Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

 PlayStation 3
User Score
3.4

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 5387 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1,362 out of 5387
  2. Mixed: 595 out of 5387
  3. Negative: 3,430 out of 5387
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. skullford
    Mar 5, 2013
    8
    Awesome maps, nice basic weapons and loadouts, smooth gameplay, nice options for killstreaks, portable radar. Not sure what people dislike about the game. Loses points for server problems and a single player game that is a giant stepdown from MW2.
  2. baole58
    Jul 30, 2013
    8
    Modern Warfare 3, though not as good as it's predecessors, is a fantastic game. It's a bit similar to MW2 but hey, it's Call of Duty. What do you expect? A hack and slash game with a bit of RPG element? You came to the wrong place.

    Call of Duty gives you more of the same, like many other franchises, and that's what Call of Duty should do. People talk about how Call of Duty should change    Modern Warfare 3, though not as good as it's predecessors, is a fantastic game. It's a bit similar to MW2 but hey, it's Call of Duty. What do you expect? A hack and slash game with a bit of RPG element? You came to the wrong place.

    Call of Duty gives you more of the same, like many other franchises, and that's what Call of Duty should do. People talk about how Call of Duty should change but no one contributes any ideas and the formula sells so why change it? Hence why there are so many negative reviews here and you can tell some just follow the bandwagon, not having an open mind or an opinion for themselves.

    The compelling campaign and stellar multiplayer modes is what makes Call of Duty. Call of Duty can become a football game but then it wouldn't be Call of Duty and the franchise has enough b****es jumping on the bandwagon, boycotting the franchise and using the same excuse to hate the franchise every year "it's the same thing", so change is not going to solve anything. If anything, it'll make it worse.

    Even if they use a newer engine, with loads of haters complaining about the "dated" graphics (graphics isn't everything y'know), there would still be haters. Same amount as it is today. It runs consistently at 60 FPS which makes up for it's graphics, it's not the best but it still looks good.

    Consistent frame rate is required for competitive play rather than graphics that makes you go "wow" and there are loads of better looking games such as Uncharted as well as Final Fantasy. Because that's what makes Call of Duty the fast-paced, addictive shooter that it is today. What makes Call of Duty the most famous shooter?

    Simple, this game offers what very few games offer, you know, sometimes there's nothing like running around stabbing people or quick scoping and running while shooting on all directions. Call of Duty does that better than any game, that's what the fans like and that's the right answer. There are many worse games out there. Prison Break: The Conspiracy, Terminator: Salvation and Killzone (PS2) are just some of the games that are worse than Call of Duty.

    Survivor Mode is an addition to the already seen Spec Ops. It's not original but it's a great addition to the franchise that surpasses zombie mode in Treyarch's Call of Duty. Enemies don't spawn in the same place. Instead, they move tactically based on your current location so you can camp in one spot and shoot all the enemies but you can't do that forever. It lets you practice all the weapons seen in multiplayer so the skills that you've learnt can be extrapolated and transferred into multiplayer, Call of Duty's highlight feature. Zombies is just for fun but it's not really that fun anymore now that Modern Warfare 3 has Survival Mode and, hopefully, we'll see it again in Infinity Ward's next Call of Duty (presumably titled Modern Warfare 4).

    Multiplayer has some great new modes that adds more depth into the multiplayer mode. Infected is like zombies and it's really intense as well as addictive. It's a fun mode for those who don't care about their KD ratio. Kill Confirmed is another good one, it's TDM but you collect dog tags that counts as a kill. This is a bit more team based mode as opposed to the regular TDM where players are free to wonder about.

    Killsteaks is revamped so it's now called Pointstreaks. Kills doesn't just count towards your Killstreaks anymore. Completing objectives such as planting bomb or capture the flag counts towards Killstreaks and this encourages players to play the objective in objective based game modes.

    Killstreaks are organized into three different strike packages. Assault for chopper gunners, Support for UAV and Specialist for more perks. These are also customizable so you can have one class where you have the Assault packages and in the other class, you can use Specialist so you don't have to go back to the menu to change your Killstreaks; just customize them from your existing classes.

    There's a lot of features in Modern Warfare 3 that haters fail to see. Prestige Shop encourages you to prestige. You get a token every time you prestige and you can use that token to buy double XP as well as an extra class. Each weapon has Proficiencies, which is basically perks, and you can only use one at a time. You can have one where you can add an extra attachment, one that reduces recoil and many more.

    Overpowered perks and dolphin dive, seen in Black Ops, have been removed so the game is more balanced. Infinity Ward fixes bugs and glitches unlike Danger Close, who did a bad job with Medal of Honor: Warfighter. With that being said, Modern Warfare 3 has gone above and beyond the Call of Duty with an amazing campaign as well as stellar multiplayer modes.

    FPS fans, don't miss out. Call of Duty lives up to the hype, and this game is how Call of Duty evolves. IW takes a streamlined approach, which is why MW3 isn't as good as MW2 and Call of Duty 4. But still, IW did a good job with the Call of Duty franchise.    … Expand
  3. SJ-ULTI-Reiews
    Sep 27, 2013
    8
    MW3 is a really fun game, the story has many missions that take place all around the globe, the story mode is solid, although the ending was okay at best. The gameplay is great. The Spec Ops mode is really addicting and fun, the multiplayer is solid and the graphics are amazing. This is a great addition to the Call of Duty franchise.
  4. LostNexusGamer
    Jan 2, 2014
    8
    MW3 brought back some of the missing details from MW2. As MW2 fell into the deep end, MW3 ended bringing back up some of the missing detail from MW2. The campaign was a bit better, but still not the best in the franchise. The multiplayer was altered some but still brought the same Call of Duty experience. The only applauding part is the new Special Ops mode. With new survival techniquesMW3 brought back some of the missing details from MW2. As MW2 fell into the deep end, MW3 ended bringing back up some of the missing detail from MW2. The campaign was a bit better, but still not the best in the franchise. The multiplayer was altered some but still brought the same Call of Duty experience. The only applauding part is the new Special Ops mode. With new survival techniques and much more tactical responses, the Co-op mode is the outstanding part. MW3 brought back some of Modern Warfare's former glory, but most of it seeped away with the downfall of the franchise.… Expand
  5. onewarmslime
    Nov 2, 2014
    8
    It's a good shooter. I like it. The campaign is actually pretty good. The plot is laughable but still I enjoyed playing it. The Special Ops are also pretty fun, and you can take a friend along to help you complete them (random online people or split screen). This is a nice touch that adds some replayability to the missions. Survival is okay but it gets tiresome after a while (one problemIt's a good shooter. I like it. The campaign is actually pretty good. The plot is laughable but still I enjoyed playing it. The Special Ops are also pretty fun, and you can take a friend along to help you complete them (random online people or split screen). This is a nice touch that adds some replayability to the missions. Survival is okay but it gets tiresome after a while (one problem is, it gets too difficult too quickly, so it's kind of frustrating). Now online play is pretty nice, you have like 13 out of 16 maps playable (for all I know they could be all playable on alternative modes), and they're all pretty great. Definitely much better than the maps on Black Ops 2. The weapons are all pretty balanced (I think it's only realistic that LMGs never get any use in the actual online play), and you rarely find cheaters so it's all pretty good. My only real complaint is lack of bots for single player, but I can live with that.… Expand
  6. AndyClimax
    Oct 9, 2014
    8
    The setting and scenarios are familiar, but ramped up to 11 with a fantasy World War 3. The well-loved characters from the previous Modern Warfares are back (Soap & Price) but there is little connection felt with the others, particularly the new playable protagonist Yuri. Multiplayer is all that you've come to expect, which is both a good and bad thing.
  7. RanSBuzz
    Sep 13, 2014
    8
    The only game from the entire series of "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare" that was the best. The special ops is addicing and the campain makes the playes actually interested to know the background of the charactes in the game. Yet the multiplayer just wasn't enough.
    what a Call of Duty game worth without it's addicting multiplayer?
  8. emlugo123
    Feb 23, 2015
    8
    This was the last Call of Duty game that I enjoyed, everything after is complete crap. Campaign is short but is a satisfying experience and is the last campaign that I will ever pay attention to in COD.
  9. homer4president
    Nov 18, 2015
    8
    One of the last great CoD games (in my opinion). Definitely a fun game and true to the MW games they produced, just a few more bells and whistles. I hope CoD gets back to this type of game soon.
  10. Captain_Faramir
    Apr 3, 2017
    8
    8.6 - Really good COD, multiplayer maps were well designed and creative, especially the DLC maps. Survival mode was fun and kinda cheap, and campaign was pretty standard. Weapons on multiplayer were more balanced but still had issues, but not to a point where it really affected experience.
  11. Kvantaliani03
    Nov 20, 2021
    8
    rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
  12. binky-winkie
    Apr 2, 2020
    8
    The campaign was great, the multiplayer was ok and the spec ops were trash. SURVIVAL WAS AMAZING
  13. Johnsonsteed91
    Jul 6, 2023
    8
    This game was a decent follow up to the critically acclaimed MW2. The game feels a bit underwhelming compared to its predecessor however is a great entry to the franchise regardless. This would be Sledgehammers first go at the COD series and I feel they did the fans a good service, The introduction to the survival mode was a cool touch, and I must say, the DLC for this game is very good.This game was a decent follow up to the critically acclaimed MW2. The game feels a bit underwhelming compared to its predecessor however is a great entry to the franchise regardless. This would be Sledgehammers first go at the COD series and I feel they did the fans a good service, The introduction to the survival mode was a cool touch, and I must say, the DLC for this game is very good. My only negative take-away from the game is the campaign for me was mostly forgettable, the pacing was a bit off to keep engaged.… Expand
  14. ArekSuzme
    Nov 16, 2022
    8
    The worst game in the Modern Warfare series, but definitely not a bad one. The biggest problem that I have with it is that it changes Makarov a lot. In the first 2 games, Makarov looked like a guy who only cared of himself. But in this game, he becomes a ''слава Россия“ kinda guy. Other than that, pretty solid game with a great plot twist and a bloody sweet ending (should have endedThe worst game in the Modern Warfare series, but definitely not a bad one. The biggest problem that I have with it is that it changes Makarov a lot. In the first 2 games, Makarov looked like a guy who only cared of himself. But in this game, he becomes a ''слава Россия“ kinda guy. Other than that, pretty solid game with a great plot twist and a bloody sweet ending (should have ended there).… Expand
  15. JrDouble
    Dec 20, 2022
    8
    Solid entry in the series. Decent story, standard Call of Duty gameplay. Big set pieces.
  16. FrankCreeper
    Jul 28, 2023
    8
    A good sequel of MW2 but is very similar to his predecessor but improve only something about the graphics and the shooting system,the camppain is fantastic with a great end,the coop mode are similar as his predecessor and multiplayer is very bad...not improved very well...but its still funny to play
  17. JonnyBigBoss
    Oct 12, 2014
    7
    This is more Call of Duty. It's fun to play, is highly polished, and has a ton to chew on. But really it's highly derivative. You should know what to expect at this point.
  18. Phenom557
    Nov 14, 2011
    7
    As a fan of both the Call Of Duty and Battlefield series of games I can honestly say this is a solid game. As usual, InfiniteWard releases a polished game with another compelling story that is easy to lose yourself in. The campaign is by far one of my favorites from the entire Call Of Duty collection and once again provides non-stop action with return of characters you know and care about.As a fan of both the Call Of Duty and Battlefield series of games I can honestly say this is a solid game. As usual, InfiniteWard releases a polished game with another compelling story that is easy to lose yourself in. The campaign is by far one of my favorites from the entire Call Of Duty collection and once again provides non-stop action with return of characters you know and care about. The graphics engine is becoming dated, although it has had some small tweaks, they are hardly worth noting. However, on the topic of multiplayer, the game holds holds true to its infamous formula, but as i'm sure everyone has heard or seen for themselves, changes little. A few new kill-streaks and the addition of the very unnecessary COD Elite service is definitely not worth the bragging rights. If your looking to charge gun-first into matchmaking, expect MW2 with new maps....... In comparison, Battlefield 3 has a far superior multiplayer experience, but if you want another blockbuster campaign fighting along side Captain Price, MW3 gets the job done.… Expand
  19. Lugoves
    Nov 10, 2011
    7
    In short. It doesn't measure up to IW MW2. But it's slightly better than Black Ops and WOW. I've always preferred Infinity Wards' 'Feel' of the gunplay more. I still like BF3 as well , for the Larger maps and vehicular combat elements. I like the new Perk System and Kill-streak system as being an average player rarely get the higher kill-streaks required. I also enjoy the twist on TDMIn short. It doesn't measure up to IW MW2. But it's slightly better than Black Ops and WOW. I've always preferred Infinity Wards' 'Feel' of the gunplay more. I still like BF3 as well , for the Larger maps and vehicular combat elements. I like the new Perk System and Kill-streak system as being an average player rarely get the higher kill-streaks required. I also enjoy the twist on TDM with the Dog Tags. I would actually score it a point lower than BF3 just because in the couple of hours I've been online and the modes immediately available to me I've only experienced fast & furious gun & run play. I haven't opened a mode or map that would encourage sniper/overwatch classes or stealth having much emphasis. The Elite system is well set up, but currently overwhelmed by demand and rather unresponsive server replies.… Expand
  20. chinoyray
    Nov 10, 2011
    7
    Im giving this a 7. The single campaign is fun and exciting but the multiplayer feels like a dlc of mw2. Elite feels like a scam.
    Havent played more spec ops but its fun as always.
  21. juicejuice
    Feb 3, 2013
    7
    For me this is the best first person shooter out there because of it's similarities to the best first person shooter of all time: COD4.
  22. Watermelon789
    Jan 4, 2012
    7
    For Infinity Ward, this is the laziest game they made. For Sledgehammer is not a great introduction to the game industry but at least it's a nice move , still not the best. Starting with the campaign is a great ride worth taking but we all know that when we play a CoD game is solely in the multiplayer aspect and nothing more unless you spend some time with the other mode ( Zombies ) butFor Infinity Ward, this is the laziest game they made. For Sledgehammer is not a great introduction to the game industry but at least it's a nice move , still not the best. Starting with the campaign is a great ride worth taking but we all know that when we play a CoD game is solely in the multiplayer aspect and nothing more unless you spend some time with the other mode ( Zombies ) but this time is the other mode called " survival " that the name itself describe it all , survival. The graphics looked fine enough with a little detail but is the same good thing we've have seen since Mw2. Some new cool modes are acceptable like the innovative Kill Confirm that consist on taking the dog tags etc but i don't feel compelled enough to play this modes because they feel worthless I never felt any motivation to play other modes but only Team Deathmatch .MW3 didn't felt like that juggernaut game that if it was announced caused me nostalgia , other than that those little problems, or boring things dragged a game that was a triple A franchise. I hope that the next one recovers from this hard wound . Still for those that liked the fast paced formula they won't be dissapointed .… Expand
  23. Ru3
    Nov 10, 2011
    7
    The game is yet again a walk through huge setpieces that, unfortunately, have already been done before. The scenario harks back to Crysis 2 or Resistance 3 minus the aliens and chimeras. I don't believe it does anything NEW with single-player besides the continuation of a story.
    The multiplayer, however, is largely the motivation alot of people, including myself have and will have for    The game is yet again a walk through huge setpieces that, unfortunately, have already been done before. The scenario harks back to Crysis 2 or Resistance 3 minus the aliens and chimeras. I don't believe it does anything NEW with single-player besides the continuation of a story.
    The multiplayer, however, is largely the motivation alot of people, including myself have and will have for buying this game. Comparing it to modern warfare 1 and 2, it is much the same; however, if you've been playing Black Ops for the past year and want a fresh start, this is it. Multiplayer is based much less upon 'who can run around knifing the fastest' and more upon 'how can you best kill the other team?' It's much more fast-paced that MW2 from what I have seen, but is a whole different ballpark to Black Ops; an experience that won't let you run-and-gun and kill everybody just because you have the fastest reflexes.

    How do you judge a game? On graphics? The textures, colours, overall feel of the game is much better than, say, blackOps, but I don't think it's anything to be amazed about- at the very least, it does a bit better with framerate. Audio- I'm not sure if this is because of me being a former blackops regular, but the gun sounds seem a bit more... I don't know, iffy? More 'pewpew' than 'BLAMMM'..... I'm not sure how to fully express that.

    Single-player- a must ONLY if you really really care about the endings to a mediocre storyline

    Multiplayer- only if you care about chasing the majority of the multiplayer community who, whether they reviewed this game well or not, will be playing online and constantly saying 'THIS GAME SUXXX!'. Yes, the 12-year-old prepubescent idiots are there still, as are the cashed-up-bogans.

    Overall; Okay, the review is my own opinion of this game. I'm not going to say it's shattt because, like I said, I actually quite like to play. But I can also see how this game has shortcomings of its own. Between this and BF3, I'd play BF3 for the grand experience of a warzone; I'd play Call of Duty to be a one-man-army. Neither game is monumental, and neither should be GOTY. I give this game a 7/10 because, it's not the worst game in the world, it's not the most amazing game in the world, and yeah, I actually DO play this game.    … Expand
  24. cylixdemas
    Nov 8, 2011
    7
    The third installment into the Modern Warfare series is somewhat disappointing. While the game is a really good game nonetheless, do not expect anything drastically new. There is everything -- from the mechanics to the perks --- that are nearly identical to Modern Warfare 2. There are some new additives, including survival, supportive kill streaks, and the assortment of weapons and levels.The third installment into the Modern Warfare series is somewhat disappointing. While the game is a really good game nonetheless, do not expect anything drastically new. There is everything -- from the mechanics to the perks --- that are nearly identical to Modern Warfare 2. There are some new additives, including survival, supportive kill streaks, and the assortment of weapons and levels. The game is good. It is what you have come to expect of Call of Duty. Nothing more, and nothing less.… Expand
  25. davenbettridge
    Nov 13, 2011
    7
    The Call of Duty creators must be criticized for having the greatest opportunity in the industry with unlimited resources to only coming up with a half good product. CoD is value for money but is lacking in original creativity. The special Ops is well done, the story pretty much sucks (no excuses it sucks), and the multiplayer is the same as ever with little innovation. I do recommend MW3The Call of Duty creators must be criticized for having the greatest opportunity in the industry with unlimited resources to only coming up with a half good product. CoD is value for money but is lacking in original creativity. The special Ops is well done, the story pretty much sucks (no excuses it sucks), and the multiplayer is the same as ever with little innovation. I do recommend MW3 due its surface fun and value for money but it lacks to what should have been something much much more.… Expand
  26. DGDrocks7
    Oct 12, 2014
    7
    I'm seeing extremism here. The game isn't bad, so stop giving it bad scores. Yet, this is almost the same game from 2009 (MW2), so it's definitely not a game to be awarded Game of the Year or something.

    The story takes place right after MW2 left off. Most of the time, you play as Yuri, a member of TF141 and Frost, a Delta Force operative. WWIII has broken out, and it's up to you to find    I'm seeing extremism here. The game isn't bad, so stop giving it bad scores. Yet, this is almost the same game from 2009 (MW2), so it's definitely not a game to be awarded Game of the Year or something.

    The story takes place right after MW2 left off. Most of the time, you play as Yuri, a member of TF141 and Frost, a Delta Force operative. WWIII has broken out, and it's up to you to find the man responsible for it, Makarov. Soap and Captain Price returns, and since is the final chapter in the MW series, you'll see how it all concludes. Honestly, only those who played the previous games will enjoy it. Everyone else will have no idea what's going on.

    Multiplayer is the same thing from previous games. You have now "Support" streaks, where if you die, you don't lose your streak; it carries over between deaths. The problem is that it's said to help your team, but one "Support" streak is a Stealth bomber, which hurts the other team. That's supposed to be in the "Assault" streaks, which is the traditional killstreak structure. Nothing else much here.

    What I did like though is "Survival" mode, where you must fend off waves of enemies on various maps. I spent most of my time, here. But this wasn't enough to justify the $60 price tag when it came out.

    Call of Duty does the same thing year after year; it's not worth paying $60, but now it's cheap; a new one is now like $20. I think that a perfect price for this game, so go get it.    … Expand
  27. Jakintosh
    Oct 8, 2012
    7
    I don't play online multiplayer, but from what I've played of the Single Player and the Spec Ops, I can say that this game is at least a solid FPS. It's not ground breaking, but it can provide a good amount of entertainment. I wouldn't say it is worth $60 + however much all the DLC costs, but it's still at least entertaining. It is very similar to previous games, but if you can get pastI don't play online multiplayer, but from what I've played of the Single Player and the Spec Ops, I can say that this game is at least a solid FPS. It's not ground breaking, but it can provide a good amount of entertainment. I wouldn't say it is worth $60 + however much all the DLC costs, but it's still at least entertaining. It is very similar to previous games, but if you can get past that, it's worth checking out.… Expand
  28. Creasy
    Nov 21, 2011
    7
    Great made game overall, but one that unfortunately starts to get a little boring now. Which isn't necessarily the game's / developer's fault. It's just the way it's being released (each year). The first 3 hours offered a big explosive spectacle, but I was very, very bored at everything. The last hour (out of 4) had some great scenes though.
    Graphics engine still looks good (and still    Great made game overall, but one that unfortunately starts to get a little boring now. Which isn't necessarily the game's / developer's fault. It's just the way it's being released (each year). The first 3 hours offered a big explosive spectacle, but I was very, very bored at everything. The last hour (out of 4) had some great scenes though.
    Graphics engine still looks good (and still better than many other games), but shows its age as well. Especially in comparison to Battlefield 3 (PC) - which had about the same quality overall, but deserves a little higher score just because of its visual quality.
    Overall: Well made action game (still better made and better action than 95% of the other games out there). A good roller coaster ride.    … Expand
  29. sinadoom
    Jul 14, 2012
    7
    MW3 SPEC OPS/SURVIVAL ONLY REVIEW. Based on playing spec ops and survival modes co-operatively in split-screen, I can say that Modern Warfare 3 does not fail in this department. Of course, the lack of staffing and time to produce this game has meant that, as with the multiplayer, a lot has been copied over from both CoD4 and MW2. However, the survival mode is something new- kind of a crossMW3 SPEC OPS/SURVIVAL ONLY REVIEW. Based on playing spec ops and survival modes co-operatively in split-screen, I can say that Modern Warfare 3 does not fail in this department. Of course, the lack of staffing and time to produce this game has meant that, as with the multiplayer, a lot has been copied over from both CoD4 and MW2. However, the survival mode is something new- kind of a cross between spec ops and zombies. It's very simple but still fun to play, but is not as gripping or addictive as zombies in World at War, for instance. You face attack helicopters, riot shield juggernauts, juggernauts, attack dogs and ordinary soliders. Unlike zombies though, the number of enemies per round does not increase; rather their difficulty and the types of enemies does instead. You can purchase upgrades such as weapons, attachments, perks, killstreaks and even a squad to help you by earning money, and XP ranks you up so you can buy better stuff once you hit the top level 50. You rank up in both spec ops and survival, and as with MW2's split-screen multiplayer, your progression and unlocks are saved in survival/spec ops. The good thing about survival is how you can play them on all multiplayer maps, so it's not like zombies where you have only a few to choose from. Whilst survival makes a genuinely decent addition to co-op, spec ops only manages to copy over missions from the campaign and ideas from both CoD4 and MW2. If you've played them two games, you won't be surprised by anything here. Some missions they've made the copy and paste VERY obvious (like Mile Highjack being a direct copy of Mile High Club). In terms of variety, there is a fair amount. There are a good mix of missions here, not all completely different from each other but an entertaining mix nontheless, with quality being the same as Modern Warfare 2's spec ops missions. The difference is that in MW3 each mission has criteria for high score, which may range from explosion kills, sniper kills, headshots, accuracy time, difficulty etc. What's more, each mission has leaderboards for both co-op and solo, which is nice because it gives them replay value which MW2 lacked. The missions themselves are your usual mix of firing range time trials, bomb defusals, objective collection/extraction, hostage rescue, providing cover for teammate in AC130 or sniping, stealth and just run and gun action. The missions themselves are actually pretty fun in co-op and the variety means that if you're bored of one playstyle you can easily try another mission or have a crack at getting a higher round on survival. Make no mistake, Modern Warfare 3 is by far the best Call of Duty game yet for co-operative gameplay, but I somehow feel that it's below Call of Duty standards. Don't get me wrong, it's just as good as MW2's co-op, but while Modern Warfare 2 pushed and raised the boundaries, Modern Warfare 3 hasn't really done anything new. There's nothing you'll be amazed by at all, and you will frankly laugh at some of their attempts when they blatantly copied and pasted some stuff over such as a building in the CoD4 Pipeline map in one of the spec ops levels. Once you've played the missions a few times though, you will get bored of them easily. However, due to the great variety you may find a few you like, so you could spend hours trying to improve your leaderboard ranking. Personally if it was me, I would much rather spend that time improving high scores in CoD4's arcade mode, as the levels were miles superior to any spec ops mission in MW3. Overall, it's a credible component of Modern Warfare 3 and if you purchased the game for a reasonable price you will not be disappointed. It's a solid co-op, but nothing new or mind-blowing. It's a safe bet for a co-op, but nothing special.… Expand
  30. DemonArcuied
    Mar 9, 2012
    7
    I'll be fair to this game and i only think it deserves 7 because of the survival and spec ops mission.
    *The Storyline, i felt i was repeating the same missions i was doing over in MW2, so there is nothing new, and nothing exciting, except a very few sequences & missions in the story
    *The graphics is a lil bit better i felt it was smoother and more crisp. *The Multiplayer, where should i    I'll be fair to this game and i only think it deserves 7 because of the survival and spec ops mission.
    *The Storyline, i felt i was repeating the same missions i was doing over in MW2, so there is nothing new, and nothing exciting, except a very few sequences & missions in the story
    *The graphics is a lil bit better i felt it was smoother and more crisp.
    *The Multiplayer, where should i start, i feel like i am playing a modified MW2 to be honest, they killed sniping in this game by making quick scoping very easy and there is not that much levels where you can snipe, the FMG9 no matter how much they update and Nerf the weapon down people abuse using it and it is the strongest secondary weapon and it is available from the start, so the weapon balance have become really horrible and bad in this game, the radius of dead man's hand is a joke a normal C4 doesn't kill within the same radius, it's like dead man's hand perk is danger close with C4.
    -The Spec-Ops & Survival Missions are where MW3 shines, i love playing both, they are great, challenging and enjoyable.    … Expand
Page:

Awards & Rankings

17
#17 Best PS3 Game of 2011
1
#1 Most Discussed PS3 Game of 2011
16
#16 Most Shared PS3 Game of 2011

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
88

Generally favorable reviews - based on 39 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 38 out of 39
  2. Mixed: 1 out of 39
  3. Negative: 0 out of 39
  1. Push Square
    Feb 10, 2012
    90
    There's a tangible insistence from gamers that this series needs to evolve, but it seems unwarranted when it still leads the FPS class. The engine's definitely in need of an overhaul, but when it comes to thumping set-pieces and addictive multiplayer design, Modern Warfare 3 is still in a league of its own.
    Read full review
  2. GameSpot
    Feb 1, 2012
    85
    By sticking to the series' strengths, Modern Warfare 3 delivers some of the best competitive, cooperate, and single-player shooting in the business.
    Read full review
  3. Playstation: The Official Magazine (US)
    Jan 4, 2012
    90
    As a complete package, Modern Warfare 3 takes the cake. [Jan 2012, p.67]
See all critic reviews »