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. toSTONEiGO
    Jul 16, 2013
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. oing beyond "run and gun corridors," "monster-closet AIs" and static worlds, BioShock creates a living, unique and unpredictable FPS experience. After your plane crashes into icy uncharted waters, you discover a rusted bathysphere and descend into Rapture, a city hidden beneath the sea. Constructed as an idealistic society for a hand picked group of scientists, artists and industrialists, the idealism is no… Expand
  2. Xgashh
    Jul 30, 2012
    0
    It's basically same as MW:2... cmon this game is not even worth 10$. It sucks so much that i even dont have words to describe how much it sux. Better buy Batllefield 3, its worth every penny!!
  3. rafs
    Aug 29, 2012
    8
    MW1-MW2-MW3, i liked all the games very much. Though MW1 is the best, others are not so bad at all. We hope the next one will be more attractive than this one.
  4. Speed4Runs
    Dec 18, 2012
    1
    Should I copy and paste the same review as Modern Warfare 2? Well, I try to make it different, but I'll say the same things. This game engine is the same as the CoD 4 Modern Warfare from 2007, nothing has changed, nothing has been optimized. The game is the same as any other post CoD-4 CoD. The gameplay sucks, the singleplayer sucks, the multiplayer sucks, the graphics sucks. The plot isShould I copy and paste the same review as Modern Warfare 2? Well, I try to make it different, but I'll say the same things. This game engine is the same as the CoD 4 Modern Warfare from 2007, nothing has changed, nothing has been optimized. The game is the same as any other post CoD-4 CoD. The gameplay sucks, the singleplayer sucks, the multiplayer sucks, the graphics sucks. The plot is enough good, but not good, since it's not deep and mature. The sound is OK. Avoid these games. There's a CoD every half year (yeah, not even every year, since every 6 months you see a "new", bad, and sad CoD). Sold out games. I do not give this a 0 just because this is not as bad as Call of Duty Black Ops Declassified (45 minutes of SP). CoD MW3 = 0.75, for me.… Expand
  5. LazyDevelopers
    Aug 21, 2015
    1
    Campaign is okay. If I was basing my review on the campaign alone, maybe I'd give a 5/10. it was okay, but not as good as the previous two Modern Warfares. Now for the thing that everyone gets this game for - the multiplayer:

    1. Matchmaking: It's garbage. Rookie players gets matched versus veteran players. Game MVPs are all on one team, while all of those who went negative are on the    Campaign is okay. If I was basing my review on the campaign alone, maybe I'd give a 5/10. it was okay, but not as good as the previous two Modern Warfares. Now for the thing that everyone gets this game for - the multiplayer:

    1. Matchmaking: It's garbage. Rookie players gets matched versus veteran players. Game MVPs are all on one team, while all of those who went negative are on the other. You quit or get kicked from a game, and the matchmaking puts you right back in the same freaking game. It's embarrassing. Oh yeah, also this game puts you into losing games where they LITERALLY JUST ENDED. Not even an exaggeration. You enter a game and the other team had already scored the last kill or are about to. No option to disable this either. And yes, it adds to your losses. Fair, right? You played for ZERO and it counts as a loss for you.

    2. Balance: What balance? Go akimbo SMGs or auto-shotguns and you're set. Very little incentive to use more obscure weapons like 3-burst assault rifles or pistols. Just choose the fastest firing gun, spray and pray, profit.

    3. Hit detection: It's a freaking joke. The game signals (via audio cues) that you shoot a guy 5 times. Or he's completely covered your reticle, you unload an entire magazine into him, yet the killcam shows that zero of those hits made contact. Or the killcam DOES show like 3 bullets hit, yet he's still alive. What the hell is that crap? I swear if even half of the shots registered, my K/D would not be negative right now. Yeah, also, apparently my enemies can shoot through solid texture to get the last bullet in. Not only can they shoot around corners, but apparently only one bullet needs to graze you in order to kill you. Sure,it shows on the killcam it shows he landed like 4 shots, but on YOUR cam, the one that actually matters, you get hit once and die. It's like you just drop dead just because.

    I can understand firing from the hip will be inaccurate. But who in hell programs it so that pointing a sniper rifle right at an enemy and firing at him at POINT BLANK RANGE will miss? What, does the bullet make a 45 degree left turn or something?

    4. Spawn kills: They happen. Not always, but often enough. It's a very frequent occurrence that you spawn RIGHT NEXT to an enemy. Not only that, you can spawn right into the sights of an enemy weapon. I'm not talking about using tactical insertions where you choose where to spawn. I mean "random" spawns where I guess the computer determines where you spawn before you even die. At least in Halo Reach, you spawn guaranteed in a location farthest away from enemies. Nope. Infinity Ward doesn't even do that right. Just spawn randomly and to hell with strategic location. Right in the enemies' sights? Don't care.

    5. Map design: I do not have the DLC maps, so this is only for the default maps. Half are okay, but the other half are just garbage urban maps. The most annoying thing is that there is so much s*** around to impede your movement. There's a can on the ground? You either have to jump over it or walk around it. Can't walk OVER it. Nope. That's just too obvious. Or the developers just randomly tossed crates, debris, and other garbage just to make movement a chore. It's also a common occurrence that you get stuck on a protrusion on a wall. You'd expect that you can just hug the wall nice and easily. But, nope, there's a door frame hanging out from it? You're getting stuck unless you walk away from it. Like really? 5% of your width gets blocked by a small protrusion so your entire body gets hampered? Is it a damn joke?

    6.. Functionality: This is the one thing that you absolutely need to get right when making any game - making sure the game works as intended. That, and being able to play the game (the only thing saving my review from being a zero). There is a "perk" that supposedly makes you invisible to enemy air strikes, drones, etc. Why is it that when I use it, I still see myself as a highlighted target on the enemy POV? Your game must work, IW! YOUR GAME. MUST. WORK!

    Personal gripe: My favourite gun is the Type 95 (in real life known in the West as the QBZ-95). It is reduced to a 3-burst rifle. Using a 3-burst rifle is suicide in this game. Why did they do this? Because it's a Chinese rifle, so they must make it as s*****y as possible?
    This is, what, like the 8th game in the series? How do you make a barely functional game after so many years of experience? How dare you continue to exist as a company and how dare the community continue to support this crummy developer even to today. My only consolation is people are getting tired of the FPS scene and their newest games are only getting average reviews, at least critic-wise    … Expand
  6. TellNoLies
    Nov 8, 2011
    0
    It's not that Call of Duty is necessarily a "bad" game, per se. The mechanics are sound, the gameplay is polished, the graphics are good. The problem is they billed it as "the most anticipated game in history" and then gave us the same exact thing as the previous game. No innovation. Crap story. Rehashed multiplayer. No depth. No thought. The only time this game pushes the envelope is whenIt's not that Call of Duty is necessarily a "bad" game, per se. The mechanics are sound, the gameplay is polished, the graphics are good. The problem is they billed it as "the most anticipated game in history" and then gave us the same exact thing as the previous game. No innovation. Crap story. Rehashed multiplayer. No depth. No thought. The only time this game pushes the envelope is when it attempts to be controversial, in what are CLEARLY cheap attempts to grab media headlines - they understand that any attention is good attention in the gaming business. At this point, the so-called "critic" reviews are a joke. They may go through and give you a rundown on the game's faults, realize that the game's good points are few and far-between, only to completely reverse direction at the end and say, without any trace of self-awareness, "9/10." Because god forbid they be blacklisted from reviewing the next mega-hit that the company puts out (which, ironically, is a trend that they are helping perpetuate). At this point, we as gamers really need to step up and take notice of bias in our gaming sites. We as gamers need to do a lot of things, actually. Most importantly, we have to stop letting them shove media hype down our throats. Is MW3 ACTUALLY bad enough to warrant the zero I give it? No. In reality, it should be more like a three. But we can't compromise anymore. We can't allow constant headlines on IGN to dictate our purchases. We can't allow companies to sell us generic, shallow crap and get away with it. We can't allow companies to copy (more or less verbatim) previous formats and shove them down our throats. It's time that we, as gamers, finally take a little pride for once in our chosen lifestyle and tell the gaming industry that we're not gonna to take it, no, we ain't gonna take it, we're not gonna take it, anymore. Innovation should be celebrated, not labeled as dangerous and used sparingly. And certainly not completely absent, as it is in Modern Warfare three. So when you're at Wal-Mart, or Gamestop, or where ever, do the industry a favor: Do not buy this game.… Expand
  7. Memorable
    Nov 8, 2011
    0
    I thought of writing a good explanation on why this game is awful; but it's not even worth it. It's just god awful. The critic reviews have given this game good reviews because Activision paid them out. The game is awful.
  8. Trebor_UK
    Nov 10, 2011
    0
    To put it simply. DO NOT BUY THIS GAME. This game is a copy and paste of MW2 - meaning the servere consolitis which came with MW2 has returned in MW3. Infact, the game probably has worse graphics than MW2 aswell. Seriously, do yourself a favour and just avoid this poor excuse of a game. The story is weak too, it's like a cheap rip off a Michael Bay movie....The whole game is a massiveTo put it simply. DO NOT BUY THIS GAME. This game is a copy and paste of MW2 - meaning the servere consolitis which came with MW2 has returned in MW3. Infact, the game probably has worse graphics than MW2 aswell. Seriously, do yourself a favour and just avoid this poor excuse of a game. The story is weak too, it's like a cheap rip off a Michael Bay movie....The whole game is a massive cliche.

    Infinity Ward said they would give us a decent PC port with dedicated servers. They pretty much lied. The MP is terrible. The SP is actually better than the MP, and thats saying something. Overall, poor game. Gameplay for SP and MP is just copy pasted right from MW2. I got bored in the first 3 hours. No variation at all.    … Expand
  9. metacrtcreview
    Aug 14, 2012
    8
    Positives-The addition of new weapons, althought not very many new weapons. The addition of Survival mode. Survival mode contains new content and a new way to play. Survival mode allows you to play the way you want, choose which weapons to use, and choose how to play.
  10. HELLBOUND
    Nov 8, 2011
    4
    Ok, so based off the game as if it were the first time we've ever seen this...

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

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

    Now, lets break it down some

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

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

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

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

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

    Single player 1
    Multiplayer 1
    Graphics 1
    replayable 1

    OVERALL = 4    … Expand
  11. darkfury23
    Nov 8, 2011
    0
    Can't even tell the difference between this and original modern warfare. There's a reason they come out with so many games and so many map packs...its because they want one thing, and it looks like an "S" with a vertical line through it.
  12. Whiskey990
    Nov 8, 2011
    1
    I give it a one for being a good game...several years ago!! Somehow they managed to make the graphics worse than Black Ops, AND MW2!!!! What the heck happened?!? Had they made the graphics impressive, that alone would have at least eased my pain. But no...we simply have a couple old tricks such as an aa12 shotgun, CounterStrike riot shield, and an EMP grenade as if it was some big freakin'I give it a one for being a good game...several years ago!! Somehow they managed to make the graphics worse than Black Ops, AND MW2!!!! What the heck happened?!? Had they made the graphics impressive, that alone would have at least eased my pain. But no...we simply have a couple old tricks such as an aa12 shotgun, CounterStrike riot shield, and an EMP grenade as if it was some big freakin' deal...IT WAS IN 2142! They didn't even bother to change the majority of in-game sounds, effects, voices, etc... They down-sized just about every map to dinky little squares.... BF3 looks 10x better than this and it handles 64 players! I shouldn't even have to compare this to another game...this should not have happened! Now I WILL NOT purchase the next generation Activision game. Not until hell freezes over and they fix the 14GB mess they had me put onto my computer.… Expand
  13. sebastimau
    Nov 8, 2011
    1
    The game offers little innovation overall, both the singleplayer and multiplayer dont offer anything new. The overall balance of multiplayer matches did not hit the spot, like mw 1. I regret ever spending 60 dollars on this game. Although unlikely i hope activition offers a ****ton FREE maps or atleast some interesting multiplayer modes.
  14. NotGunnaLie
    Nov 8, 2011
    0
    I'm not gunna lie, this game is highly disappointing. Also, I've noticed a trend in all the cod reviews. It's basically paid critics vs user reviewers. Obviously the paid ones are going to give the game a much higher score even though it's **** and the users are going to give the game the score it deserves.
  15. BrOkEn_SileNcE
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Fail of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 [PC version]

    This is the worst COD ever.. I've bought and played all Cod games since COD 2.. Cod 2 it was good, Cod 4 it was even better (because I like modern fps), cod 5.. it was good.. Cod: Mw2, it was ok for the time, COD: BO it was better than mw2, but I also didn't like many stuff.. COD: MW3 itâ
  16. daarthreview1
    Nov 8, 2011
    0
    I had the luck to play on every console and pc they all blow.but on pc it was so cheaply ported that its disgusting. does anyone care about pc gamers anymore? well infinity ward does not. call of duty doesn't deserve the crown of fps shooters. look at all the amazing fps shooters out their they might not me amazing
    but they put effort in their games. this games needs to grow up and face    I had the luck to play on every console and pc they all blow.but on pc it was so cheaply ported that its disgusting. does anyone care about pc gamers anymore? well infinity ward does not. call of duty doesn't deserve the crown of fps shooters. look at all the amazing fps shooters out their they might not me amazing
    but they put effort in their games. this games needs to grow up and face reality that they will not be the highest grossing fps title if they keep this up.    … Expand
  17. xSociety
    Nov 8, 2011
    0
    Wow, this game is the same thing, over and over again. MP offers zero competition. 10 year old kids might enjoy this game, but other than that? Steer clear.
  18. CravenKnight
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    First off, I am absolutely OUTRAGED that EA have decided to sell this MW2 Map Pack for $59.99! This release clearly demonstrates that NO progress has been made since the release of COD4: Modern Warfare. The same recycled gameplay for both Single & Multiplayer, the usual cliche story line and the same exhausted game engine. This game is bland to say the least, it lacks any flavor at allFirst off, I am absolutely OUTRAGED that EA have decided to sell this MW2 Map Pack for $59.99! This release clearly demonstrates that NO progress has been made since the release of COD4: Modern Warfare. The same recycled gameplay for both Single & Multiplayer, the usual cliche story line and the same exhausted game engine. This game is bland to say the least, it lacks any flavor at all and this just proves that FPS gameplay has collectively hit a great and impenetrable wall.… Expand
  19. reasonableram
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Single Player is short and mediocre. Multiplayer just fells different in a very bad way. In every other CoD when I would die in Multiplayer I would feel like I made my own mistake, but in this game, it just feels like the game rips you off at least 75% of the time. Spawning blows too.
  20. 12ealDeal
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Terrible Terrible Terrible Terrible. Need I say more? This is a 59.99 map pack for MW2 with some bonus campaign content, an over hyped online add on, and garbage multiplayer maps.
  21. Objectivism
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    The only positive thing I have to say about this game is that it runs smoothly. Beyond that I feel as if I just paid 60 dollars for an expansion pack of rehashed content on new maps. The campaign is exactly what you'd expect from a cod game, completely linear with something crazy happening every 5 minutes to keep this ADD generations attention. Multiplayer removes wager matches and bringsThe only positive thing I have to say about this game is that it runs smoothly. Beyond that I feel as if I just paid 60 dollars for an expansion pack of rehashed content on new maps. The campaign is exactly what you'd expect from a cod game, completely linear with something crazy happening every 5 minutes to keep this ADD generations attention. Multiplayer removes wager matches and brings nothing new to the table. I think people need to avoid the next COD entry as a way of telling them it's time to innovate. I was a huge fan of the original COD and COD2 but am finally losing interest as they're going downhill due to their belief that they can sell the same rehashed game ever year and no one will ever get bored.… Expand
  22. johnweythek
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Poopy. sp is short, it's a mix of shooting gallery scenes and uncontrollable in-game cinematics that took me the short side of an afternoon to play ALL the way through 1st time. Graphics are on par with cod4. And that's maxed out on a PC. MP is ruined by IWNET again. I hope activision doesn't pay you again. Your fault for developing that crappy game. LOVING all the zeros on this board. aPoopy. sp is short, it's a mix of shooting gallery scenes and uncontrollable in-game cinematics that took me the short side of an afternoon to play ALL the way through 1st time. Graphics are on par with cod4. And that's maxed out on a PC. MP is ruined by IWNET again. I hope activision doesn't pay you again. Your fault for developing that crappy game. LOVING all the zeros on this board. a 1.5/10 is too high though. They've made their money though sadly. I'm all about mw and usually a bf hater. But everyone go get bf3 instead. and if you want mw, get the 1st one cause it's the best. pretty soon i'm gonna immerse myself in a REAL game for months and not have to think about this crap anymore. Bring on skyrim!… Expand
  23. metaphase
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Terrible Terrible rehash of the same game they've released over and over again. Bad graphics, bad gameplay (well, bad now because there's nothing new or exciting, if I wanted this I would have played MW1), bad sound (in comparison to current new releases). Just bad all around. Plus the fact that it costs more than other A list titles... I'm sorry but stay well away from this one.
  24. disappointed
    Nov 15, 2011
    1
    Wtf with the guys that gives mw3 a good score??!! Are u guys being payed by activision?
    The game sucks! Period! 1. Short SP
    2. Graphics (dont get me started about that) 3. No new features (just the same **** on a different day) 4. Its a Mappack for MW2 5. MP maps are horrible set 6. They got billions of dollars and came with the same engine as mw1! Was a huge huge fan of COD but    Wtf with the guys that gives mw3 a good score??!! Are u guys being payed by activision?
    The game sucks! Period! 1. Short SP
    2. Graphics (dont get me started about that)
    3. No new features (just the same **** on a different day)
    4. Its a Mappack for MW2
    5. MP maps are horrible set
    6. They got billions of dollars and came with the same engine as mw1!
    Was a huge huge fan of COD but now........ Nuff said!    … Expand
  25. 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
  26. Sorky
    Dec 25, 2011
    7
    I really enjoyed the single player campaign in MW3. It kept my attention and offered enough challenge to want to play it to the finish. I thought it was a great ending to the Modern Warfare trilogy. Some say the graphics are outdated, but if it works, then don't try to fix it. The mulitplayer is another story. I play it, but it's not my favorite. I prefer Battlefield 3 and COD BlackI really enjoyed the single player campaign in MW3. It kept my attention and offered enough challenge to want to play it to the finish. I thought it was a great ending to the Modern Warfare trilogy. Some say the graphics are outdated, but if it works, then don't try to fix it. The mulitplayer is another story. I play it, but it's not my favorite. I prefer Battlefield 3 and COD Black Ops multi over MW2 and 3. The Co-op Survival and Resistance is innovative and fun.… Expand
  27. Coeco
    Jul 19, 2012
    0
    This used to be a really enjoyable shooter series. Now the only remotely use it has left for sane individuals is a reminder on what marketing does to the quality of games thanks to greedy publishers. Way to go Activision. I can only truly hope that you people will never figure out how to repopulate.
  28. CsendesMark
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    The game was awful, full of cliche. The boring save the USA/Western civilization stuff.
    The Story line is even worse than a world war simulation on youtube.
    The gameplay is okay, but getting bored with QTEs. And it's getting old, this game not added anything new to the Call of Duty legacy....
  29. Ragna
    Nov 14, 2011
    0
    In this game youâ
  30. 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
  31. SilverS
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    What can I say? I've already played this game 10 times before (literally, I've played each CoD all the way through and they've never changed). It's the same mechanics, same endless stream of units, flashy effects and ill-balanced guns with cap gun sounds.

    I just... I dunno how better to say it than, it's just not fun.
  32. Lordeldar
    Sep 26, 2012
    8
    Singleplayer was average. The compaign was repetitive and unoriginal, Spec Ops missions were better, but nothing overly special. Survival however, is amazing. And makes up for the weakness of the rest of the singleplayer experience. And then there's multiplayer, which had it's unoriginality, but with that aside, was amazing. There's something for every FPS fan here. I see why there areSingleplayer was average. The compaign was repetitive and unoriginal, Spec Ops missions were better, but nothing overly special. Survival however, is amazing. And makes up for the weakness of the rest of the singleplayer experience. And then there's multiplayer, which had it's unoriginality, but with that aside, was amazing. There's something for every FPS fan here. I see why there are negative user reviews here, but I personally love it (Apart from the campaign and spec ops missions, which were still good)… Expand
  33. Finrandojin
    Nov 9, 2011
    1
    Call of Duty as it stands now is not a game, it's a franchise being milked for all that it is worth, and it shows in the execution of the game. As it stands the single player is simply broken on the PC, after about 25% of the game is done I encountered a showstopper bug that I could not find a workaround for, it is incredible that such a blunder made it through CQ. As far as visuals areCall of Duty as it stands now is not a game, it's a franchise being milked for all that it is worth, and it shows in the execution of the game. As it stands the single player is simply broken on the PC, after about 25% of the game is done I encountered a showstopper bug that I could not find a workaround for, it is incredible that such a blunder made it through CQ. As far as visuals are concerned the graphics have not changed a single iota from MW2, textures are blurry, animations are awkward and stilted, the audio is still lifeless and bland and if you so much as look at the enemy be prepared for BLOODY SCREEN, SO REAL.… Expand
  34. Fogz
    Nov 8, 2011
    5
    Look at it from a different point of view. This game has spent 2 years in development! And this is the best they can come up with. Christ! my Nan could make a better go at a MW then IW. To start with the maps are as small as my back garden and encourage camping the the nth degree. Noob tubes have been toned down (thank god) but corners have been increased (not good). The guns feel sluggishLook at it from a different point of view. This game has spent 2 years in development! And this is the best they can come up with. Christ! my Nan could make a better go at a MW then IW. To start with the maps are as small as my back garden and encourage camping the the nth degree. Noob tubes have been toned down (thank god) but corners have been increased (not good). The guns feel sluggish and weak and with a level cap of 80 is going to be hard to hit with out going crazy. In the time it would take to get to level 80 I would recommend learning and instrument or something because its not worth it. Maybe the first 50 levels, but it gets old fast. Dont like comparing other games to this but BF3 creams all over this title.… Expand
  35. TheGregsterx
    Nov 9, 2011
    2
    Modern Warfare 3 Impressions.

    I recently purchased the new game from the call of duty franchise in high hopes that the latest instalment will be everything I enjoyed greatly about the 1st, and 2nd modern warfare game. The 1st modern warfare game was amazing, which created the success for the 2nd modern warfare game. The 3rd one is based around the setup of the 2nd modern warfare. This    Modern Warfare 3 Impressions.

    I recently purchased the new game from the call of duty franchise in high hopes that the latest instalment will be everything I enjoyed greatly about the 1st, and 2nd modern warfare game. The 1st modern warfare game was amazing, which created the success for the 2nd modern warfare game. The 3rd one is based around the setup of the 2nd modern warfare. This leads me to the things I dislike in comparison to modern warfare 2.

    Bullet Damage: Modern warfare 2 had very high bullet damage and was consistent for all ranges in the maps 3-4 hits was standard, careful shooting allowed you to kill from a decent distance of 100m + with almost any gun. Modern warfare 3 how ever does not allow for correct range correlation. When I'm firing at targets 10-20-30 metres away from me which is nothing in the real world, with a sub machine gun it is taking 4-8 bullets just to kill someone. This unrealistic frustrating over dramatic affect of bullet range in submachine guns makes them unusable in standard combat and puts them at a great disadvantage to assault rifles.

    Sprinting: Modern warfare 2 had a decent time for sprinting of lets say around 10 seconds (I'm not sure of the exact sprinting times) which was a good amount if you weren't focused on rushing as a main goal, and if you were focused on rushing you had a perfect perk for that sort of game play marathon gave unlimited sprint which was dire for map coverage and aggressive game play. In modern warfare 3 no such perk is available yes extreme conditioning slightly helps the problem but it only increases the initial sprinting time, nothing to do with sprinting recovery so when you get to a certain point it becomes a useless perk. Not giving decent sprinting perks, just decreases the potential of sub machine guns further because doesn't allow proper potential to get into close quarters. Explosives: Okay I will admit modern warfare 2 was quite generous with the explosions and explosive damage but many of them were completely balanced, the grenades had good throwing distance and 100% reasonable damage, you could avoid them if you played carefully. I agree that grenade launcher attachment was quite overpowered and well placed grenades could kill 5-6 people at the start of the game but how often did that really happen? RPG's were rarely used because you had to be the max level to use them and the thumper did decent damage but had little area affect which balanced it perfectly. I agree that the danger close perk did cause imbalances in using most of the explosives, but it gave up the most important perk slot, yes high power explosions were frustrating at times but you never did as much damage as proper run and gunning. Modern warfare 3 has disgustingly pitiful explosion damage, when I throw a semtex in about 10 metres it goes straight to the ground no matter how high I throw it and it never kills ever unless you stand right on top of it, it's damage is a complete joke the only kills I literally have gotten on the semtex were people on incredibly low health and stick kills. Grenade launchers only kill right on there feet or direct hits, secondary rocket launchers are unusable because they are completely underpowered and trying to aim directly at a person to get a kill defeats the purpose of a rocket launcher.



    Title and emblem unlocks: One of my personal favourite things about modern warfare 2 the title and emblem unlocks and the customisations of your "profile" you went through specific challenges some varying in difficulty and you would receive experience, an emblem and/or title. For example kill 1000 people with the stopping power perk, you would receive a title "bite the bullet" and a emblem which has a picture of the stopping power pro icon. This was a nice way to reward the user for continued use of a specific perk and could boast/show these to other players who look at your profile. Modern warfare 3 how ever has displayed no such difficulty in unlocking the emblems or titles for example, I started using the perk assassin and within a couple of minutes I have unlocked the pro version of the perk, and the emblem which displays the perk icon. This is a disgustingly quick form of unlocking something which in modern warfare took hundreds of games to unlock. This causes no form of pride or boast to your profile as in most titles are unlocked in minutes.

    The matchmaking and g    … Expand
  36. zelloxy
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    This game blows. They've just taken the old game(s) and revamped the UI and added new weapons and such. Really low of them, just so that they may cash in more millions.
  37. PhineasQ
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    This is a re-release of the game before. It offers absolutely nothing new or ingenious at all. The sad part is that I can't even blame the publishers for doing this. The fans demonstrated that they will buy anything, and this is what they got. Hopefully by the next release cycle people will realize that there is no reason that they cannot have games like Quake, and Ocarina of Time, andThis is a re-release of the game before. It offers absolutely nothing new or ingenious at all. The sad part is that I can't even blame the publishers for doing this. The fans demonstrated that they will buy anything, and this is what they got. Hopefully by the next release cycle people will realize that there is no reason that they cannot have games like Quake, and Ocarina of Time, and Duke Nukem 3D every year.… Expand
  38. huffyrox
    Nov 9, 2011
    1
    Another rehash of the same game, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, except that Sledgehammer implemented IWnet again which means the multiplayer is rampant with lag, hackers, and hacked lobbies. They state that they are listening to gamers but their actions say otherwise as they are clearly in this for the money. Their financial plan may to be release copy paste games for as long as theyAnother rehash of the same game, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, except that Sledgehammer implemented IWnet again which means the multiplayer is rampant with lag, hackers, and hacked lobbies. They state that they are listening to gamers but their actions say otherwise as they are clearly in this for the money. Their financial plan may to be release copy paste games for as long as they can before actually attempting to develop something new. We may see this 'new' game in 2013 after the dust from this trash has settled and people come to terms with what they've bought.… Expand
  39. 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
  40. gl7uc0m3
    Nov 10, 2011
    1
    bad, bad, bad. old graphics. the singleplayer is simply shallow and boring. unreal/predictable story line. multiplayer lame as well. childish perks, fast experience bar. can't apply any strategies with team/ other players. and very basic shoot-die-re deploy kind of game.
    pretty much like the old games (black ops/mw 2), just in new box.
  41. GHOST21
    Nov 11, 2011
    2
    Cod is the best, i loved this game category,the graphic little bit disappointed, but the game play is so enjoyable,the story is still made in good mode... activation keep it up!!!
  42. OmeNu
    Nov 15, 2011
    1
    if you played Modern Warfare 2. you played modern warfare 3... and what can i say im one of those that just didn't care for Modern Warfare 2 Either. as far as im concerned this series hit its peak in the first modern warfare.

    the game brings nothing new to the table its the same repetitive arcade shooter. just with bumped up graphics.
  43. dziurek1008
    Nov 22, 2011
    0
    For me, worst COD ever...it's so glitched, scripted, lame and omg don't know what else !!! The campaign on veteran is so stupid. Everybody shoots directly at you and only you. Naturally teammates are the lamest bots known for PC world as well as the rest of bots there. To be honest, that is a collection of worst things from previous versions od call of duty. For example, respawns areFor me, worst COD ever...it's so glitched, scripted, lame and omg don't know what else !!! The campaign on veteran is so stupid. Everybody shoots directly at you and only you. Naturally teammates are the lamest bots known for PC world as well as the rest of bots there. To be honest, that is a collection of worst things from previous versions od call of duty. For example, respawns are directly from COD4. There are also our favourite deathstrikes and because of the"new" killstrikes it is also "MW3 - only campers multiplayer".
    That is really waste of money and time, so i highly not recommend this thing.

    Buy some candy instead    … Expand
  44. Ghoster
    Sep 29, 2012
    0
    I did it again!!!! After terrible release of Black Ops I though they will fix gameplay and create again good game. For me graphics is not main feature in games, so will not complain about graphics which BTW looks like from 2002.
    But they didn't fix anything. Whole game ooks exactly same.. More like level pack.
    Singleplayer is boring and on multiplayer you can have fun is you love to be    I did it again!!!! After terrible release of Black Ops I though they will fix gameplay and create again good game. For me graphics is not main feature in games, so will not complain about graphics which BTW looks like from 2002.
    But they didn't fix anything. Whole game ooks exactly same.. More like level pack.
    Singleplayer is boring and on multiplayer you can have fun is you love to be shot from the back each time and never able to see what's happend. No matter what's your skill game will respawn enemy ALWAYS behond your back.    … Expand
  45. CjHARGER
    Nov 8, 2011
    0
    Compared to Console version, PC version has no differences in graphic quality.

    Like someons says, in this board, it is absolutely disgusting graphics. Treyach never, would not make PC version like this.....

    Sledgehammer should take after the policy of Treyach for the PC version Call of Duty.
  46. yumdumpster
    Dec 23, 2011
    7
    Yes the Graphics are a bit dated, yes the campaign could use work, and yes it is in much the same formula as the other COD games, but lets be honest this is what most people were expecting, and most would have been upset if the game had radically changed itself between installments. If you were expecting something different from the formula you were deluding yourself, they wont change theYes the Graphics are a bit dated, yes the campaign could use work, and yes it is in much the same formula as the other COD games, but lets be honest this is what most people were expecting, and most would have been upset if the game had radically changed itself between installments. If you were expecting something different from the formula you were deluding yourself, they wont change the game drastically until it stops making money, and at that point they will stop producing the series or they will shake it up and make something different. Who knows.… Expand
  47. marqpas
    Nov 20, 2011
    7
    MW1 was great, MW 2 a bit less great, and MW3 a bit less great. Still a nice game if you've never played MW before. This is more of a nice expansion to MW2 really. Not worth the full game's price or title.
  48. Fonjask
    Nov 15, 2011
    6
    If you are a fan of fast-paced shooters, and/or enjoyed MW2, you'll like this game. Haters gonna hate, but the fact is that the Call of Duty franchise does not make GOOD games, they make FUN games, which is why I play games.
  49. AngryGamer
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    What a piece of ****
    It's just a copy Of MW2!
    Same graphics,same extremely outdated engine,almost the same multiplayer,short and lame singleplayer.
    The console peasants might be pleased with this but i am not!
  50. sylvermane
    Nov 15, 2011
    9
    Graphics were absolutely incredible. Gameplay, while nearly the same as MW2, were just as enjoyable as the last one...which is NOT a bad thing at all. The Single Player Campaign was much shorter than the last installment, which was a little disappointing, but still that did not detract from the game. The single player Special Ops Missions are enjoyable even after playing them multipleGraphics were absolutely incredible. Gameplay, while nearly the same as MW2, were just as enjoyable as the last one...which is NOT a bad thing at all. The Single Player Campaign was much shorter than the last installment, which was a little disappointing, but still that did not detract from the game. The single player Special Ops Missions are enjoyable even after playing them multiple times. Excellent Game!… Expand
  51. ltpie
    Nov 15, 2011
    9
    Yet again I was entertained by another epic sequel of the Modern Warfare series. Eventhough the graphics were a little outdated the campaign have made up for it . I have really enjoyed the campaign, I finished it in 7 hours , the more i play this game the more i couldnt stop loving it. I know that many of you are very impressed by the new Frostbite engine that is currently being used inYet again I was entertained by another epic sequel of the Modern Warfare series. Eventhough the graphics were a little outdated the campaign have made up for it . I have really enjoyed the campaign, I finished it in 7 hours , the more i play this game the more i couldnt stop loving it. I know that many of you are very impressed by the new Frostbite engine that is currently being used in Battlefield 3 but the question is is that all that matters? the graphics?. I am also a Battlefield fan and I've enjoyed playing BF3 as much as any of you do, but I do know that those 2 games arent the same. I'm impressed by bf3's graphics but MW3's Campaign story was just how I wanted all the other games i play to end. I have tried out the Multiplayer and I do agree that it has some similarities to Mw2. I cannot give this game a 10 out of 10 as there is always room for improvement.… Expand
  52. TingPing
    Nov 16, 2011
    7
    It's a solid game with the strongest singleplayer of the entire series with some amazing moments and decent visuals for the ageing engine. Coop is solid with survival mode and spec op missions. The multiplayer maybe more of the same but thats not a bad thing as the majority still love it.
  53. smisek
    Nov 21, 2011
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. RIP Sandman, Soap, Ghost, Yuri. Graphic: same as all ways so you want be disappointed but you wont be thrilled. Story: great storyline since cod4 and i think that it got epic ending. Music: epic in the right moments. Characters: love them and miss them. Gameplay: absence of some kind of training but because game is same as previous titles its not so hard to get .. SP is maybe short but every fps is short lately (MoH, BF3) Also this is review of someone who hates all COD games and activision.. MoH forever!!â… Expand
  54. iAGR
    Nov 16, 2011
    8
    The game is fun and fast-paced, but if you aren't good at the game, it won't be fun. On PC it's a whole different thing, because of the dedicated servers. If you just want to play around without having to worry about your K:D and stuff, you can go and play on dedicated servers!

    Kill Confirmed was a great invention for MW3, it's extremely fast-paced and you get a lot XP each match.    The game is fun and fast-paced, but if you aren't good at the game, it won't be fun. On PC it's a whole different thing, because of the dedicated servers. If you just want to play around without having to worry about your K:D and stuff, you can go and play on dedicated servers!

    Kill Confirmed was a great invention for MW3, it's extremely fast-paced and you get a lot XP each match. Definitely one of Infinity Ward's (and SHG's) good ideas! At first the game seems fun, the first 5-7 hours - then (in most cases) you feel "fed up", you start to feel annoyed and unsatisfied. But this effect will fade out after some sleep!

    In general I would describe MW3 as a good candy in an old wrapper. It's like your friend played a joke on you and but your candy in an old wrapper, to make you believe it's bad and you don't want it. But after playing MW3 you realize it plays like MW2 but it's a whole different game. It even looks like MW2, but it's not.

    A game definitely worth the money!    … Expand
  55. darth3pio
    Nov 20, 2011
    7
    The game in and of it's self is solid, but there is still an apparent lack of innovation, the campaign as always, pretty epic, but the multiplayer really doesn't add anything new, if anything it takes features that were established in Black Ops, a currency based staggered unlock system meant you could unlock what ever you felt fit your play style straight away, rather than waiting for it.The game in and of it's self is solid, but there is still an apparent lack of innovation, the campaign as always, pretty epic, but the multiplayer really doesn't add anything new, if anything it takes features that were established in Black Ops, a currency based staggered unlock system meant you could unlock what ever you felt fit your play style straight away, rather than waiting for it. The PC release is rather sloppy, bugs plague it, we get stuck with IWnet if we want to earn those shiny unlocks, it's pretty poor. While these things can be added down the track, I'm not entirely sure it will happen if only because in 12 months time a new Call of Duty will hit store shelves and they will want us to fork out another $100 minus cost of DLC. If pricing wasn't so terrible in Australia I wouldn't complain, but I would like to get my moneys worth out of a game not feel ripped off.… Expand
  56. 410MaXiMuS
    May 31, 2012
    7
    When it comes to competative multiplayer, I'm much more of a Battlefield guy. But when it comes to singleplayer, MW3 wins. I also enjoy the Spec Ops and survival mode, but nothing beats zombies. So I still play Black Ops for that.
  57. Lilphish
    Nov 10, 2011
    9
    I registered on Metacritic just so I could write this review. I'm an adult gamer and not a fanboy of any franchise. First off, if you are looking to buy this game, use the professional review score and not the reviewer average as it is more accurate. This really is a great game. So far I've been blown away by the campaign which is far better than Battlefield 3. In terms ofI registered on Metacritic just so I could write this review. I'm an adult gamer and not a fanboy of any franchise. First off, if you are looking to buy this game, use the professional review score and not the reviewer average as it is more accurate. This really is a great game. So far I've been blown away by the campaign which is far better than Battlefield 3. In terms of multiplayer, I can't really judge it yet but it feels like more of the same, but that isn't really a bad thing.… Expand
  58. steve1911
    Nov 15, 2011
    9
    When it comes to graphics, MW3 is not most beautiful, but certainly balanced (runs well on PC, which fulfills minimum requirements). Music is also very nice (but not as good as in MW2). Single player campaign is short and dynamic (action movie style), which is ideal for MW-fans and players, who don't have much time. Besides, special ops mode, in which you can carry out tasks and compareWhen it comes to graphics, MW3 is not most beautiful, but certainly balanced (runs well on PC, which fulfills minimum requirements). Music is also very nice (but not as good as in MW2). Single player campaign is short and dynamic (action movie style), which is ideal for MW-fans and players, who don't have much time. Besides, special ops mode, in which you can carry out tasks and compare your score to other players, or find someone on the Internet and play co-op. Multiplayer is fine as well, despite similar system to IWNet (from MW2).… Expand
  59. Someguy151015
    Aug 23, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I rate 10 because I got paid $60 to buy the game. Never played it, but I'm "sure" it's a great game. Whatever you think, you can "trust" me.. =) DON'T BUY IT....… Expand
  60. Her3tiK76
    Nov 9, 2011
    7
    I think we should all leave out the SP in modern FPS. Devs decided that having internet means we don't want SP or even Co-op for some reason. I guess i belong to the few that i wasn'r expecting anything more,i am pleased with the game but as a PC gamer i really can't understand the fact that the in-game server browser has only unranked games. -1 for this. Aesthetically nothings changed,allI think we should all leave out the SP in modern FPS. Devs decided that having internet means we don't want SP or even Co-op for some reason. I guess i belong to the few that i wasn'r expecting anything more,i am pleased with the game but as a PC gamer i really can't understand the fact that the in-game server browser has only unranked games. -1 for this. Aesthetically nothings changed,all icons flags/arrows w/e are the same as before. Yes,i would love even the illusion that somethings different from previous games. -1 All maps are small.Good cause it gives little room for camping (even if i think the term is invalid...) and makes game more high paced but still,a couple bigger maps would add variety and thats always good i think. Still there are many maps so... +1 New additions like "Kill confirmed" are great,new perks etc.All good there. Still it feels more like an upgrade,nothing more. I'm not demanding so this is ok for me,not in that price tag though. -1 for what the game offers in that price… Expand
  61. CosmicDojo
    Nov 10, 2011
    8
    I don't care what other people say about this game-"its the same" "its no different" "its just and expensive map pack"-there is a particular reason why this game has (almost) the same visuals as the previous titles, that's because this game runs at a solid 60 fps on both consoles and the PC, what is the big deal with 60 fps you say?..well 60 Frames Per Second allows smooth game play andI don't care what other people say about this game-"its the same" "its no different" "its just and expensive map pack"-there is a particular reason why this game has (almost) the same visuals as the previous titles, that's because this game runs at a solid 60 fps on both consoles and the PC, what is the big deal with 60 fps you say?..well 60 Frames Per Second allows smooth game play and better fast paced experience, and more over no other fisrt person shooter allows you to easily play with your friends and have a fun time..so what if this game looks and feels like the previous tiles..if it can achieve what other titles in the series coudn't-balanced gameplay-then its worth every penny.… Expand
  62. Slipped84
    Nov 10, 2011
    9
    the campaign was good nothing great, multi player is where its at i really enjoy kill confirmed mode, we all heard it b4 its mw2.5 so if you enjoyed mw2 multi player you should enjoy mw3.
  63. alekgub
    Nov 10, 2011
    7
    I've finished both bf3 and cod mw3. In my opinion both games aren't special. Bf 3 has excellent graphics but campaign lacks good action, on the other hand mw3 graphics sucks but single mode is quite fun. Campaign last around 6h and it's good conclusion for hole series.
  64. shreypapa
    Nov 15, 2011
    9
    Between Battlefield and COD-MW3 , COD wins with a very small margin. The game's graphics & game play is too good for Battlefield-3. But the problem is the game is too short. And ends when u have just begun to enjoy it. Overall its fun, amazing, and with an engrossing story(Campaign).
  65. Fat-Jesus
    Nov 16, 2011
    10
    I like it a lot. Especially the new survival mode is great. No big changes in the multiplayer but it's awesome to.
    The end of the story is just Epic.
  66. marioman32
    Nov 21, 2011
    7
    I've only ever played the first Modern Warfare and skipped the line to this one and its not as bad as everyone is making it out to be, sure it feels like an expansion pack but the fact is that it isn't. It works and has a somewhat new storyline and there are new elements included. Sure that doesn't make it the next amazing shooter and a perfect 10 but with so many shooters out there whatI've only ever played the first Modern Warfare and skipped the line to this one and its not as bad as everyone is making it out to be, sure it feels like an expansion pack but the fact is that it isn't. It works and has a somewhat new storyline and there are new elements included. Sure that doesn't make it the next amazing shooter and a perfect 10 but with so many shooters out there what haven't you seen in a shooter? What are they supposed to do? They've added some fun new content and the game works. It's a retread sure, but its a Modern Warfare game and I got exactly what I expected some new elements. I was able to play the game all the way through without a crash or some annoying visual bug and that's alot better than dozens of other AAA games out there.… Expand
  67. Elvis_Lynx
    Nov 15, 2011
    10
    Well, not superious-hyper-cool graphic, so what? It's looks good and don't eat all CPU resources. Plot, I agree, is not good as it can be. Especially because M1A1 is far worse tanks as T-90. And I don't believe in american bravade, as them wiping Russian forces by ground forces. SP is not my object for judge.
    MP is improved mp of mw2. Rather improved, indeed. I give 10/10, because    Well, not superious-hyper-cool graphic, so what? It's looks good and don't eat all CPU resources. Plot, I agree, is not good as it can be. Especially because M1A1 is far worse tanks as T-90. And I don't believe in american bravade, as them wiping Russian forces by ground forces. SP is not my object for judge.
    MP is improved mp of mw2. Rather improved, indeed. I give 10/10, because developers rebalanced some weapons, like sub-grenade launchers, removed some cheap perks, and add some kind of RPG system. Still, I think UMP is not balanced from MW2, but other weapons power-uped, so it's not big problem.    … Expand
  68. hr1schev
    Nov 15, 2011
    10
    It's the best. I mean if you liked MW(MW2) - you will like this. I like everything - story(well, it's not the most original one, but it's still good), Spec Ops(it's a lot of fun) and of course the engine of the game(which allows me to have beautiful graphics without change of my PC).

    P.S. Sorry for my bad English.
  69. maca16
    Nov 15, 2011
    9
    I don't understand the hate towards this game. I thought it was absolutely fine, not to mention fun as ever. Sure, the graphics were pretty much the same, but honestly, I was fine with it. Don't understand why so many people are all about graphics these days. What were you looking for, CryEngine 3?

    I thought the story was the best one yet. The WW3 theme was a good choice. It was awesome    I don't understand the hate towards this game. I thought it was absolutely fine, not to mention fun as ever. Sure, the graphics were pretty much the same, but honestly, I was fine with it. Don't understand why so many people are all about graphics these days. What were you looking for, CryEngine 3?

    I thought the story was the best one yet. The WW3 theme was a good choice. It was awesome watching the Eiffel Tower collapse, like in G.I. Joe. Multiplayer was fine too, almost better. I liked the strike packages, they were a nice add. I really don't understand why there is such a hot debate between Battlefield 3 and MW3. I think they were both excellent games. I saw a review here by someone, who gave it a 1. Why did he give it a one? because he was angry about the countdowns in multiplayer. They were too long. SERIOUSLY? Sometimes I wonder what the gaming community is coming to these days.

    Well that about wraps up my review, Overall, good job Infinity Ward. You always make great games.    … Expand
  70. rody4711
    Nov 16, 2011
    9
    This is my first try of a CoD game in multiplayer, and I have to say it's a lot of fun, for sure it's more fun than BF3 where usually no teamwork is being found where it's absolutely necessary, only a lot of camping and sniping going on. MW3 is fastpaced, frantic action where aim and movement is required both as well as tactical understanding. It gains a lot after enabling dedicatedThis is my first try of a CoD game in multiplayer, and I have to say it's a lot of fun, for sure it's more fun than BF3 where usually no teamwork is being found where it's absolutely necessary, only a lot of camping and sniping going on. MW3 is fastpaced, frantic action where aim and movement is required both as well as tactical understanding. It gains a lot after enabling dedicated servers and the serverbrowser, as the p2p-default setup is really crappy, which is the reason I won't give the game a 10. Contrary to what some people wrote there are actually ranked dedicated servers, the admins just need to know how to set them up. I gained levels today playing on a dedicated ranked server.
    The singleplayer mode is absolutely comparable to mw1 and mw2, for sure a hundred times better than BF3 which most of the negative fanbois here seem to be playing. And the best of all: MW3 doesn't require origin or any **** runs over steam which is installed on all pcs anyways, no spyware required.    … Expand
  71. astrosafari
    Nov 15, 2011
    9
    I've never been a massive COD addict, but this game is great. The developers clearly spent a lot of time refining the formula, and the gameplay is smooth and rewarding. Don't listen to the naysayers - if you enjoyed COD 4 and MW2, you'll enjoy this one. I was kind of surprised at the negativity surrounding it, especially during launch. If you're totally burnt out on the series, fine! PickI've never been a massive COD addict, but this game is great. The developers clearly spent a lot of time refining the formula, and the gameplay is smooth and rewarding. Don't listen to the naysayers - if you enjoyed COD 4 and MW2, you'll enjoy this one. I was kind of surprised at the negativity surrounding it, especially during launch. If you're totally burnt out on the series, fine! Pick up another game and move on, but stop insulting the people who choose to buy it. To be honest, the single-player campaign could use some improving, but everything else in the game is just as fresh as anything you'd expect from a new game. Graphics are indeed better than those found in MW2, if only by a smidgen. Regardless, MW3 runs at a fluid 60 frames per second on my computer (with parts from 2008). To me, that's incredible! I find it hard to care about graphical innovation from one game to the next - the Modern Warfare series is still a story, not a tech demo. Worth picking up.… Expand
  72. Justme005
    Nov 9, 2011
    9
    Guys you made me smile with all those 0/10 ratings. I think most of the comments were written by BF3 fans ("... I'm going back to BF3..." or "When such a amazing multiplayer game like BF3 exists") or some random haters ("...But i havent played it yet..."). Seriously?!... Lets see.
    It uses the same engine as the previous episodes. Yes, the graphic getting old, BF3 and Rage is beautiful, i    Guys you made me smile with all those 0/10 ratings. I think most of the comments were written by BF3 fans ("... I'm going back to BF3..." or "When such a amazing multiplayer game like BF3 exists") or some random haters ("...But i havent played it yet..."). Seriously?!... Lets see.
    It uses the same engine as the previous episodes. Yes, the graphic getting old, BF3 and Rage is beautiful, i admit, but their optimalisation sucks. The single-player is the same as we seen before, whats the problem with that? They were fast, exciting full of EPIC moments, (and unfortunately too short, yes thats a bad point). The coop part is still fun with a new mode (in the mw series). And finally the multiplayer is still the same intensive fps experience as before(+dedicated servers returned) with many new features and some fixes what we missed from the prev episodes. I'm still smiling and don't get what your problem is:) A bit old and it isn't cheap, but still the best choice if you want some adrenalin-pumping fast action.
    So the conclusion is: Haters gonna hate. Who liked the previous MW episodes (and still don't get bored of them) will love this too.

    Thanks for reading this, that was MY opinion, no offense, Have a nice day.    … Expand
  73. Kyprioth
    Nov 9, 2011
    9
    If you liked the previous two games then you will pretty much be getting a very similar title with this game as well. PC of course plays it best, but then again, the same engine is being used from the previous titles also, so it shouldn't even stress consoles, even with the ludicrous amount of explosions happening around you. Campaign is pretty much the same as it has been, but thenIf you liked the previous two games then you will pretty much be getting a very similar title with this game as well. PC of course plays it best, but then again, the same engine is being used from the previous titles also, so it shouldn't even stress consoles, even with the ludicrous amount of explosions happening around you. Campaign is pretty much the same as it has been, but then again, anyone who expected anything else is kind of looking for the wrong thing, considering this says directly on the box that it's the third installment in a series.......go figure. Sorry to those of you out there that bought this game thinking there was going to be mind blowing innovation, did you not watch videos and check screen-shots and reviews in order to find this out before you "blew your $60 on the same game." I can't honestly rate this as low as alot of the ignorant people out there. It IS polished in terms of gameplay and with patches the multiplayer will be fun.… Expand
  74. tainosisisi
    Nov 15, 2011
    10
    Le meilleur jeu auquel j'ai jamais jouer! C'est du pure delire, je ne serait pas vous dire mes mots quand je l'ai lancé pour la première fois mais en dans tout les cas une joie immense.
  75. BlackSox9
    Nov 11, 2011
    8
    This is crazy, I can't believe all the disappointed BF3 Fan Boys that came on here to trash MW3. I heard about the incredibly unbalanced user score that MW3 has received on Metacritic from IGN, and decided to create a Metacritic account just to give an unbiased and objective review and score. And to help even out this Very low score for an obviously above average game, I mean sure MW3 isThis is crazy, I can't believe all the disappointed BF3 Fan Boys that came on here to trash MW3. I heard about the incredibly unbalanced user score that MW3 has received on Metacritic from IGN, and decided to create a Metacritic account just to give an unbiased and objective review and score. And to help even out this Very low score for an obviously above average game, I mean sure MW3 is not perfect but 3.1 out of ten is bull***t. First off I would like to state that I am not a COD Fan Boy and not a little kid, I'm a hardcore gamer that has been playing games since the early nineties. I play all manner of games on PC and PS3 and have also bought MW3's main competitor BF3. I have played about 30 hours on BF3's Multiplayer and have a 3.30 Kill/Death Ratio so am no noob when it comes to FPS. Even so I was disappointed with the overall products of both Battlefied 3 (which got boring faster than expected) and MW3. In the end I scored MW3 8 out of 10. It is very similar to MW2 but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The Singleplayer was OK, similar to the last two Modern Warfare's (overall uneventfull and boring with only some good bits) Spec Ops Missions are fun and exciting, especially if you have a friend to play them with and Spec Ops New Survival Mode is great addictive fun and a good addition to the series, I would say, and this is just my opinion that this is better than Zombies (playing with a mic is essential). Than you have Multiplayer which love it or hate it is pretty much the same as MW2 but with Strike Pakages, different killstreaks and different variations on old perks, some new guns and some new maps and game modes. Noob tubing, Nuke Killstreak and One Man Army Perk are gone but Quikscoping and Drop Shoting are still the order of the day. Also Spawn Deaths, Hit Detaction and Lag Issues can become a bit annoying. But with a half Decent Connection, a bit of skill and a touch of class you should be able to overcome these shotcomings to have one of the sweetest FPS Online Gaming experiences you can have at this time. I won't lie somtimes the multiplayer can have you screaming at the TV about the injustice of the last 5 Cheap deaths that made no sense whatsoever. But with a bit of patience even without the Elite Functions you get to know the layout of the maps, the spawn points, choke points, best class layouts for specific situations and maps. You will receive better weapons and figure out which strike package work best for you, and then your experience will start getting better. And to everyone saying COD is unbalanced that's BS, because there is a strategy and counter for everything your adversaries can throw at you. So after everything is said and done what it really comes down to is skill (and who has more of it). Overall, taken all the features packed into this one game and the weeks and possibly months of enjoyment that can be had, it's impossible for me to see how this game can receive a score below an 8 let alone a 5. If your a fan of FPS or games in general this a great addition to your game collection. Definately not MW2 DLC, and for only $50 to $100 are you that poor/cheap to complain about purchasing a great game and depriving yourself of fun just because a bunch of pathetic PC BF3 Fanboy Sheep/Followers decided to flood this site with negative reviews. It's Up To You.â… Expand
  76. Psy_pmP
    Nov 14, 2011
    9
    I like COD 1-2,MW123 and i hate black ops. I don't understand why people hate this game. The COD is the SignglePlayer game!! SP in MW3 awesome. It can be better if game have new graphic or sound engine. And of course it can be better if game have more realism. . impossible to capture the Russian submarine and of course impossible redirect missiles. The Airplane fuel is in the wings....andI like COD 1-2,MW123 and i hate black ops. I don't understand why people hate this game. The COD is the SignglePlayer game!! SP in MW3 awesome. It can be better if game have new graphic or sound engine. And of course it can be better if game have more realism. . impossible to capture the Russian submarine and of course impossible redirect missiles. The Airplane fuel is in the wings....and more stupid things… Expand
  77. VergilAF
    Nov 11, 2011
    9
    I read the reviews of users and I found many negative votes. I personally do not agree. Although many have said that the graphics are "old", I find it somewhat improved. It 'true, MW3 is fairly cut and paste from passed chapters as the primary structure but otherwise everything is much improved. The environments are very diverse, you move from NY to Africa, from London to Berlin to finishI read the reviews of users and I found many negative votes. I personally do not agree. Although many have said that the graphics are "old", I find it somewhat improved. It 'true, MW3 is fairly cut and paste from passed chapters as the primary structure but otherwise everything is much improved. The environments are very diverse, you move from NY to Africa, from London to Berlin to finish in Siberia, so do not get tired of the same landscape. The campaign many find it boring, in fact it is not boring but a little too fast and without a proper consistency. moving from one mission to another too quickly. So quickly that not even seem to connect. Personally I would have done even more epic story, as a third world war triggered could pull off any more. Instead they seem to have done that much faster to finish.

    Finally, I think the negative comments are too bad about this game, it remains a Call of Duty, the structure is this: We know this before you buy.    … Expand
  78. brissy
    Nov 10, 2011
    9
    i waited out side all night for this game, pre purchased too of course and needless to say..
    this game is EPIC!!!
    definitely worth the money and wait
    the new unlocks and guns are awesome, good graphics and game play
    9/10
  79. bleed123
    Nov 11, 2011
    9
    I have Black Ops on Xbox and MW3 on PC. The Campaign is what makes the game worth buying. The campaigns are incredible to say the least and worth about 40 dollars. The multiplayer deathmatch is a total waste of time of time and I would like to see it seperated from the game as an add on for 20 dollars. Its not fun because I see a lot of people who think others are cheating, and becauseI have Black Ops on Xbox and MW3 on PC. The Campaign is what makes the game worth buying. The campaigns are incredible to say the least and worth about 40 dollars. The multiplayer deathmatch is a total waste of time of time and I would like to see it seperated from the game as an add on for 20 dollars. Its not fun because I see a lot of people who think others are cheating, and because you die tooeasily. That being said I think a co-op would be better for this type of game; something like payday the heist with objectives.… Expand
  80. 888
    Nov 11, 2011
    9
    it was a real game. thanks ... every thing was goodit was a real game. thanks ... every thing was good ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................… Expand
  81. Bobby_Flamingo
    Nov 20, 2011
    1
    I'm not giving this a one to be obnoxious. I'm simply stating a fact. I like many others bought modern warfare 1 and was blown away by the "revolution" . After a disappointment in world at war I bought modern warfare 2 in high hopes that it would be a worthy sequel, which it kind of was...it added many features tightened the multiplayer and continued the story. I was willing to overlookI'm not giving this a one to be obnoxious. I'm simply stating a fact. I like many others bought modern warfare 1 and was blown away by the "revolution" . After a disappointment in world at war I bought modern warfare 2 in high hopes that it would be a worthy sequel, which it kind of was...it added many features tightened the multiplayer and continued the story. I was willing to overlook the fact that it was ALMOST the same game, they were coming dangerously close to over saturating the series. Inevitably this happened a year later with black ops which was pretty much a clone of all that had been done before. After all this nonsense we hoped for a glimmer, modern warfare 3...a game which we all hoped would live up to the legacy. Unfortunately all modern warfare 3 really is is and exact replica of all that made up modern warfare 1 and 2. Nothing truly original was added to the experience. Activision has gotten all kinds of greedy. Forcing out games yearly at a full retail price knowing full well they are selling an unworthy product...not taking into account whether or not the consumer is getting what they paid for. The fact that the fans will buy it is apparently enough to justify tossing together some explosions and new maps and putting a new number on the end. All I ask is why? I am not a fan boy of one gaming device or the other, or one gaming series or another, just someone who doesn't understand why this is not only acceptable to you fans, but you will actually defend the games quality. Nothing is truly different about this game then the other major call of duty releases every year since 2007, nothing was stopping them from releasing small packages, more maps, more modes...nothing. Instead they put together not an inferior product, but a slap in the face. All of this has been done before. I've bought this before. You've bought this before. Before you think of buying this garbage and support these publishers who think it's ok to take advantage of loyal fans...think of what you could do to force them to make a modern warfare game that truly lives up to the standards of todays games. Was this much of a review? Not so much...not a rant either. I just want people to realize that the graphics are outdated, story still generic, game play rough, sound poor, and multiplayer virtually unchanged not because they can't but because they wont. Take a stand. Play your last call of duty if you have to a little longer until they see they can't treat people like dirt anymore. If you read this far I hope you see where I'm coming from and live up to my hopes that we will one day see a modern warfare 4 WORTH praising, not this thrown together mess, thank you. Collapse Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3… Expand
  82. RaideR
    Nov 15, 2011
    10
    El juego está muy bien, no tiene nada de malo, al contrario, es impresionantemente bueno. Battlefield es bueno también, graficamente hablando. Pero creo que hay que ser objetivos, un equipo de trabajo cuando se esmera y esfuerza para entregar un producto de calidad, se nota. Y en este caso, Infinity Ward demostró que hicieron un trabajo impecable.

    ¿Juegos    El juego está muy bien, no tiene nada de malo, al contrario, es impresionantemente bueno. Battlefield es bueno también, graficamente hablando. Pero creo que hay que ser objetivos, un equipo de trabajo cuando se esmera y esfuerza para entregar un producto de calidad, se nota. Y en este caso, Infinity Ward demostró que hicieron un trabajo impecable.

    ¿Juegos malos? CLARO QUE LOS HAY!

    -Breed
    -Kreed
    -The Renegade
    -Matrix Path of Neo

    ESOS SON JUEGOS MALOS. Pero no este juego, que les pasa imbéciles? Ahora no piensan? no distinguen lo bueno de lo malo? Mi más grande apoyo al equipo de MWF3, Battlefield es un excelente juego, y también sería injusto que recibiera una mala calificación. Hay que ser justo en la vida, y ahora yo estoy siendo justo.

    RaideR, desde Chile.    … Expand
  83. sirdonut290
    Nov 16, 2011
    10
    I got both BF3 and MW3 both are good games. I bought mw3 for the always polished multiplayer but the ending of the trilogy is what got me most excited. Finally seeing the end. I cannot wait what well hear next. I gave this a 10 because it is a good game all around. Sure the graphics arn't as good as BF3's Frostbite 2.0 but Gameplay>Graphics is a real gamers motto. BF3 was good i enjoyedI got both BF3 and MW3 both are good games. I bought mw3 for the always polished multiplayer but the ending of the trilogy is what got me most excited. Finally seeing the end. I cannot wait what well hear next. I gave this a 10 because it is a good game all around. Sure the graphics arn't as good as BF3's Frostbite 2.0 but Gameplay>Graphics is a real gamers motto. BF3 was good i enjoyed the huge difference from CoD. But overall i think MW3 wins, of course this is my opinion… Expand
  84. CloroxMr
    Nov 19, 2011
    10
    If anyone expected this game to be differant they obviously didn't realize that business is ran a certain way. MW3 is obviously a continuation - And I Love It

    They continued the single player story perfectly with all the favorite characters.
    I won't say this game is perfect - It's got alot of the same stupid bugs as the last games. BUT IT IS GREAT FUN TO PLAY!
  85. seufreud
    Nov 19, 2011
    10
    this low score is due to the idiots who can not enjoy a good game rather than get involved with the game, they are more concerned with minimum graphics detail.
  86. Tyke
    Nov 20, 2011
    8
    This game is far from perfect. However, I don't think it's as bad as the average user score here. It is nothing more than a more polished version of Modern Warfare 2. It has everything to love from MW2, the fantastic and exciting single player, and the fast-paced multiplayer with the removal of a lot of the more annoying perks. A few negatives though. It is surely not worth the $60 priceThis game is far from perfect. However, I don't think it's as bad as the average user score here. It is nothing more than a more polished version of Modern Warfare 2. It has everything to love from MW2, the fantastic and exciting single player, and the fast-paced multiplayer with the removal of a lot of the more annoying perks. A few negatives though. It is surely not worth the $60 price tag if you already own MW2, and the graphics were showing their age in MW2, and now they look downright terrible. I do find it impossible to compare this game to Battlefield 3, because the two games are completely different styles. (I own both.) This game is your average CoD game, fun because of how easy it is to pick up, and the singleplayer is exciting and intense. If MW2 had never existed, this game would definitely be worth the $60, but just as basically a map pack for MW2, it still has room to stand on it's own and is pretty enjoyable in my opinion.… Expand
  87. Fuzzdad
    Nov 13, 2011
    8
    I enjoyed the SP ride and MP is fun (although I'm getting whacked with regularity). The franchise is taking predictable paths and I suspect the break-up w/Infinity Ward kept this from becoming a great game (it's good...but there's so much more here that could-have-been). I guess the question is whether or not the game is now on Madden-like yearly updates (nothing more than a cash grab)I enjoyed the SP ride and MP is fun (although I'm getting whacked with regularity). The franchise is taking predictable paths and I suspect the break-up w/Infinity Ward kept this from becoming a great game (it's good...but there's so much more here that could-have-been). I guess the question is whether or not the game is now on Madden-like yearly updates (nothing more than a cash grab) or if it's still a labor of love for those you develop for it. If it's the former, I'm not sure it's worth spending $60 a year on incremental updates. If it's the latter...and we get a more compelling SP story...then I'm in. Also...it integrates so nicely w/Steam that it makes Origin's first shot at a "Steam-Killer" a joke.… Expand
  88. RedDog
    Nov 15, 2011
    9
    I'm not surely I really understand what amounts to a war between BF3 and MW3 - there is clearly quite a bit of history there but it's all gone safely over my head. My review is of the game (SP + MP) on the PC. I'm not reviewing Activision's ethics or anything else.

    The single player campaign is a blast. It is a little on the short side though - about the same as MW2. The story is utter    I'm not surely I really understand what amounts to a war between BF3 and MW3 - there is clearly quite a bit of history there but it's all gone safely over my head. My review is of the game (SP + MP) on the PC. I'm not reviewing Activision's ethics or anything else.

    The single player campaign is a blast. It is a little on the short side though - about the same as MW2. The story is utter nonsense but the action keeps you going. If you think back to the very best levels on MW1 and MW2 there is plenty of this style of action here. The graphics are slightly better - this isn't a revolution but feels like more of the same. If you enjoyed MW1 and MW2 as much as I did then more of the same will feel fine.

    The gameplay is extremely varied. They will often introduce a new element which will play for 10 minutes or so only to move on to something else. Certainly plenty to keep the interest.

    The mulitplayer feels very similar to MW2 and suffers from hackers and cheaters etc to the same extent which can be quite annoying at times. I don't take it all that seriously but racked over 100 hours on MW2 and would expect al least the same on MW3. Then add in Special Ops and survival modes and it's easy to see several hundred hours of playing here.

    The game is extremely smooth and (for a modern new release) is relatively bug free. If all you are interested in is the MP element I can see why you might be frustrated as it amounts to a fairly hefty map pack and a fwe gameplay tweeks. Taking the package as a whole though I see very good value for money in what is going to be one of 2011's biggest games in terms of sales and impact.

    I am thoroughly enjoying this title. I have not posted "wow this is amazing" or "this sucks" but have stated my opinion with clear reasons and explanations. I think if everyone else did the same we would see a much more balanced score.    … Expand
  89. Hemi
    Nov 18, 2011
    7
    This game is exactly what I expected it to be. Not ground breaking but still a solid COD title. As far as initial releases go, there have been few problems. The lobby system has been moderately improved in that your entire party leaves lobbies/games together when initiated by the lobby leader. Unfortunately the hackers were present within 48 hours of release. Hopefully Valve will do aThis game is exactly what I expected it to be. Not ground breaking but still a solid COD title. As far as initial releases go, there have been few problems. The lobby system has been moderately improved in that your entire party leaves lobbies/games together when initiated by the lobby leader. Unfortunately the hackers were present within 48 hours of release. Hopefully Valve will do a better job of providing a cheat free environment than they did with MW2. The single player campaign is exactly what you'd expect, albeit kind of short. But since I'm a 98% MP player I feel I'll ge my $60.00 worth out of this game, whether or not I'll turn it into a $90 game via DLC as I did with MW2 is currently undecided, but I doubt I will.… Expand
  90. Priestowar
    Nov 9, 2011
    1
    The linear storyline with its complete lack of dynamic player-interaction is a derison to all gamers.
    Activision pulls of its oh-so-well known marketing scheme, trying selling an unoriginal old turd in an original wrapping. With that being said there is one positive aspect: I must now bestow a minimum of effort in order to play through the entire freaking game in a day.
  91. Vanguardus
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    This game is the same thig has COD MW2, if you already have it, there is no need to buy this one.If you played one, you've played them all. Same thing. Its really sad actually. I had no expectations and i was disappointed
  92. Kaehl0311
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    Every year, same thing. Activision spits out another one of these. It's frustrating, but they know they can do it because millions of 12 year olds the world over are going to buy it.

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

    It really just feels like a glorified map pack at this point. I feel like I've played this 3 times and this is just an expansion pack for Modern Warfare 1 and 2. I'm pretty disappointed. The campaign doesn't feel like it's done anything new, and the multiplayer is the same old thing. Oh well, at least I've been playing my brother's game and I didn't end up spending any money on it :)    … Expand
  93. Bootscv
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    I feel like I've played this game before. Oh wait, I have...twice. The graphics are pathetically outdated, having changed little since the first modern warfare. Why even play this game on PC? The hardware advantage (or lack thereof in this case, as nothing about this game really justifies beefy rigs) does not justify the inconvenience of installation and other BS that can be skipped onI feel like I've played this game before. Oh wait, I have...twice. The graphics are pathetically outdated, having changed little since the first modern warfare. Why even play this game on PC? The hardware advantage (or lack thereof in this case, as nothing about this game really justifies beefy rigs) does not justify the inconvenience of installation and other BS that can be skipped on consoles. The physics feel cheap and flimsy, as the guns do not actually recoil realistically and animations look unnaturally robotic. Being able to go full auto at someone with a machine gun while having the reticule barely budge makes the gunplay feel unrealistic and cheap. Sound effects are equally messy; gunfire sounds more like a fruitblender than anything else. Firing the weapons has no weight behind them due to the muffled, unrealistic sound effects and the robotic physics, giving little to no satisfaction in landing hits. At 60 bucks, IW is robbing us of our money. This is almost the same game, with the same engine, the same graphics, and same gameplay as the previous two. I feel like there is an immense lack of effort and dedication put in by the design team; in its third iteration, i expect a game to at the very least have technological improvements over its predecessors. But even there I am disappointed. I find it hilarious that the Glen Schofield has the balls to ask for higher user ratings on Metacritic after pumping out this product on so much hype. So here I am, voicing my opinion to spite him when I otherwise would have stayed silent. Do yourself a favor and go play skyrim or something… Expand
  94. lwyshawn
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    this is supposed to be a game in late 2011. technically outdated, conceptually outdated and just a repackaging of an old game , yet charges 60 bucks for it. wow man, wow
  95. Domineeto
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    The campaign of this game is terrible. Its linear, has bad writing, generic gameplay, and the graphics are showing its age. The whole game is you going trough narrow paths and shooting bad guys. One good thing about it is that the campaign lasts only 3 hours.Mordern Warfare 3 is the exact same game with a different name, terrible Campaign that you finish in 3 and half hours, with the mostThe campaign of this game is terrible. Its linear, has bad writing, generic gameplay, and the graphics are showing its age. The whole game is you going trough narrow paths and shooting bad guys. One good thing about it is that the campaign lasts only 3 hours.Mordern Warfare 3 is the exact same game with a different name, terrible Campaign that you finish in 3 and half hours, with the most irregular irritating little maps that you literally spawn on your enemy's shoulders. The lack of vehical's and broken class system creates a very very dry and plain expirence.… Expand
  96. CL1CKS
    Nov 9, 2011
    0
    The only way this franchise will be saved is a remake of COD4. There has not been a good game in it since. This game is piss poor and craps right on the faces of PC gamers. The damage is completely unreliable, the maps are atrocious, and the kill streaks still as stupid as MW2. Infinity ward and Activision have not released anything of worth since COD4 and never will again. I give up onThe only way this franchise will be saved is a remake of COD4. There has not been a good game in it since. This game is piss poor and craps right on the faces of PC gamers. The damage is completely unreliable, the maps are atrocious, and the kill streaks still as stupid as MW2. Infinity ward and Activision have not released anything of worth since COD4 and never will again. I give up on 90% of developers now days that pay 0 attention to what their customers want. Congratulations on selling enough copies to pay for the game because it flopped and I highly doubt you will keep a community in the future. Just stop making call of duty. STOP!!!… Expand
  97. 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
  98. Forsaken1Kills
    Nov 12, 2011
    9
    Battlefied 3 was my main concern this year, but out of the blue I was hooked on COD:MW3. While I am still very much in love with how fresh BF3 has been I can not ignore the value for dollar and refinment of COD:MW3. First of is the single player which is the shortest one yet, but its quality over quanity. If you like Michale Bay movies, and could give two rats ass about story telling thisBattlefied 3 was my main concern this year, but out of the blue I was hooked on COD:MW3. While I am still very much in love with how fresh BF3 has been I can not ignore the value for dollar and refinment of COD:MW3. First of is the single player which is the shortest one yet, but its quality over quanity. If you like Michale Bay movies, and could give two rats ass about story telling this is for you. I have been playing all morning, and all I can say the single player makes you feel like a total bad ass and it takes no prisoners doing so. The visuals, sound, and ammount of content is epic.

    Spec Ops, is the best part of the game but will be probably the least played of the bunch. If you got a buddy to play with this is really a challange, and will put your skills to the test if you are willing to get a 100% in them

    Multiplayer has grown up a lot, and while not on the same size scale as BF3 it offers a different flavor of it. I am not very good at COD MP, but with the support class I given slack for sucking, but rewarded for supporting. That single featuer alone is sensational. I am very please with it, and the fact that you can custom tailor the guns to your liking is awsome.

    COD:MW3 is worth your money, and I really have no clue why all the negative reivews. I own both BF3 and MW3, and I can not say that I like one more over the other, but I can say that I play as of right now MW3 more because it is refined, no cashing, freezing, or funky glitches in the game.    … Expand
  99. DuncanOwnsMan1
    Nov 14, 2011
    10
    Don't let all the reviews tell you the game is bad I have played every cod and this one is great just like cod4 gun on gun fights and mw2 kill streaks(new ones also). The people who give the negative rate more then likely are bad at the game or there pc is stone aged.COD MW3 is great!!!
  100. MaXKiLLz
    Nov 14, 2011
    0
    I have played every CoD going all the way back to the first one on PC. MW3 is by far the worst version I've ever played. The map design is atrocious. The lack of RANKED dedicated servers is unforgivable! It's very clear to me the amateurs at Sledgehammer are not CoD players at all. They took MW2 wonder map design and mutilated it. They took Black Ops awesome dedicated servers andI have played every CoD going all the way back to the first one on PC. MW3 is by far the worst version I've ever played. The map design is atrocious. The lack of RANKED dedicated servers is unforgivable! It's very clear to me the amateurs at Sledgehammer are not CoD players at all. They took MW2 wonder map design and mutilated it. They took Black Ops awesome dedicated servers and crippled them. What an absolute disappointment. My hope lies solely with Treyarch. Sledgehammer needs to be dumped by Electronic Arts ASAP!… Expand
Page:

Awards & Rankings

59
#59 Best PC Game of 2011
4
#4 Most Discussed PC Game of 2011
27
#27 Most Shared PC Game of 2011

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
78

Generally favorable reviews - based on 26 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 19 out of 26
  2. Mixed: 7 out of 26
  3. Negative: 0 out of 26
  1. Computer Games Online RO
    Apr 10, 2012
    82
    Thus, I can't recommend buying this unless you (still) like the fast pace, the customizable weaponry and the short matches, of about 10 minutes each. With the very important mention that, essentially, nothing has changed.
    Read full review
  2. LEVEL (Czech Republic)
    Jan 20, 2012
    80
    Stunning campaign with epic moments makes this third installment of Modern Warfare a great show with the best approach to players. No need to mention an excellent multiplayer. [Dec 2011]
  3. PC PowerPlay
    Jan 9, 2012
    50
    If you own any previous COD, there's little reason to buy MW3. [Jan 2012, p.50]
See all critic reviews »