so small and awful it makes me think I'm playing a totally different game... If you're going to basically re-release your last game, at least give it just as good, if not better, maps...… Expand
  66. cleggy7
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    The most overhyped piece of trash I've ever played. Every Call of Duty game has been identical since 2007. The developers make very little effort to make the games exciting and this is no exception. If you already have MW2 or any other COD game for that matter, you certainly don't need this. There's absolutely nothing new on offer. Avoid like the plague.
  67. xmtalley
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Modern Warfare 3 is the same old crap that has been spoon fed to us with a re-branded title, some new maps, modes, and guns. At the very least you could have put some new weapon sounds instead of re-using the same old **** Old engine is old, nuff said. Infinity Ward thinks they can give us dedicated servers back instead of that god awful IWNET **** and think we will be happy, but PCModern Warfare 3 is the same old crap that has been spoon fed to us with a re-branded title, some new maps, modes, and guns. At the very least you could have put some new weapon sounds instead of re-using the same old **** Old engine is old, nuff said. Infinity Ward thinks they can give us dedicated servers back instead of that god awful IWNET **** and think we will be happy, but PC players hold grudges, forever. /fail game #BF3WINS… Expand
  68. CrockD
    Nov 9, 2011
    3
    I'd love to know why Metacritic is now not displaying the user review score for this years Madden...umm I mean Modern Warfare iteration. The way this whole thing has gone down (high critic reviews, low user reviews) says a lot about the current model for gaming reviews. The reviewers are WAY to cozy with the game creators and publishers and it shows when critics continue to give veryI'd love to know why Metacritic is now not displaying the user review score for this years Madden...umm I mean Modern Warfare iteration. The way this whole thing has gone down (high critic reviews, low user reviews) says a lot about the current model for gaming reviews. The reviewers are WAY to cozy with the game creators and publishers and it shows when critics continue to give very high marks for what is essentially a repackaged version of the same game every freaking year. Battlefield 3 has its issues (Battlelog, Origin, etc) but at least DICE and EA provide something new that drives gaming development (Frostbite 2.0). Activision just executes the ol' annual payment model for the same crap. Give them their due, it's a great racket, but it leaves a very bitter taste in the mouths of gamers who want something new.… Expand
  69. Fuby
    Nov 9, 2011
    3
    This franchise is a total disgrace from it's roots. After COD 4 it has gone straight down hill. This use to be the best modable game for FPS shooters.. it's now no skills needed run and gun and die on the smallest maps you ever seen.. terrible DLC looking games being released as FULL over priced games on a yearly basis. They need to fire the whole lot and get back to what made the seriesThis franchise is a total disgrace from it's roots. After COD 4 it has gone straight down hill. This use to be the best modable game for FPS shooters.. it's now no skills needed run and gun and die on the smallest maps you ever seen.. terrible DLC looking games being released as FULL over priced games on a yearly basis. They need to fire the whole lot and get back to what made the series popular.. community mods and servers with actual content and cutting edge additions. You can sell ferilizer all day at the flower shop markets..looks like fertilizer is now sold daily in the video game market as well. Wait a few years and see if they return to their senses.… Expand
  70. Boomer8u
    Nov 9, 2011
    4
    Ok to some this game up, just play that two or so games in the series. For starters lets look at the campaign, I would much rather play the first chapter in the original Crysis. Even in a game thats almost 4 years old, Mw3 gets its $!*# rocked as far as graphics go. As a lot of people have said the campaign is like walking down a hallway shooting pop up bad guys with explosions every fewOk to some this game up, just play that two or so games in the series. For starters lets look at the campaign, I would much rather play the first chapter in the original Crysis. Even in a game thats almost 4 years old, Mw3 gets its $!*# rocked as far as graphics go. As a lot of people have said the campaign is like walking down a hallway shooting pop up bad guys with explosions every few minutes. The only reason Im giving this game a four is the online play. A lot of people are comparing it to the last few fames and saying that it sucks but, the modern warfare games are almost a hands down winner. The fun in a lot of games now is the online play and Infinity Ward (or what's left of it), Sledgehammer Games and Raven Software have recognized that and capitalized on that. But like i said before, the graphics, your ability to interact with everything, and any thing else left such. To some this whole review up in a few word, everything sucks besides the shooting online.… Expand
  71. thisismyopinion
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Modern Warfare 3 is a reskin of MW2 which rehashes the same gameplay yet again with the bare minimum of innovation the developer can get away with, though really should be 'developers' as three developers, the dreggs of Infinity Ward, Sledgehammer Games and Raven Software, were needed to knock out this sequel in their less than 18 month development period.

    The campaign took me 4 hours and    Modern Warfare 3 is a reskin of MW2 which rehashes the same gameplay yet again with the bare minimum of innovation the developer can get away with, though really should be 'developers' as three developers, the dreggs of Infinity Ward, Sledgehammer Games and Raven Software, were needed to knock out this sequel in their less than 18 month development period.

    The campaign took me 4 hours and 40 minutes on Regular difficulty, I took my time loking for hidden intel of which I collected 22 of the 46 pieces, it's the shortest Call of Duty campaign yet and the shortest FPS campaign I've certainly ever played. It's full of impressive set pieces with buildings falling down around the player's linear path, but these superficial big budget set pieces barely hide to anyone with experience with MW or MW2 that so much content from them is recycled with just a few minor edits made to the textures to fool the player into thinking what they're seeing is new (case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5dsOn06w1s - an entire building from CoD4), this goes for character models, animations, weapons, vehicles, gameplay sequences (for example the boat secion in MW2), a huge amount of content is reused and the game seems to be built around what they could recycle more than what they could create from scratch. The lack of originality or even intention to be original is present throughout the entire game. The story itself is actually quite enjoyable and feels as much a sequel to CoD4 and MW2, making it tie together nicely as a trilogy, though some sections make it feel more like a fanfic than a true sequel (considering that most of the people who worked on MW2 left and had nothing to do with MW3), the last mission was more of a QTE filled joke than a satisfying conclusion. I wonder how different it would've turned out had 40 of the key staff from IW, the original and only true CoD developer, due to Activision's disgusting treatment of the series, the staff and their creation. I won't even go to the clunkily added controversial scene involving the death of a random child that felt tacked on or the fact that everyone the player kills in the campaign is either African or Russian.

    Spec Ops is a mixed bag, the missions are a mix of fun and terrible, and the Veteran difficulty is like that of the campaign, a very lazily added hard difficulty where the player dies to psychic enemies in around 3 bullets, usually within a second of peeking out from cover (and by peeking I mean moving, as there is still no lean function). The survival mode however is a lot of fun, it works well as two player co-op and a lot of the tedium from the other survival mode in the series, Zombies, is removed by taking out the luck factor with the amount of ammo the player can get and which weapons they acquire. There's a lot of fun to be had here with a friend and it runs smoothly online, the same can't be said for the multiplayer though.

    In the previous Call of Duty, Black Ops, quickscoping was removed on the basis it's a cheap exploit of the game's aim assist, and that was a good call, though it annoyed many kids who like to do it in MW2. They brought this back in MW3 to please those kids and without regard for the quality of their game's online, this sums up their approach to the multiplayer. As a reskin of MW2 it of course plays quite similarly, they've made attempts to better balance the game with how effective the knife, grenade launchers and killstreak rewards are (which amongst quickscoping ranked as the biggest complaints of MW2's multiplayer) and the new point streak system is a nice addition, but all of the technical problems with this peer hosted, laggy mess with poor hit detection and terrible matchmaking still remain, taking a lot of the fun out of playing it, along of course with the huge focus on player's stats (made worse by in-depth stat tracking) that has most players approaching the game in as cheap a way as possible to camp themselves to a high kill/death ratio. The new game modes aren't actually to original either, some of them may as well credit other older and more recent games considering they're so close to them in design. The map design itself is a campfest, designed by Raven Software as after the majority of IW including all its creative and technical talent it took the few left at IW and other Activision developer Slegehammer Games to design the bulk of the game and they needed help fitting map design into their tight schedule, as of course a Call of Duty has to be out every single Novemeber in order to monopolise on the Christmas sales.

    Lazily made rehash that might as well urinate on the grave of the original Infinity Ward, Activision's approach to this franchise is a good representation of everything that's wrong with the game industry right now.

    JM    … Expand
  72. SpartacusBadBoy
    Nov 9, 2011
    6
    If you are sick of mw2, then dont buy mw3, its not the game for you. There are new maps, new guns and new game modes but not much innovation in terms of graphics, single player campaign and game play is more or less the same. The developers of the game have stuck with the same formular that made mw1 and 2 so popular but they have refined and made certain tweaks to the Multiplayer areanaIf you are sick of mw2, then dont buy mw3, its not the game for you. There are new maps, new guns and new game modes but not much innovation in terms of graphics, single player campaign and game play is more or less the same. The developers of the game have stuck with the same formular that made mw1 and 2 so popular but they have refined and made certain tweaks to the Multiplayer areana that fanboys will love. As for me I didnt buy this game (I played on a friend's PC) as i knew what to expect already from all the youtube vids out there. i was already disappointed with Black Ops so i decided to put a hold on getting mw3. Will get this game on Steam when there is a sale but for fans who have played more than 800 hours on mw2 and still want more, then mw3 is the game for you.… Expand
  73. Deitri
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    This game uses the same engine as Modern Warfare 2, doesn't show us anything new, the campaign is patethic, boring and way too easy, the multiplayer is more of the same (as I said already). Also, there will be alot of DLCs. Incredible, this game is probably the worst ever.
  74. xploited
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Shame on Activision for blatant copy paste. I am sure this game will still get record sales. Even for free, I doubt I would play it.

    Single player - they even copy pasted objects and textures from previous installments. There is a youtube video showing how buildings were copy pasted into MW3.

    The story is ridiculous. Multi player - boring and hasn't changed since mw2.
  75. 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.
  76. mw3_asik
    Nov 9, 2011
    10
    Ha ha ha ha ha ha..............i can't stop laughing......user rating is 1.4....ha ha ha.........ALL the ****ing bf3 fans(506) are trying to make the game nonsense.......ha ha ha ha ha ha ha........These guys are really bf3 fans(original???or i doubt that EA has gave them bucks to fight against MW3....).I am sure at least 1 guy of these horrible 506 has already purchased MW3 andHa ha ha ha ha ha..............i can't stop laughing......user rating is 1.4....ha ha ha.........ALL the ****ing bf3 fans(506) are trying to make the game nonsense.......ha ha ha ha ha ha ha........These guys are really bf3 fans(original???or i doubt that EA has gave them bucks to fight against MW3....).I am sure at least 1 guy of these horrible 506 has already purchased MW3 and playing....but they gave the game a rating of 1.4 just because of jealous('cause mw3 is going to break all the record).Remember bf3(BIG ****ED 3) fans....mw series is the best shooter of all time.........… Expand
  77. 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
  78. 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.
  79. cors
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Since few years they dont bring any new. Its so boring so old and only shows how they respct players to cheat them and steal money. They treat us worser then idiots and they think we will buy all crap what they bring. Even xbox users rating it so badly what means they have killed series for ever. great job!
  80. thequailboy
    Nov 9, 2011
    3
    Why could they not update the engine? Its really become tired. I cant be bothered to watch this cheese any more. WE WANT TO PLAY. WE WANT TO MAKE THE ACTION OUR SELVES otherwise why not just watch a film? The single player is better than bf3's TERRIBLE single player but its still below the standards we used to expect from FPS. What a disappointment.
  81. Jack91
    Nov 9, 2011
    1
    Having already got Modern Warfare 2, tried MW 3 at a friends house and found no difference between Modern Warfare 3 and previous releases. It's practically took elements from COD 4 and MW2, and just edited the killstreaks and has new levels. It's not a new game at all, and does not warrant it's price tag. Same gameplay, graphics look the same, nothing unique. A total con in my opinion.
  82. shadow822
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Appalled by review scores. Battlefield gets ripped on the fact that they added a singleplayer mode to what is essentially a multiplayer only game, just as an addition to add value to the game, yet Activision gets away with this crap every year. It's all about the money, and they're making a lot of it.
  83. Diospyros
    Nov 9, 2011
    5
    I will be calling my credit card company today because for some reason I was charged $60 for this DLC. Must be an accounting error, I am sure of it, because no sane company will charge a full-game price for what appears to be a quickie expansion, right?

    Don't get me wrong - the game is good, it is just not $60-good. Amount of work that was put into this game is a fraction of what it    I will be calling my credit card company today because for some reason I was charged $60 for this DLC. Must be an accounting error, I am sure of it, because no sane company will charge a full-game price for what appears to be a quickie expansion, right?

    Don't get me wrong - the game is good, it is just not $60-good. Amount of work that was put into this game is a fraction of what it typically takes to release a AAA title. So, why should Activision/IW/Sledgehammer be paid 3x more for 75% less work when compared to competition? Why is it ok to keep ripping off loyal fans year after year while delivering marginal content and minimal post-release support?

    I would have given this game a 9 if it cost around $20-25, but a quick expansion selling for $60 will only get a 5 from me. I will try to sell my copy of MW3 and will not touch another COD in the future.    … Expand
  84. nirvycn
    Nov 9, 2011
    2
    Overall Disapointing. This is Clearly MW2 redone. Many error messages refer to MW2 when it crashes, many of the ini files still say MW2. The graphics are now dated, and nothing has been done to improve them since MW2. the SP story is still as inane and bizarre as always, and very short, it only took me 3 hours or so to complete it. MP is okay, pretty much the same as blops with some newOverall Disapointing. This is Clearly MW2 redone. Many error messages refer to MW2 when it crashes, many of the ini files still say MW2. The graphics are now dated, and nothing has been done to improve them since MW2. the SP story is still as inane and bizarre as always, and very short, it only took me 3 hours or so to complete it. MP is okay, pretty much the same as blops with some new perks and maps. More of the same so many will likeit.

    Over all i dont think this was worth £40, it feels more like a map-pack and new scenario.    … Expand
  85. saintos123
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Modern Warfare 3 are u kidding me this engine makes the game look like cod 2, its not nearly as good as modern warfare 2. I am sick of cod fan boys that are lying to everybody that the game looks like mw2, game looks worse , much worse. It looks like u are playing on 800*600 resolution and aspect ratio of 4:3
    on max settings on my new rig (i72600k@4,6ghz, 8gb dd3, 5870 soc).
    To say that i    Modern Warfare 3 are u kidding me this engine makes the game look like cod 2, its not nearly as good as modern warfare 2. I am sick of cod fan boys that are lying to everybody that the game looks like mw2, game looks worse , much worse. It looks like u are playing on 800*600 resolution and aspect ratio of 4:3
    on max settings on my new rig (i72600k@4,6ghz, 8gb dd3, 5870 soc).
    To say that i am dissapointed is an understatment. Looks like infinity ward, Treyarch left Activision cause of their greed for money. What else can drive them to put out such a bad game with video settings like ur playing on pc from 10 years ago.
    Battlefield 3 is a gamers heaven vs to this ****
    Any game has better graphics than this, like supermariofare3    … Expand
  86. SwitBiskit
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    The fact they reused models/animations/sound, and even forgot to change the game title from MW2 in the error messages is the reason this game deserves every negative review it gets.
    There is no excuse for the abomination this once great game series has become
  87. TonyPolony
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    This is by far the biggest pile of trash I have installed on my PC. The graphics actually look worse than MW2 because Activision decided that console ports will make them richer. I believe they pay critics big $$ to give good reviews. The joke of a campaign can be completed with hardly any effort since it is a roller-coaster on rails, and mulitplayer deserves no mention at all.This is by far the biggest pile of trash I have installed on my PC. The graphics actually look worse than MW2 because Activision decided that console ports will make them richer. I believe they pay critics big $$ to give good reviews. The joke of a campaign can be completed with hardly any effort since it is a roller-coaster on rails, and mulitplayer deserves no mention at all. Unfortunately once you have seen this game, you cannot unsee it and will have to live with the bitter taste that cost $60.… Expand
  88. kristofferdk
    Nov 9, 2011
    1
    Same old story.
    Why is this not a dlc ? And why is this the only game on PC that cost 60 euro. I have all the other COD´s.
    i give it 1, because i think they are cheating people for money. a good thing is new maps.
  89. BARSI
    Nov 9, 2011
    1
    same cod experience as the last two modern warfares, same storyline same action same buildings....
    http://www.finallevel.co.uk/2011/11/08/infinity-ward-recycle-buildings-on-mw3-straight-from-cod-4/

    also extreamily short single player, finished in one sitting.

    made fatal mistake of getting this on pc so i cant even trade it in.fail.
  90. MadDad
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. To be brief: i am deeply disapointed! MW is a great franchise and i have played most of their games. Activision has unfortunatelly a pure money driven institution more and more neglecting their clients. MW 3 is - at their best - a MW 2 1.5 trying to make up for an old engine with spectacular scripts, but that is, sorry to say, not enough.

    Especially compared to rival Battlefield 3 the decision for me was easy: i switched to Battlefield which engine is providing players with incredible sound, dust and light effects with bullets whistling next to your head making the adventure so real.

    Forget MW3 buy Battlefield 3. Enter the war and feel it.....    … Expand
  91. gizmo737
    Nov 9, 2011
    2
    I'am completly disappointed. Why ? Because MW3 is very similar to MW2. And both these games are much worse than MW1 (2007). Now is .... 2011 so I expected something better. It is my last CoD. Sorry .... Waste of money.
  92. YuRown92
    Nov 9, 2011
    8
    On my mind, CoD 4 is the best game in this series. New game from IW haven't many originals moments, than MW or MW 2. It is a good shooter with interesting multiplayer. But I hope, that singleplayer of MW 3 will be better. But, but, but... It is Call of Duty. It is the most popular game in the world on this moment.
  93. caaiquee
    Nov 9, 2011
    4
    Modern Warfare 3, i was waiting for it, and now i see, the same as Modern Warfare 2, without Nuke and **** " point streaks " come on point streaks ? Just a waste of time and money, i am a big fan of Call of Duty and because of this my score is 4.0. I really hope that activision update de game with killstreaks and some graphics
  94. Biochoker
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Do I have to comment? Its another CoD. For me Call of Duty died with MW2. Black Ops profanated the dead corpse and now MW3 is just 100% necrophillia! The game is clearlly a console port, **** textures, **** antialiasing and **** FOV setting (well, the ABSENCE of option to change FOV). Missing any sense in the campaign story which look like they introduced a "something" to make theyreDo I have to comment? Its another CoD. For me Call of Duty died with MW2. Black Ops profanated the dead corpse and now MW3 is just 100% necrophillia! The game is clearlly a console port, **** textures, **** antialiasing and **** FOV setting (well, the ABSENCE of option to change FOV). Missing any sense in the campaign story which look like they introduced a "something" to make theyre unbearable game more bearable perhaps?… Expand
  95. hoak
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    I didn't expect much as the 'franchise' has been in decline for some time, but MW3 falls so far below the bar in just about every regard it's quite literally shocking. The disparity between 'professional' reviews and would be Fans, is all but spelled out in the iteration of canned 'talking points' we see from the shill game press, and just shows to go ya what money can buy. Quit simplyI didn't expect much as the 'franchise' has been in decline for some time, but MW3 falls so far below the bar in just about every regard it's quite literally shocking. The disparity between 'professional' reviews and would be Fans, is all but spelled out in the iteration of canned 'talking points' we see from the shill game press, and just shows to go ya what money can buy. Quit simply this game is awful...… Expand
  96. frostyfiendish
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Exactly the same game I played at the same time lsat year.... what a waste of my money..... dont bother buying this. Honestly. The graphics arent even good, its been using the same engine since CoD 4.
  97. ganglartoronto
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Well, to say the least, well, I AM saying the least - this game flat out sucks. Where the hell is the innovation activision keeps spouting about their games? Clone of MW2. Not worth 60 dollars.
  98. Soren5556
    Nov 9, 2011
    1
    It's just plain a waste of money now, I've bought all the COD from the first one up until black ops and this time it's not even worth spending the 65$ to play the same game i already bought. The campaign is the only thing keeping people attracted to this series but once that's over you have to deal with the crap that is the multiplayer
  99. Katagena
    Nov 9, 2011
    4
    What a deception ! it's again the same **** ! how the hell this game could be rated 90 ?? In 2006 this game would be awesome.. in 2011 it's the crappiest thing i have ever seen... so lame!
  100. ressurrectin
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Video game critics are no longer video game critics. They are video game salesman.
    That's all they do, give good games below average scores and bad games excellent scores.
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 »