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. Teng
    Nov 10, 2011
    4
    Nice Single Player so far but too short. The rest is the same as every year. I sold it and play Modern Warfare 2009 instead. But it doesn't matter what all the people are writing here, as long as everyone buy this Map-Pack for 60â
  2. BDA
    Nov 11, 2011
    4
    I somewhat enjoyed Call of Duty back when the series first started. It had a lot of charm and the first few sequels brought something new to the table. Unfortunately, This game didn't bring anything new to the table compared to the last few games in the series. It sickens me how much this series has gotten away with re-releasing the same formula with barely any changes for so long. I canI somewhat enjoyed Call of Duty back when the series first started. It had a lot of charm and the first few sequels brought something new to the table. Unfortunately, This game didn't bring anything new to the table compared to the last few games in the series. It sickens me how much this series has gotten away with re-releasing the same formula with barely any changes for so long. I can easily buy an Indy game for 10 Dollars that can give me more innovation and gameplay than any of the Call of Duty games combined. The fact that this game even has a 60 dollar price tag is baffling, considering it is pretty much exactly like the past 2 games in the Modern Warfare series. I give credit that Modern Warfare 2 has a better amount of content than the first one but this game is the exact same if not worse than the title that came before it. It's funny to me how the press and Infinity ward think this is somewhat of an "attack" on the series but I think this is more of an outcry that we want to see better. Sadly, I don't think that's ever going to happen.… Expand
  3. Elsingo
    Nov 11, 2011
    4
    The reason i wont rate this higher then a 4 is that its not a game, its like alot of ppl say an overpriced mappack. One thing that realy anoys me with mw3 is all the junk and stuff lying around everywhere to "prevent camping" when it does the oposite thing, it gives campers even more spots to hide. All i can do now is hope that the next game in the series gets a new engine and more focusThe reason i wont rate this higher then a 4 is that its not a game, its like alot of ppl say an overpriced mappack. One thing that realy anoys me with mw3 is all the junk and stuff lying around everywhere to "prevent camping" when it does the oposite thing, it gives campers even more spots to hide. All i can do now is hope that the next game in the series gets a new engine and more focus on the PC version.… Expand
  4. SpandexOC
    Nov 12, 2011
    4
    Like a lot of people I purchased both BF3 and MW3 and, actually, hoped both would be great games. I guess the Jury is still out on BF3 for me, but it has potential. MW3 however is nothing short of appalling. The 'whack-a-Mole' concept has reached critical mass in this game, there is nothing else. Tie this into a neat little bundle with an aging graphics engine and another UnrealLike a lot of people I purchased both BF3 and MW3 and, actually, hoped both would be great games. I guess the Jury is still out on BF3 for me, but it has potential. MW3 however is nothing short of appalling. The 'whack-a-Mole' concept has reached critical mass in this game, there is nothing else. Tie this into a neat little bundle with an aging graphics engine and another Unreal Tournament style multi-player (yep, no skill, tatics or team work required - can't you just wait for the YouTube glut of auto sniper mega fast hacks..... uh, I mean kills to appear) and what you have is a regurgitated pile of tat.

    Someone wanted to squeeze the last few bucks out of a tired engine and game model. Please no more, in an age where the arguments against piracy are shouted from every moral pulpit perhaps the evangelists should look at what they are providing for sale - quality always provides a decent argument for revenue.

    So its back to BF3, oh and for controversies sake, I still think the last MOH game had the best and most fulfilling multi-player of recent times, its just a shame it did not do SP Whack-a-Mole well enough to please the paid critics.    … Expand
  5. Mongoliat
    Nov 12, 2011
    4
    I rate the game a 4 in total (Multiplayer 2, Single Player 6)

    I find the menus very nice and the layout is pretty nice as always. It's easy to get an overview of what you need to do to unlock your next weapons, attachments etc and the new "Lobby Leaderboard" feature gave this part a huge plus. I would still like to see some more Callsigns and Emblems to the game from the Spec Ops part,    I rate the game a 4 in total (Multiplayer 2, Single Player 6)

    I find the menus very nice and the layout is pretty nice as always. It's easy to get an overview of what you need to do to unlock your next weapons, attachments etc and the new "Lobby Leaderboard" feature gave this part a huge plus. I would still like to see some more Callsigns and Emblems to the game from the Spec Ops part, but well... Overachiever is pretty nice.

    The multiplayer gameplay would be great if they hadn't done the exact same thing in their two previous Modern Warfare games. The graphics seems to be somewhere between MW1 and MW2 and the weapons are pretty much the same (except for a huge damage decrease on UMP). This was not what I expected at all and after playing it for some hours I had feeling that I was playing Modern Warfare 2 and not an entirely new game. My personal feelings towards this is that 90% of the game is old content taken from previous games to make a cheap solution to something with great potential.

    The game also has the features Survival Mode and Spec Ops. Every CoD fan knows what this is (I presume), and the Survival Mode is extremely fun to play with your friends. It's split up in difficulty maps, and this works great. The Spec Ops are as they were on MW2 except that they have removed the last few missions with the juggernauts, which makes the Spec Ops overall easier than before. Even though I missed that insane challenge, I had a blast playing through all the missions.

    I rate the game a 4 in total (Multiplayer 2, Single Player 6) and if you consider buying this game, you should only buy it because of Spec Ops, Campaign and Survival Mode - Not because of the multiplayer part.    … Expand
  6. Snuffle1upagus
    Nov 14, 2011
    4
    MW3 Review: The Good: Took all of the good things out of MW2 and Black OPS and made them into a game. The fluidity of the game is amazing. The game is gun on gun most of the time with a less amount of killstreaks in the air.

    The Bad: Then they took the bad things out of Black OPS and magnified them x5. Maps are terrible, besides 1 or 2, everyone camps, and everyone uses akimbo. There    MW3 Review: The Good: Took all of the good things out of MW2 and Black OPS and made them into a game. The fluidity of the game is amazing. The game is gun on gun most of the time with a less amount of killstreaks in the air.

    The Bad: Then they took the bad things out of Black OPS and magnified them x5. Maps are terrible, besides 1 or 2, everyone camps, and everyone uses akimbo. There are already hackers and quickscoping is easier that ever before. The spawning system is the same as it was in Black OPS, you are running around the map and people are spawning right behind you.

    The Ugly: Although they introduced Kill Confirmed (aquire dogtags), camping in this game is worse than MW2 or Black OPS COMBINED! Due to the amount of added obstacles and buildings into the game, it begs for campers. Players of MW3 are only concerned about their K/D. I was amazed at the amount of players that don't even go after the dogtags of the players they kill. They wait for one of their teammates to get it for them.

    Overall: Fluidity is better. Funfactor is not.

    Grade: 4/10    … Expand
  7. tULLY
    Nov 14, 2011
    4
    I can't believe that there is no console and commands with config editing or mod tools, the guys that devlopeped Cod2 can't srsly be sitting there while they sell out and destroy every aspect of what made Cod on PC worth playing. I can see you're all trying but just stop trying to make PC like console. Its not accecptable. Mod tools with acess to console along with the commands we had theI can't believe that there is no console and commands with config editing or mod tools, the guys that devlopeped Cod2 can't srsly be sitting there while they sell out and destroy every aspect of what made Cod on PC worth playing. I can see you're all trying but just stop trying to make PC like console. Its not accecptable. Mod tools with acess to console along with the commands we had the ability to change until Mw2 I promise that this score wouldn't be so incredibly awful. Two years in a row, after being able to use Black Ops as a cheat sheet. Wtf..… Expand
  8. Wzzzz
    Nov 14, 2011
    4
    I like the dedi servers in cod4 and i like the ks and how smooth its in mw2. When mw3 was coming out, i thot its gonna be the best of mw series -- dedi servers(ranked like its in cod4) plus good mp experience. BUT when i got into mw3 mp game, i found that its not wat its supposed to be! Developers didnt hear wat the community were talking about. P2P system sucks all the time! Lag andI like the dedi servers in cod4 and i like the ks and how smooth its in mw2. When mw3 was coming out, i thot its gonna be the best of mw series -- dedi servers(ranked like its in cod4) plus good mp experience. BUT when i got into mw3 mp game, i found that its not wat its supposed to be! Developers didnt hear wat the community were talking about. P2P system sucks all the time! Lag and stutter are worse in mw3! If IW and Sledgehammer want their game to be long life and have good sales on their DLCs, they must fix this!… Expand
  9. NoXous
    Nov 14, 2011
    4
    I was incredibly excited about this game, and the game would be very good (despite being a clone of the past MW games) if a few things were fixed.

    First: I've never been in so many lagfest matches in any CoD on any system, PC or console, and I've owned every one of them. Of course the hacking is back on PC (to be expected), and sure they gave us dedicated servers, BUT THEY AREN'T    I was incredibly excited about this game, and the game would be very good (despite being a clone of the past MW games) if a few things were fixed.

    First: I've never been in so many lagfest matches in any CoD on any system, PC or console, and I've owned every one of them. Of course the hacking is back on PC (to be expected), and sure they gave us dedicated servers, BUT THEY AREN'T RANKED.

    The obvious solution to me would have been to have official dedicated servers much like Left 4 Dead where the rules are enforced, and they are ranked. The multiplayer is so incredibly hit or miss with the number of crappy hosts that's it's unplayable a good portion of the time.

    Also a vote-change-host feature would be nice.    … Expand
  10. Colo
    Nov 14, 2011
    4
    MW3's release was one I was both hoping and dreading. Having played every game in the series, I've been an unwilling witness to IW's slow decline. Every new release I've played since CoD:MW has been progressively worse. Not terrible, but slowly degrading, like an emphysema patient in ICU.

    And that last sentence gets to the crux of my review; the first Modern Warfare was the best. I    MW3's release was one I was both hoping and dreading. Having played every game in the series, I've been an unwilling witness to IW's slow decline. Every new release I've played since CoD:MW has been progressively worse. Not terrible, but slowly degrading, like an emphysema patient in ICU.

    And that last sentence gets to the crux of my review; the first Modern Warfare was the best. I believe there are 3 reasons for this:

    1. GAMEPLAY. MW's gameplay was superior because it had PACING. Many game developers seem to forget what this is in favour of flashy graphics and stupid awards. In MW you could set up a sniping position, pick off a few targets and then probably get taken down by a savvy player who had spotted your position and used the appropriate cover to get there. CoD:BO, MW2 and MW3 killed this concept by creating confined levels with dedicated fire lanes, meaning that snipers are regularly killed before they even get off the first shot. Combine this with sniper rifles and the gameplay abomination that is "quickscoping", and all you see is players RUNNING around with sniper rifles. Hell, once they learn the Assault Rifles are more accurate, you don't even SEE sniper rifles in use. Running with a sniper rifle doesn't seem realistic or even fun to me.

    2. SPAWNING. The spawning in CoD:BO multiplayer was bad, but the spawning in MW3 is execrable. Two steps forward and the player that's spawned behind you shoots you in the back. And that's if only one enemy player spawned near you. The original MW OCCASIONALLY had a similar issue when battle lines were fluid, but generally it cunningly used a combination of well designed maps and spawning areas to create battle lines. Yes, BATTLE LINES. Not running like a loon from one end of the map to the other, simply because you knew someone would be spawning on your head in the next 5 seconds. I have fond memories of dodging between heaps of trash in "Bog" as I tried to flank enemy snipers and MG's, and similar happy moments while running or sniping in "Bloc" and "Vacant".

    In a nutshell; it may be fun for 30 seconds to run headlong around a map shooting at everything because you have to. There are whole worlds of enjoyment to be had in defending positions, flanking snipers, setting up battle lines, creating enfilades, etc. Run and gun is only enjoyable for a short period of time, and isn't how EVERYONE wants to play.

    Also, women are correct: when it comes to multiplayer maps, size really DOES matter.
    3. You've all heard it at some point - DEDICATED SERVERS. I applaud IWnet for trying something new, but until the world standardizes everyone's internet connection and CPU speed, you're flogging a dead horse...

    Now I have mostly negative comments for the multiplayer, but I have to say that I quite liked the Single-Player experience. IW haven't lost their edge there, and it's fun, fast and engages the audience. It could have been a bit longer, but I can see why IW kept the story to the length they did. I thought I'd at least end on a positive... :)

    Colo    … Expand
  11. spifli
    Nov 17, 2011
    4
    As a pc user I feel completely neglected. It is quite clear that activision does not care about pc users and that the game is purely made for consoles.(BAD graphics, BAD sound effects, loading screens and menu's that look like a 3year old made, they could of just copied mw2 menu's and it would of looked 10x as good, and no PC version of COD Elite (not that I would of payed for somethingAs a pc user I feel completely neglected. It is quite clear that activision does not care about pc users and that the game is purely made for consoles.(BAD graphics, BAD sound effects, loading screens and menu's that look like a 3year old made, they could of just copied mw2 menu's and it would of looked 10x as good, and no PC version of COD Elite (not that I would of payed for something that SHOULD BE FREE).
    My score of 4 goes to the singleplayer which, neglecting the bad graphics, was very entertaining and had a nice atmosphere due to awesome effects, music and action.    … Expand
  12. InfiniteCake
    Nov 17, 2011
    4
    Okay, first off, I don't hate Call of Duty. In fact, I really like the CoD series games. The gameplay mechanics, guns, single player, and multiplayer, practically everything. In MW3, the single player campaign is pretty alright. Spec Ops is fun to play for a while. The multiplayer in MW3 is, to say the least, TERRIBLE. I'm not sure about console versions, but on the PC, the game isOkay, first off, I don't hate Call of Duty. In fact, I really like the CoD series games. The gameplay mechanics, guns, single player, and multiplayer, practically everything. In MW3, the single player campaign is pretty alright. Spec Ops is fun to play for a while. The multiplayer in MW3 is, to say the least, TERRIBLE. I'm not sure about console versions, but on the PC, the game is generally UNPLAYABLE. Lag is so abundant that the game is NO fun to play multiplayer. That goes for multiplayer Spec Ops as well. This game would get at least an 8 from me if Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer got their acts together and fixed the multiplayer.… Expand
  13. dinohunterpat
    Mar 6, 2012
    4
    The COD series has been milked a lot and while sticking to an established formula offers familiarity, MW3 goes too far. Sure there are few minor changes, but it's still running through linear corridors in campaign and fighting some juvenile man-child in multiplayer. The visuals and setpieces aren't bad but starting to show their age. And why do they keep pulling off the same cliches likeThe COD series has been milked a lot and while sticking to an established formula offers familiarity, MW3 goes too far. Sure there are few minor changes, but it's still running through linear corridors in campaign and fighting some juvenile man-child in multiplayer. The visuals and setpieces aren't bad but starting to show their age. And why do they keep pulling off the same cliches like an extraction chopper being shot down or a slow-mo kill. Also what the point of the child's death? It doesn't prove any point that hasn't been reiterated (i.e. terrorism) and it doesn't further the story (the massacre in MW2 makes sense because it lead to WW3 in MW3). If you like COD, you'll like MW3, otherwise maybe pick this one up at a lower price. Also survival mode isn't a new innovation because it's just multiplayer with single-player enemies thrown.… Expand
  14. RECON-UK
    Nov 24, 2011
    4
    I will be very honest with this game.
    firstly it runs great on my pc and is very well optimised.
    The bad things are everything else. There is no dedicated servers, people are already hacking and their are many prestige 10 people after 3 days!!. I have gotten to level 40 (rank) in multiplayer and have had such a frustrating time due to the same old thing as MW2. Example:    I will be very honest with this game.
    firstly it runs great on my pc and is very well optimised.
    The bad things are everything else.
    There is no dedicated servers, people are already hacking and their are many prestige 10 people after 3 days!!.
    I have gotten to level 40 (rank) in multiplayer and have had such a frustrating time due to the same old thing as MW2. Example: Tubes,UMP,prestige 10 hackers,wallhacks and general disregard to any pc user in this modern day and age.
    The graphics are ok but nothing new.
    The gameplay is mediocre due to it been the same as MW2.
    I wanted something different like black ops was to MW2, but no they failed with this release.
    Only true die hard fanboys and kids with no sense will play this game all the way through.

    For the above reasons this game scores a 4 out of 10.    … Expand
  15. mob0103
    Nov 24, 2011
    4
    Multiplayer seems unbalanced at the moment and the respawns are terrible. Improvements have been made in the lobby system, have had no random dropouts or long wait times which I always had a problem with in MW2. If the spawns are addressed and the weapons fine tuned ( FM9 Akimbo WTF!! ) then my opinion may change. I actually prefer Black Ops to the latest release. I NEVER thought I wouldMultiplayer seems unbalanced at the moment and the respawns are terrible. Improvements have been made in the lobby system, have had no random dropouts or long wait times which I always had a problem with in MW2. If the spawns are addressed and the weapons fine tuned ( FM9 Akimbo WTF!! ) then my opinion may change. I actually prefer Black Ops to the latest release. I NEVER thought I would think that..… Expand
  16. lordofthebumz
    Dec 1, 2011
    4
    Single player was ok. The first level was excellent and thats about it. I got about 60% of the game finished and had to force myself to play the rest. I couldn't feel the excitement from sneaking past guards when u attacked Makarovs hideout. The game was holding my hand to much. The hardest difficulty is to easy. With mouse and keyboard I couldn't find a challenge. I got bored of justSingle player was ok. The first level was excellent and thats about it. I got about 60% of the game finished and had to force myself to play the rest. I couldn't feel the excitement from sneaking past guards when u attacked Makarovs hideout. The game was holding my hand to much. The hardest difficulty is to easy. With mouse and keyboard I couldn't find a challenge. I got bored of just running through the levels at super speed. Multiplayer: I got to about level 40 in multiplayer and I don't want to ever play again. In MW2 i got to prestige 3 and BLOPS I got prestige 6. Its just run and gun and at lightning speed. All maps feel like nuketown of BLOPS. The levels are to small. Not really any new MP mechanics. Only a few new attachments and a few new kill streaks. Tired of guns with no recoil. Graphics are terrible for this game. With the amout of money they spent to make it they could invest in some upgrades. Its really looking outdated now. DO NOT BUY THIS GAME WASTE OF $60 ! Also the map packs? 3 of them for 15 each? So you need to spend $105 + tax to buy this?… Expand
  17. ccrngd1
    Dec 1, 2011
    4
    If you have only played MW games, its fine. There isn't much that is new from MW2 and several of the problems from there have carried over (IWnet, stupid game play quirks, etc). There does not seem to be enough new stuff to make it worth playing, new game types are nice but fall short of what a new title should be made of. Further, most of the people that rave about the game continuallyIf you have only played MW games, its fine. There isn't much that is new from MW2 and several of the problems from there have carried over (IWnet, stupid game play quirks, etc). There does not seem to be enough new stuff to make it worth playing, new game types are nice but fall short of what a new title should be made of. Further, most of the people that rave about the game continually compare it to MW1/2 or say this is their first. That's fine, and with that in mind it is an enjoyable game. If you've played BF, MoH, CoDBO, or CoDWaW, there is a lot left to be desired.

    There are nice new features such as the killstreaks that are customizable for each load out. Some of the streaks are left overs but they all seem familiar. The hardcore tends to be a bit nurfed compared to previous versions of CoD (MW series and Treyarch series).    … Expand
  18. Rockstorm
    Dec 4, 2011
    4
    Compared to the previous games in the Call of Duty franchise this game can be pretty much summed up as a glorified map pack that removes several good features in the process. You'd do better buying CoD4 instead as it has pretty much everything this game has and a bit more. And it's a whole lot cheaper as well.
  19. ABNMP
    Jul 14, 2012
    4
    I bought the game on sale. Despite the overwhelming amount of negative reviews, I thought I would give it a go since I was frustrated with BF 3 and the rampant hackers there. I lasted less than 5 minutes in an online match. BF 3 is sadly a superior product at this point. MW 3, like many have said, is just like CS or any twitch FPS. If you want depth and hackers go with BF 3. If you wantI bought the game on sale. Despite the overwhelming amount of negative reviews, I thought I would give it a go since I was frustrated with BF 3 and the rampant hackers there. I lasted less than 5 minutes in an online match. BF 3 is sadly a superior product at this point. MW 3, like many have said, is just like CS or any twitch FPS. If you want depth and hackers go with BF 3. If you want arcade candy and hackers go with this. First impressions are vital and this title left me feeling like I wasted my money.… Expand
  20. RJavier
    Dec 8, 2011
    4
    They should just sold the game as an optional map pack for mw2 that comes with new weapons and kill streaks rather than paying upfront for 60 bucks. Same engine, lame maps, unbalanced multiplayer, lag compensation, hackers roaming around like there on a picnic. There is so much negativity in this game that it outweigh the game's positive experience(if you can find any). The developers justThey should just sold the game as an optional map pack for mw2 that comes with new weapons and kill streaks rather than paying upfront for 60 bucks. Same engine, lame maps, unbalanced multiplayer, lag compensation, hackers roaming around like there on a picnic. There is so much negativity in this game that it outweigh the game's positive experience(if you can find any). The developers just copy pasted m2 put a single player campaign, tweaked the mechanics of the game and added some stupid maps= 60usd profit. It is like a straight up daylight robbery.… Expand
  21. KitFistto
    Dec 25, 2011
    4
    Before I start, I gave this game a four because of my disappointment in the game compared to the hype and everything else they should have learned from their previous games. If this was the first game in the franchise, and it wasn't just a juggernaut to make Activision money then this game would get a 7 from me, because in gameplay and everything, its a decent game. Fun, but not to fun orBefore I start, I gave this game a four because of my disappointment in the game compared to the hype and everything else they should have learned from their previous games. If this was the first game in the franchise, and it wasn't just a juggernaut to make Activision money then this game would get a 7 from me, because in gameplay and everything, its a decent game. Fun, but not to fun or innovative. But since they got rid of some of the new things black ops added and just pretty much did the same thing as MW2, just some new perks and killstreaks, I gave it a lower score. Don't be fooled, if you played MW2, you played this game, same lone wolf style multiplayer (unless you make your own team with friends or a clan), same formula on the campaign except now its getting predictable and boring, and really rushed. Nothing changed, they hyped it up and people bought it. And now people can see that it is stupid, which is why people came here like me to put a bad review on it. Me and the other 3,437 people. I like more of a thinking mans fps, I like to have a lot of communication when I play online and strategies. Multiplayer on this came is all about how you yourself can be better, and not what you can do to help the team and win, its all about YOUR Kill death ratio, and things like that. So I would much rather play Battlefield 3 which has a lot more strategy to it. More thinking. But don't get me wrong, I have a place for these games, I get bored and just want to run around a knife some people without thinking too. Which this game does well, but thats about it. If thats all you want then go buy this game. But for me, and some others, we want more, not the same game every year, with a new case for 60$.… Expand
  22. Xenent
    Dec 31, 2011
    4
    While Campaign is really nice and survival is a good, but unoriginal addition. It's easy to see that this game was meant for multiplayer. The multiplayer is...very very sad. I'm a natural run n' gunner, but this COD game makes fun of that. It's just camping and spraying. There's a grey tint to everything, and yes, everything. Graphics aren't very good either. Guns use the same sound fromWhile Campaign is really nice and survival is a good, but unoriginal addition. It's easy to see that this game was meant for multiplayer. The multiplayer is...very very sad. I'm a natural run n' gunner, but this COD game makes fun of that. It's just camping and spraying. There's a grey tint to everything, and yes, everything. Graphics aren't very good either. Guns use the same sound from past games and all of them sound the same. There was even a unique sound for the silenced AK in the campaign, but the devs decided not to include it. I dislike this game, and I am going to uninstall it right now. Unless you're a guy who runs around spraying ammunition or camping with a close-range weapon, this game is NOT for you.… Expand
  23. W3XC
    Jan 1, 2012
    4
    MW3 is just like any other call of duty, when i play this game i get exact same feeling than when i have the same underpant on for a week, and that smells bad, and is sooo ****
  24. donaramu
    Sep 19, 2019
    4
    Worst cod ever, Even MW2 which was a good game other then no dedi is better then this crap..This is just a cheap copy of MW2 they rushed out.. it seems like only the hardcore fanboys like it and even then they talk themselves into it by saying how they just had to get use to it. It really makes me sick seeing CoD coming from a great fast pace shooter this a cheap no good rip off of crap..
  25. Snegovich
    Sep 9, 2012
    4
    Overview: This game is looking like an add-on to Modern Warfare 1. Five hour campaign, small changes in multiplayer, story full of cliches. And what is the price of this add-on? 60$! And when i realized this, i was like: "WHAT!? SIXTY BUCKS FOR THIS!?". Previously i bought MW2, and i had same feelings. Story: It's full of cliches, and hasn't any originality. Really, how many films aboutOverview: This game is looking like an add-on to Modern Warfare 1. Five hour campaign, small changes in multiplayer, story full of cliches. And what is the price of this add-on? 60$! And when i realized this, i was like: "WHAT!? SIXTY BUCKS FOR THIS!?". Previously i bought MW2, and i had same feelings. Story: It's full of cliches, and hasn't any originality. Really, how many films about bad Russians have you seen? Hundreds? Maybe more. And this game is about bad Russians too! This isn't even a game, it's an interactive film. Because in campaign you do only what you have to do. I mean, you can't choose, you're just walking through a corridor, and then watching a cut-scene.
    Gameplay: Pretty boring, but sometimes game gives you something unusual. Most of time you're just shooting stupid bots, that can't even kill you without hordes of them. But lots of weapons are making this game a bit better. Multiplayer: This is the best part of the game. Even if multiplayer looks like it's predecessor in MW2, it's still can bring a lots of fun. But it's nothing special at all, though. Zombie mode is pretty good too, it isn't so good as L4D2 is, but can be played for few hours.    … Expand
  26. yodagyo
    Oct 25, 2012
    4
    the game is repetitive and annoying. all the critic reviews are paid and this isnt what people should be getting from a company that makes billions. f
  27. Broyax
    Apr 17, 2017
    4
    Toujours la même recette depuis le premier Call Of Duty il y a une dizaine d'années (!) et la série est au bout du rouleau. De la surenchère permanente, de la caricature, du grotesque... cette campagne est certes "spectaculaire" mais sans le côté technique éblouissant d'un Uncharted 3 par exemple. On s'y surprend à y jouer tout de même sans faire trop attention, à l'insu de son ignoranceToujours la même recette depuis le premier Call Of Duty il y a une dizaine d'années (!) et la série est au bout du rouleau. De la surenchère permanente, de la caricature, du grotesque... cette campagne est certes "spectaculaire" mais sans le côté technique éblouissant d'un Uncharted 3 par exemple. On s'y surprend à y jouer tout de même sans faire trop attention, à l'insu de son ignorance sans doute. On ne peut pas dire non plus qu'on s'y ennuie totalement. Mais on ne s'y amuse pas non plus. Surtout sur ce pathétique final en QTE...

    Il reste le multi qui lui est varié dans ses modes de jeu et toujours aussi solide, il est clair qu'il a définitivement mis les Counter-Strike au placard. Parfois drôle, injuste, énervant, bourré de kévins et de tricheurs mais c'est le lot de ce genre de jeu multi-joueurs, on n'y peut rien ! Les cartes sont bien conçues, y a eu du travail là dedans quand même.

    Juste un mot pour finir sur la partie audio plutôt décevante (hors VF toujours excellente) et le manque de sensation des armes, très en deçà d'un Crysis 2 ou Rainbow Six Vegas : ils auraient pu faire un effort entre deux explosions et trois ponts qui s'effondrent !    … Expand
  28. VampireIdle
    Jan 14, 2018
    4
    Since this Game has 3 Sections, my review also will be divided by 3.

    Singleplayer: The Singleplayer Campaign was in my experience a nice addition to the second Modern Warfare and I did enjoy it alot. It took me 10 Hours to complete it on Normal Mode, which is about the Average amount of time for a Triple A Singleplayer Game. Co-op: I'm not quite sure if Modern Warfare 2 had a Co-op    Since this Game has 3 Sections, my review also will be divided by 3.

    Singleplayer:
    The Singleplayer Campaign was in my experience a nice addition to the second Modern Warfare and I did enjoy it alot. It took me 10 Hours to complete it on Normal Mode, which is about the Average amount of time for a Triple A Singleplayer Game.

    Co-op:
    I'm not quite sure if Modern Warfare 2 had a Co-op Mode but this one is alot of fun that means, if its working. You can play Survival with a friend together, defending waves of enemies coming in & with each Wave survived you become a more powerful weapon, however the enemies will also be more powerful.

    Whilst this Mode is alot of fun it also is very broken as it comes out of sinc within the first 5 Minutes making this Mode almost unplayable.

    Multiplayer:
    As I Already said, this was one of my first Call of Dutys to get into the Series and also the Reason to get a Steam Account. Before I bought Modern Warfare 2 (2 Weeks before this MW3 got released) I had not heard of Steam before.

    The Multiplayer was at the time for me alot of fun especially with friends, I have spent over 1000 hours of Multiplayer Game time together and did enjoy my time.

    However for nowerdays standards the Multiplayer is not good anymore for the following Reasons:
    -No Dedicated Servers
    -No FOV Slider
    -No Anti Cheat (yes VAC is enabled but I dont think anybody gets banned anymore)
    -Mainly Hackers online
    -Hacked Lobbies (they can't get you banned)

    I surley did get my money out of the Game but I still do not recommend it as of nowerdays standards.

    I only recommend this Game for people that want to play the Singleplayer Campaign and see what happens after Modern Warfare 2. But do yourself a favour and buy it from a Keywebsite for 4€ Because even on Sale this Game is to expensive for what it gives you.

    If you are looking for a good Call of Duty on PC I do recommend you to get Black Ops 2 as it was the last good Call of Duty that still is to this day banning cheaters and having dedicated servers + a build in fov slider.    … Expand
  29. Gelaos
    Sep 19, 2018
    4
    I played MW3 only to finish the story of MW trilogy. If you played MW or MW2, then MW3 won't offer ANYTHING new for you. Finished the singleplayer in 5 hours and uninstalled it immediately after last story cutscene ended. CoD is dead series for me from now on.
  30. rezo_21
    Sep 18, 2021
    4
    ====================IIIIIIIIII GAME SCORE : 43 IIIIIIIIII====================
  31. bucefalo33
    Jul 8, 2020
    4
    My rating:
    Sound 6/10
    Graphic* 5/10
    Gameplay 5/10
    Replay value 2/10
    Story 3/10

    Total 4/10**

    * Graphic rating has to be contextualized for the year of the release.
    ** Total is a weighted average rounded up where the weight for every element is:
    Sound 1
    Graphic 2
    Gameplay 3
    Replay Value 1
    Story 3
  32. Suprizer
    Apr 22, 2023
    4
    I liked the way story ended and the beginning mission still slaps to today its great fun to play killing russians in submarine is embeded in my mind forever but first and last missions are just the two good missions.
  33. scarh791
    Nov 14, 2011
    3
    Here's the deal: there really just isn't enough new content here to justify the full $60 price tag. It's the same engine, game mechanics, level design, multiplayer modes, etc that we've seen recycled since MW1. Granted, yes, I'm having some fun with it, but I was still having just as much fun with MW1. I gave my free copy of it away to a friend on Steam and we're honestly having moreHere's the deal: there really just isn't enough new content here to justify the full $60 price tag. It's the same engine, game mechanics, level design, multiplayer modes, etc that we've seen recycled since MW1. Granted, yes, I'm having some fun with it, but I was still having just as much fun with MW1. I gave my free copy of it away to a friend on Steam and we're honestly having more fun revisiting the original Modern Warfare than I am with this thing. Save your money.… Expand
  34. casshern09
    Nov 10, 2011
    3
    Refuse to fund anymore Activision games. Played my flat mates copy, just what I thought. Just an expensive map pack. Doesn't deserve any of the high scores some critics are giving it. I'm glad some have the balls to call it like they see it.
  35. cambria
    Nov 8, 2011
    3
    3 hour campaign with lots of breaks... nuff said considering the price. play tribes: ascend when it's out, the cbt destroys this "complete" game for half the price.

    Oh and I don't play BF3 so all the fanboy spazzes, you can rest easy. Price to value ratio, this game is triple-bunk. Shoulda spent the marketing campaign funds on a single player campaign, remember when they didn't used to    3 hour campaign with lots of breaks... nuff said considering the price. play tribes: ascend when it's out, the cbt destroys this "complete" game for half the price.

    Oh and I don't play BF3 so all the fanboy spazzes, you can rest easy. Price to value ratio, this game is triple-bunk. Shoulda spent the marketing campaign funds on a single player campaign, remember when they didn't used to just be tutorials but actual stories? Wait til its 3$ on steam sale one lonely afternoon in the next few months.    … Expand
  36. thequailboy
    Nov 9, 2011
    3
    Why could they not update the engine? Its really become tired. I cant be bothered to watch this cheese any more. WE WANT TO PLAY. WE WANT TO MAKE THE ACTION OUR SELVES otherwise why not just watch a film? The single player is better than bf3's TERRIBLE single player but its still below the standards we used to expect from FPS. What a disappointment.
  37. Sarra
    Nov 22, 2011
    3
    I didn't even buy BF 3 as planned, for some obvious reasons, but lets just say Origin to keep me from going on a rant. But BF3 being bad aside, this, this isn't even a PC game, it's a console port that was supposed to have dedicated servers. And it does, but it for un ranked. I have no idea what the hell they are thinking, but it certainly isn't to make good games. Gameplay wise, it's theI didn't even buy BF 3 as planned, for some obvious reasons, but lets just say Origin to keep me from going on a rant. But BF3 being bad aside, this, this isn't even a PC game, it's a console port that was supposed to have dedicated servers. And it does, but it for un ranked. I have no idea what the hell they are thinking, but it certainly isn't to make good games. Gameplay wise, it's the same as MW2, which was liek COD4 but with a bunch of stupid gimmicks. Save your money, rent for your PS3/360/Wii, but don't get for PC, please.… Expand
  38. checkeredhat09
    Nov 9, 2011
    3
    What isn't wrong with this game? Everything everyone is saying is true. The campaign is short, the graphics are terrible, and overall it just seems like a poorly done console port. On budget cards that are able to run Crysis 2 on medium to high butter smooth, this game stutters like the kid from billy madison, and all the while the textures look like something from 2004. Especially theWhat isn't wrong with this game? Everything everyone is saying is true. The campaign is short, the graphics are terrible, and overall it just seems like a poorly done console port. On budget cards that are able to run Crysis 2 on medium to high butter smooth, this game stutters like the kid from billy madison, and all the while the textures look like something from 2004. Especially the foliage! God the jagged foliage!

    Honestly the only thing that was good about this game was the story. Honestly it was like watching a movie, with some gameplay sprinkled in. Over the top and ridiculous, but amusing for me at least.    … Expand
  39. Flastie
    Nov 12, 2011
    3
    I have a multiple points of view on this COD. First is the gameplay and whole "feeling" from game. Its great, the story, the feeling, its like you play a movie. A true cinematic experience in your control. For that i give 8/10. But that is all. What is much worse is graphic. and inovations in this game Horrible resolution of textures, awful 2d background, 2d fences. My god is this a 2011I have a multiple points of view on this COD. First is the gameplay and whole "feeling" from game. Its great, the story, the feeling, its like you play a movie. A true cinematic experience in your control. For that i give 8/10. But that is all. What is much worse is graphic. and inovations in this game Horrible resolution of textures, awful 2d background, 2d fences. My god is this a 2011 game? Indie game developers with much less budget can create graphics better than this. Another problem is MP. Nothing new, just recycled previous COD. I believe if they spend more time on the technical side of this game, i would give it 9/10, but for this "dinosaur" graphic and no inovation im giving 4/10. That graphic is just LOL, 2004 games have much better graphics like this. nobody wants crysis graphics, but they should give us at least graphic from this decade, not from the last 00s.… Expand
  40. vahn
    Apr 27, 2012
    3
    Once again, I'll skip the single player, since...well, I'm actually playing the multiplayer due to a promotion and this is a review made in about 48 hours of gameplay (not literally, but I think it's enough, and I'll explain why). So let's go to the multiplayer...and well, once again, you can see the effort put into this game, because there is little or none of it. Personal criticismOnce again, I'll skip the single player, since...well, I'm actually playing the multiplayer due to a promotion and this is a review made in about 48 hours of gameplay (not literally, but I think it's enough, and I'll explain why). So let's go to the multiplayer...and well, once again, you can see the effort put into this game, because there is little or none of it. Personal criticism apart, I knew this game wasn't going to be any good at all, and for many reasons. First of all, lots of stuff is blocked from the very start, and I mean LOTS (even playmodes...really?), making you play for unlocking first the class customization, then modes, and veeeery slowly the weapons, perks, and so on...Didn't I see this game somewhere? But really, I can't stand a game where you have to play so much for unlocking FEW things, and those few things so far very USELESS (i've unlocked about 3-4 perks, and none of those were any useful, and the few weapons I've got I barely used half of them) and since now the levels are 80 (without counting the 20 prestiges), the grinding will be immensive. The arenas are...actually kinda better than the previous game; they aren't great but I really didn't complain so much about them than the previous game, and some of them are also good for different modes. Too bad campers still exist, and they'll exploit, once again, any blind corners in order to easily win, and once again if they try to say that this was actually planned, then I'll continue to say that they should think twice. And make much better maps. Ok, a good improvement are the levels on the weapons: the idea is very nice and actually makes you want to improve that particular weapon, but as I said I've been using a total of 3-4 weapons, and they were a lot similar to each others. I don't like to compare to other games, but this is basically the same game once again, and as I said before even though I played for a little time, I could see the major similarities between this and the previous game (which I played for about 4-6 months), with so few changes that it's hard to not notice; I would have highly suggested this game if it wasn't for the HUGE price and if it costed like 20 or 30 euros, but really, for 60-70 euros/dollars for a game that barely lasts one year and also for a game that rarely gets cheaper, I'll strongly advise to skip it and spend that money for any other game: it will be worth of your money.… Expand
  41. CrockD
    Nov 9, 2011
    3
    I'd love to know why Metacritic is now not displaying the user review score for this years Madden...umm I mean Modern Warfare iteration. The way this whole thing has gone down (high critic reviews, low user reviews) says a lot about the current model for gaming reviews. The reviewers are WAY to cozy with the game creators and publishers and it shows when critics continue to give veryI'd love to know why Metacritic is now not displaying the user review score for this years Madden...umm I mean Modern Warfare iteration. The way this whole thing has gone down (high critic reviews, low user reviews) says a lot about the current model for gaming reviews. The reviewers are WAY to cozy with the game creators and publishers and it shows when critics continue to give very high marks for what is essentially a repackaged version of the same game every freaking year. Battlefield 3 has its issues (Battlelog, Origin, etc) but at least DICE and EA provide something new that drives gaming development (Frostbite 2.0). Activision just executes the ol' annual payment model for the same crap. Give them their due, it's a great racket, but it leaves a very bitter taste in the mouths of gamers who want something new.… Expand
  42. GregA
    Nov 10, 2011
    3
    No dedicated servers. Not all the SP guns are in MP. Getting an error and the game keeps crashing on the same level. Hamburg map if I took one route I'd get kicked to the menu and have to restart. Froze once, had to restart my PC. COD reset my controls to default in both MP and SP. Still better then the abortion Black Ops is.
  43. Chapa9dj
    Nov 8, 2011
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. As much as die hardcore fan of CoD i consider myself, this time i decided to step back after learning my lesson with Black Ops and its pathetic ammounts of DLCs.
    I'm sick of Activision's moneygrub, i'm sick of the overpriced DLC's that offer little almost nothing and i won't support ELITE!.
    That being said, its time to put a stop to this madness. Their greediness has to stop. I can only hope for this franchise to end up like games such as THPS or Guitar Hero.    … Expand
  44. CollegeGamer
    Nov 11, 2011
    3
    Woops, I gave it a 10 when I meant a 3. My bad. Anyways, the solo in this game, the solo in BF3, the solo in Black Ops, the solo in MW2 all are not worth more than $7.00.
  45. DrGreatJob
    Nov 8, 2011
    3
    This game is riddled with flaws and old game mechanics. Activision needs to learn that the key to keeping a game fresh is a new take on the series. -Campaign-

    Modern Warfare 3's campaign offers absolutely nothing to it's players over Modern Warfare 2, and certainly nothing over Call of Duty 4. It's an extremely shallow experience that consists of nothing but scripted sequences and    This game is riddled with flaws and old game mechanics. Activision needs to learn that the key to keeping a game fresh is a new take on the series. -Campaign-

    Modern Warfare 3's campaign offers absolutely nothing to it's players over Modern Warfare 2, and certainly nothing over Call of Duty 4. It's an extremely shallow experience that consists of nothing but scripted sequences and corridors. It seems like there are more times you are riding in a vehicle blasting away at people in comparison to just walking around. It's more a movie than a game. Some twists are present, but the story isn't so good to begin with so the twists are inconsequential.

    -Multiplayer-

    The only part of this game I consider playable. On one hand, it looks like they took a cue from Battlefield 3 - all of the weapons have an experience bar to fill. On the other hand, they didn't take much of a cue from anything else, there's no innovation with respect to actual gameplay. It's all familiar things seen in all of the other games except this time it's called Modern Warfare 3. No thanks, I'll stick to BF3 and Skyrim for my gaming needs for now.

    -Graphics-

    Sad. They're still running the game on old technology, and the game still looks and feels like an old game. I don't want to play a game that looks like it came out in 2007 in 2011. It's sad that Activision won't shell out the cash to license a better game engine. That might actually, you know, take considerable effort on the parts of the developers that need to rehash old code to be able to release a game every single year.

    - Map Design -

    It's okay. The maps don't feel much improved from MW2 or it's DLC. I don't have a favorite because they all feel about the same quality-wise.

    -Overall-

    3/10. I would give it a 1/10, but I did enjoy a bit of multiplayer earlier. That's not to say that the score would improve with repeated playing, I'm just saying that there was something enjoyable about the game. Given that this is the FOURTH time Activision has released the same exact game, I guess that says something. The graphics are bad, the multiplayer is uninteresting, and again, there aren't REALLY dedicated servers. Do not buy this if you are a PC gamer, it's not meant for you. Buy it on your XBOX if you just HAVE to stay up and current with the most current gaming trends. Other than that, if you didn't like the Call of Duty series up until now, you aren't going to start with this game. It's not innovative in any way.    … Expand
  46. Burty101s
    Nov 8, 2011
    3
    Ok first the good, The set pieces in the campaign are epic! Don't get me wrong, they have all been used in past CoD's but they still wow today. Also Dedicated servers makes a return! This has been a much sort after feature, although there are some serious downsides, I will mention them shortly.

    The Bad? Well lets dive into this shall we? First off, the graphics, engine, textures,    Ok first the good, The set pieces in the campaign are epic! Don't get me wrong, they have all been used in past CoD's but they still wow today. Also Dedicated servers makes a return! This has been a much sort after feature, although there are some serious downsides, I will mention them shortly.

    The Bad? Well lets dive into this shall we? First off, the graphics, engine, textures, animations, sound effects...Everything is copy & paste from MW2 which in effect was C&P from MW1. Essentially, I just paid £40 to play MW1 all over again. Second, Dedicated servers are not ranked?! this is rediculous and frankly defeated the point of re-adding them in. All in All, an absolute waste of money, if only i could get my money back. If your looking for a game which is fresh, requires a level of skill and has much improves graphics and gameplay, Battlefield 3 is the one to go for. Ignore the fans saying its down to preference, they are both Modern First Person Shooters, Battlefield is definately the better option in this case.    … Expand
  47. Seibab
    Feb 18, 2012
    3
    Copy and paste.
    Copy and paste.
    See, I can do it too Infinity Ward/Activision! Call of Duty 4 was an innovative, very addictive and fun game, and so are all of the call of duties after it up to Modern Warfare 3, because essentially they are all the same game, especially in multiplayer where new maps and a few new guns are the only difference. Also, with this being a new game, I'm surprised    Copy and paste.
    Copy and paste.
    See, I can do it too Infinity Ward/Activision! Call of Duty 4 was an innovative, very addictive and fun game, and so are all of the call of duties after it up to Modern Warfare 3, because essentially they are all the same game, especially in multiplayer where new maps and a few new guns are the only difference. Also, with this being a new game, I'm surprised by the muddy visuals and drab textures/colors, even compared to past games in the series.    … Expand
  48. Blackhamer
    Feb 27, 2012
    3
    I'm giving this game 3 out of 10. If I had to comment MW 3 in one sentence I'd say: Modern Warfare 2 with terrible technical problems and with less fun. I don't recommend it to anyone, if you want a shooter badly try MW 2. This review will be mostly MP beacuse I finished single player in about 10 hours on hard difficulity and I bought it mostly for MP like other cod games. Major flaws ofI'm giving this game 3 out of 10. If I had to comment MW 3 in one sentence I'd say: Modern Warfare 2 with terrible technical problems and with less fun. I don't recommend it to anyone, if you want a shooter badly try MW 2. This review will be mostly MP beacuse I finished single player in about 10 hours on hard difficulity and I bought it mostly for MP like other cod games. Major flaws of the game:
    - Absolutely no innovations !!! It's MW 2 again with minimal innovations, and bad ones only
    - TERRIBLE PROBLEMS WITH RUNNING THE GAME PROPERLY !!!
    bugs and problems such as those: very hard to play with friends because of stupid matchmaking system, random game crashin during loading, 2 times during about 6 weeks of playing it my game stopped working and I had to reinstall it, it often crashes on launch too, I have a very good hardware so it's fault of the game
    - NO DEDICATED RANKED SERVERS - meaning that you have to use matchmaking, so you can't choose the map you want to play on, people you want to play with because there is no "party system" or whatever to connect you and ur friends together to the same lobby, it's hard even to play with 1 teammate cuz of that
    - TERRIBLY DESIGNED MAPS - thats true, maps are terrible VERY SMALL and pretty much RIDICULOUS I thought Black Ops maps was very bad, at least it had Nuketown and you were allowed to choose a map, well not in MW 3
    - CHEATERS PLAGUE a month after game's relase when I bought it at least 4 out of 10 games was with a cheater using aimbot. If you have ever played with aimbot user then you know it's ridiculous. If 40 % of games was with aimbots think how many was with people using less noticeable cheats like wallhacks...
    - VERY BAD GRAPHICS AND SOUND terribly outdated graphics and very bad sounds, I guess the developers forget to improve it again...since cod 4 it's the same graphics with minimal changes, and the sounds are refined version of those from cod 4 and mw 2
    - VERY IRRITATING THING ABOUT SOUND: YOU CAN ONLY MUTE ALL OF THE GAME SOUND - that means you can't listen to music while you play because you can't for example just disable in-game music (WHICH SUCKS BADLY, BO HAD IT MUCH BETTER !) and shooting sounds, no there is only one slider so you can play with your own music but then no in-game sounds which srsly handicaps your gaming skill
    - WORSE CHARACTER CREATING THAN BO AND PREVIOUS MW 3 thats right - not only no innovations but it's also very badly designed and there are a few OP guns while the rest sucks badly, same situation with perks

    SUMMARY: IF YOU WANT A SHOOTER BADLY, GO TRY MW 2 IT'S CHEAPER AND HAS LESS FLAWS, TRUST ME THIS ISN'T WORTH $ AND TIME YOU SPEND ON IT !    … Expand
  49. Artomoz
    Nov 8, 2011
    3
    Multiplayer: It feels a bit broken, then again it was Sledge Hammer that made the multiplayer aspect of the game. The servers are laggy. The hit detection is still the same old Modern Warfare you'd expect. Knifing the air gets a kill. Shooting bullets onto an invincible hit box gets a kill, whilst the player is way out of harms way. Hit detection is way off in general. Bullets still do notMultiplayer: It feels a bit broken, then again it was Sledge Hammer that made the multiplayer aspect of the game. The servers are laggy. The hit detection is still the same old Modern Warfare you'd expect. Knifing the air gets a kill. Shooting bullets onto an invincible hit box gets a kill, whilst the player is way out of harms way. Hit detection is way off in general. Bullets still do not penetrate thin walls or wooden crates but can penetrate 12 inch thick titanium steel. Character control in general feels a clumsy. Weapons are awkward to work with. Maps are the typical MW maps you'd expect if not worse. Unimaginative, bland, and with bad spawn points. Kills do not feel as rewarding as before and kill streaks are not as amusing. It's a great fast paced game but in general most of it feels like a rehash of MW2 with a blend of terrible Black Ops maps. Single Player: Same old cliche story suitable for people/children who need explosions and chaos to obtain an orgasm and deem it a good game or movie. I was in pain trying to finish this game, instead of enjoying it. I just wanted to get this garbage story to end and to my surprise; the expected MW ending. The AI of this game like always, using the same bad programing can cause some what of a humor. Small scaled linear pathway maps like usual. In conclusions, this game is nothing but a rehash of the old game (including Treyarch's Black Ops) with the number 3 stamped in front. Save your self $60 and keep on enjoying MW2.… Expand
  50. cubiclewarrior
    Nov 8, 2011
    3
    GFX are outdated.... Multiplayer matches are too quick.... No real change from the previous Modern Warfare... Very disapointing. I think the developer is scared to try some new features for fear of loosing the masses that have bought the previous versions.... It may just be saturation of the COD brand but I was not impressed with the latest installment. I think they need to take some timeGFX are outdated.... Multiplayer matches are too quick.... No real change from the previous Modern Warfare... Very disapointing. I think the developer is scared to try some new features for fear of loosing the masses that have bought the previous versions.... It may just be saturation of the COD brand but I was not impressed with the latest installment. I think they need to take some time off (every 6 months...?) and work on adding features to make for a new experience... These just feel like an expansion pack starting from COD4.… Expand
  51. Exodus1989
    Nov 12, 2011
    3
    I held off until I'd played for a while until I wrote this so I could give it my full opinion.
    The engine is exactly the same. Models are copy pasted from MW2. The singleplayer is rout with bugs, poor graphics and mechanic issues. Geometric glitches prevent some movement, team mates cannot hit targets and they push you from cover. The spec ops missions are fairly all right, but the    I held off until I'd played for a while until I wrote this so I could give it my full opinion.
    The engine is exactly the same. Models are copy pasted from MW2. The singleplayer is rout with bugs, poor graphics and mechanic issues. Geometric glitches prevent some movement, team mates cannot hit targets and they push you from cover. The spec ops missions are fairly all right, but the survival mode is really good considering the rest of the game. The multiplayer has been destroyed by the fact that iwnet still exists. Games automatically matchmake with level 50's, and from different countries. It also preferences games over 100ms ping. The game feels very rushed and seems to be because the developers wanted to compete with bf3. They should NOT have attempted to release the game in such a poor state. They should have utilized the PC as the platform of choice so that they could then downsize the graphics etc for consoles. That way the game would have potentially had good competition against BF3. Instead the game is cliche, recycled and carelessly created. Sad, it had potential.    … Expand
  52. MSkriver
    Nov 8, 2011
    3
    The campaign of the game is not as innovative as it has been in the past, this is a big let down. The multiplayer of the game seems like a re-release of MW:2 with a few tweaks and the game feels generally unsatisfying.
  53. Honelith
    Nov 8, 2011
    3
    So here we are, MW3 is here, right next to BF3. Being a multiplayer FPS gamer couldn't get any better right? Well, I wouldn't be so sure.

    MW3 seems to be what MW2 should have been, and rather then patching MW2 to be more balanced, they'd rather ask you to rebuy it with zero DLCs and will no doubt have to buy the countless map packs to carry on playing on the popular servers. All that    So here we are, MW3 is here, right next to BF3. Being a multiplayer FPS gamer couldn't get any better right? Well, I wouldn't be so sure.

    MW3 seems to be what MW2 should have been, and rather then patching MW2 to be more balanced, they'd rather ask you to rebuy it with zero DLCs and will no doubt have to buy the countless map packs to carry on playing on the popular servers. All that money and time invested in MW2 with it's 2 DLCs down the drain.

    At least BF3 had the courtesy to give us a new engine to enjoy, MW3 looks dated and very inferior when played right next to BF3. Teamplay is very minimal and the only lasting appeal is unlocking the goodies.

    It's a shame, they should have given something new for MW3, but instead, we got a cheap remake of MW2 at the full asking price.    … Expand
  54. Fuby
    Nov 9, 2011
    3
    This franchise is a total disgrace from it's roots. After COD 4 it has gone straight down hill. This use to be the best modable game for FPS shooters.. it's now no skills needed run and gun and die on the smallest maps you ever seen.. terrible DLC looking games being released as FULL over priced games on a yearly basis. They need to fire the whole lot and get back to what made the seriesThis franchise is a total disgrace from it's roots. After COD 4 it has gone straight down hill. This use to be the best modable game for FPS shooters.. it's now no skills needed run and gun and die on the smallest maps you ever seen.. terrible DLC looking games being released as FULL over priced games on a yearly basis. They need to fire the whole lot and get back to what made the series popular.. community mods and servers with actual content and cutting edge additions. You can sell ferilizer all day at the flower shop markets..looks like fertilizer is now sold daily in the video game market as well. Wait a few years and see if they return to their senses.… Expand
  55. rishistorm
    Nov 9, 2011
    3
    It is quite absurd frankly how much has not changed since 2009. Same menu, same screens, same multiplayer, same sounds , same graphics. What i intend to point here is there are many annually launching games out there more in the sports genre like FIFA and NBA which fell different even after a year but nothing much has changed for Modern warfare 3 from MW2 ( unless we look at the contrastIt is quite absurd frankly how much has not changed since 2009. Same menu, same screens, same multiplayer, same sounds , same graphics. What i intend to point here is there are many annually launching games out there more in the sports genre like FIFA and NBA which fell different even after a year but nothing much has changed for Modern warfare 3 from MW2 ( unless we look at the contrast and brightness).

    Just because a formula works it doesn't mean u use it all the time. The menu's could have easily been changed to at least give the a feeling that the game is different and not a mod created by some awesome community, The single player although good has lost its lustre from MW2. The excitement from MW2 has just died down. Events are more predictable now and the 9/11 reference was just badly used. Same hordes of enemies and same sounding guns, dialogues do not help much. I could even say Black Ops had a better campaign. Seeing familiar characters does bring back some memories from past titles but that just reduces the effect of the current game. Also i don't see many people coming for a replay to the campaign. The solution to that is Spec-Ops , if you find a friend who is willing to join you ( not that difficult online) but again this gets repetitive quickly and one or more deaths is easy to get you agitated to start all over again.

    The Multiplayer is quite frankly the strongest and the weakest link of the game. The game is selling for its multiplayer but is going to lose many players slowly as people realize they might as well stick to MW2 and Black Ops. The biggest problem problem of MW3 multiplayer is its familiarity. After 3 games of the same type of multiplayer , we need a change. Changeable scopes, new killstreaks and Dog-tag pick up (Kill - confirmed) mode does not count as change but only as minor add ons.

    It is quite clear many are disappointed with the game and if they gave me a refund for dissatisfaction i would take it, but just to show my faith in COD, i won't and hopefully next year they do change some things and win back their fans.    … Expand
  56. prmaguiar
    Nov 10, 2011
    3
    Let me start by stating I am NOT a Battlefield fanboy. In fact, I couldn't care less for BF3 as of now, since I'm one of the thousands of Steam users boycotting EA's Origin. And I didn't enjoy Bad Company 2 either. That said, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is a bad game in almost every aspect. I don't much care for the dated graphics: they still look rather acceptable and make for a smoothLet me start by stating I am NOT a Battlefield fanboy. In fact, I couldn't care less for BF3 as of now, since I'm one of the thousands of Steam users boycotting EA's Origin. And I didn't enjoy Bad Company 2 either. That said, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is a bad game in almost every aspect. I don't much care for the dated graphics: they still look rather acceptable and make for a smooth experience on my also dated rig. Now to tthe actual game modes. The campaign manages to be shorter than MW2's (which is to say, it's REALLY short). If only it had a nice story like its predecessors, though, it would be a good campaign. It doesn't, and you get bored despite the epic scale the war raging around you has reached. It's all been done before, some missions are almost carbon copies of MW and MW2 ones. It's cliche-ridden, full of predictable "scenes" where your character barely survives (you get knocked down with a scripted explosion, some NPC helps you up, the camera tilts as if to show you're dizzy, then you're fully recovered and back on the frontlines). There are no real plot twists or anything memorable in this campaign whatsoever. I played on "veteran" difficulty and felt the AI was pretty good though. But it is in no way an actual challenge. Now for the multiplayer mode... this deserves a little background. When I bought MW2 upon launch, I hadn't read any previews about it. I just bought it because I was still hyped from COD4, which had an amazing campaign and awesome multiplayer. So I had no clue MW2 wouldn't be getting dedicated servers. I was in for a MAJOR disappointment. I was like "MATCHMAKING??? REALLY???" But the worst thing was, maps were terrible, felt like carousels with annoying players (a maximum 18 of them, to be precise) running around with no tactics or teamwork at all. TERRIBLE stuff. I only managed to endure a couple hours of it, and vowed never to buy a MW game again. But then it was announced MW3 would be getting dedicated servers again. Being fond of the campaign storyline as I was, and hoping the multiplayer would go back to what it was in 2007, I immediately broke my word and pre-purchased it. Then, just a few days before launch day, I read an article at GameSpy saying dedicated servers wouldn't be ranked (meaning you can't level up or unlock guns, items, etc on them) and once again, the player limit would be 18, which is utter garbage. If COD4 had 32 players (some DEDICATED servers allowed even more somehow), why can't we have those 4 years later? Maps also look and feel terrible. MW3's multiplayer is a BORING and frustrating experience. I cannot even understand how this game appeals so much to the masses. It's not entertaining at all. Also, with no leaning AGAIN, gameplay is horrible. Bottom line (multiplayer-wise) is, MW3 = MW2 with even worse maps. The only thing remotely good about this game is the Spec Ops mode, which doesn't even come close to making MW3 worth the 60 bucks I spent on it. This game should cost 10 USD, tops. No joke. I'll tell you what IS a joke though. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3.… Expand
  57. KapteinKnipmes
    Nov 10, 2011
    3
    It gets a 3 in my books.
    1 Point for Spec Ops Survival mode
    1 Point for Spec Ops Mission mode 1 Point for the Uninstall button in control panel. This is MW 2.1 without question. Heck even some of the error messages that you might and will later encounter refer to the game as MW2 and not MW3. Nice lazy Dev code there. Let's start with the facts. P2P DOES NOT, CAN NOT, and WILL NOT EVER,    It gets a 3 in my books.
    1 Point for Spec Ops Survival mode
    1 Point for Spec Ops Mission mode
    1 Point for the Uninstall button in control panel.

    This is MW 2.1 without question. Heck even some of the error messages that you might and will later encounter refer to the game as MW2 and not MW3. Nice lazy Dev code there. Let's start with the facts. P2P DOES NOT, CAN NOT, and WILL NOT EVER, work for a pc Based FPS Multiplayer game. Sure it's fine for co-op, or at least a SMALL number of players in a versus mode, but that still introduces host advantage. As a competitive Multiplayer game, there is no chance it will ever work. Please remove all instances of this crap from any future games from your stable IW. I cannot see in my right mind how IW thinks it's sufficient to play a FPS game with 100+ ping every single round, its absolutely absurd. In my first hour of playing alone I encountered 2 Aimbotters, which could have been dealt with by Admins, but seeing that There are none in P2P, they spoilt the game for us all until we EVENTUALLY found a new playlist. Atleast the addition of dedicated servers rectifies this, but IW jumps in and even limits us on these, being unranked and all.
    Also Loving the fact that that your only sound options are Volume and speaker setup, no way to turn down music or menu sounds. The visuals are not on par with anything from this year, as it actually looks worse than MW2 and Black Ops due to the fact that levels are bigger and more intricate, so the textures have to be downscaled (or so it seems) for the console players to achieve sustainable frame rates. Fantastic job guys, really.    … Expand
  58. TECSmith
    Nov 10, 2011
    3
    As an avid follower of this shooter I collected all but 'Black-Ops' on the PC.

    I will conclude my 'Call of Duty' collection with this title, and really hope that this is the last we see of the series, as it appears a lot of loose ends were tied up from the previous 'Modern Warfare' games. Whilst I did enjoy the single-player and special operations mode, I realize there is very little in    As an avid follower of this shooter I collected all but 'Black-Ops' on the PC.

    I will conclude my 'Call of Duty' collection with this title, and really hope that this is the last we see of the series, as it appears a lot of loose ends were tied up from the previous 'Modern Warfare' games.

    Whilst I did enjoy the single-player and special operations mode, I realize there is very little in the way of any major game engine changes - a few sparkles here and there.
    I didn't expect much, and really was only keen on seeing how it all ended in the storyline... Yes, the gameplay could have been a bit longer though!

    Overall, there were some good story telling ideas and strong character backgrounds. But in my opinion Activision should now look toward building a new franchise for 2012.
    Thank you and goodnight!    … Expand
  59. Dens4U
    Nov 10, 2011
    3
    Pas d'innovation pour le mode multijoueur, MW3 est un simple patch de MW2.
    Moteur graphique à la ramasse. Tout comme les messages d'erreur du jeu qui lorsqu'ils pop sur votre écran indique que Modern Warfare 2 à planter...
    Le solo est toujours aussi agréable, explosif!!! et intéressant!, mais toujours aussi court    Pas d'innovation pour le mode multijoueur, MW3 est un simple patch de MW2.
    Moteur graphique à la ramasse. Tout comme les messages d'erreur du jeu qui lorsqu'ils pop sur votre écran indique que Modern Warfare 2 à planter...

    Le solo est toujours aussi agréable, explosif!!! et intéressant!, mais toujours aussi court malheureusement, j'ai surtout aimé me balader dans plusieurs grandes villes du globe! pour un dépaysement total!

    Je lui met 3/5 pour le solo et 0/5 pour le multijoueur qui est un simple copier coller de MW2.

    Messieurs d'EA arrêtez avec vos sorties annuels, vous allez finir par tuer votre poule aux oeufs d'or.    … Expand
  60. kristoficus
    Nov 10, 2011
    3
    This review is based entirely on the multiplayer element because that is the true value of a game, especially when it's campaign is 'only' about 3-4 hours. I have not yet played the campaign but if it's anything like previous CoD games, it should be varied, fun & interesting... probably with a bad ending...

    Okay, first impression was insanely bad. I have a 460GTX 768MB so I turned all    This review is based entirely on the multiplayer element because that is the true value of a game, especially when it's campaign is 'only' about 3-4 hours. I have not yet played the campaign but if it's anything like previous CoD games, it should be varied, fun & interesting... probably with a bad ending...

    Okay, first impression was insanely bad. I have a 460GTX 768MB so I turned all settings up to their max on a 1080P resolution. FPS was not an issue, but the graphics certainly were! Horrible anti-aliasing, really poor textures... it looked like a 10 year old game. And then I discovered an illogical and backwards 'native' image quality actually made the game look semi-decent. Now it only looks like a 6 year old game... well, I guess in a way it is, since it runs on a modified/updated IW Engine from 2005.

    Call of Duty games have always been good for their "jump in, shoot, end game" style where you can complete an entire game in about 5 minutes, easy to kill and get a good score making you think you are amazing (when in fact just mediocre). Sure, you have fun doing it but it lacks style and substance.

    Compare it to Battlefield 3 (amazing, by the way!) which has massive maps and unique game styles. If you play as a medic you actually need to think like a medic. Play as a sniper and think like a sniper. With CoD, it's nowhere like that. Where are the vehicles? Such a disappointment compared to BF3. Please forgive me for what looks like I'm slating this game, but I used to be a die-hard CoD fan and I have to admit right now, I've not had much fun with previous Battlefield games. But if you do a direct comparison between CoD:MW3 and BF3, the difference is night and day. In fact, in making the comparison I am only showing further just how good BF3 is, and how MW3 shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence.

    Please Activision... Stop using CoD as your yearly cash cow. Can you remember the first Call of Duty, where it was PC only? Yeah, you used your PC gaming base to build on an amazing foundation which carried onto united offensive, and to an extend... CoD 2. Your first venture into the console market with CoD 3 was a major slap in the face not only to PC gamers who couldn't get it, but the console gamers who were given a poor experience.

    Go back to your roots - get rid of the nade spam, do away with the stupid perks... Bring us back a realistic and authentic FPS gaming experience and please don't treat those you BUILT the CoD fanbase and foundation like a used plaster. WE are the reason your franchise is so successful so don't give us poor console ports! Make CoD fun again, because if you don't... I may very well swallow a difficult pill and completely turn my back on you. DICE and EA (even with their shoddy Origin...) are looking very easy to build a new allegiance with, and I hope you can turn things around.

    We want:

    A brand new engine (no modifications, no updates!) to give us true next-gen graphics and visuals
    Unmatched realism - high quality textures, authentic sounds, true-to-life gameplay
    Longer and more immersive campaigns that play like an epic cinematic movie
    Better multiplayer "hit points" (if I put a single bullet in someones head they really should die...)
    Do away with perks. They don't help with realism! Take things back to basics - a soldier, a gun, and nothing but the gamers skill.

    Ohh the list goes on... but we've been asking this for years so why continue when it's clear you are in the business of making money rather than giving your fans what they want...    … Expand
  61. The_Cools
    Nov 10, 2011
    3
    This game was built on rankings; Infinity re invented that process and made it better with each installment of MW. Taking away rankings from PC players on dedicated servers just so they can plug their pay service Elite, is turning there back on the people who made the game a success, the players. With no improvement on the engine the game looks dated and in my opinion, fails to achieveThis game was built on rankings; Infinity re invented that process and made it better with each installment of MW. Taking away rankings from PC players on dedicated servers just so they can plug their pay service Elite, is turning there back on the people who made the game a success, the players. With no improvement on the engine the game looks dated and in my opinion, fails to achieve the vision of the original Infinity founders. I don't know any of any clan members who played the single player campaign since the original MW, so I don't think that is important at this time.… Expand
  62. Bondy
    Nov 10, 2011
    3
    I play COD for the single player and Bf for the multi and COD was the same crap different year. If even ended the same with the quick time left right, e crap and where everyone bites the bullet. Some parts were very cool and I like and cared about the story being told but the critics overrated this game way too much. The campaign was too short and the ending just pissed me off. MultiplayerI play COD for the single player and Bf for the multi and COD was the same crap different year. If even ended the same with the quick time left right, e crap and where everyone bites the bullet. Some parts were very cool and I like and cared about the story being told but the critics overrated this game way too much. The campaign was too short and the ending just pissed me off. Multiplayer is even worse and is almost exactly like MW2 with a few additions and a very cool reward system which is accessible if you're very good at this kind of arcade style shooter. COD2k11 is the madden of shooters and we all saw how that was received. I will think twice before buying another COD game for £40.… Expand
  63. TheFrin
    Nov 10, 2011
    3
    The single player is worth playing, other than that the, multilayer is rehashed crap, go play black ops if you want to play an ok cod game, this is stale beyond belief.
  64. loknaster
    Nov 10, 2011
    3
    short campaign that I'm pretty sure I've played before. Honestly, its basically the video game version of a Michael Bay movie. Awful, please don't waste your money like I did.
  65. Dusty_Bottoms
    Nov 10, 2011
    3
    Well I jumped right on the band wagon and bought this game without reading any user reviews I wish I had. Overall I am very disappointed. Maybe the developers felt if it ain't broke don't fix it, but I think they have ended up with a stale game, same stuff repeated. It is not a new MW game its a map pack for MW2 and no more. I can't understand why the dedicated servers are un-ranked. I'mWell I jumped right on the band wagon and bought this game without reading any user reviews I wish I had. Overall I am very disappointed. Maybe the developers felt if it ain't broke don't fix it, but I think they have ended up with a stale game, same stuff repeated. It is not a new MW game its a map pack for MW2 and no more. I can't understand why the dedicated servers are un-ranked. I'm in Ireland and don't have a great net connection but at least with dedicated servers I could find one with good ping but what's the point if you cant rank up on them, so I am forced to go the P2P option, which is, for me at least, a very inferior way of playing. You are at the mercy of lag, whom ever is the host has the advantage. Also with the p2p games it just feels like I am spending more time in game lobbies waiting for players to join than in game and when in game you get the always annoying mitigating host message. I'll stick with Black Ops for my COD kicks, enjoying BF3 at the mo and I'm looking forward to Skyrim tomorrow.… Expand
  66. Scotro
    Nov 10, 2011
    3
    This review is focused solely on the multiplayer experience. It seems there are really only two changes from recent COD games: Perks/Unlocks & Maps. The maps are possibly the most refreshing change. The game boasts a huge rotation of around 16 maps all of which appear to be well laid out. My only complaint is the drab and uninspired color pallet; far too many of the maps remind me ofThis review is focused solely on the multiplayer experience. It seems there are really only two changes from recent COD games: Perks/Unlocks & Maps. The maps are possibly the most refreshing change. The game boasts a huge rotation of around 16 maps all of which appear to be well laid out. My only complaint is the drab and uninspired color pallet; far too many of the maps remind me of Carnival from MW2. At face value, the perks and unlocks appear new and exciting; that is, until you read the description and realize it's the same old perks with new names. The game throws new unlocks and challenges at you at an alarming rate. I found this to be a bit overwhelming and not necessarily a positive, however gamers who love to complete a game 100% and earn every single reward may find this appealing. If I were to appraise the value of the new content in Modern Warfare 3, I'd place it at around $15; the cost of a map pack. In hindsight, it was naive of me to assume that Activision would break the mold with MW3 and I take full responsibility for blowing $60 on a game that I already own two copies of (COD4 and MW2).… Expand
  67. BMW
    Nov 10, 2011
    3
    well as mentioned from other reviewers its the same this as MW2 same engine same buggy game play same messed up on line system of trying to play the game the only diff is it has more. more gay no skill required perks and strike packages the game consistently shows that it was designed for a console with low fov (field of view ) that's ok for a TV but when being viewed from a PC monitorwell as mentioned from other reviewers its the same this as MW2 same engine same buggy game play same messed up on line system of trying to play the game the only diff is it has more. more gay no skill required perks and strike packages the game consistently shows that it was designed for a console with low fov (field of view ) that's ok for a TV but when being viewed from a PC monitor its a bit frustrating not seeing whats off to ur left or off to ur right as far as i see this game has been over hyped and the sires has fallen this game is just a cash cow for IW compared to the first modern warfare which i STILL play mw3 has no class the only thing that is consistent that i love about the sires it lone wolf arcade style of play THAT'S IT… Expand
  68. Wellesley
    Nov 10, 2011
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I give this game a 4/10 because I actually bothered to finish it and it didn't crash to desktop once.
    Now to get on to why the game doesn't deserve a score higher than that:
    1. The graphics are abysmal, have not been improved since Call of Duty 4, and are actually worse on the PC since the render resolution is locked to 720p and upscaled horribly if you set it to a higher resolution than that. This makes it obvious that it's just a bad console port and the appropriate amount of attention was not paid to the PC version.
    2. The gameplay is tired, uninspired and boring. Shooting hordes of enemies with terrible AI that respawn until you move to an arbitrary position on the map may have been fun back in 2003 (hell, it may have been fun in 2007), but it's getting old now. This is the same game as before just in a different place, only now the bad guys are even harder to see and distinguish from enemies because the world is even greyer and everyone is wearing grey.
    3. The story is horrible. The pacing is entirely off and relies on cheap tricks and setpieces that would have been exciting four years ago, but just seem clichéd now. For example, there are so many instances in this game where you'll be heading to the "extraction zone" or whatever and your means of escape will explode. This was only ever exciting once, not the twelfth time you pull it on the player. Another gripe with the story is the horribly put together shock scene involving the death of a child. For a start, the tone was never properly established, so it just seem shoehorned in, it never made sense that there were carefree American tourists on holiday in the UK when their country was being invaded, and the whole scene smacks of a pathetic attempt to create controversy to gain sales. Not to mention that the general plot itself is the same. A Russian guy is trying to create a conflict to take over the world or establish Russian dominance again or something, it's never really clear, and so the merry band of SAS and American soldiers have to team up to stop the nukes. Seem familiar? It should do if you've played Call of Duty 4.
    4. The Multiplayer. It's the same as Modern Warfare 2. If you liked that you'll like this, but if you got used to the improvements made in BlackOps then I have disappointing news for you. The dedicated servers are not ranked and the matchmaking is awful. The gunplay is worse and there are confirmed day-one aim hacks.

    Altogether, this is a lazy game that was obviously rushed out in a year to make truckloads of cash with a minimum of effort. Judging from the preorder sales alone, it has already done that, but regardless of this I do not recommend you buy it. It's a tired rehash of previous games in the series and the loss of the creative minds behind Infinity Ward to Respawn Entertainment shows very much. The only reason to buy this game is if you want more of the same multiplayer experience you got in Modern Warfare 2.    … Expand
  69. Wack_B5
    Nov 11, 2011
    3
    VERY disappointing. I'm a 36yo LONG STANDING COD fan (I like BF but always preferred COD and player COD 90% of the time with many friends in a clan (the majority of our clan is disappointed). There is practically nothing new here worth any $ at all. A few new killstreaks (and killstreak chains), different weapons and unlock system. new maps, Insignificant NON RANKED ONLY dedicated servers,VERY disappointing. I'm a 36yo LONG STANDING COD fan (I like BF but always preferred COD and player COD 90% of the time with many friends in a clan (the majority of our clan is disappointed). There is practically nothing new here worth any $ at all. A few new killstreaks (and killstreak chains), different weapons and unlock system. new maps, Insignificant NON RANKED ONLY dedicated servers, generaly played with the MW2 matchmaking system, Still no way to VOTE KICK jerks or hackers... I've seen more new stuff in a map pack... I'm REALLY DISAPPOINTED...… Expand
  70. Juxta
    Nov 11, 2011
    3
    Any follow on game will have devoted followers who may be disappointed with the new game. Developers change displays and controls for a 'fresh look', etc... However when controls are changed due to the predominance of a certain platform, there is a problem. The changed control(s) that I am speaking about is the ability to 'lean' around the corners and shoot. I am not a RNG guy; I playAny follow on game will have devoted followers who may be disappointed with the new game. Developers change displays and controls for a 'fresh look', etc... However when controls are changed due to the predominance of a certain platform, there is a problem. The changed control(s) that I am speaking about is the ability to 'lean' around the corners and shoot. I am not a RNG guy; I play tactically. Now in this new version, I am forced to expose my body to get a shot off. There are very few hidey holes, you can't blend in with the bushes as would benefit snipers and defenders. Heck - you can't even jump up on top of many of the boxes and desks in a room to get a better angle shot. ACTIVISION - If you are going to build a game that is supposed to mimic wartime, then make a game that mimics wartime and doesn't exclusively cater to the RNG'rs and console players. You want my hard earned money? EARN IT!!! Call of Duty Black Ops was a much better effort than this. I AM DISAPPOINTED AND FEEL AS IF I WASTED MY MONEY.… Expand
  71. jasin39
    Nov 11, 2011
    3
    The Campain looks cool. The online is horrendous. Its the same story. No matter where you spawn , someone is behind you waiting. You shoot someone 5 times at point blank, the hits don't register. They kill you with one shot. The kill cam is joke. I was playing onine PC version and someone calling theirself Suited Penguin would litterally dissappear and then reappear between buildings.The Campain looks cool. The online is horrendous. Its the same story. No matter where you spawn , someone is behind you waiting. You shoot someone 5 times at point blank, the hits don't register. They kill you with one shot. The kill cam is joke. I was playing onine PC version and someone calling theirself Suited Penguin would litterally dissappear and then reappear between buildings. People are already lag switching and boosting each other. It kills the experience for honest players. I feel like I got ripped off for my 60 dollars and I cant return the game.

    There are no ranked servers. A level one player will be tossed into match with people who are level 68.
    The latency is bad as well. Battlefield 3 PC version I often find games with less than 30 ms latency. Modern warfare 3 lowest settings usually start off at 50 ms and just go up from there.

    I visit the game's website. they state to report cheaters, yet leave no clear instructions on how to do so.
    With all these things wrong. I feel as though they should offer people option to buy just the campaign mode (the working part of the game) at a reduced price, or offer a money back guarantee for incomplete game.

    For now I will stick to "the Battlefield".    … Expand
  72. nimrod33
    Nov 11, 2011
    3
    The story is too much cheesy to watch.
    The gameplay is the same old history.
    The graphic are very much the same.
    The music also either.
    I can´t believe that I waste my money on this.
  73. ANK_G
    Nov 11, 2011
    3
    What the bloody hell is it? WM3? Oh, I prefer die... It's the worst CoD I've ever played. Only Survival Mode is not bad at all, though it reminds me of Zombie Mode. The terrible graphics makes me sick. IW5 engine is far worse than IW4 engine. Is it a joke? I hope so.
  74. Ernestei
    Nov 12, 2011
    3
    When I saw the first videos I didn't expect much. Now that I have played it, I can say it: this game is just a DLC of MW2. Let's see: the only new thing is the story mode, which includes a new story - of course - but that's all. Gameplay hasn't goy any change, still the same. For example, when you're running and you press the button to prone, the guy simply stops and prones; in Black OpsWhen I saw the first videos I didn't expect much. Now that I have played it, I can say it: this game is just a DLC of MW2. Let's see: the only new thing is the story mode, which includes a new story - of course - but that's all. Gameplay hasn't goy any change, still the same. For example, when you're running and you press the button to prone, the guy simply stops and prones; in Black Ops you'd kind of jump and fall into the ground, they didn't make a simple improvement like that. The graphic engine is just the same, Black Ops graphics were better IMO and they couldn't improve even that. Multiplayer is simply MW 2 but with new maps and new killstreaks, nothing much.

    In conclusion, Infinite Ward wants us to pay for a game which is just a "DLC" of an older one at full price. I didn't bite, hope you won't.    … Expand
  75. snowbear
    Nov 12, 2011
    3
    The game deserves its low rating on the pc at least. Campain: meh at the most, its short, linear, no improvements in graphical/audio fidelity, and to top it off the story isnt even good. so id give it a 3/10 for that

    Graphics: there is free to play indie games out there that look better. And compared to other games in the same market its poor. 5/10 Functionality: Again nothing new.    The game deserves its low rating on the pc at least. Campain: meh at the most, its short, linear, no improvements in graphical/audio fidelity, and to top it off the story isnt even good. so id give it a 3/10 for that

    Graphics: there is free to play indie games out there that look better. And compared to other games in the same market its poor. 5/10

    Functionality: Again nothing new. MW had more options and that came out in 2007. Very very poor 2/10

    Multiplayer: The most annoying aspect of this game. could have been good. IW were making all the right noises on this one. Then at the last minute ruined all their hard work ten fold. How can you tell your community that you listened to all the feedback from mw2, and then completely disreguard all of what was said. 0/10 as in its current state it might as well not exist. Life span: as there is no multiplayer worth playing and the campain is 4 hours long max. 3/10 Value for money: as i have it on the pc 0/10 as it has no trade in value... This is why the game doesnt deserve to have a good review score    … Expand
  76. ScoxX
    Nov 12, 2011
    3
    Call of Duty Moder Warfere, muito boa a serie, marcou a historia com o MW1, com o MW2 atraiu varias pessoas para o multiplayer e nos titulos seguinte de CoD parece que acabaram a fonte de criatividade. Sem inovação nenhuma no CoD MW3, pouca divulgação do titulo (creio que seja por causa de não ter nenhuma novidade paraCall of Duty Moder Warfere, muito boa a serie, marcou a historia com o MW1, com o MW2 atraiu varias pessoas para o multiplayer e nos titulos seguinte de CoD parece que acabaram a fonte de criatividade. Sem inovação nenhuma no CoD MW3, pouca divulgação do titulo (creio que seja por causa de não ter nenhuma novidade para mostrar.) e é claro que a Activition apostou na força que o titulo tem sobre os varios fans que o Call of Duty possui, principalmente nos console.… Expand
  77. manuelcr
    Nov 13, 2011
    3
    COD:MW3 is a sequel of COD4:MW, but not only with the main story, also with the graphic engine, the way on that you play the game... nothing has changed since we could enjoy the COD4.

    And It is not good, because we have to continue playing 'on rails' when the most of new games give more and more freedom to play. Playing to this COD is bored by moments, because the only challenge is    COD:MW3 is a sequel of COD4:MW, but not only with the main story, also with the graphic engine, the way on that you play the game... nothing has changed since we could enjoy the COD4.

    And It is not good, because we have to continue playing 'on rails' when the most of new games give more and more freedom to play.

    Playing to this COD is bored by moments, because the only challenge is finding the way forward to avoid falling shot.

    Great Story, bad game.    … Expand
  78. charlie412
    Nov 20, 2011
    3
    This is the best map pack yet for modern warfare 2, it comes with an all new campaign and spec ops missions and about 8 new multiplayer maps, yes they are all new and dont use any of the same layouts or buildings as call of duty 4 at all. The thing i like best about call of duty is how easy the multiplayer is, i just sit in a corner and fire until i run out of ammo, you have to buy thisThis is the best map pack yet for modern warfare 2, it comes with an all new campaign and spec ops missions and about 8 new multiplayer maps, yes they are all new and dont use any of the same layouts or buildings as call of duty 4 at all. The thing i like best about call of duty is how easy the multiplayer is, i just sit in a corner and fire until i run out of ammo, you have to buy this game to see its amazing visuals, probably the best ever visuals you will see on an IPAD ever, i dont get how they got this to work its amazing.… Expand
  79. JimCorbett
    Jun 19, 2013
    3
    I went into MW3 expecting just a copy-paste of MW2 (which I honestly enjoyed). What I got was something much, much worse. I play CoD for the story, and the singleplayer in MW3 lasts all of 4 hours and the story itself is totally uninteresting. There were just 1 memorable mission in MW3 that I may go back and play again, compare that to 5 or 6 in the previous installments. The spec ops hadI went into MW3 expecting just a copy-paste of MW2 (which I honestly enjoyed). What I got was something much, much worse. I play CoD for the story, and the singleplayer in MW3 lasts all of 4 hours and the story itself is totally uninteresting. There were just 1 memorable mission in MW3 that I may go back and play again, compare that to 5 or 6 in the previous installments. The spec ops had a lot of promise, I really enjoyed it in MW2. Unfortunately it is done very poorly in MW3. Again, there are no memorable missions, and the missions themselves basically require you to play with a partner. Add that to the fact that CoD matchmaking and latency is god awful, and you have a terrible experience. Survival mode was a good idea, but again, the matchmaking system completely ruins it. I'm not even going to talk about Multiplayer because we all know that it has always been completely broken garbage. I have played every single CoD game (dating back to the PC exclusive original) and I can honestly say that MW3 is the worst.… Expand
  80. Shekky
    Nov 14, 2011
    3
    It seems this company doesn't truely care at what we think as having non-ranked dedicated servers is just complete failure on there part. The game is pretty much just a re-skin of mw2 but **** The guns in mw2 handled better. My only suggestion is that they should of made it so the ranked was privately hosted instead of running off someone else's terrible internet. I have a huge problemIt seems this company doesn't truely care at what we think as having non-ranked dedicated servers is just complete failure on there part. The game is pretty much just a re-skin of mw2 but **** The guns in mw2 handled better. My only suggestion is that they should of made it so the ranked was privately hosted instead of running off someone else's terrible internet. I have a huge problem with this as I live in the middle of no where and get nothing but lag on anyone's connection. Atleast with my dedicated server I get a ping of around 60-100. This game is not innovative in the least bit. I give this a 3 and thats only because I can atleast enjoy TWL on a dedicated server which is the only reason I will play this game. Please release an RCON for dedicated servers would help!!!… Expand
  81. Global_Gamers
    Nov 14, 2011
    3
    Well, after playing the game, I am deeply disappointed. While the game does have dedicated servers, they are hard to set up and the maximum slot count is only 18. I like to play large scale games with 32+ slot sizes. If you want a good selling game, then you should learn what you did for Call of Duty 4 and use that strategy instead. Call of Duty 4 was very well thought out game. It usedWell, after playing the game, I am deeply disappointed. While the game does have dedicated servers, they are hard to set up and the maximum slot count is only 18. I like to play large scale games with 32+ slot sizes. If you want a good selling game, then you should learn what you did for Call of Duty 4 and use that strategy instead. Call of Duty 4 was very well thought out game. It used local stats, public dedicated servers that allowed up to 64 slots, it has mod tools, used Punkbuster anti-cheat. This new game has none of that. That is where IW/Sledgehammer games failed.

    I like Battlefield 3 a lot more because of the large scale game play and Punkbuster anti-cheat. I don't know whose idea it was to keep peer-2-peer, but, they messed up by doing that. Go back to Call of Duty 4 and do it exactly that way and then you will have a great game again.

    Cheating in Modern Warfare 3 is ridiculous. Every single peer-2-peer game I went into already has some type of cheating going in. Valve Anti-Cheat (VAC) does not do anything to catch them. With Punkbuster, server admins or other players can record demos of cheaters in first person mode and submit them to 3rd party anti-cheat sites like PBBans.com and get those players banned from streaming servers. In my honest opinion, this game is way off from the tradition of Call of Duty 4 and needs to be fixed immediately. Get rid of peer-to-peer and go with full dedicated servers for everything.

    With that said, I hereby give Modern Warfare 3 a rating of a 3.    … Expand
  82. spirit_warrior
    Nov 14, 2011
    3
    I like MW1 and MW2 , I like the black ops too but MW3 the like a DLC of MW2. Nothing new, The sounds of guns is very bad like a toys. Graphics are the same of MW2
    Singleplayer have numerous times with borring moments.
  83. Tardkart
    Nov 15, 2011
    3
    MW2.5 v.HorribleMaps.exe



    Seriously, the game would have been great if the maps weren't so terrible. Maybe people suggested to IW and Sledgehammer that they wanted constant guns blaring, continuous sprinting and non stop shot-in-the-back action but it all jumbles into a terrible experience.
  84. k00lGuY
    Nov 15, 2011
    3
    Since I am playing this on the PC, The graphics are no where near the better frostbite 2 engine that battlefield has. The graphics is a minor difference from black ops and mw2, they should have just made this as an expansion pack with new additional mode of play. At least they finally completed the story line, the campaign is better and longer than battlefield 3 in my opinion. I reallySince I am playing this on the PC, The graphics are no where near the better frostbite 2 engine that battlefield has. The graphics is a minor difference from black ops and mw2, they should have just made this as an expansion pack with new additional mode of play. At least they finally completed the story line, the campaign is better and longer than battlefield 3 in my opinion. I really enjoyed playing through the single player campaign, but I had minimal enjoyment on the multiplayer part because it feels like I have been doing this over and over already since mw2 and black ops. Releasing a CoD multiple times in one year will drop the excitement so fast.… Expand
  85. MRGamer
    Nov 15, 2011
    3
    The single player campaign is fair, a bit short but comparable to MW2. I liked doing missions again with a certain character that returns in MW3. The multiplayer gives me a sinking feeling of "here we go again" with the IWnet experience: lag, hackers, hacked lobbies. Contrary to what the dev has stated, there are no "improvements" to be seen in this game. It is MW2 all over again. TheThe single player campaign is fair, a bit short but comparable to MW2. I liked doing missions again with a certain character that returns in MW3. The multiplayer gives me a sinking feeling of "here we go again" with the IWnet experience: lag, hackers, hacked lobbies. Contrary to what the dev has stated, there are no "improvements" to be seen in this game. It is MW2 all over again. The selection of maps is duller than ever, and the majority of the maps are constructed to only support run and gun, fish in a barrel gameplay. the multiplayer experience is bad.

    Activision again chips away at PC features in the game- no ranked dedicated servers, no FOV adjustment, small maps and small player numbers. As a previous reviewer stated, if you have not wasted your money on MW3 yet, stick to MW or Black Ops. Nothing worth the price of admission in this one.    … Expand
  86. MercilessAlmond
    Nov 16, 2011
    3
    To be fair to Activision this is an absolutely solid game the combat works the campaign is good.
    The issue here is that we have already done almost of this before.
    Besides new perks and an on-line service (that does not work) there is absolutely nothing we haven't done yet. While many do wonder why the reviews between people and reviews are so different is because of the way they are    To be fair to Activision this is an absolutely solid game the combat works the campaign is good.
    The issue here is that we have already done almost of this before.
    Besides new perks and an on-line service (that does not work) there is absolutely nothing we haven't done yet.
    While many do wonder why the reviews between people and reviews are so different is because of the way they are judging the game.

    Most reviews have viewed this as a blank slate and do not take the previous games into consideration while gamers view it in the idea of what new experiences can I have in this game.
    Playing the game I can really only view it as a glorified expansion to MW2 and as I have played this game before there is no feeling that the developers pushed anything but advertisements in peoples faces.

    Overall if you are new to the series this is still an excellent game to start out with but if you are like me and are a Hardened veteran of the series and have waited for this game prepare to be disappointed because you have already played this game before it just has a 3 next to it this time.
    This game is nothing but a cash in and betrays the people who have supported it for so many years.    … Expand
  87. CPLRussell
    Nov 16, 2011
    3
    Single player Gameplay was fun, but PAINFULLY short. Really ?! I can't believe it was done so quickly. Decent engine, but could be better graphics, I could overlook the graphics if the gameplay was better or longer, but really just not worth the money. Dedicated servers not ranked, and unlike Black Ops, only one type of server. How to fix the game so I don't feel ripped off.. 1) MORESingle player Gameplay was fun, but PAINFULLY short. Really ?! I can't believe it was done so quickly. Decent engine, but could be better graphics, I could overlook the graphics if the gameplay was better or longer, but really just not worth the money. Dedicated servers not ranked, and unlike Black Ops, only one type of server. How to fix the game so I don't feel ripped off.. 1) MORE single player content, double it - way too fast of a play for the money 2) balance the weapons. 3) more creative and larger maps Overall not horrible, but not worth the money. at this point it will be my last COD purchase unless it is drastically improved… Expand
  88. EMOticon
    Nov 17, 2011
    3
    The single player is lack luster. It did not feel as if i saved the world from any catastrophic event, and seemed that there were endless waves of enemies until i pushed up to the next check point. The multi-player is exactly the same as MW2 with the addition of dedicated servers that are UN-RANKED, which is not what the PC community asked for. Sorry Glen Schofield, this is an honestThe single player is lack luster. It did not feel as if i saved the world from any catastrophic event, and seemed that there were endless waves of enemies until i pushed up to the next check point. The multi-player is exactly the same as MW2 with the addition of dedicated servers that are UN-RANKED, which is not what the PC community asked for. Sorry Glen Schofield, this is an honest review from a long time CoD player and you need to find a way to fix this rather than begging for better reviews.… Expand
  89. Ochadd
    Nov 17, 2011
    3
    Multiplayer feels very arcade like. Strategy takes a back seat to being twitch based. Too often are groups shot in the back because someone spawned an an area cleared 10 seconds before. If you like to test your twitch and always be surrounded than it would be excellent for you. If you have played COD4 Modern Warefare, Black Ops, or Modern Warefare 2 then MP will feel much like a closeMultiplayer feels very arcade like. Strategy takes a back seat to being twitch based. Too often are groups shot in the back because someone spawned an an area cleared 10 seconds before. If you like to test your twitch and always be surrounded than it would be excellent for you. If you have played COD4 Modern Warefare, Black Ops, or Modern Warefare 2 then MP will feel much like a close quarters map pack.

    The single player campaign plays like a movie with the novelty of interaction. You do play it but it's predictable, infinitely spawning enemies, and set triggers.    … Expand
  90. Nsan1ty
    Nov 18, 2011
    3
    Modern Warfare 2.1. It doesn't bring much new goodies to the table other than a campaign and new spec ops. Add in Survival and you have what's new in this game and what's worth getting it for. The campaign itself is somewhat entertaining, but too short. Spec Ops missions are enjoyable and the survival mode is a decent time killer.

    Multiplayer? The game still feels like a console port. The    Modern Warfare 2.1. It doesn't bring much new goodies to the table other than a campaign and new spec ops. Add in Survival and you have what's new in this game and what's worth getting it for. The campaign itself is somewhat entertaining, but too short. Spec Ops missions are enjoyable and the survival mode is a decent time killer.

    Multiplayer? The game still feels like a console port. The lack of lean removes a feature that was much needed, the game speed was reduced as well as the jump just to make sure the casual gamer gets a chance against the hardcore gamers and a direct reply to the complain of casual players claiming "bunny hopping" was overpowered. P2P seems actually worse than in MW2 because they introduced some sort of anti-lag feature to take away the advantage of the host by giving them the same ping as the next lowest ping on the server. Also, you can be in North America, Europe, South America, Asia, Australia... you'll get people that aren't near you in your game and the hosting will not be computer spec dependant, but instead it will be based on the average pings.

    Field of View being locked along with max FPS and custom binds. Gone are the days of tweaking your config to match your PC and get the best FPS possible if you cared for that. You're stuck with basic settings with maxed FPS that isn't even syncable with your 120hz monitor if you have one. You also cannot bind a key to say something such as "Sorry for the team kill." or "Planting B! Cover!". Attempting to change any of those settings deemed "unfair" by IW will guarantee a reset of your config. Making it read only won't help either as the game will load a "factory" default config of those settings you tried to change.

    When it comes to actual gameplay, the game is OK at best. Being a Search and Destroy player, you'll notice that maps are so small that there isn't any reason to play that gametype minus for a few maps that could actually work out with the gametype. Kill Confirmed is nice and "new" but it stops there. A new gametype isn't gonna make the game worth 60 bucks.

    Too long, didn't read? Here's the general thoughts:

    No Dedicated servers for Ranked gaming.
    Locked config. (FoV, FPS, Binds, Lagometer, FPS Counter, etc.)
    No sound options which makes it hard to be able to adjust the volume correctly.
    Tiny Maps, some slightly larger that can allow for Search and Destroy play.
    Fun Campaign and Spec Ops. Decent new gametype for Multiplayer.
    Modern Warfare 2.1
    Gameplay modified to give a chance to casual gamers.
    P2P ranked games worse than MW2.    … Expand
  91. Leaf4Prez
    Nov 18, 2011
    3
    I came here because of the Twitter post. I tried to find everything I possibly could to make my rating higher. I am an avid CoD player, starting back on CoD2 on PC which pretty much built CoD into what it is today. Recently though with my age as well I have stop playing this game more and more... I am no fanboy of any franchise, I play what I like. I don't mind rehashed games, because II came here because of the Twitter post. I tried to find everything I possibly could to make my rating higher. I am an avid CoD player, starting back on CoD2 on PC which pretty much built CoD into what it is today. Recently though with my age as well I have stop playing this game more and more... I am no fanboy of any franchise, I play what I like. I don't mind rehashed games, because I felt the MW2 engine was almost perfect. It was fast-paced, easy to learn, but hard to execute correctly without extensive amounts of practice. I got a story line, a dozen new maps, new guns, old guns reworked, and more ideas. So as far as the 60 dollars go, if you like FPS its worth it; even though you can get more bang for you buck picking up BF3 or even Skyrim( B&A ADS OP). I voted this a 3 because as a PC user this expansion was another insult to me. The PC community does not care about rules especially when it comes to Matchmaking systems. We were grown using DOS Commands and having choices on what we played. In today we are forced to load up through 3rd party programs, which are easier to "hack" than the game itself. Cons: - No Dedicated Servers (we understand you want to "revolutionize the game industry" but, sometimes things are better to improve and not revolutionize. - No Lean Again... Please stop with PC Ports, it takes a whole what? 3 minutes to toss in code to allow lean. Patch the bugs later on when u find them. I know people personally who didn't buy MW2 because of lean.

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

    - Maps, for real? The maps are way too controlled. Look at Cod4 maps, and compare them to the completely random, and complicated maps in mw3. There are too many walls, not enough openness, the places that are closed the routes are completely construed by impassable objects (I seriously can't get on top of this taxi that is 1/2 into the ground?), and every route has a completely safe camping corner. In Cod4 Maps most camping spots had at least 180 degree hazard zone, where you could get hit from behind or the side by looking in one direction. Pros -
    You kept the same engine. Thank you. Etc. -
    FPS games should not have extra monitor capability. There is no reason to have a FOV that covers 3 monitors, so you get extra advantages over other players. Especially when you can't edit the FOV settings. There is no reason to get third party fixes to a game setting that shouldn't of been in the game in the first place. Overall, it isn't the graphics, the weapons, the engine, or the storyline(honestly though, I've seen better in choose your adventure books), its the large things PC users(where most of these ratings come from) want into their game not a ported PC game.    … Expand
  92. Zychi
    Nov 25, 2011
    3
    I know that this game doesn't deserve a 0, but it doesn't deserve a 10 either. I don't know why some critic reviewers would give this game a 100, there is just no way. And many zeros from the user reviews would only indicating that this game need more works. In my honest opinion, the game play is fun, but it 'd get boring quickly after having played it for 5 years. The campaign is short,I know that this game doesn't deserve a 0, but it doesn't deserve a 10 either. I don't know why some critic reviewers would give this game a 100, there is just no way. And many zeros from the user reviews would only indicating that this game need more works. In my honest opinion, the game play is fun, but it 'd get boring quickly after having played it for 5 years. The campaign is short, and I expected more out of it. The multiplayer is quick-pace, with the same old COD game play so it is fine in that aspect. The biggest CONS to this game is the works that had been put into this game. Other recent games that get released (Skyrim, BF3, GTA V, etc) got like major upgraded, except for CODMW3. They have been using the same engine for five years. Unlike other games, I don't think they can ever pull one of the old favorite maps from their older version to the newer version of the game as a dlc, because the die-hard players would be able to realized that "Hey, this is the same game!" Activision is really only want to make a quick bucks by copying and pasting... I have only played MW3 for about a week. I really don't want COD series to die because I still remember all the times I had fun playing it. I just hope that this is a big wake up call to the developers so that they'd decide to do something big for the next release if they have seen so many negative reviews on both consoles' and PC's users. I'd have giving MW1 and MW2 a 9/10. World of War with a 6, and BlackOps with an 8. I wish I can give MW3 higher than a 3, but I expected more out of it. I want it to have a low rating to wake up the developers, that's all. So if I have to waste another 60 dollars, it would be worth it.… Expand
  93. bruceybaby
    Nov 23, 2011
    3
    It is quite clear that Infinity Ward has lost its magical touch. MW3 is a huge dissapointment; this was the perfect chance to innovate and truly bring us something fresh, but it appears as though this game simply seeks to ride on the success of its predecessor, MW2. Having said that, it really isn't MW3; a more suitable name for the game would be MW2.5 i.e. what MW2 SHOULD have been. ThisIt is quite clear that Infinity Ward has lost its magical touch. MW3 is a huge dissapointment; this was the perfect chance to innovate and truly bring us something fresh, but it appears as though this game simply seeks to ride on the success of its predecessor, MW2. Having said that, it really isn't MW3; a more suitable name for the game would be MW2.5 i.e. what MW2 SHOULD have been. This isn't completely true though, as MW3 still suffers from a wide array of problems, the most prominent of which is the unadjustable Field of View (a common NECESSITY in FPS games). I find it almost impossible to play this game on PC without it giving me a head ache. I don't want to spend any more time explaining how bad this game is (although I feel obligated to point out the netcode is TERRIBLE and the multiplayer suffers massively as a result), but one thing IS clear: the game is a cash grab.… Expand
  94. JonathanM
    Nov 28, 2011
    3
    Though not as bad as I thought it would be, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 was just as disappointing as the rest of the Modern Warfare franchise. It all follows the same pattern: some action, something happens, mediocre slow mo, repeat a few times, then the slow mo ending. It lost its luster two Modern Warfares ago. That is only the single player. The multiplayer is nowhere near as good asThough not as bad as I thought it would be, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 was just as disappointing as the rest of the Modern Warfare franchise. It all follows the same pattern: some action, something happens, mediocre slow mo, repeat a few times, then the slow mo ending. It lost its luster two Modern Warfares ago. That is only the single player. The multiplayer is nowhere near as good as the other two Modern Warfare's multiplayer (if you really want to call those good either.) It is nowhere near as fast paced as most multiplayer games. In fact, I would prefer to play Team Fortress 2 to this P.O.S. multiplayer. To the overall: I was severely disappointed with the graphics. Even run at the maximum graphics, the graphics are still nowhere near what I would expect from a game with so much hype as its predecessors. I was able to run it with minimal issues on an Intel H.D. Graphics card at 256 MB (for those slightly tech challenged: that is complete **** I may be nit picking with such a small thing like that, but game like this released in 2011 should have much better graphics than it does.… Expand
  95. DragonTHC
    Dec 3, 2011
    3
    I've played every COD game. The first one was something special. Almost Spielbergian in its presentation. Then came Modern Warfare. There is something truly special about that game. It provided a compelling story, excellent multi-faceted gameplay, amazing multiplayer, and the overall presentation felt like a modern action movie. MW2 came with its controversy. It's campaign was aI've played every COD game. The first one was something special. Almost Spielbergian in its presentation. Then came Modern Warfare. There is something truly special about that game. It provided a compelling story, excellent multi-faceted gameplay, amazing multiplayer, and the overall presentation felt like a modern action movie. MW2 came with its controversy. It's campaign was a continuation of the COD:MW. It tied up the story quite nicely. It's multiplayer left something to be desired. Black Ops had a very intriguing campaign which was fun to experience. It's multiplayer crawled further into the hole that MW2 dug. Modern Warfare 3 is a continuation of the MW 2 campaign. It shares elements of the first and second MW games. It's graphics are starting to show rust around the edges of an aging engine. It's gameplay is far more more more. By that I mean, someone must have looked at COD:MW and said, like that only more. More enemies, more explosions, more chaos. That doesn't translate into a compelling experience. It's the Michael Bay formula. While I'm usually a fan of the continuation of a compelling story, this game just didn't deliver. I honestly would rather have watched it than played it. That's the type of experience it was. It didn't make me feel anything. in COD:MW you felt something when Cpt. Price led you through enemy territory to a sniper hide. You felt something when the nuclear bomb went off. You felt something when controlling the Spectre gunship. Even in MW2 you felt something when you chose to become a terrorist. This game elicits no emotion. The closest they came is at the end of the game. This final scene only solidified my desire for this to have been a watching experience instead of a participation. It was loud and chaotic and failed to connect with me. Given the controversy with the studio who made the first two modern warfare games, I feel it may be unfair to judge Sledgehammer games for this. Their next title may well end up in the echelon of COD:MW and COD1. Unfortunately, this pusillanimous title may have been the mandate of the publisher. The multiplayer experience in this game is geared towards those who prefer the style of Black Ops moreso than COD:MW. It is rife with gadgets and streaks and kludgy perks. It is fast paced and rewards twitchy hands over strategy and stealth. It does not have dedicated ranked servers. With the addition of MW:Elite, I feel the franchise has entered into a new territory which can only serve to hurt the community and will punish the loyalist who can't break free.

    In the end, I gave it a three of ten because this title lacks all courage. It stuck to a formula which it knew would sell to loyalists. This is, of course, a review of the PC version. Once you move to a console version, the multiplayer issues disolve and you're still stuck with the loud booming and explosive chaotic experience which all the kids love. Problem is, this is a mature title.    … Expand
  96. Shinigami_UA
    Feb 17, 2012
    3
    Multiplayer is what I rate. My rating: terrible.
    Same terrible weapon balance: some guns recoil like mad, leaving you in state of shock after your gun goes all over the screen as you try to hit opponent more than 4 times (yeah, it takes 6 bullets to kill anyone), and they take you down with 2-3 hits from a gun that doesn't seem to move at all when shooting.
    Same good old matchmaking - lags    Multiplayer is what I rate. My rating: terrible.
    Same terrible weapon balance: some guns recoil like mad, leaving you in state of shock after your gun goes all over the screen as you try to hit opponent more than 4 times (yeah, it takes 6 bullets to kill anyone), and they take you down with 2-3 hits from a gun that doesn't seem to move at all when shooting.
    Same good old matchmaking - lags are terrible despite everyone having "4 bars" connection, cheaters are never banned, players instantly teleporting left-right when you aim at them (bad game design, same as MW2).
    New: dedicated servers. Only unranked. Pointless, as the only point in call of duty series is to get points to progress to better guns, get prestige rating and re-do it all from the start.
    Same old graphics. They're not bad, in my opinion. But everything looks toy-ish. Its hard to tell enemy from wall, everything looks the same (or I became completely color-blind suddenly). Colors are way too dull. When you aim, you can't see anything other than your iron sights - it all goes blurred.
    New maps. Terrible as you can't camp anywhere. Terrible because your field of view seems to be limited to 60-70 degrees (tiny), and there is a ridiculous amount of 90-degree turns (if you look straight ahead, you will not see anything on your side).
    I pre-ordered every COD after modern warfare (WaW, MW2, BO) and decided to skip MW3 entirely, knowing what it was going to be same old Modern Warfail 2 Refresh (judging by interviews). Sadly, I wasn't wrong about this game.
    Thanks, Steam, for the free weekend! Now I know I won't be buying this game!    … Expand
  97. Swissy87
    Dec 7, 2011
    3
    The game has obviously been rushed out, it is VERY scripted, nothing will happen unless you actually move forwards and the game registers that something should happen next. On PC its a joke, there are so many performance issues, even on my 580gtx, i7 setup. Character animations are a joke too, when u switch from walking to running the animation doesnt smoothly transition it just plays theThe game has obviously been rushed out, it is VERY scripted, nothing will happen unless you actually move forwards and the game registers that something should happen next. On PC its a joke, there are so many performance issues, even on my 580gtx, i7 setup. Character animations are a joke too, when u switch from walking to running the animation doesnt smoothly transition it just plays the running animation which makes it look stupid. Simply many many bugs like this which a month later have STILL not been fixed. I am afraid to admit that MW3 is just a bad copy of MW2 and doesnt compare to the past COD titles.… Expand
  98. TwiTch_69
    Dec 15, 2011
    3
    First off this is a Review for the Single player only, I will not play a Multiplayer game without DEDICATED SERVERS (its basically an Even More consoled down MW2) K, so this is the first Call of duty game that i have not purchased besides World at war. but I did play the entire single player (I "found" my own demo since game developers don't see the point in making demo's anymore)First off this is a Review for the Single player only, I will not play a Multiplayer game without DEDICATED SERVERS (its basically an Even More consoled down MW2) K, so this is the first Call of duty game that i have not purchased besides World at war. but I did play the entire single player (I "found" my own demo since game developers don't see the point in making demo's anymore) You can just assume I played it at a friends house. So about the game. The graphics were basically the same as mw2 (slightly updated cod4 engine), every gun in the game felt like a weak bb gun, every level was the exact same thing, start on one end and fight endless waves of bots that cant aim to the other end, while a huge building or some other catastrophic event happens then you go into countless quick-time events, constantly being yelled at to "HURRY" "MOVE MOVE". Whoever is writing these game scripts for the last few games needs to realize that making every level a huge "rush" mission with all sorts of buildings collapsing or things blowing up doesn't make an epic story, you need the slower "calming down back under control" points to make the "epic everything is blowing up" missions more memorable (emotional roller coaster / Calm before the storm) And besides the whole mess with the story, the entire game is filled with these stupid quick-time events, you know, press X to save the world, it seems like to many modern shooter games have been made for people that like to play "Whack A Mole" on there desk, just get 3 large buttons and a mallot and wait for one of those quick-time events and you should finish the game in about 4 hours, (Yes, that's it, 4 hours...)

    I Personally can't wait to see what Jason West and Vince Zampella (the original creators of infinity ward (call of duty), both fired during mw2's creation) are up to over at Respawn Entertainment (Google it) Because I cant see Call of Duty returning to its glory days anymore, another AMAZING franchise consumed by console'tards (PLEASE GET US OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST RESPAWN ENTERTAINMENT!!! make up some fake post WW2 game, and keep it PC FTW)    … Expand
  99. pt213
    Dec 17, 2011
    3
    The single player campaign gets a 6 in my opinion. That is the only factor that offsets the games overall score. It "finishes" the story set in motion by the second game although it is quite tacky. Now the multiplayer is what I really buy these games for. In regards to this, this game is one of the biggest failures I have ever played. I have never in the 20 hours of online game playThe single player campaign gets a 6 in my opinion. That is the only factor that offsets the games overall score. It "finishes" the story set in motion by the second game although it is quite tacky. Now the multiplayer is what I really buy these games for. In regards to this, this game is one of the biggest failures I have ever played. I have never in the 20 hours of online game play connected to a server that was not laggy. I'd fire 5 bullets into a person's chest and before he even got the first shot off I'd have already died. The only reason I can still play this game is because of its hardcore mode, and that too is difficult to play without a proper server to connect to.… Expand
  100. zuby2k
    Dec 25, 2011
    3
    this game is totally **** well not totally !!!! dated graphics , i mean its jus like u r playing mw2 albeit on steroids... i m a mw fan but this game sucks a**... well watever i m gona install bf3 n give it a 9 coz comapres to mw3 it totally rocks...
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 »