User Score
3.1

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 5706 Ratings

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

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

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

    PC gamers should really not have to accept such things especially in a genre that was born on the PC. Continuing to purchase Call of Duty on the PC when every year the games lose more features for the PC platform specifically isn't going to change anything. Quit buying awful console ports with missing features PC gamers or else that's all you're going to have in the end. Support developers who incorporate the PC's strengths and are willing to go the extra couple of feet with multiplatform releases. 5: It functions and decent production values. It does nothing new, missing features, and significantly behind other competitors out there.
    Expand
  3. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    The only positive thing I have to say about this game is that it runs smoothly. Beyond that I feel as if I just paid 60 dollars for an expansion pack of rehashed content on new maps. The campaign is exactly what you'd expect from a cod game, completely linear with something crazy happening every 5 minutes to keep this ADD generations attention. Multiplayer removes wager matches and bringsThe only positive thing I have to say about this game is that it runs smoothly. Beyond that I feel as if I just paid 60 dollars for an expansion pack of rehashed content on new maps. The campaign is exactly what you'd expect from a cod game, completely linear with something crazy happening every 5 minutes to keep this ADD generations attention. Multiplayer removes wager matches and brings nothing new to the table. I think people need to avoid the next COD entry as a way of telling them it's time to innovate. I was a huge fan of the original COD and COD2 but am finally losing interest as they're going downhill due to their belief that they can sell the same rehashed game ever year and no one will ever get bored. Expand
  4. Nov 9, 2011
    3
    It is quite absurd frankly how much has not changed since 2009. Same menu, same screens, same multiplayer, same sounds , same graphics. What i intend to point here is there are many annually launching games out there more in the sports genre like FIFA and NBA which fell different even after a year but nothing much has changed for Modern warfare 3 from MW2 ( unless we look at the contrastIt is quite absurd frankly how much has not changed since 2009. Same menu, same screens, same multiplayer, same sounds , same graphics. What i intend to point here is there are many annually launching games out there more in the sports genre like FIFA and NBA which fell different even after a year but nothing much has changed for Modern warfare 3 from MW2 ( unless we look at the contrast and brightness).

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

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

    It is quite clear many are disappointed with the game and if they gave me a refund for dissatisfaction i would take it, but just to show my faith in COD, i won't and hopefully next year they do change some things and win back their fans.
    Expand
  5. Nov 9, 2011
    10
    @GlenSchofield asked his followers to come here and give a proper review to this game so here goes.

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

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

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

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

    Activision will learn nothing from this, will neglect to read the reviews, and next year put out the exact same product with a different name next year to rake in the money.
    Expand
  6. Nov 9, 2011
    10
    The campaign for this game is truly the same old story, but that doesn't mean it isn't a blast to play. The war zones are amazing and there are a whole bunch of WTF moments with incredible explosions. But the real reason I picked this game up was for multiplayer, spec ops and survival and I 100% assure you they are well worth your money even if you don't play the story at all you willThe campaign for this game is truly the same old story, but that doesn't mean it isn't a blast to play. The war zones are amazing and there are a whole bunch of WTF moments with incredible explosions. But the real reason I picked this game up was for multiplayer, spec ops and survival and I 100% assure you they are well worth your money even if you don't play the story at all you will still get 50 hours at least out of this game Expand
  7. Nov 9, 2011
    10
    Call of Duty is a franchise that gamers love to hate. Regardless, even though I am NOT a Call of Duty fan, developer Sledgehammer Games has created a worthy game for a franchise that annoys me entirely. Even though Activision may be money hungry, the studio who created this game deserves way better respect than this.
  8. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    I feel like I've played this game before. Oh wait, I have...twice. The graphics are pathetically outdated, having changed little since the first modern warfare. Why even play this game on PC? The hardware advantage (or lack thereof in this case, as nothing about this game really justifies beefy rigs) does not justify the inconvenience of installation and other BS that can be skipped onI feel like I've played this game before. Oh wait, I have...twice. The graphics are pathetically outdated, having changed little since the first modern warfare. Why even play this game on PC? The hardware advantage (or lack thereof in this case, as nothing about this game really justifies beefy rigs) does not justify the inconvenience of installation and other BS that can be skipped on consoles. The physics feel cheap and flimsy, as the guns do not actually recoil realistically and animations look unnaturally robotic. Being able to go full auto at someone with a machine gun while having the reticule barely budge makes the gunplay feel unrealistic and cheap. Sound effects are equally messy; gunfire sounds more like a fruitblender than anything else. Firing the weapons has no weight behind them due to the muffled, unrealistic sound effects and the robotic physics, giving little to no satisfaction in landing hits. At 60 bucks, IW is robbing us of our money. This is almost the same game, with the same engine, the same graphics, and same gameplay as the previous two. I feel like there is an immense lack of effort and dedication put in by the design team; in its third iteration, i expect a game to at the very least have technological improvements over its predecessors. But even there I am disappointed. I find it hilarious that the Glen Schofield has the balls to ask for higher user ratings on Metacritic after pumping out this product on so much hype. So here I am, voicing my opinion to spite him when I otherwise would have stayed silent. Do yourself a favor and go play skyrim or something Expand
  9. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    The campaign of this game is terrible. Its linear, has bad writing, generic gameplay, and the graphics are showing its age. The whole game is you going trough narrow paths and shooting bad guys. One good thing about it is that the campaign lasts only 3 hours.Mordern Warfare 3 is the exact same game with a different name, terrible Campaign that you finish in 3 and half hours, with the mostThe campaign of this game is terrible. Its linear, has bad writing, generic gameplay, and the graphics are showing its age. The whole game is you going trough narrow paths and shooting bad guys. One good thing about it is that the campaign lasts only 3 hours.Mordern Warfare 3 is the exact same game with a different name, terrible Campaign that you finish in 3 and half hours, with the most irregular irritating little maps that you literally spawn on your enemy's shoulders. The lack of vehical's and broken class system creates a very very dry and plain expirence. Expand
  10. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Terrible Terrible Terrible Terrible. Need I say more? This is a 59.99 map pack for MW2 with some bonus campaign content, an over hyped online add on, and garbage multiplayer maps.
  11. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    $60 for a map pack. Every single thing added in this game from the last one could have been downloadable content. I think all of the call of duty games suck (excluding the first) but I understand if you just enjoy the multiplayer. However, I don't understand why millions of people go out every single year to buy the same game. Do not tell me they added new stuff and changed it; it's the$60 for a map pack. Every single thing added in this game from the last one could have been downloadable content. I think all of the call of duty games suck (excluding the first) but I understand if you just enjoy the multiplayer. However, I don't understand why millions of people go out every single year to buy the same game. Do not tell me they added new stuff and changed it; it's the same exact game. I thought PC gamers were smarter than this. It's sad that this is the most successful video game in the world. How far the game industry has fallen. Expand
  12. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    this is supposed to be a game in late 2011. technically outdated, conceptually outdated and just a repackaging of an old game , yet charges 60 bucks for it. wow man, wow
  13. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Copy pasta console portage. No thanks. I think it's time this franchise moves on and evolves into something more than a vehicle for map packs. it's sad to see such a storied franchise be run into the ground by greed.
  14. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Every year, same thing. Activision spits out another one of these. It's frustrating, but they know they can do it because millions of 12 year olds the world over are going to buy it.

    It really just feels like a glorified map pack at this point. I feel like I've played this 3 times and this is just an expansion pack for Modern Warfare 1 and 2. I'm pretty disappointed. The campaign
    Every year, same thing. Activision spits out another one of these. It's frustrating, but they know they can do it because millions of 12 year olds the world over are going to buy it.

    It really just feels like a glorified map pack at this point. I feel like I've played this 3 times and this is just an expansion pack for Modern Warfare 1 and 2. I'm pretty disappointed. The campaign doesn't feel like it's done anything new, and the multiplayer is the same old thing. Oh well, at least I've been playing my brother's game and I didn't end up spending any money on it :)
    Expand
  15. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    This game is the same thig has COD MW2, if you already have it, there is no need to buy this one.If you played one, you've played them all. Same thing. Its really sad actually. I had no expectations and i was disappointed
  16. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    What a piece of ****
    It's just a copy Of MW2!
    Same graphics,same extremely outdated engine,almost the same multiplayer,short and lame singleplayer.
    The console peasants might be pleased with this but i am not!
  17. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Single Player is short and mediocre. Multiplayer just fells different in a very bad way. In every other CoD when I would die in Multiplayer I would feel like I made my own mistake, but in this game, it just feels like the game rips you off at least 75% of the time. Spawning blows too.
  18. Nov 9, 2011
    8
    I dare you to check the recent reviews of just about anyone on this site who rated this game poorly. Almost all of them rated battlefield 3 with 10 and MW3 0. Do you honestly think any BF3 fanboys actually purchased and played MW3? Probably not. And there are fanboys on both sides, and all of them are just as stupid and ignorant.

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

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

    Now, I'm not a CoD fanboy. I've played my share of BC2 and enjoyed it, so I picked up BF3 a few days after launch and have enjoyed it. But comparing the two games is retarded, because they're both very different. Do you ever hear people comparing halo and call of duty? No? Well, that's because it makes no sense. Just **** listen to yourselves, you're bashing a game that you haven't even played, which makes no sense. If you have played it enough to know you honestly didn't enjoy it, that's fine, as least you're not one of the ignorant fanboys. I really do like this game, but I also like battlefield 3. And I'm going to be playing both, because both are fun. In their own SEPARATE ways. (BF3 for graphics and realism, MW3 for fast-paced exciting gameplay)
    Expand
  19. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    60 Dollars for this? Why did I make the mistake even though my instincts told me to save my money?! This game doesn't even have improved graphics! It's just MW2 all over again with an extended story, but in essence the SAME GAME! You just payed full price for a second copy of MW2 which basically what this is! Plus, if the singleplayer wasn't bad enough the multiplayer wouldn't be so60 Dollars for this? Why did I make the mistake even though my instincts told me to save my money?! This game doesn't even have improved graphics! It's just MW2 all over again with an extended story, but in essence the SAME GAME! You just payed full price for a second copy of MW2 which basically what this is! Plus, if the singleplayer wasn't bad enough the multiplayer wouldn't be so terrible if the servers were not filled with 7th grade fanboy kids who apparently know everything. Expand
  20. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    No lean. Second citizen pc gamer. As you can see you have lost the pc gamer. First cod I have not bought going back to the beginning. Reminds me of the automakers before they failed. Hubris and arogance.
  21. Nov 9, 2011
    1
    I have played all previous Moder warfare titles including black ops and world at war (in between cod4 and modern warfare 2). I knew from that start the multiplayer looked the same but to my surprise they changed almost nothing. Even the sound effects are the same! are you kidding me!? Still running the quake III engine from 1999! All the texture models are the same expect shiner. However iI have played all previous Moder warfare titles including black ops and world at war (in between cod4 and modern warfare 2). I knew from that start the multiplayer looked the same but to my surprise they changed almost nothing. Even the sound effects are the same! are you kidding me!? Still running the quake III engine from 1999! All the texture models are the same expect shiner. However i dident fret i figured the campian is always epic right! NO! They basically held my hand down a straight path and then spoon fed me explosions. Sadly disappointed. If your a fan id wait for the bargain bin. Expand
  22. Nov 9, 2011
    1
    Another rehash of the same game, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, except that Sledgehammer implemented IWnet again which means the multiplayer is rampant with lag, hackers, and hacked lobbies. They state that they are listening to gamers but their actions say otherwise as they are clearly in this for the money. Their financial plan may to be release copy paste games for as long as theyAnother rehash of the same game, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, except that Sledgehammer implemented IWnet again which means the multiplayer is rampant with lag, hackers, and hacked lobbies. They state that they are listening to gamers but their actions say otherwise as they are clearly in this for the money. Their financial plan may to be release copy paste games for as long as they can before actually attempting to develop something new. We may see this 'new' game in 2013 after the dust from this trash has settled and people come to terms with what they've bought. Expand
  23. 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
  24. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    This is a re-release of the game before. It offers absolutely nothing new or ingenious at all. The sad part is that I can't even blame the publishers for doing this. The fans demonstrated that they will buy anything, and this is what they got. Hopefully by the next release cycle people will realize that there is no reason that they cannot have games like Quake, and Ocarina of Time, andThis is a re-release of the game before. It offers absolutely nothing new or ingenious at all. The sad part is that I can't even blame the publishers for doing this. The fans demonstrated that they will buy anything, and this is what they got. Hopefully by the next release cycle people will realize that there is no reason that they cannot have games like Quake, and Ocarina of Time, and Duke Nukem 3D every year. Expand
  25. Nov 9, 2011
    6
    Well, here goes. Modern Warfare 3 is certainly not a bad game, not in the slightest. i enjoy how they continue the campaign story and tie it up, but this is the only CoD title I've ever pre-ordered, and i am sad to say I'm disappointed i did pre-order it. MW3, unlike what people thought it would be, is certainly NOT the most anticipated game ever. i literally just bought it, and im on dayWell, here goes. Modern Warfare 3 is certainly not a bad game, not in the slightest. i enjoy how they continue the campaign story and tie it up, but this is the only CoD title I've ever pre-ordered, and i am sad to say I'm disappointed i did pre-order it. MW3, unlike what people thought it would be, is certainly NOT the most anticipated game ever. i literally just bought it, and im on day 2 and i'm already back to Battlefield Bad Company 2. The story is, somewhere in between good and great, but the actual campaign has little to no replayability. of course, i develop close bonds with the main characters, but that doesn't mean i actually enjoy the campaign. The multiplayer is just MW2 with a MW3 coat of paint. granted, this game is MUCH better than Black Ops, but i expected more from the creators of CoD 4 and MW2. PLEASE DONT BUY IT NOW IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY!!!! wait 'til the prices drop, or you will have wasted 20 dollars on what i think should be a 30 dollar product (and that's just being nice). I gave it a 6 just because it bored me even more than it did replaying MW2 for the sixth time over, but on its own, it's pretty good. Of course, the multiplayer AND singleplayer weapons are much more on par than CoDBO's were. Spec ops, even though i havent really done much of it yet, is ok, but the scenarios could be a bit less hard. All that stuff they say about the new multiplayer things, dont get all hyped. It's just same-old same-old every man for himself kinda thing that we've had for the past 7 games. It kills me inside to write this, because am truly a fan of CoD, but i must give the truth. Battlefield: Bad Company 2 is a much better choice, even with all the corporate bullcrap that EA gave it. It also kills me inside to just stop playing after 5 hours of campaign and roughly 30 minutes on multiplayer to go play battlefield, but i just cant stand all the solo, no teamwork stuff that is CoD. But dont believe all the people that gave it a low rating, those are just the younger battlefield fanboys who like CoD, too. FINAL CONCLUSION: MW3 is a rather good game. The campaign story is well put together, but the actual singleplayer gameplay leaves more to be desired. Multiplayer, nothing has changed. remember when you thought Black Ops would be radically different with the points buying guns system? Not only are they back to the same old level up stuff, but i am just depressed with how little they added to the multiplayer. even the maps are the same freaking things. Graphics, jesus christ, they didnt even change the goddamn textures. this game is barely worth $30, based on the previous two, which were totally worth the money. I am sad to say, i slightly disapprove of this game. i hate saying it, especially because its probably the conclusion of the series, but it leaves more to be desired. Thanks a lot InfinityWard, you broke my freakin heart. Expand
  26. Nov 9, 2011
    5
    You cant give the game a 0.....but you cant give the game anything more than a 5 either. I question the "professional" reviewers and their integrity by awarding this game so highly. At its best its a map pack for MW2. Only buy this game if you after the exact experience you have had for entire MW series. I actually look back and think that MW1 was superior to this entry. It was excitingYou cant give the game a 0.....but you cant give the game anything more than a 5 either. I question the "professional" reviewers and their integrity by awarding this game so highly. At its best its a map pack for MW2. Only buy this game if you after the exact experience you have had for entire MW series. I actually look back and think that MW1 was superior to this entry. It was exciting and fresh. The maps on this are poorly designed and small. It encourages sub machine gun run and shoot play only. The spawn points are just awful. The only people giving this game high reviews are fan boys who dont understand gaming. I will say its a prefessional package and put together with quality.....but the developers should be good at this by now.....they have done it three times in a row. Expand
  27. Nov 9, 2011
    7
    As far as FPS games go I've played the CoD series almost exclusively over the years logging in literally thousands of hours. Anyone should know before buying this game that you aren't paying $60 USD for a single player game. That being said, it is still frusturating to see them using the same engine with the same outdated graphics over and over. But, as a wise man once said, "if it ain'tAs far as FPS games go I've played the CoD series almost exclusively over the years logging in literally thousands of hours. Anyone should know before buying this game that you aren't paying $60 USD for a single player game. That being said, it is still frusturating to see them using the same engine with the same outdated graphics over and over. But, as a wise man once said, "if it ain't broke don't fix it." Or something like that. There is a reason this is the most popular shooting game in history. There is a reason that 90% of the reviewers who gave this game a score of zero are probably online right now trying to get the next unlock for their weapons. It is a quick, simple, fun to play game that will bring me hours of enjoyment over the next year. So here it is:
    7/10
    -1 for crap singleplayer mode THAT WE ALL KNEW WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.
    -1 for seriously outdated game engine. (Mark my words they will have a new engine next year)
    -1 for no ranked dedicated servers on the PC. (Lobbies? Intermissions? WTF that's lame.)
    Expand
  28. Nov 9, 2011
    1
    Call of Duty as it stands now is not a game, it's a franchise being milked for all that it is worth, and it shows in the execution of the game. As it stands the single player is simply broken on the PC, after about 25% of the game is done I encountered a showstopper bug that I could not find a workaround for, it is incredible that such a blunder made it through CQ. As far as visuals areCall of Duty as it stands now is not a game, it's a franchise being milked for all that it is worth, and it shows in the execution of the game. As it stands the single player is simply broken on the PC, after about 25% of the game is done I encountered a showstopper bug that I could not find a workaround for, it is incredible that such a blunder made it through CQ. As far as visuals are concerned the graphics have not changed a single iota from MW2, textures are blurry, animations are awkward and stilted, the audio is still lifeless and bland and if you so much as look at the enemy be prepared for BLOODY SCREEN, SO REAL. Expand
  29. Nov 9, 2011
    0
    The game was awful, full of cliche. The boring save the USA/Western civilization stuff.
    The Story line is even worse than a world war simulation on youtube.
    The gameplay is okay, but getting bored with QTEs. And it's getting old, this game not added anything new to the Call of Duty legacy....
Metascore
78

Generally favorable reviews - based on 26 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 19 out of 26
  2. Negative: 0 out of 26
  1. 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.
  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]