Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

 Xbox 360
User Score
3.5

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 8685 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2,253 out of 8685
  2. Mixed: 954 out of 8685
  3. Negative: 5,478 out of 8685
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. rdawg00014
    Nov 14, 2011
    7
    The biggest disappointment I found when I opened up MW3 and popped in the disc, was its immediate similarity to MW2, the previous title in the Modern Warfare Series. The game runs on the EXACT SAME engine, with no improvements graphically or mechanically. With this said, the game quickly received criticism, being referred to as â
  2. inochi
    Nov 14, 2011
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Lo compre y no me arrepiento, por que aunque sea igual.....pero igual parece hecho hace años y apenas lo sacaron,,,,, el añadido de las operaciones especiales y la pantalla dividida lo paga todo..... ya ningun juego viene asi, lastima que NO tenga absolutamente nada nuevo y mejor aparte de eso....… Expand
  3. lordbaku
    Nov 14, 2011
    7
    muy buen juego es accion de cabo a rabo pero en lo q tiene q ver en los graficos no mejora mucho pero es mejor una buenas historia q te atrapa q los graficos mas bonitos pero con una historia aburrida
  4. kelraiser
    Nov 16, 2011
    5
    Modern Warfare 3 a game that seem to not be able to live up to the reputation it deserves, Having played MW3 you can't help but feel the lack of innovation from the game, the campaign is the major highlight of the game a good quality with brilliant explosive moments that you come to expect from the cod franchise and wraps up all the event from the previous Modern warfare games, tho theModern Warfare 3 a game that seem to not be able to live up to the reputation it deserves, Having played MW3 you can't help but feel the lack of innovation from the game, the campaign is the major highlight of the game a good quality with brilliant explosive moments that you come to expect from the cod franchise and wraps up all the event from the previous Modern warfare games, tho the campaign is short lived as it only takes 6 hours to complete on the hardened difficulty, the graphic of MW3 are nothing special as they are still using the game engine from Modern Warfare so it all feels a bit dated compared to the likes of Battlefield 3 who are really pushing forward with innovations in graphics and game play, Multiplayer is the major disappointment in Mw3 the game has multiple glitches, the maps feel very small, cluttered and rushed compared to the maps that were on black ops, despite claims that Mw3 had been developed to stop people camping the game seems to have gone the other way and now there are more ways to camp than in any previous call of duty games, the spawning system is a complete mess as you spawn right into a squad of enemy player or right if front of an enemy and get gunned downed before you can even move this should have been sorted out after the same problem appeared in black ops, some of the weapons are way over powered, Hit detection is a glitchy you can fire away at an enemy right if front of and not register a single hit evn tho you are at near point blank range, the melee attack means knifing thin air can get you a kill or you can leap 5 feet and kill and enemy as if by magic, Spec Ops is back and it's not half bad with the same ranking system as multiplayer ( tho it's separate from the multiplayer ranking system) the more you play it the more you unlock in weapons and other goodies, tho the survival mode could have been better compared to the zombie mode you got in world at war and black ops as only 2 player can co-op over waves of enemies this could easily have been improved if they had made it four play like the zombie modes in the games I've just said. Overall I can't help but feel that this game should have been held off for a year giving the people developing this game more time to improve and innovate the game and breath new life in to the modern warfare franchise and ment that you don't feel your playing the same old game with just a different story.… Expand
  5. timsim26
    Nov 16, 2011
    6
    the single player and spec ops of this game is fantastic and that receives 5/5 for offline content and cooperative. the special ops is new and fun with a range of unlocks and slick gameplay that can be thoroughly enjoyed and spent many hours playing. the campaign is the typical huge scale explosions and bloody battles that we have come to expect from the modern warfare games and it doesthe single player and spec ops of this game is fantastic and that receives 5/5 for offline content and cooperative. the special ops is new and fun with a range of unlocks and slick gameplay that can be thoroughly enjoyed and spent many hours playing. the campaign is the typical huge scale explosions and bloody battles that we have come to expect from the modern warfare games and it does not disappoint. where this game does let me down is the multiplayer. as a cod fan from cod4 all the way until now only mw2 slightly compares to the fun factor that call of duty 4 provided. there is significant problems with hit detection and lag unlike the other big shooters that have come out this year, namely battlefield, gears of war and resistance. the game feels old and tired as the same rinse and repeat gameplay has been used. unfortunately in opinion this game is an enourmous jump ahead of blackops. this game has been hyped way out of proportion and does not deliver. not too mention that elite still is not working meaning hundreds of thousands of people have given activision an extra 50 dollars for nothing… Expand
  6. rj88631
    Nov 17, 2011
    7
    If someone ranks this game as a zero, they are not giving this game a fair shake. The game is very good on its own merit. The revamped multiplayer is a ton of fun. It took a bit of getting used to but its fun once you grasp the nuances. The campaign is nothing to get excited about. It goes through the paces, stuff happens, and I wasn't thrilled. The problem is nothing is too fresh in theIf someone ranks this game as a zero, they are not giving this game a fair shake. The game is very good on its own merit. The revamped multiplayer is a ton of fun. It took a bit of getting used to but its fun once you grasp the nuances. The campaign is nothing to get excited about. It goes through the paces, stuff happens, and I wasn't thrilled. The problem is nothing is too fresh in the campaign and a lot of the game feels the same. I am not entirely sure what they could have added or changed but either way they didn't do a ton. I feel like there should have been much more. That being said, the reworked multiplayer is a blast, especially with the new killstreak system that appeals to both hardcore and casual players alike. I love it. The Kill Confirmed Mode is a blast. Weapon leveling is pretty cool. Haven't tried everything yet but so far multiplayer has impressed. Has not wowed me though. If you really liked Modern Warfare 2 and aren't thrilled with anything else out there right now, then I would say go with Modern Warfare 3. If you want to do something really different, go with Battlefield 3 (Haven't played it myself but it has gotten good reviews and I am fan of the series). Modern Warfare 3, some cool new stuff, exciting, new game. Would have given it a 8.5 otherwise. I am docking 1.5 points for the campaign, but docking another 1.5 for the fact that I played a lot of this game before and with 2 years in the making, I should have been wowed, not just impressed.… Expand
  7. stevvti
    Nov 17, 2011
    5
    Over hyped.... Mainstream.... Commercial.... Definitely not worth the price, I feel like Iv'e been ripped off. Better off with Crysis 2, Rage, or even Homefront!! in my opinion Call of duty died after No 4 ( the best one) So keep away from this waste of money and go buy a decent game that is not going to rip you off.
  8. Blidly
    Jun 9, 2012
    7
    Explosions. Its the new soundtrack for MW3, the single player is good and as expected feels great, the controls feel nimble and powerful, the guns feel great and even what you are doing is good.

    However we have seen this before , there has been no revolution and feels standard to COD now, though I argue still better then some other FPS's. But my major problem for singleplayer is well    Explosions. Its the new soundtrack for MW3, the single player is good and as expected feels great, the controls feel nimble and powerful, the guns feel great and even what you are doing is good.

    However we have seen this before , there has been no revolution and feels standard to COD now, though I argue still better then some other FPS's. But my major problem for singleplayer is well how now everything is an explosion and there are no quiet bits where you can reflect on whats happened. So the explosions feels very numbed and when a certain huge explosion happens you dont care.

    Multiplayer, still great though familar. I have fallen out of love of playing FPS's yet I still probably play 10 hours a week on this online. The guns are well balanced, new kill streaks work, new maps are ok, nothing special.
    Only thing I would want though (this without payed for DLC), is a couple big maps so I could actually use a sniper...    … Expand
  9. SentinelGrime
    Nov 20, 2011
    7
    Where do I start with this game.. Before I played this game I was a huge CoD fan and would argue with anybody who said that the CoD franchise wasn't good but when I started playing the multiplayer on this and realised that it was basically MW2 but with different over powered guns and the same unrealistic sniping. The "point streaks" in the game really do seem pointless as well seeing asWhere do I start with this game.. Before I played this game I was a huge CoD fan and would argue with anybody who said that the CoD franchise wasn't good but when I started playing the multiplayer on this and realised that it was basically MW2 but with different over powered guns and the same unrealistic sniping. The "point streaks" in the game really do seem pointless as well seeing as for some of the best rewards in the game like "juggernaut" require 18 points in total as long as you stick with the same class. When you are playing a game like "HQ" who isn't going to get 18 points in one game? This means that you have about 6 people running around in juggernaut suits which defeats the object of a reward if it is so easy to get. One thing I can't bad mouth about this game is the campaign as I found it enjoyable even on the "Veteran" difficulty but I thought the special ops missions were very boring and tedious.
    If you are a 14 year old boy who likes to join clans etc.. then this game is perfect for you but if you are a little older and just enjoy a quality game then I doubt you will like this game.
    Just don't be put off by all of these people giving it a "0" review because they are just abusing the system.    … Expand
  10. REboy5
    Nov 20, 2011
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I have been a fan of call of duty since the release of call of duty 2, excluding the games I didn't play up to CoD4 MW. Each game brought in new perks, skills, guns, and graphics and a decent story line. To review MW3 I took a look at the campaign, graphics, and multiplayer experience. Sound would be included, but it is minimally as important as the three stated. Campaign: It comes right off from the ending point of last game with person X being injured etc. The elements are believable in the fact that it there was an EMP blast from a nuke, however the graphic scene was not needed nor added to the game other than a shock and awe aspect. It is more believable that a country would use an EMP blasts than bio weapons to invade a nation or nations. Granted they provided a story that they didn't have the necessary items to achieve the best option, but the Russian military wasn't commanded by the main antagonist so why would they invade under his orders after a bio-weapon attack on multiple countries? Further into the story it is mostly the same types of questions and excitement of fast paced shooting so the final score for campaign came to a 7.
    Graphics: This is pretty easy, I put in MW2 and looked at MW3 and noticed very little difference in graphic quality other than lighting and sharper images which I feel can be achieved with an update considering it uses the same engine, the lack of innovation or development brings the score to a failing grade, but still enough that it portrays the graphics are better than many games out there, 5.
    Multiplayer experience: This is hard to say as there are many different modes that people can play, I personally played Kill-confirmed, TDM, and SnD as well as Hardcore variants. The maps I felt after reaching level 36 as of now were semi confusing and slightly one sided if a team was smart enough to camp a specific area (Being smart isn't grounds for saying the map sucks I know). However the maps had many corners which made it difficult to center yourself as well as a central area that is common in the maps as the hot zone. The guns that were introduced in the game were fine and all, however it still felt weird to me that many of the guns had different iron sights, but in general felt relatively the same as MW2 guns. I know I may be reaching with this, but the Type 95 I believe is one of the most overpowered guns I have seen in a long time, I would put it at the equivalent of 1887's in MW2 before they were nerfed. I know this may be fixed over time with patches but currently for the game to have 1 man get shot by two different people which includes myself with a Scar-H and have this guy kill both of us in different directions with 1 burst is ridiculous. I might as well just run around with a sniper rifle, drop shot you while quick scoping. This brings me to sniping. I have only found maybe 2-3 maps where sniping has its uses across a large span of space, so the maps don't really help out when you have a billion corners and you're trying to snipe. Many say l2p and quickscope...well sure it's in the game they brought it back as well as drop shots. I don't mind either, but I feel like they brought back quick scoping because well you need it for those tight corners or else you're useless as a sniper. Personally I like just looking through a scope, some others may not so that's their preference, but make a map where sniping really does take place instead of quick scopes as the only option for players to have a decent score in close quarter battles. I'll reiterate I don't care that other players use quick scope or drop shot, it can be frustrating but hey they learned something I didn't so they have that advantage over me which is a legitimate thing to have. It's not like they hacked the game to do it, I have as much ability and choice to learn how to as they do so props to people of quick scope and aren't dicks about it. Perks, well those change all the time, no biggie just no more of running around the map like a ninja. Kill streaks and support streaks....Oh man I like the new kill-streak ability where if you keep killing it just restarts, but support streaks really? So if I just don't have any skill over my opponents I can die 25 times and get 8 kills and I'll still be able to call in an EMP? (I really don't remember what you need for an EMP I don't use it so don't be mad). I remember that kill-streaks were supposed to reward you for your skill and not for trying. I understand that you want the game to be accessible for a lot of people, but there has to be a line drawn. You don't deserve a streak unless you get 3 kills minimum, because at least you provide for the team instead of a situation where a guy gets kills because he just happened by when a guy reloaded and has a KDR of .16. so Multiplayer you get a fat 6, get rid of support streaks.    … Expand
  11. CAPTAIN_DACADO
    Nov 20, 2011
    7
    Like most user's come to comment... unfortunatley modern warfare 3 doesn't differ much from its prequal modern warfare 2... regarding innovation through the campaign or multiplayer aspect. though the game is enhanced with a new gameplay of survival... which borders kinda along the line of zombies from treyarchs black ops series. no doubt you will waste alot of hours playing modern warfare,Like most user's come to comment... unfortunatley modern warfare 3 doesn't differ much from its prequal modern warfare 2... regarding innovation through the campaign or multiplayer aspect. though the game is enhanced with a new gameplay of survival... which borders kinda along the line of zombies from treyarchs black ops series. no doubt you will waste alot of hours playing modern warfare, and not all will fill totally disappointed with the outcome... but for me personally the one thing that made this game average, was the lack of system link and being able to cram rooms of competitive friend together without needing to fall victim to a great marketing scam of having to be online... what ever happened to lan gaming and getting together to pown your friend arse...? ok so system link is possible but due to pure laziness of programming or even conflict of frame rates its only 1 player per screen... shame it doesn't mention that on the box when its says 2- 18 players... anyone got 18 xbox's and tv 's to hook up?
    as for the campaign it does succeed in endless action trying to envigorate into the storyline. but with great dissappointment like most gamers after the campaign you may just end up like me feeling ripped off and wonder why you queued up first thing for it's release paying for such expense when it is clear false advertisement and the same marketing scam we have come to known for many years that is call of duty.    … Expand
  12. HTML_iLegendary
    Nov 20, 2011
    7
    Here is your unbiased opinion on the game:
    I'll admit, I went into this game with a heap of skepticism after reading about it in Game Informer, but bought it at midnight anyways. I couldn't have been more disappointed, despite the fact taht I knew what I was getting into. The game feels like Modern Warfare 2.5, with just a few changes to the multiplayer. The new killstreak system is a cool    Here is your unbiased opinion on the game:
    I'll admit, I went into this game with a heap of skepticism after reading about it in Game Informer, but bought it at midnight anyways. I couldn't have been more disappointed, despite the fact taht I knew what I was getting into. The game feels like Modern Warfare 2.5, with just a few changes to the multiplayer. The new killstreak system is a cool new edition, but because of how easy it is to get a UAV, you are almost forced to use Assassin as your second perk. I was also disappointed to hear the same soundtrack. When I leveled up for the first time, and heard that same exact guitar sound, I couldn't help but groan. The graphics are one of the most frustrating things in the game. It's ridiculous that a game that proclaimed itself the most anticipated release of the year to not even be on par with some of the year's best graphics (ie. Skyrim or Battlefield). So why is it rated a 7? I will be completely honest. The fact that everyone bought this game, including the people on my friend's list, makes this game fun. That is honestly why I don't find myself playing Battlefield more, seeing as it is easily a better game. Oh, and I cannot be proclaimed a fanboy. Battlefield 3 was the first in the series that I had actually bought, while I had bought the past 3 COD titles. So, in other words, I used to be a COD fan. I even used to care about my K/D ratio, but since I don't even like this game, I spend the majority of the time pissing people off in Search and Destroy. I honestly think that people's 0 ratings are justified, because you need to counter out the people who ridiculously rated it a 10. Also, shame on the "professional critics" who rated this game 100 out of 100. You cannot call yourself a gamer and not see all the flaws in this game. This game lacks innovation, and is just a copy/paste of other successful games. Go play a private match and tell me where they got the ideas of Infection, Gun Game and One in the Chamber. Survival is the same, but I won't fault them since every FPS seems to be getting some kind of survival mode. However, this survival mode is a bit lame, seeing as you play on multiplayer maps, rather than maps created exclusively for this game mode, like Nazi Zombies was. If this was the first in a series, this would be a terrific game, and one I would recommend everyone buy. However, seeing as this is the 3rd Modern Warfare release, I see no reason why this game is heralded by so many people.    … Expand
  13. GerOhMyGosh
    Nov 22, 2011
    5
    Disappointing in many ways. It was hard to get through the game as it felt as if it were the same game over. It's more of a MW2.1 Even if you enjoyed the previous games, it's more of a burned out feeling at this point as it does nothing to improve on older games.
  14. Moe_Fugga
    Nov 22, 2011
    6
    * Headnote- I refer to the "physics and mechanics" as the feel of game as well as gun damage/range/knockdown system*

    I am a long time player of the Call of Duty series. We'll start off with Call of Duty 4 for times sake. Brilliant. Utterly and thoroughly brilliant. Mechanics, physics, perks system, guns, damage, levels, and every other aspect of the game was flawless. I still play it to    * Headnote- I refer to the "physics and mechanics" as the feel of game as well as gun damage/range/knockdown system*

    I am a long time player of the Call of Duty series. We'll start off with Call of Duty 4 for times sake. Brilliant. Utterly and thoroughly brilliant. Mechanics, physics, perks system, guns, damage, levels, and every other aspect of the game was flawless. I still play it to this day if I can find a loby that isn't full of hackers. World at War... it was good. It wasn't COD4, but it worked as a refreshing take on the game. Treyarch, however, has never lived up to the standard that was set by Infinity Ward (MW1 and 2 Era). Modern Warfare 2... **** EPIC. This game refined COD4 and enhanced the game to the next level. Everything that was good about COD 4 was even better in MW2 including the better graphics/environment. Plus, the best thing about this game was that it rewarded players for being good. Yes the noob toobs, and rockets were annoying, but you could still manage. It seemed that IW was telling the players that "If you can't play with the big dogs, go play Mario Kart". There was no "leveling out the playing field" or any trash like that. Me and my buddies would party up and **** on kids all night. And that is the way it was. Perfect. Black Ops (or Wack Ops IMO).... total **** Just as MW2 hit the nail on the head, so to speak, Wack Ops missed and hit their thumb, time after time. This game leveled out the playing field because Treyarch felt sorry for the kids who got **** on in MW2. Every gun was the same. No matter whether level 56 or 6 you could do just as good as the next as far as having a good gun because they were all alike. Camping was rewarded because the maps were full of camping spots and a camper could hide behind a rock or dumpster and kill as many people as a runner with actual skill. And the mechanics/physics were just **** Characters felt wierd knifing, reloading, and moving. Treyarch essentially **** up big time as far as skilled players were concerned. Now, why we are here. Modern Warfare 3. Let me say this; Activision, when you lost the original Infinity Ward dev team, you lost everything. They knew what it was to make a good game. When you try to bring "innovation" into gaming you usually **** it up for the majority of your followers. What you needed to do was re-vamp the graphics, make new and original levels (not cut and paste), and basically do what EA did with Battlefield. Keep the same game in tact, but REFINE it. MW3 is pretty good don't get me wrong. I like the feel of the game, I like the new game mode ideas, and I like the weapons system. The weapons mechanics and physics and unlock system is just as good as MW2. The MAJOR gripe that I have is the perks system. In a multiplayer game designed around perks and player/gun enhancements.... the perks and gun enhancements are PRETTY IMPORTANT. You took what MW2 had and you took out what YOU thought were the BAD perks. You did not come up with anything new and creative, but you took Basic mechanics out of the BASIC game (like moving fast while looking down the sights and acquiring targets at a further range) and made them perks. All the while you divided up good perks and pro perks to make the game more leveled. Sleight of hand and faster ads should have never been split up. Invisibility to radar AND airstreaks only makes sense. Not one perk for each. It seems as if you were in such a bind to come up with new ideas that you took a Shelby GT500, removed the engine, and put in a 4 cylinder in order to claim that you get better gas mileage with this years model. You did nothing except make it worse and tried to pass it off as being MIND-BLOWINGLY innovative.
    Activision, don't let Treyarchs views cloud the Modern Warfare series because that is what it fells like is happening. Don't "innovate" the game. Just make it better. Fine tune it. You don't have to replace the engine and transmission in a car to make it faster. Use what you have and build off of that. Go back to MW2 and fine tune the following;
    1. Graphics
    2. NEW environments/levels
    3. Guns and unlock system (MW3's has a good balance)(Maybe some cool new guns wouldn't hurt)
    4. Explosions - Lets face it. Grenades, rockets, and mines do more damage and rightfully should. Take it back to MW2 days.
    5. PERKS!!! LEAVE THEM ALONE!!!

    Do this and I guarantee that I would be back to your game. Until then.... I'll be on Battlefield 3. A truly better game.    … Expand
  15. logicrulez
    Nov 26, 2011
    7
    I gave MW3 a 7 cause it's so damn fun to play. I also gave it a 7 cause the graphics engine needs a refresh real bad, looks like I'm playing an expansion pack of Black Ops. The biggest disappointment is the graphics, everything else is on point. Fire the guy that said "We should use the same graphics engine from last year" Don't change the game play just upgrade the graphics and MW3I gave MW3 a 7 cause it's so damn fun to play. I also gave it a 7 cause the graphics engine needs a refresh real bad, looks like I'm playing an expansion pack of Black Ops. The biggest disappointment is the graphics, everything else is on point. Fire the guy that said "We should use the same graphics engine from last year" Don't change the game play just upgrade the graphics and MW3 metacritic score will rise.… Expand
  16. anomalyone
    Nov 29, 2011
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. First I snuck into a fortified European castle and planted C4 charges all around it. Next, my partner took out the lights in a security depot while I donned night vision goggles and swept the building. After that we blew our way into the walls and shimmied up to eavesdrop on a conversation. We were sighted and chased out, only to be saved by a long fall off a large cliff, which we drove off of willingly while explosions exploded around us. On paper it sounds like an amazingly interesting, action-packed experience. Sadly, it really isnâ… Expand
  17. Antares
    Nov 29, 2011
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Does it innovate much? Quite a bit, but not enough. Is it still fun, of course!

    If I were green to the Modern Warfare franchise, I would have rated this higher, however, I am not. This game has gotten pretty stale imho. Infinity Ward, your new killstreaks, perks and gametypes may be new but it doesn't change much for it to be considered something amazing.

    Story: To be fair, time was spent on this, so I'll give it a go. The story is a globetrotting adventure that takes you everywhere from New York to India. While the amazing set pieces may blow you away, the story however, is pretty crappy. The amount of death and destruction has pretty much made me care less when some of the characters die. Frankly, I replayed MW2'sand COD4's campaign a few times, but I don't really care for this one.

    Gameplay: Slick, tight and well controlled. It's just how a quasi-realistic FPS is supposed to be.

    Multiplayer: Ah the draw of the game. I'll be fair again and I'll announce some of the changes. New perks, new weapons, new equipment (tatical and lethal), weapon proficencies, strike packages blah blah. IT is quite a large amount that was added. But then again, it doesn't really reinvent itself to be groundbreaking. The game is somewhat harder than before and quickscoping at close range seems to diminish in frequency. Also, it seems that they have tweaked the guns so that they are effective at their respective ranges only. Rifles are for medium, SMGs for short and snipes for long range. Picking something unsuited for your range type will leave you somewhat out gunned. Also, a new breed of overpowered weapons seemed to emerge. (Type 95s and akimbo FMG9s). However, with all those changes, you'll find that playing it would induce a "been there done that" feeling.

    Sound: Nothing to complain about, the soundtrack is well composed and brings about the mood of the game. Voice acting isn't really bad, just fine. I do miss Sergeant Foley's constant "RAMIREZ!" soundbites though.

    Community: :'(    … Expand
  18. Minetastic
    Dec 13, 2011
    7
    An expected and not not surprising sequel in the COD series. Better than black ops. The gameplay feels a bit to much like MW2. The maps are a lot better and not as many spots to camp. Far less broken then MW2. Overall a good game.
  19. CatchFire
    Dec 15, 2011
    7
    Okay, so let's face it, no Call of Duty, whether this one or Call of Duty 73 is EVER going to be as good as Modern Warfare, the original and the best. People giving negative reviews should remember one thing though; they bought the game and complained about it, but are they going to bring it back? No. No they won't, because whether MW3 is or isn't MW1, it is still an ABSOLUTELY FANTASTICOkay, so let's face it, no Call of Duty, whether this one or Call of Duty 73 is EVER going to be as good as Modern Warfare, the original and the best. People giving negative reviews should remember one thing though; they bought the game and complained about it, but are they going to bring it back? No. No they won't, because whether MW3 is or isn't MW1, it is still an ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC game in it's own right. Having played through the story earlier, I have no say I was completely in love with the set design; the graphics and locations are impressive. Yes, Battlefield 3 is better in that area, but I'd sacrifice graphics for gameplay every day of the week. The missions you complete in the story are all too familiar (AC-130, Stealth, Breaches), but as the old saying goes, "Why fix what isn't broken?" Now, I haven't had a chance to play Spec Ops as of yet, but having asked a few friends, they really enjoy the Survival mode, something I'll admit I'm looking forward to. In terms of Online Multiplayer, it's the same game as the previous two titles, and that is a good thing. Sure, there are problems. Sure, some weapons need to be nerfed. But weapons in this game feel "right". They shoot as you want them to, as they are expected to. Kills are satisfying, as they were in MW1 (With that R700 ACOG we all know and love). No, it's not as good as MW1, but damn sure is this game better than Black Ops, and, if you don't compare it to MW1, one of the games of the year. A little unhappy about the scene with the couple and their little daughter in London; that half-a-second turn of events put the entire "No Russian" mission to shame. I've never had an issue with anything in a game, but kudos to Infinity Ward for making a genuinely moving piece of horrifying gaming that made me very, very uncomfortable.… Expand
  20. PcTran
    Dec 28, 2011
    7
    Let's not be blinded by all the negative feedback. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is a good game. It's not a industry changing game but it is a good game. The story is worth experiencing. The multiplayer is addicting but the formula is little different from Call of Duty 4 which is 4 years and 4 games later. The survival isn't anything that hasn't been seen before. But this is a good game.
  21. theHarbinger
    Dec 30, 2011
    7
    Clearly this is not a major improvement in this title.. Seriouly, the guns in MW2 like F2000 and some other guns were not present... Its a good game, but lack of new innovation.. I was expecting a longer campaign but apparently it was short... One thing tht I love the most was they introduce 'Survival' in Spec Ops which I think besides the multiplayer will hook you hours and hours... It'sClearly this is not a major improvement in this title.. Seriouly, the guns in MW2 like F2000 and some other guns were not present... Its a good game, but lack of new innovation.. I was expecting a longer campaign but apparently it was short... One thing tht I love the most was they introduce 'Survival' in Spec Ops which I think besides the multiplayer will hook you hours and hours... It's a good game but unfortunately it gets bored after sometimes as there was no 'huge' innovation to the game.. I don't see why people hated it so badly maybe they are just BF3 fanboys or CoD haters.. and hell yeah, the price was worth to argue bout.. Overall, whether you're new to CoD series or a vet.. You must get it..… Expand
  22. mnm2016
    Jan 2, 2012
    7
    Call of duty modern warfare 3 is clearly showing IW's and sledgehammers work effort. There is little new to this title and unlike the others where they remove something out to balance the game this one only adds problems. It still however is a fun addition to the franchise with a singleplayer that is constant explosions (literally) a multiplayer that constantly dangles a carrot in front ofCall of duty modern warfare 3 is clearly showing IW's and sledgehammers work effort. There is little new to this title and unlike the others where they remove something out to balance the game this one only adds problems. It still however is a fun addition to the franchise with a singleplayer that is constant explosions (literally) a multiplayer that constantly dangles a carrot in front of your nose begging for you to play just one more game and a surprisingly great cooperative spec ops survival and mission mode. Just don't be surprised if you see recycled titles, emblems and even buildings. As a fan of the series I was disappointed with mw3 because the game feels so recycled the next call of duty needs to bring new and fresh ideas to the franchise or this will be my last call of duty.… Expand
  23. letsgoiowa
    Jan 11, 2012
    5
    First of all, during my time with the game I was unbiased as possible and tried to see it from a critic's perspective.
    Does the game live up to the massive hype generated when the brand name is mentioned?
    Did the quality of the game cause the sales to be what they are? Disappointingly, no to both. This is simply a mediocre game that feels unfinished and rushed, and, as to avoid beating    First of all, during my time with the game I was unbiased as possible and tried to see it from a critic's perspective.
    Does the game live up to the massive hype generated when the brand name is mentioned?
    Did the quality of the game cause the sales to be what they are?
    Disappointingly, no to both.
    This is simply a mediocre game that feels unfinished and rushed, and, as to avoid beating around the bush, just not very fun.
    I am an optimist so I will start with the good first.
    -Survival! It is decent, but once you hit that wave you can never get past you realize you won't ever pass it, so it isn't fun anymore after you unlock everything.
    -Leveling up! You don't go 5 minutes without increasing your weapon level or getting promoted or completing some kind of challenge.
    -Customization! My classes are unique to me, and that is a great feeling.
    Now for what isn't the greatest.
    -Visuals. For a blockbuster title, it falls way short of expectations, especially considering the developers' nearly unlimited budget. It isn't necessarily that the graphics were sub-par (but were beginning to show their age), but that the color palate and the lighting was atrocious. I could barely see anything, even after adjusting brightness because of the monochromatic nature of the included maps. Every map has the exact same "ruined city" theme, and they all seem far to similar to get a new experience all the time. That leads me into the next topic, maps.
    -Maps. I have never played a game where the maps were this poorly made and dull since 2003. Not only are they too cramped for sniping, if that's your niche, they are also far too large for many CQB encounters, making shotguns and sniper rifles completely useless. Every building has a similar design to the next, and lack of effort is apparent. Each CoD had its own Nuketown, a community favorite map of some sort. Modern Warfare 3 lacks even that. Arkaden in particular was utterly terrible.
    -Campaign. Other games do it better. The AI is dumb as bricks and aren't any sort of fun to fight. The only redeeming feature of the campaign may be its length, but I didn't even feel the will to play it to the end because it just wasn't fun.
    -Sound. I have NEVER gotten a headache or gotten frustrated with sound in a game before, and to make matters worse, it was all directly imported from Modern Warfare 2 or was a generic noise only slightly tweaked. Sound effects were weak in general, and the guns all sounded like toys. Explosions were like firecrackers, which is even worse for a noise you will hear 24/7 in this game. -Recycled. At least I give credit to Treyarch for doing something different with their switch from World at War to Black Ops, giving the two games a different feel while the 3rd installment in the Modern Warfare series feels too much like the second, especially in multiplayer which is ridiculously broken.
    -Multiplayer. The weapon leveling system is pretty nice, but besides that it gives me deja vu of the days of MW2. Heck, sometimes people weren't sure which one I was playing! The mechanics of multiplayer are simple and the same as always, not really any notable new gametypes. As if it couldn't get any less of a downer than that, the spawning system is atrocious, and don't even get me started on weapon balance. I have a 5.7 K/D, and that was because I found I could exploit the weapon unbalances to the extreme to get that insane ratio, not because I am a good player. If you owned MW2 and loved it, never got bored of it I'd wait another month or so until the huge price drop then you will probably enjoy it. If you are new to CoD, I would stay away as it isn't worth the money right now.
    If you make your purchases only after a ton of research and are 100% sure you think it will be worth it, then it is in your best interest to avoid this altogether.
    This game felt like a low-budget project, and the lack of effort from the dev team was obvious. Overall, 5.1 out of 10.    … Expand
  24. Sevenfold1
    Feb 14, 2012
    7
    I love the COD franchise, I appreciate what it's done for gaming as a whole and I totally respect the numbers it puts up yearly. This game does not deserve a 1 or a 3 because it IS a good game. However....with a few exceptions it is the same formula year in and year out.

    After 2 days worth of gaming in the MP I can honestly say I don't know why I buy these games yearly, it's clear to me    I love the COD franchise, I appreciate what it's done for gaming as a whole and I totally respect the numbers it puts up yearly. This game does not deserve a 1 or a 3 because it IS a good game. However....with a few exceptions it is the same formula year in and year out.

    After 2 days worth of gaming in the MP I can honestly say I don't know why I buy these games yearly, it's clear to me now though that the gaming world needs some more innovation ( and no it wont come from Kinect this gen) Bring on Bioshock, I'm ready for something unique again.    … Expand
  25. met306
    Feb 27, 2012
    7
    Alright first I want to get one thing out of the way: The only people who give this game a 0 are just Valve/EA fan-boys who refuse to even play the game. The game itself is MW2 with some new content. That's really all that the game offers. "Then why do you say this game is decent?" Its because the purpose of a sequel is to DO EXACTLY THAT. Remake the game but do NOT stray to far away fromAlright first I want to get one thing out of the way: The only people who give this game a 0 are just Valve/EA fan-boys who refuse to even play the game. The game itself is MW2 with some new content. That's really all that the game offers. "Then why do you say this game is decent?" Its because the purpose of a sequel is to DO EXACTLY THAT. Remake the game but do NOT stray to far away from the core gameplay.… Expand
  26. NuclearPopcorn
    Apr 9, 2012
    6
    Yet another typical contribution to the CoD series, but a lot of people are rating this 0 just to lower the score. It is another worn out redo that got old in about 2008, but it still has decent graphics and somewhat favorable gameplay.
  27. staznick1102
    Feb 24, 2012
    7
    this is one of the best games of 2011 and one of the hardest games but a lot of content but its not better than arkham city but it has a lot of charters and a lot of action scenes i just wish there could more than 2 people to play spec ops with
  28. OnAnarchy
    Mar 14, 2012
    7
    This game is not a 1. Nor is this game a 10. It falls in the category of average to good. Despite only slightly enjoying this game, I find myself coming back to it again and again to play with friends. This is the point of this game, and the developers know it. My rating is based on a combination of the campaign and the multiplayer. CAMPAIGN: 4.5/5
    The campaign is absolutely    This game is not a 1. Nor is this game a 10. It falls in the category of average to good. Despite only slightly enjoying this game, I find myself coming back to it again and again to play with friends. This is the point of this game, and the developers know it. My rating is based on a combination of the campaign and the multiplayer. CAMPAIGN: 4.5/5
    The campaign is absolutely beautiful. Some graphic problems are present and that is essentially why it doesn't get a perfect score. The story is an excellent continuation of Price's story, and the missions are exciting and gripping. I played through on veteran difficulty and it was extremely challenging and felt realistic and accurate. There is very little I would change about this game up to this point.

    MULTIPLAYER: 2.5/5
    Okay, this is where problems begin. Firstly, for Xbox 360 users paying for ELITE for me is just a money grabbing ploy. The map packs in Black Ops were ridiculously priced for the amount of content, and this is even worse. Considering we will be seeing Treyarch's newest addition within the next 6-8 months, this is not a prudent investment for me. Secondly, the game mechanics are unbelievably absurd; hardcore players will find their rockets and grenades useless against Ballistic vests; Shotguns can kill at greater than 30 meters; No recoil on high-level SMG's. Essentially, the multiplayer does not play to people who use strategy, it plays to random chaos. Kill confirmed is a nice addition, but the ricochet system results in your death for other people's stupidity. The hardcore system in Black Ops was much fairer as team-killing resulted in getting kicked after 2 offences. Once you drop a martyrdom grenade and your teammate runs over it you will know what I mean.

    Overall, good to average. Brilliant campaign, bad multiplayer. That's it.    … Expand
  29. PrinceHandsome
    Mar 16, 2012
    7
    Modern Warfare 3 is just that. The third installment in the Modern Warfare series. It brings some new things to the table, enough to keep things interesting, but the game play remains by and large unchanged. If you're a fan of Call of Duty, you've probably already bought this. If not, you probably haven't, and that's really all there is to say on the matter. If you liked Modern Warfare 2,Modern Warfare 3 is just that. The third installment in the Modern Warfare series. It brings some new things to the table, enough to keep things interesting, but the game play remains by and large unchanged. If you're a fan of Call of Duty, you've probably already bought this. If not, you probably haven't, and that's really all there is to say on the matter. If you liked Modern Warfare 2, you'll enjoy this. If you didn't like Modern Warfare 2, then you won't like this.… Expand
  30. mrogers0130
    Mar 31, 2012
    7
    An average game. It was forced to fix a messed up story in mw2. Sledgehammer was brought into fixing a series that had been completely messed up in mw2. The story is Ok. Nothing special. The multiplayer is also fun and goes back to some classic cod roots while still keeping the balancing that was put back in place in blops. A good shooter but nothing too special.
  31. BigShotJosh
    May 24, 2012
    6
    This huld be an expation pack, not a full on game. The only differences between this and all the call of duty games sence 2007, is maps and single player levels, no gamplay changes.
  32. lllama408
    May 24, 2012
    7
    It's a fair game. And this is a completely fair review. I've loved the Call of Duty series for a while now, though this game is fun and very popular, it's pretty good at best. It's not a bad game, if you will.
    The campaign is not believeable at times because of how predictable or linear it is with cliches from this genre, but who cares. The one thing that pulls millions of people to MW3    It's a fair game. And this is a completely fair review. I've loved the Call of Duty series for a while now, though this game is fun and very popular, it's pretty good at best. It's not a bad game, if you will.
    The campaign is not believeable at times because of how predictable or linear it is with cliches from this genre, but who cares. The one thing that pulls millions of people to MW3 is the multiplayer. Yes, it is innovative for the most part when considering the killstreaks, game modes, and small things here and there to keep that "Call of Duty multiplayer" pace going, but it's nothing new. When being developed it kept a "if it ain't broke don't fix it" idea to the max. If you wanted to be completely critical you can say it's simply Modern Warfare 2 with a fresh coat of paint on it. Fixing the small things here and there from the MW2 game, and chainging a few killstreaks doesn't make it entirely something new to embrace and delve into. All in all, it's a fair game for awhile but then it loses it's fun.    … Expand
  33. Drooloop69
    Jun 9, 2012
    7
    Why does everyone hate this game! It isn't terrible, it's just exactly the same as what came before it! My major gripe is that the campaign, which used to be amazing, was only 4 AND 1/2 HOURS LONG! 4 and 1/2 hours on regular difficulty! Way too short for any game. The multiplayer has a handful of good maps, 2 great maps and 2 appaling maps! Luckily, the game is not short on great modesWhy does everyone hate this game! It isn't terrible, it's just exactly the same as what came before it! My major gripe is that the campaign, which used to be amazing, was only 4 AND 1/2 HOURS LONG! 4 and 1/2 hours on regular difficulty! Way too short for any game. The multiplayer has a handful of good maps, 2 great maps and 2 appaling maps! Luckily, the game is not short on great modes but, infinity ward keep trying to make us pay $15 for a map pack! Overall this game is not terrible, but not as good as the critics say.… Expand
  34. DME
    Dec 20, 2012
    7
    In short, MW3 is a solid game, but not as good as Black Ops. The campaign isn't memorable and multiplayer has it's ups and downs. The survival mode, however, is a lot of fun.
  35. SchroederRock
    Dec 27, 2013
    7
    It's Modern Warfare 2.5. Infinity Ward have finally showed signs of aging and depletion as Modern Warfare 3, which would be a good game on its own without any history, comes off as a hardcore "been there, done that" experience instead of the trend-setting FPS experience that the previous two Modern Warfare games succeeded with. If you haven't played much Call of Duty in the past, thenIt's Modern Warfare 2.5. Infinity Ward have finally showed signs of aging and depletion as Modern Warfare 3, which would be a good game on its own without any history, comes off as a hardcore "been there, done that" experience instead of the trend-setting FPS experience that the previous two Modern Warfare games succeeded with. If you haven't played much Call of Duty in the past, then MW3 is a good game to get in on. But if you've been with CoD for the last few games, or the entire franchise, then you too will likely start feeling the effect of a tiring game. Personally, I'd rather people keep playing Modern Warfare 2 because that to me is the best CoD gets.… Expand
  36. Skull-o-mania
    Feb 3, 2012
    5
    Ok It has been three months since MW3 was released. I made a review and then I believe it was deleted by Metacritic because it was too harsh. Here's my second attempt. I am giving this game a 5 now, before it was a 3. I will not talk much about the campaign expect those who think the campaign is worth playing are deluded. My first question why are there infinite amount of enemies in allOk It has been three months since MW3 was released. I made a review and then I believe it was deleted by Metacritic because it was too harsh. Here's my second attempt. I am giving this game a 5 now, before it was a 3. I will not talk much about the campaign expect those who think the campaign is worth playing are deluded. My first question why are there infinite amount of enemies in all Call of Duty games, I ran into several spot in the game where I would clear and area of enemies reload and look back to see new enemies magically appear; and repeat and repeat. Other times I was able to go through entire missions without even firing a shot. Why wouldn't Infinity Ward make it so theyâ… Expand
  37. PandaThing
    Nov 18, 2011
    5
    Please be very wary of the critic reviews, having read some of them, i think they are extremely misleading. If you need a new call of duty game to play with you friends, then Modern warfare is the game for you, but if you game for any other reason, then avoid this at all costs. Campaign is short, but well paced, reasonably fun, but not especially compelling or thought provoking, the issuePlease be very wary of the critic reviews, having read some of them, i think they are extremely misleading. If you need a new call of duty game to play with you friends, then Modern warfare is the game for you, but if you game for any other reason, then avoid this at all costs. Campaign is short, but well paced, reasonably fun, but not especially compelling or thought provoking, the issue being that the majority of the campaigns most impressive moments are essentially first person cut-scenes. The combat is solid, but has lost its edge, where call of duty was the example of flawless first person shooter mechanics, it now feels clunky and awkward, while 60 frames per second keeps everything on screen smooth, your movement as a player is not. Crouching, running and vaulting over obstacles feels clunky and slow, and weapons have an unnatural accuracy and lack of recoil that just doesn't feel right. Graphically the game also falls short, while the various studios that produce the game clearly put a lot of detail into many of the levels and character models, the games low muddy looking textures aren't worthy of the these efforts. Lighting also fails to impress, being almost entirely baked into the textures, with little to no dynamic lighting, with the only change in light being the shadows on your weapon. Weapons also look peculiar, a step back from previous titles, the guns are all held at strange angles, and are oddly proportioned. Survival mode is worth you time, but if you have ever played a call of duty game before, then multiplayer is useless. Only buy this game if you have to.… Expand
  38. InformedGamer
    Mar 6, 2012
    5
    Call of Duty seems to have an inverse relationship between sales and gameplay. The better the sales, the more basic the gameplay. Gone are the expansive maps that offered strategic gameplay. There is not even a need for sniper rifles in the multiplayer because the maps are boxed off into small areas. I'm going to take a pass on the next one. The game is just overhyped and over marketed. ICall of Duty seems to have an inverse relationship between sales and gameplay. The better the sales, the more basic the gameplay. Gone are the expansive maps that offered strategic gameplay. There is not even a need for sniper rifles in the multiplayer because the maps are boxed off into small areas. I'm going to take a pass on the next one. The game is just overhyped and over marketed. I purchased 3 of the elite versions because 2 of my sons and I used to like playing multiplayer with each other. It's good for running and gunning but that gets boring on these maps. I also think that Activision's money grab is going to force future releases to require external activation like the elite to bypass XBOX Live. That was a complete disaster and ruined my experience. It was a real hardship to register and I couldn't for a month. What did Activision do? Give an extra 30 days, no consideration for the grief of their customers. They should have given 90 days or an equivalent compensation. This forces me to give them a goose egg. I still feel bitter about it.… Expand
  39. Hunterx1x
    Feb 4, 2012
    5
    Campaign was very interesting and fun along with a great story. However, the xbox live multiplayer is a completely different story. I have high speed broadband internet connection and always find myself being shot well before I can even move my crosshairs over the opponent. On their killcam, it shows that I was in their field of view for quite sometime but for me less than a second. ThisCampaign was very interesting and fun along with a great story. However, the xbox live multiplayer is a completely different story. I have high speed broadband internet connection and always find myself being shot well before I can even move my crosshairs over the opponent. On their killcam, it shows that I was in their field of view for quite sometime but for me less than a second. This game seems to have terrible lag compensation issues resulting in poor multiplayer gameplay.… Expand
  40. Watermelon789
    Jan 18, 2012
    7
    A few days ( weeks ) ago I was able to play Modern Warfare 3 for the first time in the PS3 version. I have complains in the multiplayer , impressed with the campaign and satisfied with the great co-op. As I said in my PS3 review, CoD is mainly in the multiplayer side and needs to shake things a little bit more before it gets mauled by other successful multiplayer games. The Xbox versionA few days ( weeks ) ago I was able to play Modern Warfare 3 for the first time in the PS3 version. I have complains in the multiplayer , impressed with the campaign and satisfied with the great co-op. As I said in my PS3 review, CoD is mainly in the multiplayer side and needs to shake things a little bit more before it gets mauled by other successful multiplayer games. The Xbox version its not very different at all , still the two great features in here is the co-op and the campaign but not wise move folks.… Expand
  41. Sithlord4885
    Dec 17, 2011
    7
    Great improvements made to multiplayer with the Elite service and new modes like Kill Confirm and Spec Ops Suvival (even if they are just Gears of War's Execution and Horde modes). The campaign is still lacking in many regards though. Enemy respawn is still a nuisance to the point where I saw enemies literally popping out of thin air if looking the right way. Throw in the occasional glitchGreat improvements made to multiplayer with the Elite service and new modes like Kill Confirm and Spec Ops Suvival (even if they are just Gears of War's Execution and Horde modes). The campaign is still lacking in many regards though. Enemy respawn is still a nuisance to the point where I saw enemies literally popping out of thin air if looking the right way. Throw in the occasional glitch and the game offers up some truly frustrating sequences. Not to mention that the campaign still doesn't crack the 8 hour mark, even on hardened, and Activision proves once again they are full of garbage when they say they focus on both campaign and multiplayer. On a side note, when confronted with rumors about pulling on people from other Activision development teams outside of Sledgehammer and Infinity Ward to finish the game on time and continue their "once a year" release schedule, they denied it all the way through and then in the credits, you see thanks to people from Neversoft, Raven, and Treyarch. I don't take points off for lying to our faces, but it is nice to see what Activision truly thinks of the gaming community. All in all, an above average experience, but nothing special at all as the series has become more and more formulaic with each subsequent release.… Expand
  42. DustyPig
    Jan 31, 2012
    7
    Overall not a bad game, just an unpolished attempt at making money by Activision. However, I can't deny that it was fun. Singleplayer was mediocre, I really grew to hate the constant enemy spawning and there weren't any memorable characters like Ghost or Gaz from the previous Modern Warfare games. The story wasn't emotional like Call of Duty 4 nor full of 'oh my God' moments like in ModernOverall not a bad game, just an unpolished attempt at making money by Activision. However, I can't deny that it was fun. Singleplayer was mediocre, I really grew to hate the constant enemy spawning and there weren't any memorable characters like Ghost or Gaz from the previous Modern Warfare games. The story wasn't emotional like Call of Duty 4 nor full of 'oh my God' moments like in Modern Warfare 2 (aside from the massive building getting blown up here and there) and I just didn't care in the end. Environments were bland and monotonous, but as said before, I can't deny that it was fun.
    After Modern Warfare 2 multiplayer was where the Call of Duty series was at. Following past Call of Duty titles, Modern Warfare 3 seems to try to push everything from the singleplayer campaign to the multiplayer in the form of killstreaks, which are as crazy as ever. The multiplayer mode was addictive and I found myself enjoying new modes like Kill Confirmed, but being a PC Battlefield player I found the fact that you don't know where the enemy is half the time and the constant sprinting annoying (I've never not known where the enemy is or needed to sprint for really long distances that much in Battlefield 3 on the PC). However, the multiplayer was a step up from Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops, though it failed to improve on Call of Duty 4 chiefly because of all the gimmicks that as well as being useless were sometimes discouraging. Whenever I got a deathstreak I always thought 'I must be going badly', and I started dying even more.
    So to sum it all up, Modern Warfare 3 is worth a bit of your time, but if you have a decent PC then I'd go with Battlefield 3.    … Expand
  43. Jarbas6
    Nov 30, 2011
    5
    Well, well. This... sucks. 4 hours of campaign, as usual. Multiplayer is awesome in other CoD's, but in this? Lag, grenadiers, lag, campers, lag, Type 95, lag, assassin.. have I told you about the lag? Type 95 SUCKS. Hate that weapon, grenadiers and assassin, not even talking about. Now campers.. more buyers of MW3 = more kids playing, and more stupid campers waiting for you in a corner,Well, well. This... sucks. 4 hours of campaign, as usual. Multiplayer is awesome in other CoD's, but in this? Lag, grenadiers, lag, campers, lag, Type 95, lag, assassin.. have I told you about the lag? Type 95 SUCKS. Hate that weapon, grenadiers and assassin, not even talking about. Now campers.. more buyers of MW3 = more kids playing, and more stupid campers waiting for you in a corner, getting 2/0 in every single game. But it's kind of fun to kill campers, and Spec Ops SAVED this game from misery, survival is awesome. Giving this game a 0 is ridiculous, but saying that it's all good is too. Now, let me get back in my helicopter in Battefield 3. Glad I bought it too.… Expand
  44. sinadoom
    Aug 24, 2012
    5
    As a package, Modern Warfare 3 isn't as hideous as these scores suggest. Sure, multiplayer is a massive let-down and really deserves no credit whatsoever as it is a step backwards; with very little additions and worse maps. The gameplay online is completely ruined in every, and we all have our reasons to justify this. However, the campaign is still good and spec ops/survival is stillAs a package, Modern Warfare 3 isn't as hideous as these scores suggest. Sure, multiplayer is a massive let-down and really deserves no credit whatsoever as it is a step backwards; with very little additions and worse maps. The gameplay online is completely ruined in every, and we all have our reasons to justify this. However, the campaign is still good and spec ops/survival is still better than what Battlefield 3 has to offer. My biggest problem with spec ops and survival isn't the fact that they are exact copies of the campaign missions and survival is effectively combat training on multiplayer maps, but that you can't compete on the leaderboards for survival and spec ops missions if you don't have Xbox LIVE Gold. If you can find it for a decent price I would recommend it since it doesn't have online achievements so like the other CoD games it's an easy 1000G in the bank and the achievements are well designed. Because I can't credit the multiplayer, I can only recommend this based off campaign and spec ops. Obviously it's got nothing on CoD4 but in my opinion the campaign is on par if not better than Modern Warfare 2's, purely because it plays slightly more like Call of Duty 4 and is a bit more varied and has a better story. It also concludes the trilogy whereas MW2, while it was good, felt more like a filler. It is short and easy, but not astronomically aweful like the multiplayer. Since spec ops and survival aren't anything special either (but they are still decent) MW3 isn't very good value for money. So overall, bearing in mind that it's a sequel to one of the most critically acclaimed games and Sledgehammer/Infinity Ward only had a year to develop it; on balance it comes out as a 5 out of 10. However, it is perfectly acceptable to rate this game much lower based on expectations and its multiplayer. Certainly the graphics are not improved, but this is mainly due to the low resolution required to maintain 60 frames per second. I didn't buy this game on release and after reading reviews and watching gameplay I knew what to expect. I'm really struggling to give this game a 5 out of 10 because there has been so little creativity in virtually all areas, but if I ignore the title it's what I believe the game deserves on its own merits.… Expand
  45. EnigmaReviews
    Jul 24, 2012
    5
    The Modern Warfare series has finally wrapped up. So how good is the last installment. Well if you've played the previous Modern Warfare you'll have an exact picture of what the new one is like. Nothing much if not anything at all has changed in this game. The story is uninteresting and the spec ops mode still didn't meet its potential. Th. Infinity Ward has added a new feature calledThe Modern Warfare series has finally wrapped up. So how good is the last installment. Well if you've played the previous Modern Warfare you'll have an exact picture of what the new one is like. Nothing much if not anything at all has changed in this game. The story is uninteresting and the spec ops mode still didn't meet its potential. Th. Infinity Ward has added a new feature called survival mode. This is where I give them credit. Survival mode is addictive and fun but at times it seems impossible. All though Firefight and Horde mode from the Halo and Gears franchise are still much better survival mode is still a great game mode. The multiplayer is where Modern Warfare 3 shines. But the multiplayer doesn't shine at all. Like all other parts of the game the multiplayer is still "been there, done that". Same guns and same layout nothing new there. Overall I'll give the game a 5/10 because back in the day this would be considered an expansion pack.… Expand
  46. jej0584
    Nov 10, 2011
    5
    The Sp was not very engaging it was just run from point a 2 point B .. Mp is ok. I had hoped for more . but it is enjoyable . I think they should have put more time in to it ... only 2 player survival is boring i want 4 person
  47. SolidLinkSnake4
    Nov 26, 2011
    7
    Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 is what you expect from every Call of Duty game since Call of Duty 4. It usually have short campaign that is pretty cool to play through. Multiplayer is also another thing that you expect from Call of Duty with hardly any changes except a few tweaks and couple of new guns and such. The only new mode they added is Survival Mode in Spec Ops ,and it is similarCall of Duty Modern Warfare 3 is what you expect from every Call of Duty game since Call of Duty 4. It usually have short campaign that is pretty cool to play through. Multiplayer is also another thing that you expect from Call of Duty with hardly any changes except a few tweaks and couple of new guns and such. The only new mode they added is Survival Mode in Spec Ops ,and it is similar to Horde Mode from Gears of War, but it has a Call of Duty twist on it. No innovation in Call of Duty and the formula will still stay that way.… Expand
  48. Ztarscream
    Nov 9, 2011
    5
    I have found the single player campaign to be quite shallow and unfulfilling.....compared to games like Batman which pretty much keep you on the edge of your seat the whole time and coming back for more with tonnes of replayability. However once MW3 was over I felt like I'd just been stabbed and left for dead and 100 dollars poorer. So with games as epic as Batman out there you have toI have found the single player campaign to be quite shallow and unfulfilling.....compared to games like Batman which pretty much keep you on the edge of your seat the whole time and coming back for more with tonnes of replayability. However once MW3 was over I felt like I'd just been stabbed and left for dead and 100 dollars poorer. So with games as epic as Batman out there you have to look at this game and wonder...where is it's soul? Seriously if games have souls then this one has none. There is no way this game is going to heaven. Even the game Dark Souls which has no heart because it's just so evil...still ironically has a soul...albeit a dark one. MW3 has no heart. It's just the same old game slapped together with explosions and slow motion gun scenes to impress 12 year olds. Not even going to attempt multiplayer as it's insulting I have to pay the elite service to view all the cool stats you can get for free on battlelog with Battlefield 3....I tried to write this without comparing it to Battlefield 3 but I couldn't help it. While Battlefield 3 is enjoying a growing online community I can't really see the COD community coming together over this one. So is it really worth playing? If you are one of those brainless type who loves action movies with no substance then this game is probably for you. Is it worth paying for? Absolutely not. It is not worth paying over 100 dollars for any game that is still using a game engine that was built in the 90's.… Expand
  49. Tilt
    Nov 9, 2011
    5
    This game is a let down. Treyarch just does COD better than Infinity Ward. First, the maps are a mess, they are uninspired, smallish and just maze like ti be maze like. This version is all about either hiding in a nook or just blazing around the map overrunning players spawning in. The game also is much sped up vs Black Ops which makes lag way more devastating to game play. EverythingThis game is a let down. Treyarch just does COD better than Infinity Ward. First, the maps are a mess, they are uninspired, smallish and just maze like ti be maze like. This version is all about either hiding in a nook or just blazing around the map overrunning players spawning in. The game also is much sped up vs Black Ops which makes lag way more devastating to game play. Everything else about the game is just meh really, no new innovation or expanded tactics of game play. I can't wait for the next Treyarch version.… Expand
  50. gamesalot19
    Nov 9, 2011
    5
    0 guys? Come on. No it is not a good game, but we didn't spend 60 dollars and get a blank disk.. Like all COD's, its not perfect. But if you have friends who play multiplayer, it is fun, even borderline addicting. They cleaned it up a bit. They least got rid of the Noob class (one man army, danger close, grenade launcher), and the players with mods are at least less obvious(haven't seen0 guys? Come on. No it is not a good game, but we didn't spend 60 dollars and get a blank disk.. Like all COD's, its not perfect. But if you have friends who play multiplayer, it is fun, even borderline addicting. They cleaned it up a bit. They least got rid of the Noob class (one man army, danger close, grenade launcher), and the players with mods are at least less obvious(haven't seen any single shot weapons shooting fully auto at my face through a wall....yet).

    I always beat the campaigns before I touch multiplayer and this was the first time I've needed to quit the campaign.Typical issues but to the extreme; respawning enemies who always know where you are and only shoot at you, less than useless teammates who lead you to death, and my favorite, the invisible trip wire that only once you walk over do all the enemies pop out. Cool cut scenes and concepts. Poor game play. But I personally buy it for the multiplayer. The campaign likely takes 6 maybe 8 hours if its like the others? Multiplayer is ongoing. The good outweighs the bad.    … Expand
  51. Nivix
    Nov 9, 2011
    5
    There have been some bad apples in the series, but for the most part Infinity Ward has created a compelling game engine and experience that has kept my interest. After playing a full day of this game I'm left feeling like I've already played this game. I usually don't get burnt out on a CoD game for months. However, I feel like I've already been playing this game for 2 years. TheThere have been some bad apples in the series, but for the most part Infinity Ward has created a compelling game engine and experience that has kept my interest. After playing a full day of this game I'm left feeling like I've already played this game. I usually don't get burnt out on a CoD game for months. However, I feel like I've already been playing this game for 2 years. The split-screen has surprisingly poor graphics. My friends and I actually got a kick out of it because we felt like we were playing a retro game. What's new? There's a new story line, but that will last a day or two, maybe more if you want all the achievements. Honestly though, I've never bought a CoD game for the story. There's the modified Spec-Ops similar to Horde mode. The multiplayer has some modifications to the Kill Streaks, etc, but the gameplay is been there done that for any long time fan of the series. This game is most likely a 10/10 for anyone new to the series or anyone not yet burnt out on the MW2 gameplay. On the other hand, this game is most likely a 5/10 for those who were hoping for a little more than an expansion pack.… Expand
  52. PerseusMyth
    Nov 9, 2011
    5
    "We made tons of innovation and changes" by Sledgehammer games Michael Coundrey
    Tons? Not much to be honest. Half of them are from other games and you guys used
    2 years to modify a game with same engine on consoles With 65 FoV in mp. I can't say this game really fails with 0 score since there's some limited changes The campaign is still the old micheal bay film with a ending easy to    "We made tons of innovation and changes" by Sledgehammer games Michael Coundrey
    Tons? Not much to be honest. Half of them are from other games and you guys used
    2 years to modify a game with same engine on consoles With 65 FoV in mp. I can't say this game really fails with 0 score since there's some limited changes
    The campaign is still the old micheal bay film with a ending easy to predict , just shoot
    Here and there , explosions everywhere , we saw that since 2007 . Not much breakthroughs
    The campaign lacks of surprise and the AI bots are still acting stupid. 6/10 For the multiplayer, graphics remains in MW1 state without big leaps of changes,
    Kill confirm doesn't decrease amount of camping, tactical nuke got a new name, Ump45 And type 95 are extremely overpowered, though noobtube is needed but it became A QS fest with accuracy proficiency , which worsen the MP, the FoV is too low, My eyes feel
    Sore after 5 hours of playing, definetly not a good experience.survival mode should allow 4 players It's a good mode but needs more refined therefore 4/10 for MP Won't compare with bf3 since the game is different , but comparing the previous MW's
    MW3 is like an continuos story rather than the most anticipated game in history.Activision Stop milking the franchise. Overall 5 for the game, not recommended for purchasing    … Expand
  53. infomaniac
    Nov 10, 2011
    5
    well after playing the game same more, i have concluded the game is not as bad as I first thought, however this game is far from perfect, But still activision greed annoys me. 20 DLC, Mind=blown, suppose people will have tons of maps to play with but still, DAMN. Also learned that IW has been reusing material today, that doesn't bug me at all but some of the copy and paste is just sowell after playing the game same more, i have concluded the game is not as bad as I first thought, however this game is far from perfect, But still activision greed annoys me. 20 DLC, Mind=blown, suppose people will have tons of maps to play with but still, DAMN. Also learned that IW has been reusing material today, that doesn't bug me at all but some of the copy and paste is just so oblivious and unchanged, that does bother me, talk about making a game fast as possible. Maybe soon we able to make our own maps maybe (not likely but I think it cool idea).… Expand
  54. Boxies
    Sep 16, 2019
    6
    This game is game of the year. That year is 2007. There are barely any noticable improvements, apart from new maps and a few new weapons. The gameplay is stale, and if you have been playing COD since COD4, you will experience fatigue with this release. The same rehashed gameplay, with literally the same textures from MW2. A solid expansion pack, however if you release a retail game, expectThis game is game of the year. That year is 2007. There are barely any noticable improvements, apart from new maps and a few new weapons. The gameplay is stale, and if you have been playing COD since COD4, you will experience fatigue with this release. The same rehashed gameplay, with literally the same textures from MW2. A solid expansion pack, however if you release a retail game, expect to be treated like one.… Expand
  55. Earthboundness
    May 23, 2013
    6
    When this game was initially released, I decided to score it a 9. This is in complete conflict to my current opinion, and I have no idea what I was thinking at the time. I presumably scored it so highly out of some form of loyalty to Infinity Ward, trying to help them against some of the seemingly unfair reviews. I'm rather ashamed of having done this, and wanted to put things more on theWhen this game was initially released, I decided to score it a 9. This is in complete conflict to my current opinion, and I have no idea what I was thinking at the time. I presumably scored it so highly out of some form of loyalty to Infinity Ward, trying to help them against some of the seemingly unfair reviews. I'm rather ashamed of having done this, and wanted to put things more on the level.

    To take another look at this game, its certainly nothing special. While the Campaign of COD 4 was largely praised for its characters and setting. Its difficult to say the same here, simply playing along with the same recipe that just feels rather dated now, given its lack of change. But multiplayer is the main reason most are brought to Call of Duty, and it at seems a little more balanced in its gunplay following patches, something not shared by its predecessor. However, other issues quickly come to light. Odd choices such as the changes from Killstreaks to score streaks raise a number of issues.One such example is the stealth bomber, which can be earned quiet easily, due to being placed in the "support" section, meaning that the kills to obtain it compile even after death. This makes the bomber appear far to regularly, which is also far too offensive for its support namesake on many of the maps. Which brings me to another huge issue, the maps. Graphically their all rather unimpressive, largely just a series of drab, darkly hued buildings or rubble. Those that aren't marred by this issue instead of horrendous and unmemorable layouts that just don't live up to the experiences had on many of MW2's maps, such as "Afghan." When the maps are as bad as they are, its difficult to praise MW3's multiplayer at all.

    Other than these points, the rest is largely standard fair, with a few new options to keep you busy. The cooperative spec ops mode adds a little more longevity with its survival and mission modes, but it feels rather tacked on given that it can only be played with two players, a particularly noticeable omission in the uninspired survival mode.

    And that's all there really is to say. Its not particularly superior or inferior to other titles in the series. If you enjoyed them and want more, it'll largely give you what your after, but if you've always disliked the series, this certainly wont change that.    … Expand
  56. Azsin
    Nov 10, 2011
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. If you were to judge Modern Warfare 3 on its own merits then it would definitely be a 10 as the game mechanics are still very strong, however considering there have been 4 Call of Duty games since the original Modern Warfare released at a yearly rate the lack of innovation in the series thus far has to be taken into consideration. MW3 doesnt even try to innovate in any area of the game and this is why i have given it a mediocre score. The singleplayer is as bombastic and mental as previous games and is actually my favourite area of the game however it does seem that Sledgehammer games have overused some of the previous devices that made Modern Warefare exciting and at times shocking such as when the character your playing as dies or gets blown up and nearly dies. The multiplayer is one of the weakest in the series yet as it seems most if not all of the 16 maps are designed for very close quarters battles meaning most players just run around with UMP's. I think the Call of Duty brand needs to decide which developer should make the games and just release them every two years but this probably wont happen due to the large ammount of sales and revenue the games continue to rake in at the behest of more innovative game developers.… Expand
  57. lamont2000
    Nov 10, 2011
    5
    Single player is great as is the survival and special ops mode. Multiplayer (what most people want) is a broken mess. Horrible spawns, quick scoping, laggy connections, camping, no run and gun gameplay, unremarkable maps, etc... Why on earth would you let Sledgehammer develop this when it is such a highly anticipated game? They have done a terrible job, hopefully Activision realizes thisSingle player is great as is the survival and special ops mode. Multiplayer (what most people want) is a broken mess. Horrible spawns, quick scoping, laggy connections, camping, no run and gun gameplay, unremarkable maps, etc... Why on earth would you let Sledgehammer develop this when it is such a highly anticipated game? They have done a terrible job, hopefully Activision realizes this and will not let them back. Disappointed to say the least… Expand
  58. DarkRain
    Nov 10, 2011
    5
    Modern Warfare 3 in all honesty doesn't live up to it's hype. "The most anticipated game in history" was Infinity wards wording and in all honesty it's quite embarrassing. The singleplayer continuing on the story from MW2 isn't particularly thrilling and seems much like deja-vu. The multiplayer is where much of the let down is at. After two years development you'd think that sledgehammerModern Warfare 3 in all honesty doesn't live up to it's hype. "The most anticipated game in history" was Infinity wards wording and in all honesty it's quite embarrassing. The singleplayer continuing on the story from MW2 isn't particularly thrilling and seems much like deja-vu. The multiplayer is where much of the let down is at. After two years development you'd think that sledgehammer and infinity ward would have done much more than the little that has been done. Changing kill streaks to point streaks, while good for rewarding some objective play doesn't encourage much teamwork as intended. The maps are TOO small and the model for unlocking attachments is worse than Black ops' method which I enjoyed IMO. Overall the graphics are dated, the multiplayer is much of the same from the previous MW's and singleplayer doesn't provide the thrill of MW or MW2. Not worth it's price tag IMO.… Expand
  59. usrevenge
    Nov 10, 2011
    6
    Bored already
    Games used to be about fun, and not fun for a day, but fun for months, sometimes years until you were tired of it.
    MW3 has lasted a total of 14 hours across single player, spec op, and multiplayer and its boring already. the singleplayer is decent, but nothing special, thankfully it wraps up the story as opposed to halo which leaves you with a cliff hanger each time spec op    Bored already
    Games used to be about fun, and not fun for a day, but fun for months, sometimes years until you were tired of it.
    MW3 has lasted a total of 14 hours across single player, spec op, and multiplayer and its boring already.

    the singleplayer is decent, but nothing special, thankfully it wraps up the story as opposed to halo which leaves you with a cliff hanger each time

    spec op is as expected, fun for a playthrough with a friend, but nothing more

    survival mode, the new mode is a blast, but IW/sledgehammer/activision really dropped the ball, its only 2 players! i it was 4 people, it could be the new zombies/horde mode.. but with only one other person its nothing anymore.

    multiplayer is the biggest let down, i was hoping for he COD4 glory days of fun and frantic fire fights. instead the hit detection and lag is terrible.
    you can get shot one time and die, but on the kill cam your shot 5 times. terrible. also magic bending bullets return, the series signature lag feature.

    the killstreaks are back but you can have weaker killstreaks that wont reset on death good for people who don't game and run around like me, they also generally help your team instead your your K/D so i enjoy them
    the maps are terrible. these can be the worst maps to be put in a 360 game. they also completely recycle COD4 buildings, which isnt bad but if you do that just remake the amazing cod 4 maps.

    all in all, the game is a rent. i picked up battlefield 3 and its loads more fun then Mw3, then skyrim comes out Friday so this will be left in the dust.
    if your a huge fan of the story, rent for the single player, it doesnt leave you feeling empty and is worth a playthrough

    not worth a buy    … Expand
  60. Scootsmen
    Mar 29, 2013
    6
    MW3 has a long list of problems, but its worst offense is how rehashed it is. Nothing in the game, from the assets to the experience, feel fresh whatsoever. The single-player has a pretty good story, but the whole experience is butchered by unnecessary scripted scenes and a low difficulty (I played on Regular). The multiplayer aspect feels like it is trying to be a more balanced MW2, butMW3 has a long list of problems, but its worst offense is how rehashed it is. Nothing in the game, from the assets to the experience, feel fresh whatsoever. The single-player has a pretty good story, but the whole experience is butchered by unnecessary scripted scenes and a low difficulty (I played on Regular). The multiplayer aspect feels like it is trying to be a more balanced MW2, but they overbalanced it and guns feel the same and don't have much of a personality. The killstreaks aren't very inventive and the rest of the customization options are not very interesting. The maps are possibly the worst offender, being very cramped and all very maze-like. The survival is possibly the most original feature and it soars, being the best part of the game. Overall, the game feels like a money-grab for Activision and the game does little to nothing to push the franchise forward. I would not recommend this game, unless you are a Call of Duty fanatic who just wants to prestige above all of the other players.… Expand
  61. delirious_nomad
    Nov 10, 2011
    7
    Well there really isn't anything wrong with it. I gave it a 7. I don't care that it didn't get a new graphics engine... great shiny graphics don't make it play any better. It is a Modern Warfare game though and through. CONS: movement is too damn fast... it is like Hammy the Squirrel on an energy drink WTF? I saw my son play MP small arena run and guns maps. Thanks for that I wanted someWell there really isn't anything wrong with it. I gave it a 7. I don't care that it didn't get a new graphics engine... great shiny graphics don't make it play any better. It is a Modern Warfare game though and through. CONS: movement is too damn fast... it is like Hammy the Squirrel on an energy drink WTF? I saw my son play MP small arena run and guns maps. Thanks for that I wanted some bigger more tactical maps. PROS: looks good. plays smooth. enemies are crushing and brutally resilient. again it is everything I expected. I should have the campaign done tomorrow before the UPS guy drops off SKYRIM... and I will no longer care. but overall a good game but not a great. give us something new to the formula and I'll buy the next one. but if you continue to speed it up in an super mega unrealistic arcade game... Battlefield, Killzone and Halo will steal my FPS time...… Expand
  62. Buccaneer
    Nov 11, 2011
    5
    This release feels unrefined. The rehashing of previous elements could be forgiven if only there were any improvements.
    The changes that are included are gimmicks for the most part, and menu structures.
    I wasn't expecting a whole new experience, but there is nothing that I can point to and say "This is really cool.", or " x problem from the last games seems to be much better." The spawn    This release feels unrefined. The rehashing of previous elements could be forgiven if only there were any improvements.
    The changes that are included are gimmicks for the most part, and menu structures.
    I wasn't expecting a whole new experience, but there is nothing that I can point to and say "This is really cool.", or " x problem from the last games seems to be much better." The spawn system and the quick scoping, which seems to be much more reliable in this iteration, takes you out of the game and results in squashing any atmosphere. I don't see any improvements for those who actually enjoy sniping.It is still mostly geared to "run and gunners" which results in more camping than usual. The game play has lost it's novelty after this many attempts and has been reduced to points grinding sessions instead of actual fun. IW is going to need some major kick a$$ DLC.
    The last thing I will comment on is the Elite product. This is wrong in so many ways. This reeks of a project that was hijacked and perverted by nothing but greed. Will I still play this game? Yes. But it will be a lot easier to break for other games .    … Expand
  63. hammygas
    Dec 12, 2017
    6
    This is the worst of the Modern Warfare series, but still a good game. Felt like they over-reached for a shock moment, and the story telling is not as fresh as it was for Modern Warfares 1 and 2.

    Happy these guys are now making Titanfall and showing their extreme talent in that new franchise.
  64. thatgerman
    Nov 11, 2011
    5
    The only reason i'm not giving this game an abysmal score is solely because of the campaign. little to no recoil on virtually every gun, terrible terrible spawning system, small maps, and strike packages do call of duty no justice. Definitely the last CoD i will buy from Infinity Ward. As a cod fan i'm appalled and quite frankly so should sledgehammer games and infinity ward. Game of theThe only reason i'm not giving this game an abysmal score is solely because of the campaign. little to no recoil on virtually every gun, terrible terrible spawning system, small maps, and strike packages do call of duty no justice. Definitely the last CoD i will buy from Infinity Ward. As a cod fan i'm appalled and quite frankly so should sledgehammer games and infinity ward. Game of the year? hardly. Skyrim / Uncharted / Zelda deserves that honor.… Expand
  65. Spacewolf
    Nov 11, 2011
    5
    Don't get me wrong, it's a good game. It unfortunately is nearly the same game they've released twice, and charging full price to gamers is just not fair, especially since most people will blindly buy any Call of Duty game. It's unfortunate that there's no way to show Activision that treating your customers poorly will end up badly, since they could probably build their offices out of theDon't get me wrong, it's a good game. It unfortunately is nearly the same game they've released twice, and charging full price to gamers is just not fair, especially since most people will blindly buy any Call of Duty game. It's unfortunate that there's no way to show Activision that treating your customers poorly will end up badly, since they could probably build their offices out of the cash they rake in.… Expand
  66. t1meC0nsumer
    Nov 11, 2011
    5
    Face it, Call of Duty is fun. It is. Do they innovate on their formula? Not really. For me the disappointment lies in having to shell out $60 a year for what could, in all seriousness, be DLC for the original. Same engine, new maps. There's a reason I stopped playing sports games; roster updates aren't important to me. I'm afraid that with each yearly installment of the CoD franchise thatFace it, Call of Duty is fun. It is. Do they innovate on their formula? Not really. For me the disappointment lies in having to shell out $60 a year for what could, in all seriousness, be DLC for the original. Same engine, new maps. There's a reason I stopped playing sports games; roster updates aren't important to me. I'm afraid that with each yearly installment of the CoD franchise that I will quickly feel the same about shooters. Of course, that may already be starting.… Expand
  67. RaptorZ
    Nov 20, 2011
    6
    This game gets a 6 because of its single player. The single player portion of the game is amazing better that anything COD has ever offered before. The multiplayer however is highly disappointing it almost seems like a mw2 map pack that was rushed out. It does however have some changes to the formula that some may appreciate but i didn't really care for the whole strike package thing. TheThis game gets a 6 because of its single player. The single player portion of the game is amazing better that anything COD has ever offered before. The multiplayer however is highly disappointing it almost seems like a mw2 map pack that was rushed out. It does however have some changes to the formula that some may appreciate but i didn't really care for the whole strike package thing. The biggest problem i found with the multiplayer were the maps they are bland and uninteresting. If you are a COD fan-boy then you should have a good time here but as for me i got bored with the formula ages ago and i don't want to play the same game that iam bored of. The only thing that can save this franchise is the introduction of a new engine because we have played this all before we need innovation.… Expand
  68. iFSSPx
    Feb 14, 2012
    6
    Disappointed, same old game, which is good, but with far less modes to play with, compared to last years cod's, I only recommend it to hardcore Call of Duty fans or 1st person shooters gamers. If you are not one of these, you may as well stay away from it and play something else.
  69. Alphad115
    Nov 17, 2011
    6
    This game didn't pass its expectations but it's that fun game you can rage at when you play multiplayer. I loved the idea of survival very fun with a friend. Campaign wasn't actually bad its was not the best but it was good. But the biggest let down is that the game is like an add-on its still the same graphics same style, its like Infinity wards has given up. And it even seems patheticThis game didn't pass its expectations but it's that fun game you can rage at when you play multiplayer. I loved the idea of survival very fun with a friend. Campaign wasn't actually bad its was not the best but it was good. But the biggest let down is that the game is like an add-on its still the same graphics same style, its like Infinity wards has given up. And it even seems pathetic that A. The critics gave it such high scores and B. That Glen Schofield actually asked for the gamers to give higher scores here at Metacritic... just pathetic.
    All in all i think this Game is fun if you like shooters and Cod4 or Mw2 but otherwise its just a waste of 50$ maybe for 20 or 30 but not 50.    … Expand
  70. ArsenalMikey
    Nov 17, 2011
    5
    Modern Warfare 3 is an ok game. I have played every Call Of Duty and found it to be just about average. You can very easily call this Modern Warfare 2.5. For starters, the campagin is the same campaign you can remember form Cod 4 and 6. Big action sequences, lots of helicopter crashes and the big style ending. The campaign is still as fun and jam-packed as it used to be but is still wayModern Warfare 3 is an ok game. I have played every Call Of Duty and found it to be just about average. You can very easily call this Modern Warfare 2.5. For starters, the campagin is the same campaign you can remember form Cod 4 and 6. Big action sequences, lots of helicopter crashes and the big style ending. The campaign is still as fun and jam-packed as it used to be but is still way too short. Spec Ops has been upgraded into Survival mode. It is a very fun and is a great part of the overall game but i feel it could of easily have been put into Modern Warfare 2 as downloadable content. There are also the Spec Ops missions. These missions are built from the campaign. These also could be downloadable content. Multiplayer is the same as Cod 4 but with improved guns and killstreaks. You also have the introduction of Strike Packages which is the best addition to multiplayer. The maps on the other hand are dull and boring and are not very exciting to play. The Graphics and Gameplay are the same as previous Modern Warfare's. With the introduction of Battlefield 3's Frostbite 2 engine, Modern Warfare 3 is way behind the other game engines. It is the same formula that the community loves and that is why Call Of Duty is so powerful now. But for future Call Of Duty games, a major change needs to happen.… Expand
  71. IndyBoiler
    Nov 17, 2011
    5
    The single player of this game is good. However nothing really new here. The multi player would be awesome if they would fix the lag. I see people jumping all over the place. Also what's up with the lag... I get killed by a single bullet...but then in the theater it shows the other guy shoot a whole clip... clearly it's time for dedicated servers an no lag correction in the software.
  72. ScoobyTheBeast
    Nov 20, 2011
    5
    OK I'm changing my review, its only two weeks in and people already know which guns to exploit (Type 96, AK47, UMP, P90, every shotgun, every machine pistol, and the one shot kill anywhere snipers), theres drop shotting everywhere since the diving is gone, and after 5 minutes in a lobby you know for sure that Infinity Ward probably didn't do any balancing or beta testing, and if they didOK I'm changing my review, its only two weeks in and people already know which guns to exploit (Type 96, AK47, UMP, P90, every shotgun, every machine pistol, and the one shot kill anywhere snipers), theres drop shotting everywhere since the diving is gone, and after 5 minutes in a lobby you know for sure that Infinity Ward probably didn't do any balancing or beta testing, and if they did then they must have coded it blindly. The weapon proficiencies that you unlock by ranking the weapon up, make the broken weapons more broken. For instance, the Type 95 is a burst fire weapon that normally only takes two out of the 3 bullets to connect for a kill, now put the two attachments proficiency on with a red dot and a grenade launcher and you have an unstoppable class. The AK47 takes two bullets to kill but is supposedly offset but its huge recoil and horrible accuracy, now use the less recoil proficiency with a red dot and you can gun down a whole team without emptying a clip.… Expand
  73. u9h99
    Nov 18, 2011
    5
    Look there are alot of idiots on this website giving the game a 0!!! If this game is worth a 0 then no game will ever get above a 3 rating!!! The problem with game is weve seen it all before....if uve played any call of duty game before its 5 at most....ul still have a blast on the spec ops mode!!! And if ur new to the series without doubt 10 out of 10!!!! Still better than that battlefiedLook there are alot of idiots on this website giving the game a 0!!! If this game is worth a 0 then no game will ever get above a 3 rating!!! The problem with game is weve seen it all before....if uve played any call of duty game before its 5 at most....ul still have a blast on the spec ops mode!!! And if ur new to the series without doubt 10 out of 10!!!! Still better than that battlefied rubbish!… Expand
  74. jbr25
    Nov 20, 2011
    5
    modern warfare 2 with worse maps. Survival mode is ALRIGHT..... was hoping for a lot, and I mean more from this game. That being said I love cod. However I will not be buying the next one unless they make a new game engine after 5 years of the same exact thing.
  75. MarkyOxford
    Nov 20, 2011
    5
    What a disappointment! This is more of the same but somehow less!

    Those that say this game is great are probably the same people the claim that the iPhone is the best mobile on the market, look deep within yourselves and be honest! the multi player is bland and feels very dated. it reminds me of solder of fortune with just a slight polish to the graphical engine. It's really poor and    What a disappointment! This is more of the same but somehow less!

    Those that say this game is great are probably the same people the claim that the iPhone is the best mobile on the market, look deep within yourselves and be honest! the multi player is bland and feels very dated. it reminds me of solder of fortune with just a slight polish to the graphical engine.

    It's really poor and feels like it was rushed.    … Expand
  76. IKnoGoodGames
    Nov 20, 2011
    5
    I and many other people are quite dissapointed by modern warfare 3. In my oppinion it shouldnt be MW3 it should be MW2.5 as its basically a few new guns some new maps and a new campaign. The spec ops missions are different than MW2's but are quite more boring. The campaign is more fun than MW2 despite the fact that they have used a fair few of the cod4 maps in the campaign. If you enjoyedI and many other people are quite dissapointed by modern warfare 3. In my oppinion it shouldnt be MW3 it should be MW2.5 as its basically a few new guns some new maps and a new campaign. The spec ops missions are different than MW2's but are quite more boring. The campaign is more fun than MW2 despite the fact that they have used a fair few of the cod4 maps in the campaign. If you enjoyed MW2 a hell of alot more than cod4 then this game is the game for you. But if you preferred COD4 like me then dont waste your money (unless you like wasting money). The online is exactly the same as mw2's but with a few different guns and maps, and the maps are not the best .. :/ If you are a fan off both CoDs and Battlefeilds then I recommend this. If you prefer COD to BF then buy mw3 or stick to playing mw2 and cod4. But if you like CODs and BFs equally then buy Battlefeild 3 as its a much better buy for money. :) Hope this helps any people who cant choose between buying MW3 or not.… Expand
  77. Whitey91
    Nov 20, 2011
    7
    If anyone ever followed tomb raider we've seen that a good game that doesn't see any innovation will score low. That game is now mw3. Ever since cod4 it has been essentially the same game.
  78. ryanvjones49
    Nov 20, 2011
    6
    I bought and loved Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 and played it for ages. I then bought Black Ops and realised that the franchise was slowly going downwards and hardly played it. With the release of MW3 I thought that they were returning to glory I was sadly mistaken however when I saw the game in action. When I walked into my brothers room after he had purchased it I actually thought heI bought and loved Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 and played it for ages. I then bought Black Ops and realised that the franchise was slowly going downwards and hardly played it. With the release of MW3 I thought that they were returning to glory I was sadly mistaken however when I saw the game in action. When I walked into my brothers room after he had purchased it I actually thought he was playing MW2, the menu screens were exactly the same layout but a different colour, even the font they used was the same. I dont get it it plays the same, its got different guns but you can tell that they are the same layout except they look different. MW is a good game though it is accessible and addictive and I am rating this game on the fact that its fun to play, but I believe that you shouldn't buy it because you already have MW2 it is only an expansion pack nothing more except a rehashed zombie mode with guns.… Expand
  79. FallenGamer
    Nov 20, 2011
    5
    This game's multiplayer would probably be the best thing about it because they've added a lot of new things like new kill streaks and game modes. Also the new survival mode is okay because they just took all of the multiplayer maps added a.i. to it. The one thing that I really hate about this game would be the graphics because they like worse then MW2 and it shows that infinity ward wereThis game's multiplayer would probably be the best thing about it because they've added a lot of new things like new kill streaks and game modes. Also the new survival mode is okay because they just took all of the multiplayer maps added a.i. to it. The one thing that I really hate about this game would be the graphics because they like worse then MW2 and it shows that infinity ward were just trying to make money off this game. The campaign was alright and was short like usual Call of Duty campaigns.… Expand
  80. McCloudUK
    Nov 20, 2011
    6
    I had not previously played the Modern Warfare series online, only playing Black Ops and rather enjoying it. I heard from everybody i knew that the online in MW2 is better so purchasing MW3 was a no brainer. However, i far from enjoyed the experience. It did not improve all that much from what I played on black ops. The maps are all rather small, massively discouraging sniping whichI had not previously played the Modern Warfare series online, only playing Black Ops and rather enjoying it. I heard from everybody i knew that the online in MW2 is better so purchasing MW3 was a no brainer. However, i far from enjoyed the experience. It did not improve all that much from what I played on black ops. The maps are all rather small, massively discouraging sniping which some players prefer and is a good aspect to avoid. It seems with multiplayer they've focused their attentions towards the hardcore players. Stop the yearly releases and give the development another year to give us a something spectacular. As for single player, its no longer than 5 to 6 hours on hard. Although some scenarios were rather impressive the story was loose and uninteresting. The 'scene' that was aimed to draw controversy was only offensive in the depiction of n English street. This isn't a bad game, but it has gotten lazy. Little innovation with the development team relying on the yearly purchases from an addictive audience.… Expand
  81. balleralm0916
    Nov 20, 2011
    6
    If you only take in account this game, and only this game, maybe this would have been considered a 9. Honestly, a 10 would've been way too large of a stretch considering the extremely normal military single-player storyline, but the multiplayer would of made it at least an 8 because yes it is the most immersive multiplayer you can get, hence the strong sales. What this game doesn't haveIf you only take in account this game, and only this game, maybe this would have been considered a 9. Honestly, a 10 would've been way too large of a stretch considering the extremely normal military single-player storyline, but the multiplayer would of made it at least an 8 because yes it is the most immersive multiplayer you can get, hence the strong sales. What this game doesn't have going for it though, is the originality. It is literally a mix of Black Ops and MW2 with only a few new features. It's comparable to an iPod classic, it's amazing to withhold so much in your pocket, but the new one that comes out is essentially the same thing except maybe a very slight difference of the actual product. True, playing that music is great fun, but is it really a game changer anymore? No. It's the same old-same old. This series has started to run its course, and unless a true sense of creativity comes into the game, this game is slowly heading towards a candy-item that you just eat cause it tastes good, even though you really shouldn't be eating it. The innovation is lacking, but the fun is still there. I'd probably recommend many other games over this if you had $60 to spare right now.… Expand
  82. Ctmuniz
    Nov 20, 2011
    6
    Let me cut this short, I loved IW, I loved Call of duty, I loved call of duty 2, I LOVED call of duty 4, and I wanted to MARRY modern warfare 2, however this game was an extreme dissapointment. The campaign is not nearly as exciting as the last 2 and you can tell this game was rushed from all the legal issues the company faced. The multiplayer is OK but it hasn't really changed in largeLet me cut this short, I loved IW, I loved Call of duty, I loved call of duty 2, I LOVED call of duty 4, and I wanted to MARRY modern warfare 2, however this game was an extreme dissapointment. The campaign is not nearly as exciting as the last 2 and you can tell this game was rushed from all the legal issues the company faced. The multiplayer is OK but it hasn't really changed in large ways like MW2 did. I don't play for balance, I play for fun, and until now, IW delivered. Sorry but save your money and get battlefield 3 if you got a PC that can handle it. I am not a battlefield 3 fanboy, but it is alot of fun on PC but it sucks on consoles.… Expand
  83. moveslikeheskey
    Nov 20, 2011
    5
    Nothing special with this game here. The single player campaign was good, for the most part. The plot seemed to move well and fill in the holes to complete the Modern Warfare series. However, like the majority, this game is rated on multiplayer. I spent many hours playing Modern Warfare 2, and all bugs, exploits, and glitches aside, it played and handled well. With Black Ops, the game feltNothing special with this game here. The single player campaign was good, for the most part. The plot seemed to move well and fill in the holes to complete the Modern Warfare series. However, like the majority, this game is rated on multiplayer. I spent many hours playing Modern Warfare 2, and all bugs, exploits, and glitches aside, it played and handled well. With Black Ops, the game felt more balanced, but the horrendous lag and bad hit detection really took away from that experience. In that instance, I felt Black Ops was a step back. However, after playing Modern Warfare 3, it's more like a complete jump back. The first glaring problem is the lag is worse than Black Ops. I've literally lost count of the number of time I have shot at enemies, have them turn, and be killed in one quick shot. Players jump around maps, freezing, shots not registering, etc. These are simple mechanics that worked well in MW2 and seem to be broken in MW3. Apart from the lag and hit detection problems, the spawn system is terrible. This can at least be fixed, but it just screams poor programming when something so trivial and basic has major problems. The formula for Call of Duty is simple and proven. However, whether it be rushed deadlines or just poor finishing, Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer Games (a cringe-worthy name of a studio) seem to have lost the vision that the Modern Warfare series once had. CoD4 and MW2 are some of my favourite games ever. However, MW3 seems to have set the series back. This game is average and honestly not worth the praise and revenue it has received. When compared to the other big FPS game, Battlefield 3, MW3 is a distant second place.… Expand
  84. Oxcart
    Nov 20, 2011
    7
    This review only covers the single-player campaign.
    Overall, MW3 is a decent entry in the series, although it lacks some of the coherence of earlier installments. While MW2 and, to an extent, MW, set up clearly delineated plots following individuals through effective story arcs, MW3 bounces around a little too much, taking you to exotic locales, certainly, but seemingly only because they    This review only covers the single-player campaign.
    Overall, MW3 is a decent entry in the series, although it lacks some of the coherence of earlier installments. While MW2 and, to an extent, MW, set up clearly delineated plots following individuals through effective story arcs, MW3 bounces around a little too much, taking you to exotic locales, certainly, but seemingly only because they wanted to be able to say the game takes place in the US, Paris, London, and everywhere else. The resolution to a major series arc, the invasion of the US, is rushed and largely ignored. The campaign is chaotically structured, which helps keep the player off-balance, but also prevents a large degree of emotional investment in any of the played characters or, for that matter, the situation the world is in.
    That said, the gameplay is solid, just as it was in MW2. This is no accident; no substantial changes occurred to the engine, so MW2 players will be able to pick up MW3 without any difficulty at all. The game is relatively entertaining and provides enough variety to keep your interest through its campaign.
    Unfortunately, that doesn't mean much. The campaign is depressingly short, about eight hours. For a $60 game, this is too short by half, shorter even than MW2. In truth, it feels more like a long DLC rather than an installment in the series. For campaign players, though, it's a solid game, good adventure, and has enough spice to make it fun. It is on the short side, but manages to close the story without feeling rushed. Consider waiting until prices fall somewhat, though, if you're not keen on multiplayer.    … Expand
  85. ZackJ100
    Nov 20, 2011
    7
    The fact that Modern Warfare 3 has a 3.2 right now on user reviews is a bit ridiculous. First of all, the game really is not that bad. If you enjoyed either Modern Warfare or it's sequel you are going to enjoy this one. Modern Warfare 3 is also leagues better than the awful Black Ops and World at War. The multiplayer is still fun and stylish like the previous installments of Modern WarfareThe fact that Modern Warfare 3 has a 3.2 right now on user reviews is a bit ridiculous. First of all, the game really is not that bad. If you enjoyed either Modern Warfare or it's sequel you are going to enjoy this one. Modern Warfare 3 is also leagues better than the awful Black Ops and World at War. The multiplayer is still fun and stylish like the previous installments of Modern Warfare were. The story is still as over the top as ever and is quite enjoyable. (More so than Battlefield 3 for sure) Spec Ops is still a fun little addition to the game that got a lot of love in innovative new scenarios that are a bit more interesting and challenging than the previous go round. Now, having that said I can see why people are complaining that this game is not innovative. It is not innovative. That is my only complaint about this game and hopefully the next Call of Duty will add something more. The novelty of the Call of Duty series is slowly dying away.… Expand
  86. seankk93
    Nov 21, 2011
    6
    Again yet another disappointing call of duty game. Activision have again produced another game that feels like Call of Duty 4 in every aspect. The multi player is the same with new guns and new maps. Which by the way are easily the worst maps in the call of duty franchise. The singleplayer feels all flash and no substance which is disappointing considering CoD 4 managed to build a greatAgain yet another disappointing call of duty game. Activision have again produced another game that feels like Call of Duty 4 in every aspect. The multi player is the same with new guns and new maps. Which by the way are easily the worst maps in the call of duty franchise. The singleplayer feels all flash and no substance which is disappointing considering CoD 4 managed to build a great relationship between the character and the player. The feeling of being connected to the characters in the single player is all but lost and any emotional attachment is one that stems from the first Modern Warfare game. Spec op is good for about an hour but lacks any sort of real pull and that pretty much sums up MW3 good for short while but quickly become dull and boring as you soon realise that it is the exact same game as CoD 4.… Expand
  87. Bdawg916
    Jan 3, 2012
    5
    ...After playing MW2 I told myself I'd never play anymore MW games, or at least pay full price for them anyway. Then I got a copy of MW3 at Red Box... what an awesome rental for $1... Same gameplay as the previous titles, and why not, they sold millions why change right? This entire thing is nothing more a VERY expensive map pack for MW2. For a rental it was well worth it (again $1), but...After playing MW2 I told myself I'd never play anymore MW games, or at least pay full price for them anyway. Then I got a copy of MW3 at Red Box... what an awesome rental for $1... Same gameplay as the previous titles, and why not, they sold millions why change right? This entire thing is nothing more a VERY expensive map pack for MW2. For a rental it was well worth it (again $1), but for the 5-10 people I know who shelled out the $60 on launch night, they have nothing but extreme disgust and a quick return or trade in.So all in all great rental, maybe save the $60 for a different title or bills… Expand
  88. Remnant
    Nov 25, 2011
    5
    Since Modern Warfare 2 was easily worthy of a 9 or 10, it follows that the successor earns about half of that. The campaign's length has been cut to approximately half the length of the previous game, most of which is recycled and formulaic content, including the obligatory stealth sections that account for far too much time in an already short game. The inclusion of a new character withSince Modern Warfare 2 was easily worthy of a 9 or 10, it follows that the successor earns about half of that. The campaign's length has been cut to approximately half the length of the previous game, most of which is recycled and formulaic content, including the obligatory stealth sections that account for far too much time in an already short game. The inclusion of a new character with an interesting back story only highlights how the player is held hostage to the story. As with the No Russian mission of MW2, control is but an illusion. The player is given a gun during a flashback sequence and allowed the opportunity to attempt to change the existing canon - logically, of course, this sequence is impossible and subsequently pointless, burning more precious minutes of a painfully brief story. The amount of time the player controls their character versus the amount spent unable to control their character (through enforced actions, such as being tossed around by an explosion, vehicle rides or plot sections) means that calling the campaign 5 hours is perhaps being overly generous. Compare to other titles on the shelf, such as The Elder Scrolls V, Dark Souls or Deus Ex Human Revolution, and this is an unforgivable offence.
    Spec Ops, the glorious co-op element of MW2, makes a return, although it is notably shorter and considerably easier than the previous iteration. The insult to the developers' lack of creativity comes when you not only run an obstacle course akin to the first Spec Ops level of MW2, but when a later mission involves running the same course in reverse. Spec Ops is helped by the inclusion of Survival mode, which continues the trend started by Gears of War 2's Horde mode and further continued with Halo ODST and Left 4 Dead. This mode allows the player to fight increasingly difficult waves of enemies across the multiplayer maps. Jarringly, unlike the other games just mentioned, both Spec Ops Missions and Survival modes are still limited to two players, either splitscreen or online. Given that Horde Mode in Gears 2 is responsible for the resurgence of the mode's popularity (which could be traced as far back as Unreal Tournament 2004), it is perplexing that Modern Warfare 3 fails to push past a simple two-player limitation. The era of two-player co-op, without justification (Army of Two, for instance, had a legitimate justification for its restriction), should have ended with the four controller ports on the Xbox or at least the emergence of viable online console play. The third option for the game is the multiplayer. Other than a slight adjustment to killstreaks, the only difference between Modern Warfare 2 and 3 in this regard is the cosmetic change of new maps and a few new weapons. Even the two game modes touted by marketing are nothing more than variations of team deathmatch. Team Defender is essentially Halo 3's Juggernaut mode, but adapted to team play. Kill Confirmed is nothing more than team deathmatch, with each corpse dropping tags that need to be collected for the kill to be scored. Neither is hardly a revolution in multiplayer, heradling the culmination of the spin-off series' decline in innovation.
    The curiosity of multiplayer gaming is the only motivation to purchase the game. The multiplayer element remains largely unchanged since Modern Warfare 2, even though Black Ops offered a more robust system - the balance of unlocking and purchasing equipment was far more enriching than simply unlocking the gear as in MW3. However, the mainstream has moved on from MW2 and Black Ops to MW3, for better or worse. Finding a server in either game is made all the more difficult with the bulk of players moving on. The question one must ask is, how badly do I want to pay for a game I already own? Unfortunately, the disparity between critic response and user response seems to indicate that, had these concerns been brought to light earlier, the third title would not have outsold its predecessor. Critics and consumers bought into hype that was delivering a diluted product. Expect to see this title stacking the pre-owned shelves as there is not enough content to leave this on your shelf at home.    … Expand
  89. demolish
    Nov 26, 2011
    5
    I wanted to like this game. I really did. I've been playing call of duty since call of duty 3, and i liked every one of them. But MW3 is _much_ worse than MW2. Killstreaks are overpowered, guns are unbalanced as **** hit detection is slow, spawns are **** general fluidity is lacking, and it's just not fun at the end of the day. Campaign was good, though, so here's the 5.
  90. SleepingPillow
    Nov 26, 2011
    7
    Ehhh this game was a big meh. the multiplayer is really no different. The campaign and survival saved this game, and the campaign and survival is the only parts worth playing. This game needed a new engine! Its about time to upgrade the franchise.
  91. SuperDefekt
    Nov 29, 2011
    7
    This is easily one of the best single player campaigns in a modern shooter I've played for a while. It irks me that there are several review about this game, where the rating is a 0, not realizing there is a complete range of grades between 0-10, and this game is nowhere near a 0. At least not in my book.
    The weapons in the game are accurate, the AI is for the majority of the game    This is easily one of the best single player campaigns in a modern shooter I've played for a while. It irks me that there are several review about this game, where the rating is a 0, not realizing there is a complete range of grades between 0-10, and this game is nowhere near a 0. At least not in my book.
    The weapons in the game are accurate, the AI is for the majority of the game resplendent, and the levels are mapped exquisitely. While I agree that it doesn't add much of anything new to the series, it's still a really solid shooter. And while one can argue that it is MW2.5, and so forth, it's still pretty much what you'd expect from a SEQUEL. All I expected was a continuation of the story, some new characters, revisiting old characters, and a thrill of a campaign. This is what I expected, and its what I got. Sadly the graphics are getting outdated, and build upon the same engine used in COD4: MW. I'm reading some of the reviews from others on this site, and many of these say that the only good part is the story, yet they give it a 0. You'd think that would bump it up to a 2/10 at least. I am basing this review strictly from the single player and special ops, which are still good reasons to get the game. PROS:
    + Good story
    + Decent AI
    + Exquisite weapon design
    + Great sound design

    CONS:
    - Not much new content
    - Parts of the storyline become predictable
    - Graphics showing their age    … Expand
  92. Cwillim
    Nov 29, 2011
    6
    the game builds upon what MW2 had already done. innovation is not something that is needed of every game. perks were added to balance the online play, while spec ops was refurbished to provide more intense missions, and also added a solid competitor to the Zombies mode of Black Ops. I found myself mostly buying it for the single player, since MW2 had my favorite campaign of the Call ofthe game builds upon what MW2 had already done. innovation is not something that is needed of every game. perks were added to balance the online play, while spec ops was refurbished to provide more intense missions, and also added a solid competitor to the Zombies mode of Black Ops. I found myself mostly buying it for the single player, since MW2 had my favorite campaign of the Call of Duty series, but the story seemed to be extremely immature and there were many parts that were unnecessary. the campaign seemed to play at such an unrealistically fast pace for the gameplay that it came off as looking stupid. however, while the story mode was marginally worse than Modern Warfare 2, the Spec Ops and Multiplayer modes deserve much more credit than they are given, as they both succeed in patching many of the errors that Infinity Ward had made with Modern Warfare 2. While I am not pleased with the copy and paste method that Sledgehammer used for most of the game, it isn't the worst game of 2011, and it earns at least $60 worth of gameplay.… Expand
  93. Qwerty274
    Nov 29, 2011
    6
    To start of this game is not a 0, but it doesn't compare to the innovation of the first two modern warfares. I've never been able to invest in the story, so Im not going to get into the campaign. The multiplayer is pretty much the same as MW2 with a few changes here and there. Honestly, I was disappointed that it feels like the same gameplay that I'm already tired of. However the spec opsTo start of this game is not a 0, but it doesn't compare to the innovation of the first two modern warfares. I've never been able to invest in the story, so Im not going to get into the campaign. The multiplayer is pretty much the same as MW2 with a few changes here and there. Honestly, I was disappointed that it feels like the same gameplay that I'm already tired of. However the spec ops is new and improved and I love the survival mode. Survival is easily the best part of the game. Overall the game doesn't come close to matching the addictiveness or fun of its predecessors in multiplayer, but the survival mode is enough to keep me playing.… Expand
  94. FallenFIre360
    Feb 5, 2012
    6
    Don't get me wrong I am not a call of Duty hater, if any thing Call of Duty 4 was one of my favorite Multiplayer games of all time, but the formula is getting old, the graphics have not changed, and the gameplay itself was the same exact thing as it was last time. People think that just because there are strike packages there are new care packages, but no. It is the same care packages asDon't get me wrong I am not a call of Duty hater, if any thing Call of Duty 4 was one of my favorite Multiplayer games of all time, but the formula is getting old, the graphics have not changed, and the gameplay itself was the same exact thing as it was last time. People think that just because there are strike packages there are new care packages, but no. It is the same care packages as modern warfare 2 only in classes now. We still have the same guns, same perks, same EVERYTHING. It was just a dissapointment… Expand
  95. Corixus
    Dec 16, 2011
    7
    I'm gonna start out by saying that this game isn't as horrible as all of the negative reviews make it out to be. There is fun to be had in this game but it can get old rather quickly but this varies from person to person. Modern Warfare 3 is not a horrible and nearly unplayable game but at the same time it is not fantastic and was mostly over hyped. Let's start with the single player.I'm gonna start out by saying that this game isn't as horrible as all of the negative reviews make it out to be. There is fun to be had in this game but it can get old rather quickly but this varies from person to person. Modern Warfare 3 is not a horrible and nearly unplayable game but at the same time it is not fantastic and was mostly over hyped. Let's start with the single player. As with the other Call of Duty games the single player is fairly short, lasting about 5 hours (maybe a little less) if you are playing on Recruit or Regular difficulty. On higher difficulties it could last about 6 to 8 hours. The story is a pay-off for the fans who stuck to Call of Duty since the first Modern Warfare. This is the last Modern Warfare of the series. The story for the most part is decent although there are some plot holes that may leave you asking some questions. The campaign is very linear with you being told to follow Captain Price or other people. This is basically the game holding your hand and telling you what to do instead of finding your own way of getting from Point A to Point B. There is some variety however as you will sometime get to control a new weapon or gadget of some sort so the game doesn't feel like a shooting gallery from start to finish even though it is for the most part. The campaign is mostly a thrill ride. You will see and do things that to others seem awesome while others will feel that these epic moments simply fall flat on their faces but there are some "wow" moments that you may like a lot and will remember fondly from the campaign. Next is Spec-Ops. These are basically a series of challenges that you can do alone or with a friend. There is also a new endurance mode called Survival, which is similar to Nazi Zombies from other Call of Duty games except the zombies are soldiers and you must buy weapons from a crate with money you earn from killing enemies and vehicles instead of buying them from a wall. Like most endurance challenges from other games you must survive waves of enemies that continuously get stronger and harder to kill while the player must also make himself stronger by buying weapons and other things such as armor and killstreaks. However, most of these things are locked until you achieve a higher level. Your level in Spec Ops is separate from your level in multiplayer. So you must rank up by playing Spec Ops missions and playing Survival in order to access new guns, killstreaks, armor, etc. As for the missions, they are entertaining while at the same time frustrating. Some missions even let you play a bit of the campaign but from a different perspective. Overall, they are good. Especially when you're with a friend. Now for the meat of the game. The multiplayer. This is probably where your gonna spend most of your time playing this game. Take note that if you've played most of the other Call of Duties from Call of Duty 4 and after then don't expect a great deal of change from the other games. Multiplayer has improved in a few ways but has also become worse in others but the core of the game remains unchanged for the most part. There are plenty of varied game modes to play such as Team Deathmatch, Free-for-All, Headquarters, Domination, Search and Destroy, Demolition, Sabotage, and the new Kill Confirmed gametype. There are also Hardcore Mode and Mercenary variants of each gametype. Along with private matches which have a decent number of gametype customization options so that you can set up gametypes to have fun with friends. Theater mode makes a return from Black Ops where you can record film clips to share with friends and such. There is also the weapon proficiency which let's you level up your gun to earn new attachments, camos, and perks. This is better than Modern Warfare 2's way of getting attatchments and camos since you just have to level up the gun itself to get attachments and camos instead of using the gun in a specific way to get what you want. Such as killing people through walls with FMJ to get extended magazines for your assault rifle and getting headshots for camos. At the same time this is worse than Black Ops since most of the attachments and camos are preference. In Black Ops you could spend CoD Points to buy the attachment or camo that you want instead of leveling up for it. Killstreaks are split into strike packages. You have Assault, Support, and Specialist. Assault and Specialist work similarly where if you do good then you do better with momentum. Assault has killstreaks that work in an offensive manner while Specialist will give you additional perks of your choosing with kills. Support is self explanatory the only exception is that you have point streaks which carry over even after you die. There is some weapon imbalance but this can be fixed through patching. The multiplayer is enjoyable and sometimes addicting but you won't find much new.… Expand
  96. TheElderNerd
    Dec 17, 2011
    5
    More of the same, while being exactly what I expected from modern warfare 3, I would be lying if I said I was not disappointed. The thing that stands out about modern warfare 3 for me is that while being probably the most innovative CoD since CoD 4, (which is NOT a big achievement) it is by far the worst designed (excluding CoD 3). I wonâ
  97. ACardboardBox
    Dec 17, 2011
    6
    I liked this Call of Duty but you can definitely start to see the yearly release start to take its toll. The campaign was fun, but lacked the "Holy sh*t" moments I felt in COD4 and MW2. It felt pretty linear and after beating it in four hours, I had no plans on returning to play more. The multiplayer remains close to the same as the previous two Call of Dutys and I was disappointed when II liked this Call of Duty but you can definitely start to see the yearly release start to take its toll. The campaign was fun, but lacked the "Holy sh*t" moments I felt in COD4 and MW2. It felt pretty linear and after beating it in four hours, I had no plans on returning to play more. The multiplayer remains close to the same as the previous two Call of Dutys and I was disappointed when I saw that they had taken away progress from BOps like Wager Matches. Still, it is Call of Duty multiplayer. I already know I will spend hours playing online. Spec Ops is probably the largest change but honestly, I am starting to grow tired off of Horde Mode ripoffs. Overall I enjoy MW3. It just isn't very different from it's predecessors.… Expand
  98. Swimming_MANGO
    Dec 29, 2011
    6
    To set things straight, Modern Warfare 3 is not Modern Warfare 2.5. To say something like that would mean you feel Uncharted 3 is Uncharted 2.5, or Dead Space 2 is Dead Space 1.5, or even Batman: Arkham City is Batman: Arkham Asylum 2. Modern Warfare 3 is indeed quite similar to Modern Warfare 2, but there are significant improvements. As with every Call of Duty game the visuals areTo set things straight, Modern Warfare 3 is not Modern Warfare 2.5. To say something like that would mean you feel Uncharted 3 is Uncharted 2.5, or Dead Space 2 is Dead Space 1.5, or even Batman: Arkham City is Batman: Arkham Asylum 2. Modern Warfare 3 is indeed quite similar to Modern Warfare 2, but there are significant improvements. As with every Call of Duty game the visuals are fantastic. The physical graphics of the game look spectacular, standing to par with the top newest games with the exception of perhaps a game such as Battlefield 3. The frame rate is smooth as with every other COD game, but what sets MW3 apart from MW2 is that the set pieces at least appear larger, and there was clearly a higher emphasis on large scale battles with the amount of memorable sequences. Game play for MW3 is nearly identical to MW2 but with a new additions: Survival mode; missions in both the campaign, and Spec. Ops where you are the infamous Juggernauts; an unmanned, remotely controlled ground vehicle with a mini gun, and grenade launcher; and of course, a plethora of new weapons to play with. Now while there is some good, there is also some bad: the game play is very repetitive; as with every COD there is a large amount of players on-line who simply take COD far too seriously, ruining the experience of others; and while the story is epic, due to the fact that the two lead developers in Infinite Ward have been laid off, a great deal of the feel, and emotion behind COD has diminished, making the action sequences less engaging, and less heart stopping then the other MW games.
    Now to score the game a 6 is fair. Why so many individuals are rating the game a 0 is ridiculous and childish. To give it a 0 means that the game would not be playable at all, that it burns your eyes out, and u lose when u press start. On the other hand to rate it an 8 of higher is also ridiculous as to give it that score would mean the game has new exciting features that grip you and pull you in, and anything that was perfected before is still perfect. Because the scale is 1-10, that means that a 5 is average. Not bad, not good, but average. MW3 is slightly better then average as all COD games have been. Why everyone is ripping on the game and giving it 0!!!! is beyond me. Its childish, its ridiculous, and its not showing a fair representation to the game.    … Expand
  99. umberbrowngamer
    Jan 2, 2012
    5
    mw3 RANT: i rwally dont get how people praise this game so much, i mean on metacritic its average is 3.5 but the community in general praises it. its not the best game not the best fps not the best cod not even top 40 games of the year. this game is a sequel to mw2 which in my opinion sucked ballz. im not a bf fan in fact i was expecting it to be at least better then bf3. the main problemmw3 RANT: i rwally dont get how people praise this game so much, i mean on metacritic its average is 3.5 but the community in general praises it. its not the best game not the best fps not the best cod not even top 40 games of the year. this game is a sequel to mw2 which in my opinion sucked ballz. im not a bf fan in fact i was expecting it to be at least better then bf3. the main problem i have is the multi player, how could someone like the horrible spawn the horrible connections and horribly balanced. the campaign was.... **** it had its fun moments but it had to much explosions, the story is still silly and the charters are horrible. infact half the fan favorites that died... well i didnt really care, the only thing thats fun is spec ops.… Expand
  100. GamerReviews
    Jan 6, 2012
    5
    Being a call of duty player, and realizing all the hype behind this game, I thought modern warfare 3 would at least have SOMETHING that wasn't exactly the same as previous COD games. That can only be found in single player. The campaign is actually great fun, though the story and plot are weak. Obviously most people will buy this game for its multiplayer, where this game was a hugeBeing a call of duty player, and realizing all the hype behind this game, I thought modern warfare 3 would at least have SOMETHING that wasn't exactly the same as previous COD games. That can only be found in single player. The campaign is actually great fun, though the story and plot are weak. Obviously most people will buy this game for its multiplayer, where this game was a huge letdown. It's not the fact that this game is just like modern warfare 1 or 2 that makes it bad, but the fact that the we have been playing with the exact same gameplay for years. The franchise is getting stale, and I hope to see big changes in the next installment. Yes, the game is full of different game modes, and I would probably recommend this ONLY if this is your 1st COD game.… Expand
Page:

Awards & Rankings

13
#13 Best Xbox 360 Game of 2011
1
#1 Most Discussed Xbox 360 Game of 2011
13
#13 Most Shared Xbox 360 Game of 2011

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
88

Generally favorable reviews - based on 81 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 79 out of 81
  2. Mixed: 2 out of 81
  3. Negative: 0 out of 81
  1. Gamer Limit
    Jan 11, 2012
    85
    Ultimately, Modern Warfare 3 feels similar to it's brethren, but that doesn't mean it isn't a great game. The single player element is still exciting, and multiplayer has more options than ever – if you're a fan of Call of Duty, Modern Warfare 3 is a no brainer.
    Read full review
  2. Game Over Online
    Dec 28, 2011
    84
    Modern Warfare 3, while still an excellent thrill ride in its own right, feels far too similar to MW2 or even Black Ops for my taste.
    Read full review
  3. Xbox World 360 Magazine UK
    Dec 12, 2011
    88
    I never expected Modern Warfare 3 to go toe-to-toe with EA's juggernaut this year, but it came out of the gates with a tour de force campaign and co-op mode. It loses points with a perhaps too-familiar multiplayer that caters to the juvenile on Xbox Live; though don't be mistaken, Modern Warfare 3 is one hell of a shooter and a highlight for a series that just won't die – no matter how much we wish it bloody would, at times.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »