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. Tiz4203
    Nov 10, 2011
    0
    This is the same game as MW2 basically, nothing great about this game at all. Graphics still look horrible and game play is same as any other COD. no big changes at all made to this game. Id rather play World at War
  2. InSaNeOG
    Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Heard that Schofield is "begging" for reviews to bolster bad ratings ( http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/121/1212113p1.html ). @ Bobby Kodick... Guess firing West and Zampella wasn't such a good idea after all eh ? At least those guys had self-respect and could crank out a good game. @ the guys who stole 6k MW3 copies off that truck last weekend.... At least you didn't actually PAY for this game.
  3. ExpFist
    Nov 10, 2011
    0
    If you hate your money and would like to spend it on a steaming pile of **** then this game is for you!

    Call of Duty is the reason why FPS games have gone down hill. I guess good for Activision as they still make a killing for releasing the same game over and over again.
  4. Dunklad
    Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Complete waste of money and a joke, same as Mw2 over and over............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. the campaign sucks, online is the same again can't stand infinity ward fml
  5. Gladio77
    Nov 10, 2011
    6
    Yet again rate " professional critics " this game very high while we consumers , in general , think it sucks. These reviewers have lost all perspective and insight in what their readers think and expect . The argument now by "professional reviewers" is that "fans"of BF3 are posting negative comments . I am 35 year old consumer who buys games and am no fan of any corporate entity orYet again rate " professional critics " this game very high while we consumers , in general , think it sucks. These reviewers have lost all perspective and insight in what their readers think and expect . The argument now by "professional reviewers" is that "fans"of BF3 are posting negative comments . I am 35 year old consumer who buys games and am no fan of any corporate entity or product. If the games are good they get a high score, if they suck they get a low score. I think that counts for most reviewers here as we just want to keep others from spending 60 bucks on a bad product . A computer game is not like buying another product. WE find out after we already paid that we got screwed… Expand
  6. Nakamp
    Nov 10, 2011
    0
    The brand of CoD is so powerful, they don't even need to add much compared to previous games to sell millions of copies to make a lot of profit. This results in a game that we've already had here before (MW2, Black Ops).
  7. CODER
    Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Dear Mr.Glen Schofield

    Please go back and make a better game. Please don't use the same sounds, engine, visuals and much much more every year on year. If you want peoples money (even though you already got it) then please treat your costumers with some dignity. Now lets not talk about the horrible campaign that no one will ever remember or care about. But why not focus all your resources    Dear Mr.Glen Schofield

    Please go back and make a better game. Please don't use the same sounds, engine, visuals and much much more every year on year. If you want peoples money (even though you already got it) then please treat your costumers with some dignity. Now lets not talk about the horrible campaign that no one will ever remember or care about. But why not focus all your resources on the online mode which is what everyone is paying to play. You made 16 maps for this game on launch day and you think they are worth 60$?

    Go back to the drawing board and rethink your strategies. You think that Counter-Strike is what it is because Valve treat their costumers like you?

    Thank you!    … Expand
  8. kaicooper
    Nov 10, 2011
    0
    MW3..cod4 graphics..maps worst then MW 1+2..same guns..same engin..same crappy game MW3 = FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIL...SHAME ON U ACTIVATION ...REALLY BIG SHAME..we were waiting for this crapy game since last year..THINK AGAIN
  9. Bushmaster
    Nov 10, 2011
    0
    This game truly is as bad as they say. It is just MW2 with new maps. The graphics are outrageously dated. Ive been playing black ops since it came out. As soon as I loaded this game I could immediately see lesser quality graphics than that of black ops. I set everything in the game to extra and put it on the highest resolution. The game is pined at 91 FPS(it would go over 91 if i unlockedThis game truly is as bad as they say. It is just MW2 with new maps. The graphics are outrageously dated. Ive been playing black ops since it came out. As soon as I loaded this game I could immediately see lesser quality graphics than that of black ops. I set everything in the game to extra and put it on the highest resolution. The game is pined at 91 FPS(it would go over 91 if i unlocked the fps in the console). It never drops below that . This should tell you something about how un graphically intense this game is. Save your money. Keep playing black ops or MW2. Don't buy into this garbage. This game is an insult!.… Expand
  10. Adamble
    Nov 10, 2011
    10
    Pure awesomeness, as usual! Just like I expected, single player is is still as awesome as it was before. Multiplayer? Astronishing! And not bugged like Buggerfield!
  11. jrpowell01
    Nov 10, 2011
    5
    welcome to the world of re-hatching games, and convincing us that we absolutely need to buy them through a multimillion dollar marketing campaign. Modern Warfare 3 has nothing new or drastically exciting. Its not a dud, but DEFINITELY not ground-breaking. If you're looking for a game that has a marginally enjoyable multiplayer then here you go.
  12. OverlordReaper
    Nov 10, 2011
    10
    it's a super game, not problem, it's a very good game, good job and all is good !!!! multiplayer is very great !!! survival is a great news ! it's very beatiful, the song is like a great action and war movie and it's very magnificient
  13. Oni
    Nov 10, 2011
    0
    The game is great, but it's nothing new or innovative. I have purchased the game and loved MW2 and BOPS but this just feels like the same game. Sorry guys, I was kind of let down. I've got to say also, all the guns feel massively overpowered.
  14. irishbloke
    Nov 10, 2011
    1
    The graphics on the PC version are shockingly bad, it looks worse than Black Ops. The Multiplayer maps are dull and fell like mazes. Very disapointed in the PC verison.

    The FOV is terrable looking and makes the game look even worse, at least in Black ops you could change it. This is a massive step backwards from Black Ops. Theres hardly any video options to make it look any better which    The graphics on the PC version are shockingly bad, it looks worse than Black Ops. The Multiplayer maps are dull and fell like mazes. Very disapointed in the PC verison.

    The FOV is terrable looking and makes the game look even worse, at least in Black ops you could change it. This is a massive step backwards from Black Ops.

    Theres hardly any video options to make it look any better which is shocking. Waste of money.    … Expand
  15. Anderen2
    Nov 10, 2011
    1
    The thing about this game is that the predecessor (MW2) is much better. This game adds nothing, and cuts support for the old game, just to get more money from you. MW3 seems like a game they made, just to make a game. This should really be a mappack/DLC and a patch to MW2 instead of a whole new game. Look at Valve, they released CSS in 2004, aka seven years ago, still they fix bugs andThe thing about this game is that the predecessor (MW2) is much better. This game adds nothing, and cuts support for the old game, just to get more money from you. MW3 seems like a game they made, just to make a game. This should really be a mappack/DLC and a patch to MW2 instead of a whole new game. Look at Valve, they released CSS in 2004, aka seven years ago, still they fix bugs and release new features to the game today.. Now look at Activision(The publisher of CoD), Cod 4 got released in 2007, they cut almost all support for the game a year later, when Cod:WaW got out. Today its overrun by exploiters, bugs and glitches... For me MW3 is a 60$ mappack..… Expand
  16. darylicked
    Nov 10, 2011
    5
    Hey Glen Schofield read this review:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    so just to sum up here:

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

    Cons:
    Campaign story sucks and if you hate old CODs you wont like this one either
    Lag Compensation = worst idea ever and should be illegal in 60 dollar games
    Servers not able to rank up rendering them useless and no one ways them (PC version)
    Archaic MW1 and MW2 weapon attachment unlock system
    Blops currency gone    … Expand
  17. gimox
    Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Activision is stealing money from people, selling over and over the same game. Honestly I've bought lot of games from them, but now I'm totally pissed off. This game is REALLY bad, hope Activision will stop producing this stuff.
  18. GutterGoneWild
    Nov 10, 2011
    0
    I think my review will be similar to many of the others that have posted. There is nothing new and absolutely zero reason for this to be a $60 "new game" as apposed to a $20 downloadable map pack. Hopefully the next iteration will include a new engine or at least a decent amount of tinkering so that it can be worthy of being called a new game.
  19. Unknown0ne
    Nov 10, 2011
    0
    This is a message to the developers and publishers of Call of Duty: First, ditch the engine you have been using since the first game; then, actually put some effort into redesigning and improving your game rather than just adding some new guns and kill streaks; finally, stop releasing horrid map packs while calling them DLC and charging $15 for something that should be free. To sum thatThis is a message to the developers and publishers of Call of Duty: First, ditch the engine you have been using since the first game; then, actually put some effort into redesigning and improving your game rather than just adding some new guns and kill streaks; finally, stop releasing horrid map packs while calling them DLC and charging $15 for something that should be free. To sum that up: Focus on quality rather than quantity and improve your pricing model.… Expand
  20. omgurheadsgone
    Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Maps lack the simplicity of the previous Modern Warfare's in the franchise, littered with useless junk every step of the way, and all sorts of little nooks and cranny's for your neighborhood camper to hide, these are just the basis of the problems with the third installment of "Infinity Ward's" Modern Warfare. Without Infinity Wards full development of the game, it feels that the newMaps lack the simplicity of the previous Modern Warfare's in the franchise, littered with useless junk every step of the way, and all sorts of little nooks and cranny's for your neighborhood camper to hide, these are just the basis of the problems with the third installment of "Infinity Ward's" Modern Warfare. Without Infinity Wards full development of the game, it feels that the new sledgehammer partner involved with activision has taken a more treyarch feel to the game, especially involving the design and over-all feel of the guns. I think that activision should strongly consider a major patch for the game, involving a stopping power perk, and/or a slight boost to the damage of all the guns, as well an attempt to fix the horrendous Hit-Detection in the game, and the release of some bigger, less cluttered maps. I am very disappointed in this game over-all, as it feels like an absolute half ass attempt to add better graphics (essentially just by adding garbage and crap all over the maps, and making them as cluttered as possible), and just over all poor map structure and game-play, I'm left with no choice but to return it as I am simply just not enjoying it at all. Keep in mind I have 46 days clocked on MW2, and am 10th prestige in MW1, this will be the first Modern Warfare I do not play because it is simply poorly designed. Better luck next time activision, Sincerely,
    OMGurHeadsGone    … Expand
  21. puxili
    Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Boring, rehashed crap with a horrible FOV. And the great MW trilogy ends with a **** QTE. Uninspired explosions, railshooting sequences, more explosions, more railshooting. It's just MW2 with different color filters. Don't pay 60 bucks for that crap.

    Go to hell Activision.
  22. phonomoenal
    Nov 10, 2011
    0
    I swear to god this is the exact same CoD I have been playing for the last 5 years! Nothing ever seems to change in this game including the predictable and unoriginal plotline. Multiplayer is literally a rehash, very few changes to it except for 2 game modes. People don't spen your money on this greedy developer's game so they can whither away.
  23. CronoSKev
    Nov 10, 2011
    0
    First, Glen Schofield, users scores are not suspiciously low.
    Keep in mind that you had more than 1 billions of turnover for selling CODBO.
    I don't think the money was used to make this game. Poor graphic, NO RANKED DEDICATED SERVER, no evolution for the gameplay, short solo, corridors maps only. Upscaling in video settings (shame on you). It's a MW2's map pack, nothing more. What did you    First, Glen Schofield, users scores are not suspiciously low.
    Keep in mind that you had more than 1 billions of turnover for selling CODBO.
    I don't think the money was used to make this game.
    Poor graphic, NO RANKED DEDICATED SERVER, no evolution for the gameplay, short solo, corridors maps only.
    Upscaling in video settings (shame on you).
    It's a MW2's map pack, nothing more.
    What did you do with our money?    … Expand
  24. Cesai
    Nov 10, 2011
    10
    What can I say about this game. Wonderful, spectacular, cinematic and many more things, can still remember the first time I played Call of Duty was an experience our glorious why I say that Call of Duty is not a simple fps he is the king of all graphs is both recycled or not so I know the game is so wonderful but leaves you with so much that I like to ask more.and biz
  25. lfcrgr8
    Nov 10, 2011
    1
    Well, this really really really is poor. It's identical to MW2, with the addition of a few extra maps. I am amazed how Activision could release a game which is so similar to the previous version, and expect people to pay for it. Also, the graphics are absolutely shocking for this day and age.
  26. NDBender
    Nov 10, 2011
    8
    Nothing ground breaking about this game, If you enjoyed the previous CoD's then you'll like it. The Multiplayer is an improvement over MW2. Maps, weapons, killstreaks, perks, etc are better and more balanced. The Graphics are good but not an improvment over previous titles except I do like the character animations, especially faces, they looked revamped. I wish dedicated servers wereNothing ground breaking about this game, If you enjoyed the previous CoD's then you'll like it. The Multiplayer is an improvement over MW2. Maps, weapons, killstreaks, perks, etc are better and more balanced. The Graphics are good but not an improvment over previous titles except I do like the character animations, especially faces, they looked revamped. I wish dedicated servers were ranked and there was a way to adjust the field of View. Have not finished the SP nor have I started any Co-op as of yet.… Expand
  27. Bobaganoosh
    Nov 10, 2011
    2
    I'll give them two points for continuing their tried and true formula, but nothing more as that's all they've done here. They just put mw2 in a new box. $60 + $7/month for new maps and perks but nothing new in terms of gameplay or graphics? No thanks. Save your money folks. If you have cod4 than what's the point of this? Not a new game
  28. Blade2021
    Nov 10, 2011
    0
    Game sucks. Plain out and simple. If you played the game without knowing what it was you would have assumed it was just a DLC for MW2 and the sound settings boosted. I am very disappointed in both the mulitplayer and singleplayer. The multiplayer has been jammed into smaller maps, gun and other sounds amplified so they don't sound realistic. Overall its just a terrible game that wasGame sucks. Plain out and simple. If you played the game without knowing what it was you would have assumed it was just a DLC for MW2 and the sound settings boosted. I am very disappointed in both the mulitplayer and singleplayer. The multiplayer has been jammed into smaller maps, gun and other sounds amplified so they don't sound realistic. Overall its just a terrible game that was released to keep up with the marketing of Battlefield 3. Don't waste your money.… Expand
  29. 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.
  30. lollerman
    Nov 10, 2011
    10
    This game doesn't deserve all the hate BF trolls give it lol
    Too bad they are just jealous and they do not play their own game because...it sucks?
    CoD may have **** graphics,but the multiplayer and the single player is so far the best in the series...
    Just tell s...What change dou you want,apart from graphics?I bet you cannot say any normal stuff.
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 »