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. Axelle_1
    Sep 6, 2021
    6
    максимально ленивое окончание только сюжет здесь спасает, хотя и не очень то и сильно
  2. vova22379
    Dec 18, 2021
    6
    ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
  3. kndr
    Feb 1, 2022
    6
    It's not good as mw1 and 2. It just feels weak.

    Weapon sounds are bad. They sound like broken glass.

    Special ops gives you another perspective and there is also survival mode. But still it didn't leave the same impact as first mw's.
  4. Tropgam
    Jul 21, 2021
    6
    Its a 6 again
    I felt that the campaign was actually good, with many memorable scenes and a very memorable villain.
    However the multiplayer is basically the same as MW2 as i remember. Only a few changes and like a couple new modes but nothing really felt new. Spec ops though, is a huge improvement. Survival lasted me for hours. I would of gave this a 7/10, but the multiplayer being    Its a 6 again
    I felt that the campaign was actually good, with many memorable scenes and a very memorable villain.
    However the multiplayer is basically the same as MW2 as i remember. Only a few changes and like a couple new modes but nothing really felt new.
    Spec ops though, is a huge improvement. Survival lasted me for hours.
    I would of gave this a 7/10, but the multiplayer being basically the same is almost unforgivable.    … Expand
  5. Izoeros
    May 30, 2022
    6
    qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq
  6. Hyperfailure
    Apr 29, 2023
    6
    MW3 is the epitome of a middle-schoolers ideal game for the early 2010s. It has not aged well by any means, but it was the game that sucked me into the COD hole after my initial fascination with MW2. Co-op missions felt more rewarding the multiplayer.
  7. Sideline
    May 6, 2012
    5
    I finished the single player campaign of this game the same day I bought it. I don't mind short campaigns if they are fun, but this is very short and boring.
    The game is so heavily scripted it makes it obvious that Infinity Ward is out of ideas in terms of innovative gameplay. They use scripted events as fillers, and on top of that they manage to lack imagination in that field as well.    I finished the single player campaign of this game the same day I bought it. I don't mind short campaigns if they are fun, but this is very short and boring.
    The game is so heavily scripted it makes it obvious that Infinity Ward is out of ideas in terms of innovative gameplay. They use scripted events as fillers, and on top of that they manage to lack imagination in that field as well. How many times can we enjoy a scene where we get knocked down with the ears ringing and the blurry vision? Sure the part on the boat was awesome but that's about it as far as I'm concerned. For most of the campaign the player has to follow other characters, other than that it's pretty much "Do this! Go there!".
    I really do understand that the focus of this game is online but the game fails to be impressive and innovative on that side as well. I still give this game a 5 for the graphics and the input responsiveness but sadly Call of Duty has not evolved since Modern Warfare 1.    … Expand
  8. Holstsha
    Nov 15, 2011
    5
    Don't buy Skyrim and CODMW3 together, or you'll wind up playing this for 30 minutes and getting bored as hell, and Skyrim for 8 hours and have a blast.
  9. twister87
    Nov 8, 2011
    5
    I'll be frank, I'm a fan of the series. I really like that Activision brought fps war gaming out of WWII and into something that hits a little closer to home. The third instalment has a nice little wrap up to the story, albeit a tad predictable (I honestly think the first MW's story was the better). The co-op is a little tired but the survival mode is fun enough. However, I am once againI'll be frank, I'm a fan of the series. I really like that Activision brought fps war gaming out of WWII and into something that hits a little closer to home. The third instalment has a nice little wrap up to the story, albeit a tad predictable (I honestly think the first MW's story was the better). The co-op is a little tired but the survival mode is fun enough. However, I am once again let down by the major flaw in multiplayer, something called IWNet. Living in Australia with its **** internet, client-side hosting is the worst possible thing you can do to PC users here. It turns what would be quite an excellent and engaging multiplayer experience into a highly irritating and frustrating lag-fest, where you appear to be knifing an enemy in front of you, but in reality he was 5 metres away and shot you in the face. Over and over again. Yes there are dedicated servers this time around but, insultingly, they are unranked, which completely drains the attraction of levelling your skills and unlocking new weapons and abilities. It does get plusses for the inclusion of support pointstreaks and weapon levelling which are great ideas. Long story short: disappointing.

    PS: After reading some of the positive reviews from this and the other platforms, two things: anything bad to say about the game does not a 10 out of 10 make; and anyone who rages about the so called "BF3 Fanboys", your reviews are as much of a fail as theirs may be. For the record, I have played BF3 and it's fine but I don't like it a heck of a lot.    … Expand
  10. Markos
    Mar 5, 2013
    5
    It looks and plays pretty much EXACTLY the same as 2009's Modern Warfare 2, even the menus, sound effects, and buildings have been recycled from MW2. I feel extremely disappointed, the campaign and single player were shorter and barely better than MW2. Do not fall for the hype for this game, this game should have been a 15 dollar expansion for MW2, charging 60 for this should be a crime.
  11. 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.
  12. Browser
    Nov 23, 2011
    5
    It's an average shooter, nothing really stands out. Infact it's lacking even compared to older FPS games and that's before considering how badly it's ported to the PC.


    The campaign is short and the story could have come from a once off comic book for gun ho teens, presuming it could even keep them interested.

    Only good part worth mentioning is one point in the game where the playerIt's an average shooter, nothing really stands out. Infact it's lacking even compared to older FPS games and that's before considering how badly it's ported to the PC.


    The campaign is short and the story could have come from a once off comic book for gun ho teens, presuming it could even keep them interested.


    Only good part worth mentioning is one point in the game where the player is heavily armoured which is fun and changes things up, other than that there's nothing good to mention about Modern Warfare 3. It's beating a dead horse, that died in a previous game.… Expand

  13. squaids
    Nov 13, 2011
    5
    Having played the complete series both campaign and multi-player, I have to say its nice to have a new game but why so soon? They could have spent a lot more time between games thinking of something a little more original. I mean when I got to the second or third scene in the campaign I felt like I was playing MW2... While I like the faster pace during the missions or maybe its that IHaving played the complete series both campaign and multi-player, I have to say its nice to have a new game but why so soon? They could have spent a lot more time between games thinking of something a little more original. I mean when I got to the second or third scene in the campaign I felt like I was playing MW2... While I like the faster pace during the missions or maybe its that I selected a difficulty higher than NOOB, I don't know.. I would give the single player a 6 just because I'm sure a lot of work went into it and its not glitchy at all. I am going to have to say the multi-player is a 4 and the same game graphically as the last 2 (I know the dev's will rage because I said that but its true, move on, get a new engine please) Welcome to 2011.… Expand
  14. Heaviermetal
    Nov 23, 2011
    5
    I gave it a shot, and as soon as I started.. BOOM; it felt very stale from the get go. However, they do know how to suck you in and do a great job of creating over the top action. The flaw is, MW4 wasn't this over the top. It had good pacing and felt smart. MW3, on the other-hand is like a kid with AA that keeps talking and jumping around. I get bored of playing it quick, because it justI gave it a shot, and as soon as I started.. BOOM; it felt very stale from the get go. However, they do know how to suck you in and do a great job of creating over the top action. The flaw is, MW4 wasn't this over the top. It had good pacing and felt smart. MW3, on the other-hand is like a kid with AA that keeps talking and jumping around. I get bored of playing it quick, because it just doesn't stop yelling at me. The missions feel for the most part, to short and just to much **** going on to take anything in. All the games like usual have some great ideas and gameplay moments, its just sad to see them all wasted in this game.… Expand
  15. 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
  16. dc42
    Nov 12, 2011
    5
    After thinking about the original score I gave this (a zero) I decided to at least be nice and award it a 5. Five because you will have fun (just don't buy it at 60 bucks) but its something we've seen before (and something we'll see in 2012 as Activision ALREADY announced the new one). Some would say, don't fix something that isn't broken but there must be something wrong if people areAfter thinking about the original score I gave this (a zero) I decided to at least be nice and award it a 5. Five because you will have fun (just don't buy it at 60 bucks) but its something we've seen before (and something we'll see in 2012 as Activision ALREADY announced the new one). Some would say, don't fix something that isn't broken but there must be something wrong if people are giving it such a low rating. If you respect the gaming community (by not milking money out of us) we'll respect you, a pretty easy concept to remember… Expand
  17. DDaniel
    Nov 10, 2011
    5
    The game is still fun to play specially the multiplayer and survival mode but the downsides is so much more in this title that you just can't ignore them and start to regret that you bought it for $60. The support for PC version is so poor, you cant play on ranked servers, you can't adjust fov, horrible textures, and again the stupidest thing is back and worse the damn Iwnet with laggedThe game is still fun to play specially the multiplayer and survival mode but the downsides is so much more in this title that you just can't ignore them and start to regret that you bought it for $60. The support for PC version is so poor, you cant play on ranked servers, you can't adjust fov, horrible textures, and again the stupidest thing is back and worse the damn Iwnet with lagged matches. The problem is not that it is just more of the same is how poor the pc version is and how they don't care about what players want.… Expand
  18. beergogglesftw
    Nov 8, 2011
    5
    The good. The engine. Same as its been, but its good. No reason to mess with a good thing.
    The meh. The graphics. These graphics were very nice, 4 or 5 years ago now... now its simply Xbox graphics that don't stand up on the PC.
    The bad. Its not a full retail game. Its DLC or an expansion. Not a lot of changes, just little tweaks here and there. New maps, and a short unimpressive campaign    The good. The engine. Same as its been, but its good. No reason to mess with a good thing.
    The meh. The graphics. These graphics were very nice, 4 or 5 years ago now... now its simply Xbox graphics that don't stand up on the PC.
    The bad. Its not a full retail game. Its DLC or an expansion. Not a lot of changes, just little tweaks here and there. New maps, and a short unimpressive campaign that makes you thinkg "Haven't I played this already"

    If you're playing for multiplayer... there was really no reason for a new game. Its MW2 with new maps and an update patch. COD needs to take a year off and really put some time into a game... but they won't. Its all about getting more and more games out to make more and more money.    … Expand
  19. psyph3r
    Nov 20, 2011
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Firstly let me say i am extremely disappointed that this is the highest earning piece of entertainment in our civilization. This is like Justin Bieber and Twilight as they are to music and movies respectively.
    They throw crap at you and they still make a ton of money every year, the reasons for which are beyond my comprehension.
    I still remember playing the first Modern Warfare and being blown away by it. It was a breath of fresh air in the WW2 shooter infested era. That unfortunately was also the last FPS experience i have enjoyed.
    This game just goes on to show how much they have run out of ideas. The engine appears superbly dated and not worth running on a good rig, let alone warrant the full 60 dollar price. I am atleast glad they finished the story once and for all. A lot of ideas have been overused here , the slowmo breaching of countless rooms, following Capt.Price in stupid missions where the AI is so blind they'd walk over you and still not be able to spot you. Most of the missions here start off stealthily and end up becoming long and boring corridor sequences either in a street or a building. The layouts of the environment haven't changed much since the first game in the series and they have overused the idea of killing playable characters gradually over the sequels. The protagonist of the series spends more time on his deathbed in this title and it would have been nice to keep him alive as the series ended. I have to say this is the worst game in the series and the critic reviews just goes to show how you cannot trust these sites these days. How can this game get such a high score. But this series isn't meant for the SP experience and we are yet again given the same experience with micro tweaks and modes. Activision has suffered creatively since the core team left Infinity Ward to form Respawn entertainment and this clearly shows in the game. If you own a decent rig and like FPS, then the game to buy would be BF3 (even though it has its own set of issues). This is definitely a console FPS (yes they should call it this).
    The recoil in a weapon is barely present and the gameplay style is more lonewolf oriented. It is disturbing to see how low the series has gone over the past 2 games. Bottom line : Don't buy this so Activision can stop throwing the same crap at us year over year.
    Now that this game has been laid to rest , i am looking forward to some innovation from their side for the inevitable COD-9 slated for 2012 holiday season.    … Expand
  20. FFStudios
    Aug 6, 2012
    5
    Sum up MW3 in one word? Lazy, probably. Back in the days of the first Modern Warfare, the campaign was well-paced and only had the occasional set piece to awe you; whilst in MW3, you can't go 5 minutes without a building, plane or train falling and crashing six inches away from your face. The game becomes exhausting to play and then just turns out to be boring. It's not that I think theySum up MW3 in one word? Lazy, probably. Back in the days of the first Modern Warfare, the campaign was well-paced and only had the occasional set piece to awe you; whilst in MW3, you can't go 5 minutes without a building, plane or train falling and crashing six inches away from your face. The game becomes exhausting to play and then just turns out to be boring. It's not that I think they should revolutionize the graphics every time a new game comes out, but this game does very little new, even story-wise. The story is even more disjointed than MW2 if you can believe that; with a half-hearted structure and poorly developed characters. Do I even need to be babbling right now? Just don't buy this game, unless you're willing to part with £30 for what essentially amounts to just a boring campaign and dull maps. And no, I don't like Battlefield 3 either so let's just drop this argument.… Expand
  21. Radiation4FUN
    Nov 11, 2011
    5
    Modern warfare is the most expensive DLC MAP PACK... Available right now ... Doesn't deserve a 0 but the game play has began to be quit repeditive over the past 4 years .... And I'm fed up giving all my hard earned money to activision .... They have milked me and all of my friends for to long ... This will be the last one I ever purchase again in this series .... If u want a new map packModern warfare is the most expensive DLC MAP PACK... Available right now ... Doesn't deserve a 0 but the game play has began to be quit repeditive over the past 4 years .... And I'm fed up giving all my hard earned money to activision .... They have milked me and all of my friends for to long ... This will be the last one I ever purchase again in this series .... If u want a new map pack for MW2 buy it ... Otherwise save ur money , rent the game and move on… Expand
  22. xThePezx
    Nov 8, 2011
    5
    Overhyped and repetitious It lives up to its hype somewhat in certain areas of the single player, but the moment you hit multiplayer you realize the developers have just copy/pasted the good aspects of modern warfare 2 and filled the bad ones with even worse. Great campaign presentation filled with huge set pieces that are sure to keep you going that only just make up for its modernOverhyped and repetitious It lives up to its hype somewhat in certain areas of the single player, but the moment you hit multiplayer you realize the developers have just copy/pasted the good aspects of modern warfare 2 and filled the bad ones with even worse. Great campaign presentation filled with huge set pieces that are sure to keep you going that only just make up for its modern warfare 2 look. The story picks straight from where the previous game ended and starts of promising all the way to the end. All loose ends are dealt with, theirs a few small twists and fast paced moments that make up for the dumb AI and problems you know and hate from modern warfare 2, their are still those moments where you feel like your playing follow the leader but theirs no doubt you have more control and as I stated the set pieces are undeniably impressive. That is for the single player at least.
    The moment I hit multiplayer I was to a point horrified at how it actually looked worse than modern warfare 2. And this is running the game max settings@ 90+fps, after playing 5 out of the 15 available maps you can easily tell it has a horrible presentation. The colours are very bland and the textures are almost identical to modern warfare 2. Everything from explosions to smoke effects look the same. The animations have been ripped(literally) from modern warfare 2 (same slip on a banana peel death). The weapon sounds are the same as they were in modern warfare 2 which is no surprise but I don't need to get into that. I never really expect nice visuals from a game such as this but it still doesn't make up for its core aspects. Killstreaks are back and are unbalanced as ever, you now have strike packages that could have worked well but fail miserably due to unbalancing issues. For example the specialist pack gives you a perk for every two kills you get (your a super soldier once you hit 9 kills). The assault pack gives you things such as a Juggernaut killstreak that would take literally a whole M60 clip to kill. If you want zero recoil just throw on a suppressor. Their are so many gimmicks in this game I would need more pages than the bible to write out my essay but I think you get the point. The core COD experience that we love is still their but it simply doesn't make up for its negatives. Their are some aspects that I love that improve further on modern warfare 2s positives but once again are overtaken by all the crap in the game. It also feels very console ported and this is just another big issue I could raise. In the end a game that had potential falls short for the third second time, yes its better than black ops but if you want a true cod experience stick with modern warfare.
    Ok.
    6/10    … Expand
  23. gMcizzLe
    Nov 8, 2011
    5
    I pre-ordered both BF3 and MW3, trying not to be a fanboy to either in this comparison.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Overall, BF3 is definitely worth $60 where MW3 is definitely not worth $60.    … Expand
  24. SnatchReaper
    Nov 8, 2011
    5
    Basically this game is MW 2.1 or 2.5 as spec ops is very enjoyable. Single player campaign is a tired, used, and put away wet rehash of past WM titles. My main complaint is how short/easy (even on the hardest lvl). Finally and most disappointing MP is just plain dated; Black Ops could teach this game something in all aspects (balance, maps design, and getting the most out of the graphicsBasically this game is MW 2.1 or 2.5 as spec ops is very enjoyable. Single player campaign is a tired, used, and put away wet rehash of past WM titles. My main complaint is how short/easy (even on the hardest lvl). Finally and most disappointing MP is just plain dated; Black Ops could teach this game something in all aspects (balance, maps design, and getting the most out of the graphics engine). It is glaringly obvious that with the departure of the core members of Infinity Ward the "sledgehammer" (aka EA retreads) team assembled in haste was not up the task of creating a "new" CoD experience. In all honestly; considering the leap from World ar War to Black Op's (let's face it Black Ops MP trumps MW2); Treyarch would have been a much better team to tap; even though Activision's payout would have been delay. If you are looking for a $60 (low end and I truly do feel for the hardened Ed ppl) expansion then you will enjoy this game. I admit I too fell for the hype plus boredom of needing a new quality FPS fix; but came away with the feeling my score was cut to nothing. I worry with Activision's rush to cash in on the best FPS name in the market; the series will die out. I do hope their greed, lack of innovation, and pushing out unpolished games to meet quarterly profit goals; does not infect their only remaining quality game developer Blizzard. In closing; please do not lose heart or faith that Treyarch can somehow make a worthy game out of these dated graphic and shell of a stand alone sequel.… Expand
  25. Fogz
    Nov 8, 2011
    5
    Look at it from a different point of view. This game has spent 2 years in development! And this is the best they can come up with. Christ! my Nan could make a better go at a MW then IW. To start with the maps are as small as my back garden and encourage camping the the nth degree. Noob tubes have been toned down (thank god) but corners have been increased (not good). The guns feel sluggishLook at it from a different point of view. This game has spent 2 years in development! And this is the best they can come up with. Christ! my Nan could make a better go at a MW then IW. To start with the maps are as small as my back garden and encourage camping the the nth degree. Noob tubes have been toned down (thank god) but corners have been increased (not good). The guns feel sluggish and weak and with a level cap of 80 is going to be hard to hit with out going crazy. In the time it would take to get to level 80 I would recommend learning and instrument or something because its not worth it. Maybe the first 50 levels, but it gets old fast. Dont like comparing other games to this but BF3 creams all over this title.… Expand
  26. 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
  27. Heatednemz
    Nov 16, 2011
    5
    Call of duty is a franchise that has always been close to my heart. And within the franchise I have always enjoyed the infinity ward games, modern warfare was fresh, fun and overall a new experience given the many world war themed games we were used to playing. The multiplayer was quick paced and competitive. Then came along modern warfare 2 which used the formula of the first game , butCall of duty is a franchise that has always been close to my heart. And within the franchise I have always enjoyed the infinity ward games, modern warfare was fresh, fun and overall a new experience given the many world war themed games we were used to playing. The multiplayer was quick paced and competitive. Then came along modern warfare 2 which used the formula of the first game , but made it better, the story was gripping and the developers used the engine to its potential by making a creative campaign gameplay be it climbing cliffs, driving snowmobiles of them, or throwing knives. The game did extremely well because it was a worthy sequel to a great game. When modern warfare 3 was announced I was thinking what would they do next? To be honest, they didn't do anything new, same engine, same characters , aging physics and predictable plot. The story continues where mw2 left off and the makers did a good job of making the campaign exciting. But like many have pointed out, it feels like a dlc. Missing were the creative mode of gameplay, it left me with a stale feeling considering the trailer looked so good. But all the epic parts of the game were included in the trailer, the collapsing buildings, the underwater level the train sequence, other than those cut scenes it was basically going through rooms and shooting people dead. This happens till the very end. I don't think infintiyward's heart and soul were in this game. Knowing they fired 2 senior members of the team, it has taken its toll. Battlefield 3 is superior when it comes to graphics, physics and the fact that the listen to the gamers in further tweaking the game to make it enjoyable. Activision does not do this. They have assumed that the franchise's history will be the selling point of the game. But battlefield 3 has made sure that doesn't happen. The cod fans are not in for a treat with this one but they will not be entirely disappointed.my final verdict is buy the game only if you are itching to know how the story ends or you feel like playing some new cod maps. If you are looking for the next-gen platform in multiplayer war gaming just go with battlefield 3… Expand
  28. 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
  29. PoonApe
    Nov 9, 2011
    5
    You cant give the game a 0.....but you cant give the game anything more than a 5 either. I question the "professional" reviewers and their integrity by awarding this game so highly. At its best its a map pack for MW2. Only buy this game if you after the exact experience you have had for entire MW series. I actually look back and think that MW1 was superior to this entry. It was excitingYou cant give the game a 0.....but you cant give the game anything more than a 5 either. I question the "professional" reviewers and their integrity by awarding this game so highly. At its best its a map pack for MW2. Only buy this game if you after the exact experience you have had for entire MW series. I actually look back and think that MW1 was superior to this entry. It was exciting and fresh. The maps on this are poorly designed and small. It encourages sub machine gun run and shoot play only. The spawn points are just awful. The only people giving this game high reviews are fan boys who dont understand gaming. I will say its a prefessional package and put together with quality.....but the developers should be good at this by now.....they have done it three times in a row.… Expand
  30. Leather99
    Nov 10, 2011
    5
    This is basically a map pack for MW2. I really regret paying £39 for this pile of junk.. With the previous debacle on lack of dedicated servers I was in two minds whether to buy this or not. Having read the reviews I decided to give it a go and it was a mistake. For starters the graphics and the engine are really starting to show their age. Having also purchased BF3 (no I amThis is basically a map pack for MW2. I really regret paying £39 for this pile of junk.. With the previous debacle on lack of dedicated servers I was in two minds whether to buy this or not. Having read the reviews I decided to give it a go and it was a mistake. For starters the graphics and the engine are really starting to show their age. Having also purchased BF3 (no I am not a fan boy) there is a stark difference in the quality of the graphics that is almost emabarrising. The same applies to the sound.

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

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

    I really don't understand the mag reviews giving this 90%'s etc...    … Expand
  31. metaUser2011
    Nov 10, 2011
    5
    This game has achieved what we thougth almost impossible: it is worse by far than Black Ops.

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

    The graphics are a joke, they are 2009 graphics. The game doesn't take advantage of the greater capabilities of PC hardware, seems that they've make a port of the console version.
    The explosions, animations, sounds, all of them worse than Black Ops. The jump animation for instance, is shorter, slower, and it feels like a man-on-the-moon jump.
    There's no need to bother aiming, just spray and hit. Any n00b can get kills, since the maps are really small, designed for one-vs-one close combat. Snipers won't get fun here, there are no long corridors, and the field of visions feels plain (no deep). Of course there are tons of guys running with sniper rifles and sometimes quickscoping. This is not realistic.
    The movement looks more robot-like, the turns are really unnatural. They have removed the dive movement.
    If you enjoy running in small maps, use an entire reload to kill an enemy, then die becouse a n00b was in the nearest corner and you have lag (since the host is determined automatically), this is your game. Otherwise, rent it a weekend to see the fireworks in the campaign mode, but don't buy it because it is not worth that money.    … Expand
  32. sharktejo
    Nov 10, 2011
    5
    This is not a bad game but it feels like I've played it two years ago. The campaign was short, but it had the same size of MW2, the multi-player is basically the same as MW2, so there is no much motive to begin all over again. The graphics are a little bit better, but is because they implemented SSAO, this graphics engine cannot be more improved than this, it's time to move on to a newThis is not a bad game but it feels like I've played it two years ago. The campaign was short, but it had the same size of MW2, the multi-player is basically the same as MW2, so there is no much motive to begin all over again. The graphics are a little bit better, but is because they implemented SSAO, this graphics engine cannot be more improved than this, it's time to move on to a new engine, there are plenty of them out there.
    Resuming, the fun factor is almost gone from this game, you are basically buying the same game that was released two years ago, I'm afraid that this one can be the beginning of the end in the Call of Duty series.    … Expand
  33. Galentor
    Nov 10, 2011
    5
    I just finished the campaign and i regret to say that i should have played a demo before spending my hard earned euros. I know that the game's central focus is the multiplayer, however this is no excuse for it's single player aspect being so mediocre, at best. Extremely short, the epitome of linear and "on rails" gameplay with an uninspiring story and no new features at all bar someI just finished the campaign and i regret to say that i should have played a demo before spending my hard earned euros. I know that the game's central focus is the multiplayer, however this is no excuse for it's single player aspect being so mediocre, at best. Extremely short, the epitome of linear and "on rails" gameplay with an uninspiring story and no new features at all bar some weapons. Graphics are decent but this doesn't cut it in 2011. A week ago i finished Deus Ex HR and the comparison of the two titles puts Activision to shame. I think that it's time for us customers to stop rewarding titles like this one (and sadly we will) with our wallets.… Expand
  34. darylicked
    Nov 10, 2011
    5
    Hey Glen Schofield read this review:

    Let me start by saying I'm not going to compare to BF3, I will only compare to the past COD games and how this functions as far as improvements and features it provides. The campaign is what we have come to expect from a COD game, all sparkle and no substance, it has cool set pieces but the levels themselves are way too short and the way the story is    Hey Glen Schofield read this review:

    Let me start by saying I'm not going to compare to BF3, I will only compare to the past COD games and how this functions as far as improvements and features it provides. The campaign is what we have come to expect from a COD game, all sparkle and no substance, it has cool set pieces but the levels themselves are way too short and the way the story is handled is not very good switching places between different soldiers at different times without good explanation as to why, compared to Black Ops which imo is the best COD campaign that gave good explanation and had an interesting albeit derivative twist, it was still entertaining and i enjoyed it. Now on to controls and multiplayer, the controls are probably the tightest ive ever felt in a COD game, and thats pretty awesome! but unfortunately Lag compensation still exists from Black Ops rendering my games completely unplayable, I've had only one awesome game out of the 13 I've played and I'm sure that people in that very game were getting the short end of the lag compensation stick, and everything that was cool about black ops with the currency system allowing you to unlock whichever guns you please (if you have it unlocked to purchase from ranking up) has been removed, and back to the archaic MW2 method of using each gun and gaining a set amount of kills or mini challenges to get the gun ranked up to unlock parts of the gun itself, why did they go this route?? Black Ops made it so much easier for people to just get in rank up and unlock whatever you please and truly customize your character, now dont get me wrong I am in no way trying to praise Black Ops as the holy grail of COD gameplay, it has its large share of issues with lag compensation as well, but at least (for PC of course) they had a server browser that YOU CAN RANK UP IN, and gave PC gamers the option of having Lean controls which of course you can keybind to whichever key you want!

    So essentially what we have is with MW3 is run of the mill campaign, but who really expected anything more? We have a mp that went backwards in a good way with getting dedicated servers (for PC im talking about) but then ruins it because you cant rank up and no one will play this game to not rank up in mp! hence why in server browser there are only 400 people compared to matchmaking where its over 44000, what was the point of doing this? BF3 at least has a server browser AND quickmatch function!! is that so hard to do for 2 studios working on this game? This is horrendous and a joke on longtime fans of the series, we all know this game was milking it, but I couldn't believe that a game could take steps forward backward and sidestep at the same time. Lets not forget about the map design, pardon my language but WHAT THE **** Every map feels like the airport map from MW2, every map is small, contained and dependent almost entirely on close quarters and the look of the maps are either A) Destroyed urban or industrial area with rubble everywhere and everything in shambles or B) some random jungle. MW1 and MW2 had the best designs of MP maps in the series, they all had their own personalities as well as were able to differentiate from one another. Black ops had a few very good maps but others really fell flat, and dont get me started on the DLC map packs

    Now the improvements this game brought to the series in my opinion are as follows:

    Pointstreaks as opposed to Killstreaks and different strike package setups: Brilliant, giving people more options as to how to play a game and not allow those who dont depend solely on getting high kills get all the fun with streaks, and having the risk vs reward factor in all the different packages is resfreshing.

    Controls as I said previous are improved and it flows very nice and I havent encountered any issues up to now regarding the controls after completing the MP and SP, and at least they included a Smooth Mouse option so people can have a choice.

    Spec ops, is just as badass as it was in MW2, and the survival mode is a TRUE COD survival mode and is much much better than Zombies (which in my opinion wasn't very hard to beat, but beat it they did and at least 100 fold)

    Graphics for the game are what you expect from Quake 3 tech, and it does have some moments of brilliance surprisingly (i run the game at 5760x1080p) but other moments it does look like an Xbox 1 or PS2 game and makes FEAR 1 look like Crysis. So this is a sort of stalemate in the graphics department

    so just to sum up here:

    Pros:
    Campaign if you liked the past CODs then youll like it, it has its moments, the story sucks tho
    Controls
    Pointstreaks
    Spec Cops/Survival

    Cons:
    Campaign story sucks and if you hate old CODs you wont like this one either
    Lag Compensation = worst idea ever and should be illegal in 60 dollar games
    Servers not able to rank up rendering them useless and no one ways them (PC version)
    Archaic MW1 and MW2 weapon attachment unlock system
    Blops currency gone    … Expand
  35. jrpowell01
    Nov 10, 2011
    5
    welcome to the world of re-hatching games, and convincing us that we absolutely need to buy them through a multimillion dollar marketing campaign. Modern Warfare 3 has nothing new or drastically exciting. Its not a dud, but DEFINITELY not ground-breaking. If you're looking for a game that has a marginally enjoyable multiplayer then here you go.
  36. DREX86
    Nov 10, 2011
    5
    Its the same thing over an over again with recycled material. Honestly i dont mind playing COD but the amount map packs cost + "elite service" which should be f'in free, is insulting.
  37. PaPaRaZZi
    Nov 10, 2011
    5
    PROs
    * Single player good as always
    * Game is stable with launch, have not had any crashes * Liking the new pointstreaks, guns and items * Multiplayer maps and game modes are very nice CONs * P2P system still sucks and should never be used for PC gaming, give Ranked Dedicated servers and it will be added to the PROs list. * Game is too similar to MW2, even the errors are still referring    PROs
    * Single player good as always
    * Game is stable with launch, have not had any crashes
    * Liking the new pointstreaks, guns and items
    * Multiplayer maps and game modes are very nice


    CONs
    * P2P system still sucks and should never be used for PC gaming, give Ranked Dedicated servers and it will be added to the PROs list.
    * Game is too similar to MW2, even the errors are still referring to MW2, which brings me to
    * Selling Price is to high for a game this similar to MW2
    * Outdated Graphics Engine
    * COD Elite not working, with launch.


    Suggestions to improve ratings:

    * Give Ranked Dedicated servers
    * Release high texture pack perhaps to improve graphic quality
    * Fix your COD Elite

    This game surely has potential, if only IW listened to the public the score would have been a better. In my books if Ranked Dedicated servers were given and a bit better graphics and additional settings like FOV, i would have rated this game between 8 to 9, however unfortunately this is not the case.    … Expand
  38. Tawnik
    Nov 11, 2011
    5
    OK I will not over react like many of the other users on this site by giving it a 0. But in all honesty this is pretty much the exact same thing that has came out every year since cod4 was released. It is still a fun game and I will continue to play it but I am not completely happy with it. It is the same Engine, Similar textures and models as the other MW titles(similar enough to thinkOK I will not over react like many of the other users on this site by giving it a 0. But in all honesty this is pretty much the exact same thing that has came out every year since cod4 was released. It is still a fun game and I will continue to play it but I am not completely happy with it. It is the same Engine, Similar textures and models as the other MW titles(similar enough to think many of it has just been reused year after year. MW2 and 3 should of probably just been paid for DLC instead of stand alone titles, $60 just feels like a little much for recycled content and a measly 5 hours of new story.

    Either way like i said it is still entertaining like the others are but it should be since nothing big has been changed. And it will provide plenty of hours of gameplay just like its predecessors. Personally it just seems a little disappointing to me.    … Expand
  39. qasa
    Nov 11, 2011
    5
    Lets get some constructive feedback of this game
    Singleplay is ok, it has recycled elements from MW, MW2 and Black ops. but it no where achieves the mw1 degree of success.
    spec ops is kind of fun, improved from mw2. only if there were 4-player coop rather than 2 multiplayer is a joke. i am a good player in mw2 mp, and usually on top-of-the-scoreboard. in mw3, i cant. the biggest flaw in mp    Lets get some constructive feedback of this game
    Singleplay is ok, it has recycled elements from MW, MW2 and Black ops. but it no where achieves the mw1 degree of success.
    spec ops is kind of fun, improved from mw2. only if there were 4-player coop rather than 2
    multiplayer is a joke. i am a good player in mw2 mp, and usually on top-of-the-scoreboard. in mw3, i cant.
    the biggest flaw in mp is the map design. it is pure rubbish. all the mp maps are like a maze. you won't know where the enemies will come and you won't know where you'll be shot at. sometimes they spawn right behind you. you would like these kind of map design only after you drink 10 bottles of redbull.    … Expand
  40. DVIJOK
    Nov 12, 2011
    5
    A full copy of Modern Warfare 2, except for some missions. Some locations are very similar to what we've seen...................................................................
  41. TrueCritic
    Nov 12, 2011
    5
    No dedicated servers ranking is a joke. Why did they have to ruin this game? Same game basically as the last two is total bull crap. With all the money they make there is no excuse for a game like this. Waste of $60!!!
  42. bheaze
    Nov 13, 2011
    5
    MW3, well to review this game you could have just played MW2 its exactly the same with a few minor changes. I've played a lot of cod over the years since cod 4, about 80 days worth so i know and love cod especially the multilayer, ive maxed out prestige in all the games since cod 4. MW3 is exactly the same as MW2 same game engine, same graphics, same sounds, same guns, with a few new addedMW3, well to review this game you could have just played MW2 its exactly the same with a few minor changes. I've played a lot of cod over the years since cod 4, about 80 days worth so i know and love cod especially the multilayer, ive maxed out prestige in all the games since cod 4. MW3 is exactly the same as MW2 same game engine, same graphics, same sounds, same guns, with a few new added little perks and what not but it just seems that they have put absolutely no effort in game development over the past 2 years, with such a big market share and big budgets you would think they would produce something new and innovative to liven up the cod series but they haven't its the same as MW2. Its still fun though and if you liked MW2 you will like MW3, prestige in this game is said to have greater rewards which is something ive always wanted, but i wont be playing this game, something unusual for me as ive played every other cod game to death but its just the same game repackaged every year. go buy cod 4 instead. im gonna go play skyrim.… Expand
  43. Bela9a
    Jul 9, 2013
    5
    Same concept over and over again this is boring. SP good but MP just don't want to play it that's why I give it 5. Also I take back my previous word of BF3 and BF in general. I just had a experience with it because of the PC I used then. But I think this will be the last COD I play.
  44. honk
    Nov 13, 2011
    5
    I'm playing COD since COD 1. I share the opinion of many before that COD is geting more and more bad. Only look at the graphik and level design in the mp and than compare to BF 3, who are interested in creating a really great graphik with great levels. There are worlds between it. Try to sniper in the little maps of COD. Its nearly impossible. Than the spawn system. Just stay for no 10I'm playing COD since COD 1. I share the opinion of many before that COD is geting more and more bad. Only look at the graphik and level design in the mp and than compare to BF 3, who are interested in creating a really great graphik with great levels. There are worlds between it. Try to sniper in the little maps of COD. Its nearly impossible. Than the spawn system. Just stay for no 10 sek somewhere. I swear you'l be knifed by someone who spawns beside you. Its no playing, its nothing more than dying-spawning, dying-spawning.....and clearly, it's programmed, because the maps are big as a little shoe-box. Than dedis, but not ranket. What the hell is this ?? Let the player decide . . bla bla bla ... It really makes no fun for me any more. It's the last COD I've byed . Sorry...… Expand
  45. MrNuck
    Nov 14, 2011
    5
    As a Avid fan of the Call of duty franchise i must say i am fairly let down with the latest release of MW3. You say you listened to the fan base and on some fronts yes i would say you did but on others you did not. And those area's you didn't really can make and break the game. First and foremost I am a PC gamer i started playing the franchise on PC and i always will. But i feel you areAs a Avid fan of the Call of duty franchise i must say i am fairly let down with the latest release of MW3. You say you listened to the fan base and on some fronts yes i would say you did but on others you did not. And those area's you didn't really can make and break the game. First and foremost I am a PC gamer i started playing the franchise on PC and i always will. But i feel you are pushing us aside and not doing us justice. WE are the players that have the best hardware etc and the graphics are well as they say so yesterday. You have little to no abilities to edit the PC graphics to a point where if you have a high end system that you can get the best out of the game. everything is locked. Max frames ( max fps ) etc. i believe this is due to the fact that now instead of building for pc first then porting to 360 etc you build it for the lesser hardware system in this case consoles then try to port it to the PC at the last minute. Ill give it to you in the fact you did break the pc version like black ops did when they ported the game to PC. But at least we had the ability to adjust things like FOV, Max fps, Max packets ETC. These things i can overlook but the single most important thing i cannot.

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

    Instead of just porting the game from 360/ps3 to PC look at the past games and take the good build on that and take the bad remove it and build on it as well. The lack of non ranked dedicated servers is probably one of the main reason PC players are unhappy. Next to that it is the graphics or lack of them. We as PC players Demand a higher Caliber of game standards that YOU as a company lacked to give us. Most PC players think this is just mw2.5 with less graphics and more lag issues. If you say you really listen to the people Listen to some of the core points i am posting about they are essentially what is bringing your game down. ill review perhaps the key points
    1) No servers or lack of Primary Ranked Servers ( such as the ones that are loved in black ops )
    2) Lack there of graphics and graphical tweaking
    3)Lack of a way to deal with hackers.
    4)The feeling we are getting the metaphorical shaft when it comes to a PC game. Stop porting you games from console to PC instead design it from ground floor up with PC as the key factor then port it down to the lesser hardware systems aka CONSOLES. You will make more money in the end that way as more PC players will buy the game and if the game is as good as the rest in the good respects the Console players won't even know the difference. Sincerely Angry but happy gamer MrNuck    … Expand
  46. LPGhatguy
    Nov 14, 2011
    5
    Modern Warfare 3, of course is the next iteration of a yearly franchise.
    For what the team was trying to do, what they were trying to make of Modern Warfare 3, they did a nice job. Naturally, the engine is bit out of date, but it still produces graphics that are at least better than Half Life 1. The campaign was full of (as most reviewers say) Michael Bay action and destruction moments.    Modern Warfare 3, of course is the next iteration of a yearly franchise.
    For what the team was trying to do, what they were trying to make of Modern Warfare 3, they did a nice job. Naturally, the engine is bit out of date, but it still produces graphics that are at least better than Half Life 1. The campaign was full of (as most reviewers say) Michael Bay action and destruction moments. Not that there's any wrong with that, though I find the AI still rather terrible, though if you compare it to the AI from Call of Duty 2, it's an improvement. It was an exciting campaign, a good continuation of the previous two games that wrapped up all the loose ends, and most of the questions.
    Now onto the multiplayer:
    Almost all of it is like the previous, more guns, more maps, reworked perks, killstreaks (which are now pointstreaks, which I'll admit, was a great idea.) Everything is as fast paced as ever, and delivers the same action that you'd expect from Call of Duty. That's good and bad, both that Call of Duty didn't innovate too much in this release, but that it didn't try to fix what wasn't broken. I think a bit of experimentation would be cool, because after a few years of the same concepts with different guns, maps, and perks, it can get old. My attention span with Call of Duty games has been declining lately, though MW3 held it longer than Black Ops did for sure.

    So, in a gist:
    -Graphics: Rather outdated, but still better than Half Life 1
    -Campaign: Actiony, destruction-packed
    -AI: Bad
    -Multiplayer: Same old same old. Still no dedicated servers... wtf? (I miss CoD 2 in that regard)    … Expand
  47. Dreadtiger
    Nov 15, 2011
    5
    I have awaited Modern Warfare 3's release and being able to play it with a moderation of expectations. Interestingly these expectations have been met as they were: moderate. Modern Warfare 3 is hardly more than the continuation of the Campaign as well as a rehash of the Modern Warfare 2 multiplayer with some new fresh ideas. Yet, despite most of the additions related to Modern Warfare 2I have awaited Modern Warfare 3's release and being able to play it with a moderation of expectations. Interestingly these expectations have been met as they were: moderate. Modern Warfare 3 is hardly more than the continuation of the Campaign as well as a rehash of the Modern Warfare 2 multiplayer with some new fresh ideas. Yet, despite most of the additions related to Modern Warfare 2 add new nuances to gameplay the whole package seems rather dated compared to it's competitors. The old reworked IW5 hardly turns any heads by now, yet still delivers adequate visuals as one plays through the campaign. The campaign itself is likely rather short as it is common for FPS games right now, but isn't short on action. If one wills it, the immersion in the action can be rather satisfying. Right now it is plagued by a few bugs which can be surpassed if one knows how to do so, but for the unschooled player that is unaware of the existence of Wikias the game ends at Hamburg, killed by a reliable-command-buffer-overflow and a return to the main menu. The multiplayer can best be described with S.S.D.D with extras. As mentioned earlier some of the elements newly introduced can enhance the gaming experience and some rather helpful changes were made compared to it's predecessor. Unfortunately it also suffers from a few new problems. The maps feel cramped and small compared to the more open and wide maps of Modern Warfare 2. The new strike packages were done almost perfectly and open up many new ways to introduce killstreaks to the player's playstyle. For anyone who wanted the dedicated servers and is disgruntled about them being unranked, I cannot comment on this, sadly. To me this is a viable design choice. These servers will likely be better populated as soon as more players reach the prestiges at which they want to stop prestiging any further. Naturally there still is the problem of hackers and hacked lobbies in the P2P variant of the game and it BAFFLES me how the developers could miss such a thing as game client checksums to prevent game file alteration. All in all, the game is not as bad as one would perceive, especially from the notoriously vitriolic community. However, at times it feels uninnovative and static considering the lack of actual steps forward in development compared to the entire spin-off of the franchise. With this lack of creative movement it strikes me as unbelievable, that not only the game was released with a price tag of 60â… Expand
  48. ArnauNT
    Nov 15, 2011
    5
    I played all the campaing just to close the history but this game was really disapointing, I dont really understand how media gives high score ( 9-10 ) to this game.... This games deserves a price, it is clearly the most ecologic game EVER, 90% recycled, recycled scenes, recycled maps, recycled misions, recycled situations, etc. The last hour of the campaign its OK but the rest is aI played all the campaing just to close the history but this game was really disapointing, I dont really understand how media gives high score ( 9-10 ) to this game.... This games deserves a price, it is clearly the most ecologic game EVER, 90% recycled, recycled scenes, recycled maps, recycled misions, recycled situations, etc. The last hour of the campaign its OK but the rest is a constant "deja vu".

    I'ts very generous to chall Modern Warfare 3 a game, it is just a MW2 expansion that should be sold for 20$ as a DLC, at least ends the nice history of the MW saga.    … Expand
  49. Jenial
    Nov 17, 2011
    5
    This game is the joke of 2011. I did not want to be a fanboy of either MW3 or BF3, so I have purchased them both to give them a change. I will not compare this game more then I do right now, but MW3 is a total joke compared to BF3. Horrible graphics dated 2005? check. Sound engine dates 2001? check. Camping support? check. Lame maps? Check. Hack support? Double check. No invention at allThis game is the joke of 2011. I did not want to be a fanboy of either MW3 or BF3, so I have purchased them both to give them a change. I will not compare this game more then I do right now, but MW3 is a total joke compared to BF3. Horrible graphics dated 2005? check. Sound engine dates 2001? check. Camping support? check. Lame maps? Check. Hack support? Double check. No invention at all since MW3? Triple check.
    It's good Activision did make their game compareble to Modern Warfare 2, which was a pretty fun game, but it's not acceptable they make such little changes to their follow up. I can keep ranting, but I think the UserScore says enough.
    There ARE a few GOOD changes though. The killstreaks are nerfed compareble to Black Ops, and the Noobtube has been nerfed so badly it almost became useless. I will conclcude that the game is a piece of garbage compared to AAA+ games such as Skyrim and BF3. Leave it in the stores untill it's on sale for only â    … Expand
  50. ghentkatarn
    Nov 17, 2011
    5
    A quote from the game iteself. "Same s**t,different day." . Everything is same. Graphics,effects,the things that you do.. Even the stunts,bullet times,actions are the same.. Nothing innovative,just played to end up the story. Story is good but not fan of the enviroments.. I miss the old COD's..
  51. Murph93
    Nov 18, 2011
    5
    Well, in contrast to other people reviewing this game, I can actually say I enjoyed it.
    Likes: Campaign and Storyline, New Items/weapons, Decent Graphics, Minimal Loadtime, Fast-paced, Addicting
    Dislikes: Online play is glitchy, hacks rampant, can't team switch, Similarity to predecessors, Campaign is short (10 hours), Repetitive, Small Maps, Sniper Rifle is useless except for quickscoping    Well, in contrast to other people reviewing this game, I can actually say I enjoyed it.
    Likes: Campaign and Storyline, New Items/weapons, Decent Graphics, Minimal Loadtime, Fast-paced, Addicting
    Dislikes: Online play is glitchy, hacks rampant, can't team switch, Similarity to predecessors, Campaign is short (10 hours), Repetitive, Small Maps, Sniper Rifle is useless except for quickscoping and Killstreak Rewards play too much of a factor in play
    I have to give this game a 5 out of 10, but in all honesty that's being a bit generous. The online is okay, but the Campaign was the best part and it wasn't worth the $60 I paid for the game.    … Expand
  52. aphex187
    Nov 20, 2011
    5
    This only gets a 5 because of the fairly decent OTT SP experience straight from the Michael Bay camp. MP which is what i normally play is a mash up of claustrophobic, tight corridor type maps. Gone are the open types like Overgrown, Afghan etc what we get is uninspiring to say the least!

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

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

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

    Oh and to IGN, have to say your allegiance to Activision is a downright disgrace! How much did they pay you?    … Expand
  53. EggrollShop
    Nov 20, 2011
    5
    I picked up this game on launch day and ran through the campaign. Single player took about four and a half hours to finish which was somewhat disappointing. The game felt like a Micheal Bay film plenty of explosions and action. But like all Micheal Bay films it lacked a coherent story and if this is your first Modern Warfare Call of Duty game then you could care less about the characters.I picked up this game on launch day and ran through the campaign. Single player took about four and a half hours to finish which was somewhat disappointing. The game felt like a Micheal Bay film plenty of explosions and action. But like all Micheal Bay films it lacked a coherent story and if this is your first Modern Warfare Call of Duty game then you could care less about the characters. Only thing I'm content with about this game is that it is finally over. The series was wrapped up as sloppy as possible but at the very least the story was concluded. As for the multiplayer aspect of this game, on PC it is beyond horrendous. There are dedicated servers which is a step up from Modern Warfare 2 but they are unranked. Meaning that you can't level as you would a ranked matched game. So it takes out the whole point of playing on a dedicated server unless you want to get away from the hackers. Oh boy there are a lot of hackers in this game. 7 out of 10 games feature at least 3-4 hackers. Ranging from wall hacks to aim bots even rank hacks. How could someone prestige to the 10th tier if the game has been barely out a month? What's even more disappointing is the ranked matches are horrible done. If your host you most certainly get the jump on everyone and have the higher score at the end of the round. Assuming of course the match isn't filled with hackers.

    Overall this game is somewhat mediocre. No innovations and not even better graphics. Same engine and same gameplay. It is the last MW3 in the saga and thank goodness for that.    … Expand
  54. joshyman
    Nov 21, 2011
    5
    I can't say its really a BAD game, considdering modern warfare and mw2 were good. but its just stale.

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

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

    To be honest, im kind of tired of COD in general. It always feels the same, which isn't bad, but it just gets old. It almost feels like they just want to realease a new COD every year, like an anual thing, and make a ton of money off it. I'd LOVE to see a NEW IP from infiniti ward and sledgehammer, because they are tallented studios, but COD is just getting old, and you can really tell with MW3    … Expand
  55. Vonich232
    Feb 26, 2012
    5
    Its an ok game. Dont expect much from it. It has dated graphics, not much new gameplay or exciting ideas, and it just is the same thing as other COD games. And i know everyone is just saying, "Oh this game sucks 0/10!", but it does have good gameplay that is silky smooth. I just became bored with it in as little as 5 hours. Wait for a price drop if you want it.
  56. fantyoon
    Dec 6, 2011
    5
    The Story is awsome ;) But the multiplayer is extremly hard if u dont have a good internet connection cause u get killd too fast, no chance. Back to the good old CoD4
  57. psychotic
    Jul 12, 2012
    5
    off all my fps's this is one of my least favorites( i have crysis to half life ) thank god i got it for half off :). But ok yes almost everything is recycled from mw2, ive played mw1, mw2, black ops , and now mw3, black ops had zombies the only thing i liked, the story in this is good but very linear but better then black ops there is no saving cod from quick snipers and noob killers plusoff all my fps's this is one of my least favorites( i have crysis to half life ) thank god i got it for half off :). But ok yes almost everything is recycled from mw2, ive played mw1, mw2, black ops , and now mw3, black ops had zombies the only thing i liked, the story in this is good but very linear but better then black ops there is no saving cod from quick snipers and noob killers plus horribly done game play in multiplayer but i think it is worth 20$ but for 30 it is ok… Expand
  58. pcgamereviewer
    Nov 17, 2014
    5
    Decent game and not too bad at all. That's all I can really say and it seems I have to write more than 149 words so I'll finish off this sentence now.
  59. Garloz911
    Apr 3, 2012
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. They killed soap so it accomplished everything I wanted to. Thank you. The game play is exactly the same since the first game so dont expect anything new.… Expand
  60. natsad11
    Apr 4, 2012
    5
    this is game is pathetic, no, almost disgusting I wonder if COD: Black Ops was also nul.J 'love this game a long time but this time it's not very convincing so I recommend you BATTLEFIELD 3 instead.
  61. DarknessDudeTOB
    Apr 25, 2012
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Battlefield 3 is $30 dollars on Amazon. This is still $45 bucks on Steam. This is just not worth the price if you're a big-time Call of Duty fan. I just gave up after Black Ops came out.

    Call of Duty MW3 had the worst campaign ending I have ever seen. It's terrible. It completely UNDOES parts of MW2 in fact. It's like EA screwed this up with Mass Effect 3, even if EA didn't make this game (and they didn't). The end you ask? You kill Makorav with a grapple hook. A GRAPPLE HOOK FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! And Soap, the new whats-his-name-again-it's-so-dumb guy, Frost, and tons of other characters die. The only time it's fun is the first part of the game. The final 2 parts in Mission Select are terrible quality.

    Graphics and sound are basically a port from MW2. No difference. Go figure, they did the same for Black Ops. Multiplayer is another story though. YOU GOT FREAKING NUKES AND MOABS! And since COD is full of cheats, it's so easy to end a match in Multiplayer in 2 minutes. I had a terrible time playing this. Replay MW2 or something, that was more enjoyable than this dog poop. Or buy BF3, it's cheaper now.    … Expand
  62. lemafish
    Mar 1, 2013
    5
    ok this review is going to be in 2 parts single player and muitiplayer. first of all single player, is fun campaign is actually enjoyable and there are some fun things in there to do. the next is spec ops, this is actually another good point for the game and finally "surival" you will either hate or love this mode, depending if you like wave defence games or not. so for single play i wouldok this review is going to be in 2 parts single player and muitiplayer. first of all single player, is fun campaign is actually enjoyable and there are some fun things in there to do. the next is spec ops, this is actually another good point for the game and finally "surival" you will either hate or love this mode, depending if you like wave defence games or not. so for single play i would give it a soild 8 out of 10. the next bit of the review is multiplayer..... this had the poeatinoal to be good, but failled masively! firstly, there are deticated servers but they are useless as you do not earn exp. next is the amount of 12 year old kids hacking, quite frankly this pissed me off so much i stopped playing the entire multiplayer all togther, as activision doesnt care and lets the hacker roam messing up all your games. finally the lag in multiplayer is dreadful as it is not a deticated server, you get host migrations? what the hell is this meant to be? oh yeah thats right they use that system on a console, this does not work on pc at all. i would give mulitiplayer a 3. do not get this game if you want to play if for the multiplayer its awful. overall then i would give this game a 6, becasue of its good single player, but avoid its multiplayer.… Expand
  63. JakeSTALIN_RUS
    Jun 10, 2012
    5
    Hi.Ive played this game more than a 100 hours and now i am ready to write it.At first I thought the game was perfect.I liked everything and i liked it more than Battlefield 3.But after spending hours and hours on it soon enough ive understood that the plot is boring the multiplayer and even the whole game is just copying MW2.And MW2 is copying Cod4 (Awesome game i must say).So here i go -Hi.Ive played this game more than a 100 hours and now i am ready to write it.At first I thought the game was perfect.I liked everything and i liked it more than Battlefield 3.But after spending hours and hours on it soon enough ive understood that the plot is boring the multiplayer and even the whole game is just copying MW2.And MW2 is copying Cod4 (Awesome game i must say).So here i go - i give it 5 only because ive spent some fun time with my friends here.… Expand
  64. secret756
    Jun 17, 2012
    5
    Another Year, another Call Of Duty. Though yes they've made improvements from last year. Some things still need to be hammered down. The graphics are usually okay, though times it bends a little. The story, eh it could give you more of the story and make a little more since with some plot holes. The guns at times feel light. But the multiplayer can stand up, though the community can putAnother Year, another Call Of Duty. Though yes they've made improvements from last year. Some things still need to be hammered down. The graphics are usually okay, though times it bends a little. The story, eh it could give you more of the story and make a little more since with some plot holes. The guns at times feel light. But the multiplayer can stand up, though the community can put less than favorable things. Though the 60 dollars should be lowered to say. 50 or 40.… Expand
  65. DoubledRevos909
    Jun 19, 2013
    5
    Arguably a disappointment to the series, the multiplayer portion is all the rage in the gamers nowadays, and if you think this game wasn't that great, you would have probably stepped foot into multiplayer. The graphics haven't really improved much compared to its predecessor, and it's too common to see a World War 3 in the plot lines now. These developers need to come up with somethingArguably a disappointment to the series, the multiplayer portion is all the rage in the gamers nowadays, and if you think this game wasn't that great, you would have probably stepped foot into multiplayer. The graphics haven't really improved much compared to its predecessor, and it's too common to see a World War 3 in the plot lines now. These developers need to come up with something visually outstanding and original if their content isn't going down the drain like their server connections are.… Expand
  66. ProfessorHuck
    Jul 13, 2012
    5
    I used to be a CoD fan.
    Unfortunately, Activision is abusing my trust.
    They have released essentially the same game three times, with different textures and slightly new guns You may say "Why fix what isn't broke?" It is still a fun game, with aspects of which show the light of being a series as refined as CoD. The campaign is still decent, the multiplayer excellent especially with    I used to be a CoD fan.
    Unfortunately, Activision is abusing my trust.
    They have released essentially the same game three times, with different textures and slightly new guns
    You may say "Why fix what isn't broke?" It is still a fun game, with aspects of which show the light of being a series as refined as CoD.
    The campaign is still decent, the multiplayer excellent especially with friends and spec ops is always great.
    MW3 is a good game, but it has to be rated less because it is the same as previous CoD's
    If you want a quick, fun, shoot-fest then CoD: MW3 is your best bet, if you want something with more depth than a spoon, consult Valve    … Expand
  67. piccina808
    Aug 4, 2012
    5
    Typical COD game, fast paced action-run and gun. Controls are easy, smooth, and addicting, like always. Story, yes there is a story, it's a continuation from the previous two games, but it's just an excuse to make the game flow, nothing spectacular or memorable. Graphics maybe a bit better that in MW2, overall quite nice, no lagging on the PC version. For me it lasted 5 hours tops, greatTypical COD game, fast paced action-run and gun. Controls are easy, smooth, and addicting, like always. Story, yes there is a story, it's a continuation from the previous two games, but it's just an excuse to make the game flow, nothing spectacular or memorable. Graphics maybe a bit better that in MW2, overall quite nice, no lagging on the PC version. For me it lasted 5 hours tops, great afternoon fun.… Expand
  68. P1ng1337
    Oct 13, 2012
    5
    fun game when ur not playing with hackers. 3/5 games. its 2012 and completely ridiculous that hackers still exist in a game like this. lets see.. its been over a year and its still $60.. countless dlc for $15 bucks which usually contains like 2 maps. and they dont care about the game once its out. sounds like EA has had a hand in this LOL gg guys.
  69. Gomez
    Oct 2, 2012
    5
    When I first brought Modern Warfare 3 and played it, I very much enjoyed it but as time went on I got more and more bored of it, the reasoning why is because it
  70. No1livesforever
    Nov 30, 2012
    5
    I pre-ordered MW3 back then only because I wanted to know what was going to happen to Markov. I don't play multiplayer mode. The single player campaign has no innovation, and parts of the storyline and character are ridiculous. This is a disappointment to the franchise.
  71. Deathdwarf
    Apr 1, 2013
    5
    Still a bit unconcerned about if I have to hate the game after I got VAC banned for doing nothing.

    The cheat protection is as always. I get banned, real hackers hack on. Was the game better than part 2 which sucked hard also? I gonna say I think so. There are less too early Kill Streaks, more available ways to push out a camper and overall less and more known camper spots. To get    Still a bit unconcerned about if I have to hate the game after I got VAC banned for doing nothing.

    The cheat protection is as always. I get banned, real hackers hack on.

    Was the game better than part 2 which sucked hard also? I gonna say I think so. There are less too early Kill Streaks, more available ways to push out a camper and overall less and more known camper spots.

    To get to the Maps:

    16 maps 2 Little Team Maps together with MW2 map terminal (one of the few I liked) if you download a free DLC (probably the first and only in the franchise). Then some DLC maps I didnt buy because DLC buying for a firm like Activision sucks balls.

    I think three maps, Bakaara, Fallen and Seatown, are pretty well-made and fun to play (not counting in Terminal which is awesome as always, even better because of less weapons specialized on camping).

    In the opposite, three maps, Downturn, Carbon and Outpost are pretty damn bad.

    To end this quickly: If you a "modern" CoD except BO2 and MW2, which are even worse, then do not buy it. If you dont, give it a shot if you want. The cheat protection is getting better from what I have heard. My ban concerns me not to think so. But anyway, have a nice day.    … Expand
  72. Esqord
    Sep 7, 2013
    5
    Not too much to write here: like Black Ops, the game failed, and the main flaw was that devs just haven't introduced something new, which would've refreshed the game. Pointstreaks, return of the lobbies, strike chains, different modes like chaos and wave-based spec ops on MP maps all these things are good, but they're not enough to make the game as fun as it was before, because it's theNot too much to write here: like Black Ops, the game failed, and the main flaw was that devs just haven't introduced something new, which would've refreshed the game. Pointstreaks, return of the lobbies, strike chains, different modes like chaos and wave-based spec ops on MP maps all these things are good, but they're not enough to make the game as fun as it was before, because it's the same just like the previous titles. Additionally, the campaign finally rolled down to Z-grade delirium of the paranoid patient of a mental hospital who's afraid that USSR will bomb the western countries tomorrow and only the brave uncle Sam's sons can fight the red threat, and there's no Zimmer anymore to save the atmosphere of this circus. A bad game, but I feel the worst about CoD is yet to come.… Expand
  73. Dcoy
    Dec 21, 2013
    5
    Ok its Call of Duty need I say else? The story is more of the same and the game play is even worse. It gets boring around an hour maybe two and besides multiplayer there isn't much to do. There is Survival I will say that earns this game its points and you can end up spending many hours on end on that one. All be it its not the best Call of Duty game it could be worse
  74. Kotofon
    Jun 6, 2020
    5
    Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 является уже восьмой по счету номерной игрой знаменитой серии линейных шутеров с видом от третьего лица. овествование игры разделено на три больших акта, всего же насчитывается 17 основных миссий, поделенных между этими актами. События происходят в наше время, и затрагивают территории таких государств, как Соединенные Штаты Америки, Индия, Чехия, Франция,Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 является уже восьмой по счету номерной игрой знаменитой серии линейных шутеров с видом от третьего лица. овествование игры разделено на три больших акта, всего же насчитывается 17 основных миссий, поделенных между этими актами. События происходят в наше время, и затрагивают территории таких государств, как Соединенные Штаты Америки, Индия, Чехия, Франция, Сомали, Германия, Великобритания и Объединенные Арабские Эмираты. Нам, от лица главного героя, придется оказать противостояние ведущим зачинщикам развязывания Третьей мировой войны в 2016 году (в альтернативной игровой вселенной).… Expand
  75. affan1992
    Oct 12, 2018
    5
    Mw3 is an okay game. The single player is way better than battlefield 3 campaign. Sadily, the multiplayer in bf3 is way fun and more to do than mw3. Mw3 feels like dlc to Mw2.
  76. Bad_Reviewer
    Jan 4, 2022
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This game has gotten better with age. I love the ending of a great story with the death of Makarov and the revenge of Price. I like the Multiplayer but Modern Warfare is way more fun. The saving grace is Spec Ops. It is the best in all of Call of Duty.… Expand
  77. Nekellor_Met
    Jul 5, 2020
    5
    Эта часть начала сильно сдавать позиции по сюжету, но не самое плохое игровое окончание серии Modern Warfare
  78. KrowKrof
    May 13, 2023
    5
    ........................................................................mid
  79. EVIL_UJIN
    Oct 15, 2022
    5
    Худшая часть Call of Duty. Вторая часть Modern Warfare была намного хуже первой, но она неплоха по сравнению с этой. Купил ее только чтобы узнать окончание сюжета трилогии. Зря. Глупый сюжет, незапоминающиеся, шаблонные злодеи, в геймплее вообще ничего нового. Играл сквозь зубы, в ожидании, когда же она закончится. Просто неудача даже для рельсового шутера.Худшая часть Call of Duty. Вторая часть Modern Warfare была намного хуже первой, но она неплоха по сравнению с этой. Купил ее только чтобы узнать окончание сюжета трилогии. Зря. Глупый сюжет, незапоминающиеся, шаблонные злодеи, в геймплее вообще ничего нового. Играл сквозь зубы, в ожидании, когда же она закончится. Просто неудача даже для рельсового шутера.
  80. Justifour
    Aug 28, 2023
    5
    Got worse and now it's just a pretty mediocre game.nDidn't find this game good compared to previous two parts.
  81. 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
  82. liho1eye
    Nov 13, 2011
    4
    None of the big issues from BO and MW2 were fixed. The MP is still based on listen servers. Yes, you can play on dedicated servers, but you can't unlock anything there, so you HAVE TO endure craptacular hit reg until you hit max level and unlock everything you need. Respawn system is still hard at work to make you claw your own eyes out. The rest of seems like a copy-paste of MW2, whichNone of the big issues from BO and MW2 were fixed. The MP is still based on listen servers. Yes, you can play on dedicated servers, but you can't unlock anything there, so you HAVE TO endure craptacular hit reg until you hit max level and unlock everything you need. Respawn system is still hard at work to make you claw your own eyes out. The rest of seems like a copy-paste of MW2, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but hardly worth the price of a full game.… Expand
  83. foresterLV
    Nov 14, 2011
    4
    I bought this game for improved MW2 multiplayer, however I found that:
    a) maps are too small comparing to MW2 and are too "connected". This bloodbath is quickly getting bored without some big maps for sniping or long range relief.
    b) they introduced lag compensation which sucks monkey balls! If you have 5 bars connection, and you are host - you are screwed because of the some kind    I bought this game for improved MW2 multiplayer, however I found that:
    a) maps are too small comparing to MW2 and are too "connected". This bloodbath is quickly getting bored without some big maps for sniping or long range relief.
    b) they introduced lag compensation which sucks monkey balls! If you have 5 bars connection, and you are host - you are screwed because of the some kind prediction game engine is doing for bad connection players. To play this game you need to run torrents in the background!
    c) shotguns were nerfed beyond recognition. They added so much recoil to them so it just make sense to use knife instead. In overall this is not improvement, it is more like reduction of MW2 multiplayer fun.    … Expand
  84. DaveOnrefni
    Nov 13, 2011
    4
    Singleplayer was a cinematic blast as it always was and the survival mode is a great addition. However, multiplayer is plagued by lag due to ranked games only being peer-to-peer as the standard for the console systems. I don't understand why the programmers for this game didn't learn the lesson from MW2. There isn't even a chat room during the lobby screen. I appreciate the additionSingleplayer was a cinematic blast as it always was and the survival mode is a great addition. However, multiplayer is plagued by lag due to ranked games only being peer-to-peer as the standard for the console systems. I don't understand why the programmers for this game didn't learn the lesson from MW2. There isn't even a chat room during the lobby screen. I appreciate the addition of the dedicated servers, but they are only available for unranked play. In addition the Server List option is hidden by default, only accessible after digging through the options menu. I can't give this game a 0, because I do enjoy parts of it. The gun play seems great so far, aside from the lag, and I enjoyed the single player, but I don't feel like this game was worth the money I dropped on it. I don't think I can see myself reaching max rank with how hindered I am with latency and turned off by it. They even left thing ping "bars" in instead of giving us actual numbers again. Why couldn't these guys give us ranked servers with similar "play now" functionality of everyone's favorite hat-themed-war-simulator? Click the button, ask for game-type, drop you into a server with that criteria. (That game is now free and still very fun)
    I wish that Call of Duty recycled maps, in addition to giving us these new ones. I mean, what harm can including old maps do? We'll probably have to pay for them. I likely won't buy them, then I'll likely get booted from every game I try playing because I "do not own this DLC" (It's happened with MW2. It once took about 20 minutes trying to find a game I could even join. Then when I finally did, I had one, "red" ping bar. It was terrible.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Once again, this should've been a return to form for the CoD franchise, but I'm left disappointed. It's perhaps unfair to blame the developers - they've probably been driven to the wall by Activision to get the game out on time, and reduced their efforts on the PC to get the lucrative console stuff up to scratch.    … Expand
  89. Comanglia
    Dec 15, 2011
    4
    No innovation same old same old, campaign is terrible (unlike the usual mediocre). Still uses basically the same engine as CoDMW2, but for some reason call it something other than IW5. Graphics are okay, but I blame the lack of development in consoles for that. With that in mind MW3 is way to focused on consoles, controls just feel awkward on the PC. Not to mention that MW3 is still usingNo innovation same old same old, campaign is terrible (unlike the usual mediocre). Still uses basically the same engine as CoDMW2, but for some reason call it something other than IW5. Graphics are okay, but I blame the lack of development in consoles for that. With that in mind MW3 is way to focused on consoles, controls just feel awkward on the PC. Not to mention that MW3 is still using basically the same weapons as CoD4 (one of my biggest pet peeves for the recent CoDs). Multiplayer, is p2p still (WTF). Seriously their really isn't much that is done right with MW3. Luckily after playing this game for about 2 hours, I went back to the store and returned it for store credits which I used for Saints Row 3 and some other small stuff.
    Really wish a big name critic would give this 40 or lower, and simply put "We're tired of this ****    … Expand
  90. 8ung
    Nov 8, 2011
    4
    Feels more like a Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1.7 Beta Version. Dated graphic and animation, dated gameplay, heavily (and to make it worse) very obviously scripted events, too many cheap death e.g. by falling. On the technical side inconsistent framerate although meeting optimal hardware requirements. Almost feels as playing a low budget shooter e.g. from City Interactive, which onlyFeels more like a Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1.7 Beta Version. Dated graphic and animation, dated gameplay, heavily (and to make it worse) very obviously scripted events, too many cheap death e.g. by falling. On the technical side inconsistent framerate although meeting optimal hardware requirements. Almost feels as playing a low budget shooter e.g. from City Interactive, which only costs a third. So it may be ok to buy it for 20 $, but not the ridiculous high price they want.… Expand
  91. Rockdrummer357
    Nov 8, 2011
    4
    Well, I wasn't expecting much, but this is a disappointment even for my now-lowered expectations for this franchise. There is essentially NO difference between this and MW2. The other thing that pisses me off is that COD4 was a grittier game that made you feel like a special ops badass. MW2 and MW2: Operation Steal Your Money are games that completely remove that immersion factor andWell, I wasn't expecting much, but this is a disappointment even for my now-lowered expectations for this franchise. There is essentially NO difference between this and MW2. The other thing that pisses me off is that COD4 was a grittier game that made you feel like a special ops badass. MW2 and MW2: Operation Steal Your Money are games that completely remove that immersion factor and are essentially Unreal Tournament with real guns. Not only that, but the killstreaks and perks are complete crap, they have been mutated and twisted from a cool semi-realistic add on into this RPG-like fantasy gimmick that somehow is MORE popular than the original system. This game is complete and utter trash and the criminals at Activision have pulled it off again. Also, the engine they continue to use without improvements is completely outdated and is far inferior to the likes of the continually supported and updated Unreal Engine 3, the innovative and pretty (but buggy) Frostbite 2 Engine, and the gorgeous CryEngine. It's really a shame and I feel cheated that I was tricked into spending my hard-earned money on this expansion pack. That said, it's still a (kind of) fun shoot-em-up that has it's moments, and if you take it for what it is, it's not a bad game. But still, I don't see myself playing this NEARLY as much as I would have played a real successor to MW2 (updated engine, reworked and WELL THOUGHT OUT multiplayer without stupid gimmicks, and a SP campaign with some effort put into it). This game is most certainly being run into the ground by the thieves at Activision and I will not buy another COD game unless it's been thoroughly reworked. It's a darn shame that Activision, instead of a patient and supportive publisher, has the rights to this game.… Expand
  92. HELLBOUND
    Nov 8, 2011
    4
    Ok, so based off the game as if it were the first time we've ever seen this...

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

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

    Now, lets break it down some

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

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

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

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

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

    Single player 1
    Multiplayer 1
    Graphics 1
    replayable 1

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

    -Conclusion 3.8/10
    It can be a fun time killer. It has heavy flaws and lags behind technologically. The pricing is unacceptable.    … Expand
  94. 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!
  95. 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
  96. 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
  97. clarky112
    Nov 10, 2011
    4
    So another year comes around, and another re-hash of the tired and worn Call Of Duty Series is released. The same old and short campaign of... Run and shoot here... 50 explosions there... everything gets messy... and 90% of the squad you are with ends up dead. Multiplayer brings the same old experience, adding nothing new to the table, with the lackluster maps, and a couple of new perks,So another year comes around, and another re-hash of the tired and worn Call Of Duty Series is released. The same old and short campaign of... Run and shoot here... 50 explosions there... everything gets messy... and 90% of the squad you are with ends up dead. Multiplayer brings the same old experience, adding nothing new to the table, with the lackluster maps, and a couple of new perks, which aren't at all that exciting. As for the look of the game, nothing has changed since, nor does it stand out, which again dampens the experience (especially when comparing to the likes of other newly released games such as Battlefield 3 and Uncharted 3). The only thing remotely enjoyable was the 'reinvented' Spec Op's mode, which is practically only enjoyable whilst playing with a friend. Experiencing the same mode through random joins i found myself to be doing most of the work, with many neglecting the focus of 'teamwork'. Yet as much as this was enjoyable, the mode becomes stale and repetitive (much like the franchise) very quickly. In hindsight, this game rates very poorly compared to other shooters available on the market today (both new and old). The game is stale and bland and short, whilst at the same time highlights the need for change, if the series wishes to survive and compete within future markets.… Expand
  98. mikeh
    Nov 10, 2011
    4
    A really repetitive campaign with hardly any memorable moments. Out-dated visuals which look like a game from 4 years ago. Mediocre music and sounds.

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

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

    Overall, I'm seriously disappointed in this and i expected more from IW. Don't waste your money on this, you'd be better off buying MW1 or 2 as both are superior games.    … Expand
  99. nschlip
    Nov 10, 2011
    4
    Where to start? I have been playing COD since the very first game on PC, and IMO Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is the best COD game in the entire franchise. What happened Infinity Ward? Modern Warfare 3 is the same as Black Ops / Modern Warfare 2....it's just more of the same. This game really could have been released as a $30 expansion (or something like that). I don't really understandWhere to start? I have been playing COD since the very first game on PC, and IMO Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is the best COD game in the entire franchise. What happened Infinity Ward? Modern Warfare 3 is the same as Black Ops / Modern Warfare 2....it's just more of the same. This game really could have been released as a $30 expansion (or something like that). I don't really understand what all the hype is surrounding this game (IMO there are much better ones just released and that are coming out). The single player is poor, multiplayer is more of the same, and SpecOps feels like it was tacked on.....There is just not enough here to justify a $60 game. If it was going for $40, ok....that would change this review a bit. To give Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer Games credit, they did do a remarkable job with the graphics (this is at least a four year old engine), and you can tell they worked extremely hard to deliver this. Bottom line, buy this, yes or no?: No - Save your money and play COD: Modern Warfare if you need your "war" game fix.… Expand
  100. Totenkopf04
    Nov 10, 2011
    4
    I note 5 : I really waited its release with all the beautiful promises made. I like the graphics (even if we could expect more after MW2). Some changes in the gameplay bring an added attraction (COD is COD, it's hard to revolutionize completly).
    However, the black spot worthy of a scam from Infinty Ward is their promise that we will have dedicated servers. And what we have : matchmaking    I note 5 : I really waited its release with all the beautiful promises made. I like the graphics (even if we could expect more after MW2). Some changes in the gameplay bring an added attraction (COD is COD, it's hard to revolutionize completly).
    However, the black spot worthy of a scam from Infinty Ward is their promise that we will have dedicated servers. And what we have : matchmaking (a horror : no possibility of managing the cheaters (and they are present), hard to play in team, trouble connecting...) and dedicated servers but UNRANKED : where is the interest. Why don't do like on BO, why have backtracked ???? Because IW is not interested in what we want but just the money they bring. For me it's the last time !!!!! P.S. for IW : don't be surprised, you have what you deserve. I hope that a boycott of your game will arrive and make you understand somethig.    … Expand
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 »