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. Brother3Wright
    Nov 9, 2011
    6
    MW3 is not a bad game, and to those new to the series it'll probably be something new and exciting. For those that have been following CoD for a while now though it's one step forward, two steps back. Gone is the customization, money system, and emblem creation from Black Ops that helped move the series forward. Instead those are replaced by the same systems that already existed in MW2. IMW3 is not a bad game, and to those new to the series it'll probably be something new and exciting. For those that have been following CoD for a while now though it's one step forward, two steps back. Gone is the customization, money system, and emblem creation from Black Ops that helped move the series forward. Instead those are replaced by the same systems that already existed in MW2. I personally took a break and didn't buy Black Ops as I had burnt out on MW2. I had thought that with new blood at Infinity Ward they would continue to move the series forward, but instead they moved a bunch of stuff around, renamed some other stuff and added very little that's actually "new". I feel like this is an alternate reality in which Black Ops didn't exist, instead of building off the improvements that game made they used MW2 as a base and built off of that. That's all fine and well, but the problem is that Black Ops DID exist and already made improvements to some of the systems MW2 and 3 use. So while MW3 isn't a bad game by any means, it isn't particularly innovative or exciting either.… Expand
  2. Gladio77
    Nov 19, 2011
    6
    I just got screwed by the marketing machine. I was expecting a game with improvements in gameplay, graphics and sound. Kinda works like that otherwise we would all be still paying pong and pacman.

    Not in this case. Exactly the same as his predecessors which are two year old games. I paid a lot of money for a game with little effort. The 1 is to compensate for the fanboys give this 10's    I just got screwed by the marketing machine. I was expecting a game with improvements in gameplay, graphics and sound. Kinda works like that otherwise we would all be still paying pong and pacman.

    Not in this case. Exactly the same as his predecessors which are two year old games. I paid a lot of money for a game with little effort. The 1 is to compensate for the fanboys give this 10's and that includes that corrupt game journalist whose sites shall not be visited anymore ( just gamespy who gave a fair judgement)    … Expand
  3. fanbanta1
    Nov 8, 2011
    6
    Call of Duty MW3 is fun. I like the multiplayer but it just feels like a overpriced expansion pack.
    And at 55 pounds it is not doing itself any favours.
    If you are a die hard fan get it.
    If not don't because its a thrill ride for the first month i bet.
  4. drlowdon
    May 2, 2020
    6
    Each new Call of Duty release has now become a truly global event as the hype machine builds towards its launch. Anyone who is a fan of the franchise will be getting exactly what they expect for their money. The campaign is as action packed as ever but even at just four hours long it became a bit of a chore to play through as it offers little that hasn’t already been seen in previousEach new Call of Duty release has now become a truly global event as the hype machine builds towards its launch. Anyone who is a fan of the franchise will be getting exactly what they expect for their money. The campaign is as action packed as ever but even at just four hours long it became a bit of a chore to play through as it offers little that hasn’t already been seen in previous entries in the series. Other criticisms that could be levelled at any Call of Duty game, such as an over reliance on scripted events and sections with infinitely respawning enemies, also still apply here. On occasions it is easy to get wrapped up in everything that is going on but for me these instances were the exception rather than the rule.

    Online multiplayer has also changed very little aside from a few new perks. The maps themselves are however rather disappointing this time around, none of them are downright poor but none could really be considered a true classic in the same way as Crash or Overgrown from previous games. In fact there is a distinct lack of variety in the maps with none really offering the opportunity for sniping or long range combat (although some may see this as a good thing I suppose). The Special Ops missions from Modern Warfare 2 also return and provide a good selection of challenging co-op game. In the end, despite the fact that the formula is now starting to wear a little thin, it seems as though the majority of people aren’t disappointed with Modern Warfare 3 as sales yet again reached record numbers.    … Expand
  5. KAS--Will
    Jan 6, 2012
    6
    In 100% honesty, between Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3, they both suck, and the earlier games in the franchise could do you better... FAR better. Modern Warfare 3 lacks "fun", IMO. Too many people are competitive, and for some reason camping is far more present in this installment than in the previous COD's. The Singleplayer, was the biggest disappointment. I prefer BattlefieldIn 100% honesty, between Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3, they both suck, and the earlier games in the franchise could do you better... FAR better. Modern Warfare 3 lacks "fun", IMO. Too many people are competitive, and for some reason camping is far more present in this installment than in the previous COD's. The Singleplayer, was the biggest disappointment. I prefer Battlefield 3's, solely because Battlefield 3 ripped of COD4, which was a decent story to unravel. MW3, you just kill Makarov, and for some reason, the developers wanted to kill off all the main characters on the way, which is lazy story telling IMO. But nobody plays this for the Singleplayer, and if you did/were going to get this for that (like I did); trust me, it's crap. The multiplayer will make you want a COD older than Black Ops, and the only good thing that keeps this game "average" IMO, is the Spec Ops Survival mode.… Expand
  6. TLove
    Dec 11, 2011
    6
    Multiplayer: Being a hardcore CoD fan (15+ days in MW1, MW2, Black Ops, 3+ K/D ratio in all of them), I was disappointed. I loved all the other CoD games but that doesn't mean I don't play the crap out of it. The maps are badly designed and don't have the aesthetic pleasure nor the versatility of the maps in previous games. The weapons need a lot of work. The Type 95 is highly overpoweredMultiplayer: Being a hardcore CoD fan (15+ days in MW1, MW2, Black Ops, 3+ K/D ratio in all of them), I was disappointed. I loved all the other CoD games but that doesn't mean I don't play the crap out of it. The maps are badly designed and don't have the aesthetic pleasure nor the versatility of the maps in previous games. The weapons need a lot of work. The Type 95 is highly overpowered and overused, as well as the PP90M1, and the MK14 could use a slight damage reduction. Singleplayer: A lot of people are saying they don't like the singleplayer. I loved it. I started out on Veteran and it had my blood rushing the whole time. Lots of intense combat moments and cool locations for missions as well as all the characters that we've come to love. R.I.P. Soap… Expand
  7. tick509
    Nov 10, 2011
    6
    MW3 is a solid game, but given all the hype I expected more. The graphics are probably the best thing about the game, but great graphics don't guarantee a great game. I like the single player campaign, but the AI could be much better. Mutliplayer has been disappointing.
  8. KingerSays
    Nov 8, 2011
    6
    Reviews of this game on Metacritic are HORRIBLY biased from a fanboy point of view. Being a fan of all first person shooter games, I feel that I am eligible to post to valid review of the game.

    Campaign: The campaign is fantastic. It meets all expectations of the game, and more. The story is very refreshed and is NOT a 'rehash' of other games in the series. 10/10. Multiplayer: I do not    Reviews of this game on Metacritic are HORRIBLY biased from a fanboy point of view. Being a fan of all first person shooter games, I feel that I am eligible to post to valid review of the game.

    Campaign:

    The campaign is fantastic. It meets all expectations of the game, and more. The story is very refreshed and is NOT a 'rehash' of other games in the series. 10/10.

    Multiplayer:

    I do not feel I can review the Multiplayer as of yet as I have not played it enough. Expect a further review of the multiplayer on a later date.

    Engine/Graphics: Although the engine and graphics of this game do not meet those of a certain competitor in the FPS genre, they are still much better than some on the market, and again, are no where near as bad as have been suggested. Although it is disappointing that the graphics could not be improved, the engine is still better (in my eyes) than the same certain competitor. This is because of the very nice, crisp sound that is a huge improvement over both IW 4.0 and Black Ops' varient 3.0. 8/10

    Gameplay:

    Now this is where I believe the game REALLY stands out. The gameplay of Call of Duty, especially this installment (which has gone back to the trademark gameplay of COD4) is usually fantastic. The AI is well polished and MUCH better than a certain competitor on the market and you actually become attached to the characters that you play as. 10/10

    Overall, I give the game 9.5/10, which I will round to 10/10 in order to combat the obviously fanboy-esque reviews of the game.

    If you want to verify that I am not a 'fanboy' myself, please see my other reviews of both Call of Duty and Battlefield installments. This game DOES NOT deserve 2.8 (at this time of writing), and you if you've played it you know that.    … Expand
  9. c0mmander
    Nov 8, 2011
    6
    Very short one this time just highlighting key points.
    Graphics: 6.5 - Certainly not the best on the console anymore, somewhat dated but new engine makes things a bit more sleek.
    Presentation: 6 - Quite well presented but there is a lot of room for improvement again. Gameplay: 7 - Keeps the gameplay fresh with the addtion of new modes and some additional features but nothing    Very short one this time just highlighting key points.
    Graphics: 6.5 - Certainly not the best on the console anymore, somewhat dated but new engine makes things a bit more sleek.
    Presentation: 6 - Quite well presented but there is a lot of room for improvement again.
    Gameplay: 7 - Keeps the gameplay fresh with the addtion of new modes and some additional features but nothing groundbreaking in the slightest
    Lasting Appeal: 7 - Depends on the player, personally the series has become to formulaic and needs a fantastic reboot to help the series make that groundbreaking step of modern warefare this is also applied to why graphics gets a 6.5 its not far enough from nodern warare 2. This game is very frustrating to any fan of the series as it does not innovate but simply reiterates the series formula activision fail to take a risk and end up paying for it through the fans critical analysis of the game.    … Expand
  10. illage2
    Nov 14, 2011
    6
    I am not going to be one of these idiots who rates the game zero. I intend to applaud this game for it's good stuff.

    The campaign was by and large pretty decent, and it made for a nice wrap up of the series, but the advertisements said "WW3", the combat is not to that scale, we're talking small scale skirmishes. I do like the new weapons. The multiplayer has shown some improvement, but    I am not going to be one of these idiots who rates the game zero. I intend to applaud this game for it's good stuff.

    The campaign was by and large pretty decent, and it made for a nice wrap up of the series, but the advertisements said "WW3", the combat is not to that scale, we're talking small scale skirmishes. I do like the new weapons.

    The multiplayer has shown some improvement, but while actually playing the game you can't help but feel like you've played this game last year. The Spec Ops Survival mode is fantastic! Unlike Zombies, MW3's survival mode doesn't see you getting completely swarmed in 5 minutes. I managed to get to Wave 25 on my own, which with Zombies was impossible to even get past round 5 on my own.

    Also before the game's release they were boasting about how balanced the game is, when now we have rank 1's facing off against rank 80's on the first day.

    They said they were going to ban cheaters .... no bans have took place as people are still using Lag switches, and glitches.

    CoD Elite premium has not added any extra content to the game so far, and after the 9 month DLC season, I can't see anyone getting Elite premium any more, as there wouldn't be any point in getting it.

    There are no "big" maps.

    Overall they tried, but we got another Copy-paste-edit of last years game. Granted MW3 is better than Black ops is every way.    … Expand
  11. shackdaddy836
    Nov 10, 2011
    6
    Like it or not, MW3 has changed very little from MW2. The SP is the same type of campaign filled with explosions in an attempt to get your blood rushing yet ends up being boring half-way through. It's also filled with hundreds of plot holes just like MW2 had. The multiplayer has changed very little. Now, instead of killstreaks, you have pointstreaks which is a failed attempt from IW to getLike it or not, MW3 has changed very little from MW2. The SP is the same type of campaign filled with explosions in an attempt to get your blood rushing yet ends up being boring half-way through. It's also filled with hundreds of plot holes just like MW2 had. The multiplayer has changed very little. Now, instead of killstreaks, you have pointstreaks which is a failed attempt from IW to get rid of selfish gamers. The new gamemode - kill confirmed - actually does the opposite of what it was made to do. IW put in kill confirmed into the long list of gamemodes to try to reduce camping by forcing the killer to retrieve a dog tag the enemy drops. However, during my time with the game, I found that people would just camp in a corner, kill someone, wait to see if anyone else is around, then collect the dog tag and run back to their camping spot. Another thing that bothered me was the incredible amount of glitches the game had. IW finished the game about a month and a half early. They could have used that extra time to iron out the game (this is actually why I didn't give the game an 8).

    All-in-all, this game has really disappointed me. The days of Cod4 and fun run n' gun gameplay seem to be over for the CoD franchise. If I were any of you, I would skip this game and save my money.    … Expand
  12. B3ckett
    Nov 8, 2011
    6
    It's hard, really. On one side you have a formula polished over and over, movie-like singleplayer campaign, addicting multiplayer. On the opposite side you feel like you've been here before a dozen times, it's the thing dressed with a higher number and a few new perks. This series requires a bit of amnesia from you. If you can provide that and treat every new installment to the series likeIt's hard, really. On one side you have a formula polished over and over, movie-like singleplayer campaign, addicting multiplayer. On the opposite side you feel like you've been here before a dozen times, it's the thing dressed with a higher number and a few new perks. This series requires a bit of amnesia from you. If you can provide that and treat every new installment to the series like something completely new - you'll like it. But if you've spent your time with CoD, there are only two possible options: a) you'll love it like all previous episodes of the CoD franchise b) you'll yawn after 5 minutes and then turn the game off. I, unfortunately, am in the second group… Expand
  13. ExamplePrime
    Nov 8, 2011
    6
    Lets do this logically
    Story: Completed at a friends in a staggeringly short period of time. This is the short of campaign I expect from indie games releasing a game 'Episode'. Massively cliche, bad dialogue and horrifyingly dull and repititive. Micheal Bay, one adrenaline rush to the next. Unrealistic rushes too. 4/10 (For nice set pieces)
    Gameplay: Exactly the same as when COD4 did it    Lets do this logically
    Story: Completed at a friends in a staggeringly short period of time. This is the short of campaign I expect from indie games releasing a game 'Episode'. Massively cliche, bad dialogue and horrifyingly dull and repititive. Micheal Bay, one adrenaline rush to the next. Unrealistic rushes too. 4/10 (For nice set pieces)
    Gameplay: Exactly the same as when COD4 did it right. Barely a thing changed except now its quicker to reload than switch weapons which is a mess really. Its repititive at best but not much faults Really. 7/10
    Gamestyle: The game is focused around close combat, reflex based snap shooting. It is basically one adrenaline rush after another (that phrase is getting repititive). Its not competitive in any way and doesn't really add anything. 5/10
    Graphics: Nothing fantastic. Nothing horrible. But at times it seemed glitchy and some of the cutscenes seemed unrealistic (planes flying through stuff). Its not awful but its far from perfect. 7.5/10
    Multiplayer: Much like the gameplay but I just wanted to mention how little the maps seemed to have changed and appear to be simple rehases. A lot of work has gone in however to make sure that there is no part where you have long vision and firing possibilties to prevent strategy 5/10    … Expand
  14. eggs874
    Nov 8, 2011
    6
    The game is decent give it what it deserves it is not fantastic and it is not terrible. It is the same as the last game with some new spec ops missions. Oh by the way salemshaikh Battlefield 3 fans are not going to leave for this over hyped game. A game should be able to stand alone on its single player which neither games could do. So what I am trying to say ineffectively is that bothThe game is decent give it what it deserves it is not fantastic and it is not terrible. It is the same as the last game with some new spec ops missions. Oh by the way salemshaikh Battlefield 3 fans are not going to leave for this over hyped game. A game should be able to stand alone on its single player which neither games could do. So what I am trying to say ineffectively is that both games were disappointments to me. Both games get a six in my book.… Expand
  15. talos707
    Nov 8, 2011
    6
    for real, this is the worst game i've ever played. Not only is it a copy paste of mw2 and mw, it is a sheer insult to the intelligence of the human race. The amount of mindless people buying activision's crap is ASTOUNDING. I can no longer trust the reviews of any site. Just play cod 2, it was better than this garbage.
  16. PoloDiaz
    Nov 8, 2011
    6
    Finished the campaign like in 7 hours, it was kind of fun to see the Word War 3, played the online for 2 days it's just about a 10-15 seconds secuence in 3 steps over and over: run, shot, die. It gets so boring after some matches. The graphics are not so good, the sound is normal.

    Gameplay = 8 Graphics = 6 Sound = 7 Online = 7 Campaign Duration = 6 Conclusion = Rent It just to play the    Finished the campaign like in 7 hours, it was kind of fun to see the Word War 3, played the online for 2 days it's just about a 10-15 seconds secuence in 3 steps over and over: run, shot, die. It gets so boring after some matches. The graphics are not so good, the sound is normal.

    Gameplay = 8
    Graphics = 6
    Sound = 7
    Online = 7
    Campaign Duration = 6

    Conclusion = Rent It just to play the campaign, it was kind of fun.    … Expand
  17. sm2049
    Nov 8, 2011
    6
    Don't completely blow this off. I call this the 60$ expansion pack to MW2. The single player campaign is worth playing and picks off where left off for MW2, however the multiplayer is what you come to expect from the ever so popular franchise. Kill confirm is something a little different than other games on the market but instead of inspiring players to work together, it feels like theDon't completely blow this off. I call this the 60$ expansion pack to MW2. The single player campaign is worth playing and picks off where left off for MW2, however the multiplayer is what you come to expect from the ever so popular franchise. Kill confirm is something a little different than other games on the market but instead of inspiring players to work together, it feels like the exact opposite. This being the case that on multiple maps feel like there is a small standstill at times due to the camping and collecting these tags. The pace of multiplayer speeds up with team defender which doubles points of kills while holding a flag. In all honesty, these two ideas felt like a call for help with the multiplayer hitting its limit of capabilities. Graphics are exactly what to expect for a console FPS, perhaps equal to that of BF3 for consoles. After looking at reviews for this game from USA today and other news sources, I almost felt like there was something that IW/BA forgot to put in my game due to the way I feel about the actual performance of the game. The game also renamed functions such as killstreaks to pointstreaks, which can be earned multiple ways such as completing the objective or killing someone. This leads me to the coop player/unlock system of purchasing, instead of leveling, of weapons, ammo, etc... It's hard for me to go more in depth as the multiplayer is nothing special and is in need of a PC like platform to support more than the seemingly tiny amount already in place. It's competitor, Battlefield 3, has kicked it up a notch for multiplayer for PC with absolutely stunning graphics, 64 players, tons of vehicles and weapons kicks Modern Warfare 3 in the teeth and it feels evident with the gameplay that IW tried last minute add-in's that didn't quite work out to draw fans away from EA's BattleFields 3.

    I was a huge fan of Modern Warfare 2 and came in with standard that surpassed in a few areas but still was let down in others. I don't blame the developers as much as the technology that Xbox & ps3 uses is a little more than just a few years old. To me the game feels more like a culture statement than an actual game due to the constant advertisements rolling on the TV, billboard, and shopping mall advertisements that hype up the game for non to occasional gamers category yet is the "same game, different name" category for me. It is worth 60% of the 60$...So 36$.

    Bottom Line: A good game, however the phrase I use "same game, different name" applies. That being said, still worth a crack at it but not as addictive as MW2/BF3 felt to me.    … Expand
  18. ShottyMcLagcamp
    Nov 9, 2011
    6
    I have owned every COD since COD 2. I don't own this one and have only played it for a few hours over a friends. To be blunt COD4 and WAW were VERY good games. But after that MW2 and BLOPS were all the same game. I get it "if it aint broke dont fix it". But even sports games that are the same thing every year know that you need to ADD something to keep your fan base. And thats after theyI have owned every COD since COD 2. I don't own this one and have only played it for a few hours over a friends. To be blunt COD4 and WAW were VERY good games. But after that MW2 and BLOPS were all the same game. I get it "if it aint broke dont fix it". But even sports games that are the same thing every year know that you need to ADD something to keep your fan base. And thats after they get roster changes and natural changes. Why cant MW3 add a custom player, custom factions, war mode, more players, vehicles (WAW) ANYTHING! But the game still isnt unplayable. But I feel most of the reviews are 0s because people felt like they were robbed.… Expand
  19. PickleStiff
    Nov 9, 2011
    6
    I think Im done with the COD series. My biggest grip is the maps, after playing BF3 these maps feel like tiny mazes and there is no strategy except for run in circles and shoot. The single player is pretty good, I dont care what others are saying the graphics are excellent just like the previous titles but the guns sound like crap. MW 1 and 2 to me are two of the best games in history butI think Im done with the COD series. My biggest grip is the maps, after playing BF3 these maps feel like tiny mazes and there is no strategy except for run in circles and shoot. The single player is pretty good, I dont care what others are saying the graphics are excellent just like the previous titles but the guns sound like crap. MW 1 and 2 to me are two of the best games in history but 3 is not even close. The online maps are truly frustrating, I played for 4 hours and every map felt like I was constantly getting shot from behind.
    I noticed they still haven't found a cure for the lag problem too. Too many times I would go down with one shot to the body while I fired off 2 or 3. I dont know how they managed to make these maps so small but yet so confusing with no breaks, the previous games had a variety of wide open to close quarter combat, this one is all the same mess. I'm going back to BF3 tonight,, after playing both these titles back to back BF3 is hands down a better game. When I'm tired of BF3 I will go back to MW2 which was the last great game of the series.    … Expand
  20. AMuffinMassacre
    Nov 9, 2011
    6
    I have always enjoyed the Modern Warfare series. But even though it was clear that Infinity Ward was just making this to put a vacuum to our wallets again, I was still willing to look past that and enjoy this game. I knew I would be a little disappointed by the lack of graphical improvement, but to my surprise the thing that was most disappointing was the maps. I remember I always had myI have always enjoyed the Modern Warfare series. But even though it was clear that Infinity Ward was just making this to put a vacuum to our wallets again, I was still willing to look past that and enjoy this game. I knew I would be a little disappointed by the lack of graphical improvement, but to my surprise the thing that was most disappointing was the maps. I remember I always had my favorite maps in the other Modern Warfare entries, but playing this one I don't have that feeling of "Yes!!! I love this map!". I don't have a single map I look forward too. It seems like they designed by the team who made the black ops maps (which is obviously a negative comparison). The maps don't have that sense of balance that MW2 had, these maps almost encourage corner camping with their design. The gun play I really do enjoy, but what good is gun play when the map you are shooting your guns on is just a cluster f*%$ of poor level choke points, elevation, and poor spawning. I have had over 10 games where I have been spawn camped by the other team, had people spawn directly behind me or in front of me, or been spawned right by the guy who just killed me. I'm sure the spawning can be patched, but maps can't be. Not everything in the game is bad though, the guns, perks, and attachments are still enjoyable if a little stale.… Expand
  21. carlb
    Nov 9, 2011
    6
    Fans of the series will enjoy it but you'd be better off buying a used copy. *** SINGLE PLAYER: This final episode brings the story to a conclusion that will leave most satisfied and does it with flare and style in an enjoyable manner. *** SPEC OPS: If you have the friends to play with, these will keep you engaged for quite some time. *** MULTIPLAYER: Subtle changes that continue theFans of the series will enjoy it but you'd be better off buying a used copy. *** SINGLE PLAYER: This final episode brings the story to a conclusion that will leave most satisfied and does it with flare and style in an enjoyable manner. *** SPEC OPS: If you have the friends to play with, these will keep you engaged for quite some time. *** MULTIPLAYER: Subtle changes that continue the tradition started with previous titles and simple refine what has existed for many years. *** PERFORMANCE: Graphics and sound are both sub-par compared to other titles that have come out this year and the IW engine is showing its age. The guns are the same as previously and do not handle well nor sound as one might hope and animations are clunky. It's time for the Call of Duty team to step up and move beyond their existing technology. Performance is snappy and only trivial bugs were encountered. *** FINAL THOUGHTS: Every die hard first person shooter fan will likely find something in this game that they will enjoy though if you were already growing tired of the other games in the series, this one won't offer anything new or exciting. If you value and desire team work, look elsewhere. If you're on the fence, wait and buy it once the price comes down or pick up a used copy. *** NOTES: Elite was not tested and is not included in this review as the servers were unavailable due to overloading.… Expand
  22. DaveP
    Nov 9, 2011
    6
    Call of duty follows the if it aint broke don't fix it method,Although i found it fun i had many "i have seen this map before" thoughts. The story is predictable and the "explicit content" seems more like a unnecessary marketing ploy than a part of the story. the multiplayer progression is great and the co-op missions (especially the survival ones) keep me entertained. All in all its aCall of duty follows the if it aint broke don't fix it method,Although i found it fun i had many "i have seen this map before" thoughts. The story is predictable and the "explicit content" seems more like a unnecessary marketing ploy than a part of the story. the multiplayer progression is great and the co-op missions (especially the survival ones) keep me entertained. All in all its a game that you should pick up as a fan but doesnt really bring anything new to the table to set itself up as a top dog in shooter season 2011.
    +fun,addictive
    +easy to pick up and play
    ^not a severe learning curve
    -repetitive
    -old engine
    -predictable story    … Expand
  23. DevoutestDoor
    Nov 9, 2011
    6
    The game feels repetitive at times during campaign. The campaign feels boring most of the time. The guns are almost the same but there are some additions, like the XM25, which make the gameplay feel different. Online game modes are amazing. The maps, both online and offline, are average but improvements can be made. The game isn't worth the $55-$65. It's worth more like $45.
  24. Roweks
    Nov 9, 2011
    6
    The innovation, the spark, it just isn't there. Call of Duty 4 revolutionized the franchise and was the first step in the right direction. Modern Warfare 2 was the ascension to the peak of an impressive summit. Unfortunately, though, this game is kind of like climbing the same summit with a helicopter. The developers did not challenge themselves. Innovation is what attracted everyone toThe innovation, the spark, it just isn't there. Call of Duty 4 revolutionized the franchise and was the first step in the right direction. Modern Warfare 2 was the ascension to the peak of an impressive summit. Unfortunately, though, this game is kind of like climbing the same summit with a helicopter. The developers did not challenge themselves. Innovation is what attracted everyone to call of duty only a few years ago. Activision is fortunate to have such a massive, casual fanbase that will buy their games no matter the quality of the product. They need to use this to their advantage! Take some risks! The people that blindly buy a company's every installment aren't the people writing lackluster reviews for the product. The developers need to realize that it is okay to take a year off to recalculate and mess around with the unknown once again. Call of Duty does not need to continue as the Madden of shooter games. I have trouble reviewing the game on a strictly standalone basis because of the painful familiarity. The positive aspects of the game were emphasized in my glorifying review of MW2. This time around I just have more complaints. 6/10… Expand
  25. Fruitpunch
    Nov 9, 2011
    6
    Even though there is a new Call o Duty every year I usually get excited and can't stop playing for the first few days. Yet as soon as I started playing after waiting for an hour in line I yawned. I thought it just needs more time until I get used to it but no. The excitement, the fun I felt with previous titles that really haven't changed since MW1 is gone. I still enjoyed the campaign soEven though there is a new Call o Duty every year I usually get excited and can't stop playing for the first few days. Yet as soon as I started playing after waiting for an hour in line I yawned. I thought it just needs more time until I get used to it but no. The excitement, the fun I felt with previous titles that really haven't changed since MW1 is gone. I still enjoyed the campaign so I'm giving it a 6 but when I want fun challenging multilayer I put in BF3. Call of Duty is played out.… Expand
  26. RawRebel
    Nov 10, 2011
    6
    Glorified map pack is what MW3 is. Maps are too small making snipers ineffective, hit detection is super wonky and single player is only 5 hrs long. Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops are much better games. Kinda of fun but don't waste 60 dollars on this.
  27. NewJFusi0n
    Nov 10, 2011
    6
    I fell in love with the first two Modern Warfare's, and whilst the second showed a resemblance to the first there were marked differences and it still possessed a good campaign which really got me involved and attached to the characters. As for Modern Warfare 3, well it just didnt have that same thrill to play, The campaign was a little indecisive, It just didn't deliver the same characterI fell in love with the first two Modern Warfare's, and whilst the second showed a resemblance to the first there were marked differences and it still possessed a good campaign which really got me involved and attached to the characters. As for Modern Warfare 3, well it just didnt have that same thrill to play, The campaign was a little indecisive, It just didn't deliver the same character connection as MW1, and when seeing a memorable character die, just didn't have a good enough emotional impact in my opinion. The middle through to the end of the campaign felt quick, rushed and a bit of a let down compared to the other MW games, the multiplayer is still addictive, but with not enough guns, and an out of date engine it just could have been so much better...… Expand
  28. smashed-badger
    Nov 10, 2011
    6
    Single player is very short (beat it in 5 hours 40mins on hardened) and totally throw away. There are too many turret/on-rails sequences and the stealth sections allow for very little improvisation. However no other game can rival its coop and multiplayer modes.
  29. 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
  30. mattabaster
    Nov 10, 2011
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Modern Warfare 3 stands alone in what is the largest expansion pack ever released, and here is why that is so. (Minor, ever so Minor Spoilers) First the campaign - As many people know, Modern Warfare series has had some, short, but decent single player options, from the first time you **** your gun on the hull of the rocking ship in Call Of Duty 4 to the epic invasion of the USA by Russia in Modern Warfare 2. The Single Player has never disappointed in its cinematic offerings and didn't disappoint in MW3 with the Defense of New York being the set piece opener, but after this exciting opener, the single player fizzled out, maybe resurfacing this excitement at a few, extremely short set pieces. One with a Zero G fight in a plane crashing to the ground and a James Bond esque level in a Diamond Mine. The conclusion to the Makarov - Price story sees the campaign fall flat on its face. I found myself asking, "Is that it?" and also, the little attempt to conjure up some emotion does not deliver on what it should. With the gameplay having a good variation, from being on the ground running from a tank to being up in the air in a AC-130 but these sections last for a short while then end, leaving the fun at the last checkpoint. The orchestra of Hans Zimmer (a personal favorite of mine) seems to fit greatly, with music that harkens back to the first Transformer film but It is unfortunately dround by the gunfire and screaming, usually, I wouldn't get annoyed at this as, after all you are in a war zone, but the lack of an option to control the audio settings for Music, Effects and Speech left a bitter taste in my mouse. It seems infinity ward have taken out most of the user control. I'd give the campaign a 5 in comparaison with the other MW campaigns, and a 7 compared to most military shooter campaigns. After finishing the somewhat dull conclusion to a story arc I personally really enjoyed, I turned my attention to MULTIPLAYER, the main part of the Modern Warfare series.

    Entering my first game, I picked my class, and was dropped straight into a match of Team Deathmatch.
    I immeadiatly found the multiplayer game to be exactly the same as MW2's. I shrugged this off, seeking some change which I found in the form of how the kill streaks have been turned into point streaks now, which allows all people to have an even chance of gaining a support, attack or special package. After a few games I found myself distraught, the spawning system is broken, I found myself at one point spawning in exactly the same place as I died and spawn killing is rife within the maps. The maps..
    The Maps are dull, and no overgrowns, no classic maps came out of the map rotor which I found depressing and the lack of large maps leans towards run and gun gameplay giving no chance for any snipers to have a chance. At least they took out stopping power and juggernaut. In Black Ops, I found myself enjoying the option of being able to create custom gamemodes, with myself creating a zombie game type with different types of zombies that could move slow, fast, have more health or less. I found you could do the same so I went to create the zombie game type all over again only to find Infinity Ward have taken out the ability to change class attributes! Its like Infinity Ward have taken everything Treyarch have done and removed it which is fair enough but when some of those things are good, why bother taking them out? I'd give the multiplayer a 6.    … Expand
  31. 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
  32. BlakCoffeeBlues
    Nov 10, 2011
    6
    ***HONEST REVIEW***

    Alot of people are trolling websites for hatred towards this game even though 80% of them are playing it and enjoying it and the other 20% haven't played it yet. With that being said the game is great. Everything is polished and although the engine is the same they have pulled the max amount of detail they can out of it with this entry to the series. With consoles    ***HONEST REVIEW***

    Alot of people are trolling websites for hatred towards this game even though 80% of them are playing it and enjoying it and the other 20% haven't played it yet. With that being said the game is great. Everything is polished and although the engine is the same they have pulled the max amount of detail they can out of it with this entry to the series. With consoles being on there last legs it was a smart move to work with a familiar system that works to prevent people from complaining about glithes. If you have been a fan of the series you will definately enjoy it for what it is...a game for entertainment purposes. It's not just another big map pack, everything is refined and lets face it as a competition (almost sports like) game you need a refresher as far as stats go. The inclusion of Call of Duty Elite just adds to the overall experience. Giving this game a 0 is uncalled for and unless fans that did give it that want to see one of their favorite franchises go under I suggest they give them the support they need as people putting their hard work into a product. Have fun, go play it and be fair.    … Expand
  33. spyder5150
    Nov 10, 2011
    6
    I find myself torn with this title. On one hand, the game plays fantastic, both the campaign and multiplayer are exactly what you would expect from a COD game. On the other hand, everything about this game is exactly what you would expect from a COD game. The story is engaging. Set pieces are big, loud, and fun. Everything is smooth and polished. But, every time I play, I cannot help butI find myself torn with this title. On one hand, the game plays fantastic, both the campaign and multiplayer are exactly what you would expect from a COD game. On the other hand, everything about this game is exactly what you would expect from a COD game. The story is engaging. Set pieces are big, loud, and fun. Everything is smooth and polished. But, every time I play, I cannot help but feel like this is all just more of the same. Kill Confirm is a great addition and use of the new support mode for kill streaks is great if one has a hard time stacking kills. I am certain I will get a ton of hours out of this title, but I am worried this is pushing the boundaries of becoming the shooter version of Madden. While not a bad game in any sense, it is just too recycled to be considered a great game at this point.… Expand
  34. HeroAfterAll
    Nov 10, 2011
    6
    I'm going to be honest.

    There are some people who can be jaded to something that is popular for the reason that it is, well, popular. CoD would be an example, but do the jaded people have good reasons to be jaded? Well, yes, everything has an opinion of something. I've heard that people have been slandering this user review page (BF3 fanboys, apparently) and i decided to weight    I'm going to be honest.

    There are some people who can be jaded to something that is popular for the reason that it is, well, popular.

    CoD would be an example, but do the jaded people have good reasons to be jaded?

    Well, yes, everything has an opinion of something.

    I've heard that people have been slandering this user review page (BF3 fanboys, apparently) and i decided to weight my opinion on stuff related and not related to the game.

    This is a game that is supposed to be a depiction of war, and for all it does, it does a good job capturing that 'war' feeling with the brown and bloom and the shooting, but something feels empty. i'm sure people have said this, but the game plays through scripted sequences and sometimes feels like you're playing an interactive movie rather than a video game, and i would happen to agree.

    some would say "that's just good directing" but if the goal of the game is to capture the essence of war, why does it feel like every mission is just some objective that has no point other to progress a typical war story?

    if the game's goal was to immerse ourselves and feel tension from playing the game, it did it all wrong. i felt some emotion at some parts, but nothing that made a lasting impact, the story was dry and was far too 'micheal bay esque' to please me.

    The story has set difficulties to play on, but feels too casualized to make me want to care, i played veteran and there were far too many re-spawn points and many times i felt like there wasn't a challenge because of this not to mention the level design isn't exactly via scripted sequences and linear paths.

    the sound is alright, a mention to the whole "WAR IS BAD" theme there is gun-fire and everybody yelling and things explode, there isn't much else as far the soundtrack goes, some orchestrated themes, a guitar lick or two, and that's the soundtrack.

    of course, these games never did have a emphasis on soundtracks.

    The gameplay as mentioned is very simple, you shoot bad guys, they die, america is the best.

    i suppose i can say that the controls are responsive for playing with a controller.

    well, i suppose there is more to it but the objective is basically that, it's not a very hard game to pick up and play, even on higher difficulties as mentioned.

    multiplayer is the same thing, quite literally. there was no change to the multiplayer beside some kill-streak changes and some new guns and whatnot.

    i enjoy the multiplayer and i could find it fun if i didn't have some rampant 13 year old screaming in my ear or some teenager saying **** everytime he gets shot in the face.

    this is where i just can't seem to enjoy CoD, the fan-base is just awful and i either have to mute my microphone and everyone else and try to enjoy a game hoping that i won't get called out or get hate-mail because everyone is a whiny ****

    it saddens me, i like CoD, but it just doesn't have polish, it doesn't do anything new, and it fails to deliver from a perspective of people who were looking for something else besides a re-skin.

    to put it simple: if you like CoD, you'll like this one, if you don't, pass it up and let this fad bury itself into the ground much like any other Activision game.    … Expand
  35. Pantone187U
    Nov 11, 2011
    6
    As I was being quick scoped the other day, it hit me, "I'm playing a revised version of MW2!" Coming from a true supporter of the MW franchise, a fanboy some might say, this was a  hard thing to say. As I play more of MP, I get bitter that this game hasn't changed much from the previous rendition. Take  proficiencies out,  what do you have? MW2. TheAs I was being quick scoped the other day, it hit me, "I'm playing a revised version of MW2!" Coming from a true supporter of the MW franchise, a fanboy some might say, this was a  hard thing to say. As I play more of MP, I get bitter that this game hasn't changed much from the previous rendition. Take  proficiencies out,  what do you have? MW2. The atempts of making the game balanced, works. But removal of marathon and leaving in quick scoping doesn't. Where's the innovation? This is what MW2 should have been. … Expand
  36. Morphey
    Nov 10, 2011
    6
    The videos released by IW and sledgehammer have been mouth watering, The way the game looked and the new features to kill streaks look amazing. I am a massive Modern warfare fan but the trailers reminded me of dead island. lots of promise but does it truly deliver?

    The Multiplayer is what most players buy the game for, the chance to link up with friends and have a blast. this hasn't    The videos released by IW and sledgehammer have been mouth watering, The way the game looked and the new features to kill streaks look amazing. I am a massive Modern warfare fan but the trailers reminded me of dead island. lots of promise but does it truly deliver?

    The Multiplayer is what most players buy the game for, the chance to link up with friends and have a blast. this hasn't changed, its still enjoyable but there is also so much wrong with it. The levels feel bland and identikit. I'm really disappointed with the multiplayer level design. MW2 levels felt like thought had gone into them. there is 16 multiplayer levels, this makes me think about the saying quality over quantity. The new kill streak system now takes into all players from the excellent to the poor. The poor can choose to allow kill streaks to roll over even after death, but they are not as powerful as the assault kill streak which include your usual AC-130s etc etc. the balance is there but it doesn't make you feel like you have stumbled across something special. MW3 Multiplayer feels old and everything you wanted to change in MW2. Does that make it MW2.5? i on the edge. its tried and tested but after a few hours i feel i'm treading old ground way to often. If i'm honest i didn't expect anything more due to the split in the production but with sledgehammer on board i was hoping they would be able to add something to it and in the end they didn't.

    One area i would like to say so far i am enjoying is the single player, yes its your normal set piece after set piece but FPS need that. they are boring without it, look at Medal of honor. after every level i played i felt like i had completed something epic. the story is obviously ridiculous but if you look passed that and play with an open mind, there is no reason why you cant enjoy it. Overall i would say this game is retreading old ground with a few tweaks. A game of this magnitude shouldn't be looking to tweak but reinvent. this release has lowered the stock of the franchise, and allowed its competitors to close in.    … Expand
  37. peepers86
    Nov 10, 2011
    6
    The game isnt completely bad i think the graphic's took a step back and the maps are not amazing but the game overall is still pretty decent. Its probably gonna take a few weeks for them to work out all the kinks in there servers but its still a good game.
  38. mgomulk
    Nov 10, 2011
    6
    First i do appreciate the efforts made listening to the community ie: noob tubes, commando, etc. However there are areas where i feel the game developers decided to implement 100% change instead of just giving us a taste...MAPS. I actually enjoy this game so much, except for these maps. MW2 arguably has the best maps of the series collectively. How u can fall flat on ur face like this isFirst i do appreciate the efforts made listening to the community ie: noob tubes, commando, etc. However there are areas where i feel the game developers decided to implement 100% change instead of just giving us a taste...MAPS. I actually enjoy this game so much, except for these maps. MW2 arguably has the best maps of the series collectively. How u can fall flat on ur face like this is alarming. I hold out a lil hope that there will be at least a map pack that includes mw2 maps, which were quite fun to play. I dont know if it is because of the infancy of the game or what but the connection issues are disturbing and really disappointing. Again, MW2 seemed to be so smooth compared to these last two. If this game-play could have been added to the MW2 maps and servers/matchmaking/etc i think it would have been a home run, however we are left a lil disappointed once again. I guess we can hold out hope for maps like Scrapyard, Highrise, Skidrow, Afghan, Sub Base, Terminal, Derail, Karachi...but who knows.… Expand
  39. SpencePo
    Nov 10, 2011
    6
    It's a decent game, I don't see why people hate it. Sure it's the same every year but so is virtually every sports game out there if they can create an annual game that everyone loves why can't Call of Duty? Overall I enjoyed this game although not as much as previous COD's. The graphics are decent if seeming more and more dated each year. Audio is competent if not amazing. The gameplay isIt's a decent game, I don't see why people hate it. Sure it's the same every year but so is virtually every sports game out there if they can create an annual game that everyone loves why can't Call of Duty? Overall I enjoyed this game although not as much as previous COD's. The graphics are decent if seeming more and more dated each year. Audio is competent if not amazing. The gameplay is as great as it has always been with a fast and frenzied play style. The single player is enjoyable if like other COD's even though you'll probably forget about it not long after you've played. The Multiplayer like always is where it's at and like other Call of Duty's it's a blast. My only real complaint is that not enough is new in this installment and almost not deserving of the 3 as this feels like an expansion rather then a new game. If you love COD buy this if not, go troll some other game that you obviously spent no real time on and went in with a complete bias against it.… Expand
  40. Lastdef
    Nov 10, 2011
    6
    First things first; MW3 is a good game, and I would typically rate it as a package at 7.5, but I am giving it a 6 just to balance all of the COD fans giving it a 10 "stamp" as a result of Glen Schofield asking for a "Fair" rating. I thought the set pieces and story itself was entertaining and fun but the game play itself just feels a little hollow, physics, explosions,enemy spawns,First things first; MW3 is a good game, and I would typically rate it as a package at 7.5, but I am giving it a 6 just to balance all of the COD fans giving it a 10 "stamp" as a result of Glen Schofield asking for a "Fair" rating. I thought the set pieces and story itself was entertaining and fun but the game play itself just feels a little hollow, physics, explosions,enemy spawns, graphics, gun play all lack the impact of similar games in the genre. while other games innovate and improve MW3 hasn't kept up with current gen expectations, and seem satisfied with giving us more of the same. Same graphics, same game play, same MP, same everything. I think low Metacritic scores are a result of gamers frustrations, and should be taken as an opportunity to get in touch with the reality of the current game market. People just don't have a lot of extra money laying around for games that are marketed as the next big thing but are just cash in attempts. It makes people upset when they feel like they have been taken advantage of. . its time to wake up and hear the gaming public, or become the next formerly successful franchise.… Expand
  41. Kristoffer13
    Nov 10, 2011
    6
    Meet the new boss... same as the old boss. Mw3 improves on its predecessors but lacks any true innovation besides the kill streaks which in my opinion are the only fun factor. After all the game is designed to make kill streaks the ultimate reward and the new system helps noobs out because its now easier to get them. I played a lot of Halo and for a long time i thought there could not beMeet the new boss... same as the old boss. Mw3 improves on its predecessors but lacks any true innovation besides the kill streaks which in my opinion are the only fun factor. After all the game is designed to make kill streaks the ultimate reward and the new system helps noobs out because its now easier to get them. I played a lot of Halo and for a long time i thought there could not be any better and fun way to play FPS. Then Cod 4 came out and i realized there was. Problem is that 3 games after cod 4 i started to get bored. I mean think about it, imagine having played reach with the halo 2 engine. Well thatâ… Expand
  42. ASTARTES
    Nov 10, 2011
    6
    We've all seen sequels that go too far for innovation and spoil the original game-play. MW3 is NOT one of those games. If anything, MW3 will be remembered for how much it DIDN'T change. I have thought to myself "but wait... I've already played this game" more than once.

    Like another reviewer said, the campaign plays like it was written by Michael Bay's evil twin. Full of huge explosions    We've all seen sequels that go too far for innovation and spoil the original game-play. MW3 is NOT one of those games. If anything, MW3 will be remembered for how much it DIDN'T change. I have thought to myself "but wait... I've already played this game" more than once.

    Like another reviewer said, the campaign plays like it was written by Michael Bay's evil twin. Full of huge explosions and silly reasoning that fills in for plot. The campaign is entertaining, but it's like candy. Have too much in one sitting and you'll get sick. The campaign is also very short, which is fine with me since it's full to the brim with HOLY SH!T moments.

    MP is a direct continuation of the CoD formula with it's usual flaws and infrequent high points. Bullet lag is still a major problem. Too many times have I shot a player 3-4 times, watch the Kill-cam and see that 0 shots registered. Since I have already played my fair share (and gotten bored) of CoD online, there isn't much bringing me back game-play wise... which leads me to my last point:

    MAPS. So far they have been pretty frustrating. Most of the old CoD maps had a nice directional feeling to them. Your team fought toward the other team, usually ending up with the teams pushing back and forth across the map. Not so much now. Most encounters are random, 1v1 surprise moments in the maze of corridors and small rooms where the player with the better connection wins.    … Expand
  43. 2perks2equal1
    Nov 10, 2011
    6
    I'm struggling with this review. I think its mostly because I want so badly to give a better review but simply cannot. I am a fan of the new maps although, camping does seem to be a major factor in the development which is really disappointing for a game classified as "hand to hand combat" or in other words run and gun. With so many dark corners and small windows this installment is yetI'm struggling with this review. I think its mostly because I want so badly to give a better review but simply cannot. I am a fan of the new maps although, camping does seem to be a major factor in the development which is really disappointing for a game classified as "hand to hand combat" or in other words run and gun. With so many dark corners and small windows this installment is yet again another noob tube/campers/snipers dream land. For me the multiplayer has not taken any steps forward. Black ops (although Treyarch is generally hated on by Ward followers) is a far superior game. They hit it home with allowing for claymores, tac inserts, ect as a third button and not having to replace your grenades. However, the most dissapointing part of this game for me is the perks. They have not been changed much from MW2 which was one of the biggest complaints about MW2. Major problems with the arrangment in the 3 slots as well as the pros not really having to do much with that perk at all. Example: Slight of hand pro = change weapons faster? While needing to use a whole other perk to gain faster aiming down the sights. What about marathon? Their is no long even an option for unlimited sprint in a game that is suppose to get back to gun to gun combat. Sure they have extreme conditioning which allows a minimal added time for spint but its in the same slot as 2 other important perks. How about having to use 2 perk slots to accomplish what black ops did with ghost pro. I could rattle on and on about how much better black ops and even MW2 is than this game but in the end I'm truly dissappointed with how much this game has evolved from first person shooters skills to hiding in a corner or by a window and shooting a noob tube toward the area of an enemy or shooting them in the back. The only reason I still rate this game with a 6 is because I do truly enjoy the new map packs for MW2 however not worth $60 and waiting in line at midnight for the release.… Expand
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. Dooey123
    Nov 10, 2011
    6
    My biggest issue with this game is that the multi player maps are awful. They are all small, close quarters maps with too many entry/exit routes and disrupted lines of sight. Looking back at the MW2 and COD4 maps they were mostly all classic maps offering a variety of gameplay where you could either keep to the indoor rooms and corridors with a shotgun or SMG or plot up on a balcony with aMy biggest issue with this game is that the multi player maps are awful. They are all small, close quarters maps with too many entry/exit routes and disrupted lines of sight. Looking back at the MW2 and COD4 maps they were mostly all classic maps offering a variety of gameplay where you could either keep to the indoor rooms and corridors with a shotgun or SMG or plot up on a balcony with a sniper rifle and a claymore, there would only be a couple maps in each game that no one liked and each one had its own character. I'll give this game a 6 because it still basically has the same gameplay mechanics that made COD4 the near perfect game that it was but it is not higher due to the fact that COD4, MW2 and BF3 do exist and we were all hoping for the stakes to be raised.… Expand
  47. Stickybandaids
    Nov 10, 2011
    6
    Sorry for the long post, but it is worth the read :) I would like to chime in my personal opinion and also what I think many people are seemingly overlooking. MW3 is lacking in a couple areas that make this game not even enjoyable for me. The problems for me are the overall pace of the multiplayer experience, the layout of the maps, and the idea that adding more non essential filler to theSorry for the long post, but it is worth the read :) I would like to chime in my personal opinion and also what I think many people are seemingly overlooking. MW3 is lacking in a couple areas that make this game not even enjoyable for me. The problems for me are the overall pace of the multiplayer experience, the layout of the maps, and the idea that adding more non essential filler to the multiplayer experience.

    Over the last couple of days I have had no good or special feeling about any one of the multiplayer maps over another one. It is shocking to me that all the maps seem to be uninteresting at best. I challenge you to go through the maps and compare them against the COD4 map set. You will be astonished, no doubt, that COD4 offers a much more distinct feeling to each map. Each one feels fun and the combat flows differently in each map. I made sure this was not just a feeling of nostalgia by going back and reviewing each map and even playing COD4. MW3 maps all seem to be almost forcing some sort of "meta" which some have said kills sniper or long range play. I agree for the most part, there is no epic sense of a level, they feel all the same cluttered mess of non interesting set pieces. Ever since COD4 (which I still believe was the top of the franchise to date) map levels and layouts have gone downhill.

    The pace of the maps (what I consider to be a result of bad spawning and map layout) is even higher than that of MW2. Yes, some may love this run and gun, turning corners, firing from the hip, and quick scoping. I don't mind this play in any sense. It is the fact that you do not have the option of diverting from this forced game play other than camping. This I feel will calm down as we get to be more familiar with maps and the spawns, yet judging and looking to the future based of the maps and my experience so far, I see it being an issue, even if a fraction of what it is currently. Think about COD4, W@W, or even MW2 to a degree. Many, even a majority, of the maps had a distinct layout to them that suggested key points, buildings, or start points. Like in paintball, or most competitive events, you know what you are going against and how to set up strategies to be successful. I feel, and this is my opinion, that every where you go, there is a corner or something blocking you forward progression, in order to force CQC. Almost every area has more than one flanking route. Add this on top of small and/or cluttered maps with crazy spawn mechanics, well you get the picture.

    Ok, this last issue is more of a rant and not a game breaker to me. Never the less I will address my opinion on it. Every COD that comes out is almost entirely focused on being "crazier" than the last. Look at the progression of kills and customization that has ensued since the game breaking COD4. It started with the set kill streaks, and guns that unlocked. Now it is at three sets of customized kill streaks going 15+ on kill streaks, with so many ways to level up etc. Many point this out as the reason for it being justified as a new experience worthy of the retail box+price. In my humble and honest opinion, I don't care about nonsense like this. I loved COD4 for the epic team battles, diverse levels, and over sense of excitement. Yes kill streaks were part of that equation, but they were not any way the meat and potatoes of it. I feel like they add and add but forgot where they came from in this endeavor. My opinion.

    All in all, this is why I feel like MW3 is a letdown to say the very least. More so, I feel it deserves a 7.5 at the best, although realistically I would give it a 6. Being, not only is it nothing new, but I feel (emphasis on my opinion) that it has brought it self down an extra notch for trying to force maps and dump endless customization as compensation for lack of innovation. I will still play it and enjoy it for what it IS. I will give it a couple weeks for it to set in, but this is the first game in the series that has cause me so much disappointment to actually post online. :) If my experience goes on like it is currently, then I will go back to a prior COD game, hence the 6.

    My credentials as a gamer: Played since pre-Nintendo. FPS shooters include but not limited to Golden Eye, All COD series owned and played. Played BF since 1942, Had epic COD 2 and 3 and Halo LAN Matches at my house. Love CS, team fortress, DoD, and many other HL mods. Played Planet Side since launch. Original Op Flashpoint and AA. Plus more :) Thanks for the read, feel free to hate on me or comment :) Plus I am married and have a Financial bachelors degree from Indiana University.    … Expand
  48. Freik
    Nov 10, 2011
    6
    I was honestly looking forward to this game, me and my friends even had a release party where we spent all night and the better part of Tuesday morning playing Modern Warfare 3. First thing I did was complete the campaign. I think I liked this third installment actually better than the first two, it seemed to make the most sense and seemed the most reasonable out of each part of theI was honestly looking forward to this game, me and my friends even had a release party where we spent all night and the better part of Tuesday morning playing Modern Warfare 3. First thing I did was complete the campaign. I think I liked this third installment actually better than the first two, it seemed to make the most sense and seemed the most reasonable out of each part of the trilogy. After that I moved on to multiplayer, where most of my disappointments where found. Graphically it's almost identical to MW2. Sure there's been some improvements, but there's nothing to write home about. Very disappointed that they couldn't upgrade the graphics engine more. Game play mechanics also feel very much the same as MW2, and while the saying "don't fix it if it ain't broke" may very well apply here, I don't think any game studio striving to have the best title in it's genre should not strive to keep pushing the envelope and continue to experiment with out-of-the-box ideas. There where only a couple new additions to the multiplayer experience that I liked, which include the new killstreak 'modes' (personally love setting it as Support). Survival mode is also a nice touch, but since just about every FPS has it nowadays it isn't that surprising.

    Overall, I don't feel like Modern Warfare 3 is a new game, just something recycled and slapped with a shiny new title. Sure, I'll play it every once in a while, but it's not a game that I'm going to be trying to rush home to play every day. It's a shame to see Infinity Ward let themselves release this game, I know they can do better.    … Expand
  49. adawg1985
    Nov 11, 2011
    6
    They milked the series for everything its worth. Time to start over from scratch. Only bought it because its slightly addictive to play with friends. But honestly its the same ole sh*t.
  50. DarthMatt
    Nov 11, 2011
    6
    Ok I don't mind that it is the same engine or that they reuse textures. It is what it is. It still looks good and runs smooth. So far I like the single player but truthfully have not gotten very far yet. My main gripe is with multiplayer. After all the hype from reviews and previews I was expecting a more balanced gameplay with the ability to use tactics. Additionally I had read in reviewsOk I don't mind that it is the same engine or that they reuse textures. It is what it is. It still looks good and runs smooth. So far I like the single player but truthfully have not gotten very far yet. My main gripe is with multiplayer. After all the hype from reviews and previews I was expecting a more balanced gameplay with the ability to use tactics. Additionally I had read in reviews that you could play as more of a support role if you weren't in the balls-to-the-wall run-n-gun mood. Boy was I disappointed! Other users are right, the maps suck! As do the rampant cheaters, spawning, balance, and speed of the game. First the cheating: how fun is it for someone to wall hack, aim bot, and lag switch EVERY time they play a game? Doesn't it get old? Do you really think you are GOOD at the game when you do it? Anyway expect to see A LOT of cheaters in multiplayer. Next the maps: They are all horrible, small choke point filled messes. Why even bother having different classes? There IS NO balance! Run n gun is the only good tactic here (if you can call it tactics). The spawn points do not help as other players can spawn right behind you in an area that you cleared. My most important gripe is the speed of the games. Come on IW! Im 43 and still love multiplayer games. Not everyone is a 13 y/o kid with a ton of free time and a .00000000001 sec response time! You are going to lose a good portion of your fan base if you keep going in this direction! Too fast! What was wrong with the pacing of the previous games (seeing how you like to reuse things from previous games)? I loved the series before, but this one has me jumping ship as far as future releases. I will rent it next time before I buy it. Dont get me wrong, I do like some new aspects of the game: confirmed kill, the new weapons, and the leveling up system to name a few. However, my gripes outweigh my positives in terms of making an enjoyable experience. Sorry, but Battlefield definitely wins this round for me! (No Im not a fan boy. I played both equally before).… Expand
  51. 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.
  52. Blackout-Guy
    Nov 11, 2011
    6
    For what is essentially Modern Warfare 2.5, this year's update to the series provides little improvement over it's previous installments. Sporting a tedious and overall average capmaign that is littered with quick-time events, cheap deaths & linear on-rails levels Modern Warfare 3 proves that sometimes taking a new sheet of paper and starting from scratch is the best option. WithFor what is essentially Modern Warfare 2.5, this year's update to the series provides little improvement over it's previous installments. Sporting a tedious and overall average capmaign that is littered with quick-time events, cheap deaths & linear on-rails levels Modern Warfare 3 proves that sometimes taking a new sheet of paper and starting from scratch is the best option. With multiplayer almost identical to it's last time around and little in the way of new features It is a tough purchase to recomend unless you're a veteran junkie to the series and can't go for 5 minutes without calling in a care package. For £45/$60, there are bigger, better & more action packed shooters out there.

    Save your money and give this one a rent, you might regret buying...    … Expand
  53. emartini
    Nov 12, 2011
    6
    In no way shape or form does this game deserve a 1. Thats crazy. This is a honest review . I will start with the campaign 1st. The campaign is right up there with the 1st modern warfare. Its great and filled with non stop action. Every second something crazy is happening. Campaign is very good. To me the campaign gets a 9 out of 10. GRAPHICS. NOW this is an area where the game does have aIn no way shape or form does this game deserve a 1. Thats crazy. This is a honest review . I will start with the campaign 1st. The campaign is right up there with the 1st modern warfare. Its great and filled with non stop action. Every second something crazy is happening. Campaign is very good. To me the campaign gets a 9 out of 10. GRAPHICS. NOW this is an area where the game does have a huge SET BACK. The Graphics in the campaign are OK but the MULTIPLAYER graphics are awful . This ENGINE is now showing its age BIG TIME and it shows. They are making BILLIONS of dollars and they dont invest in the engine. Its time to OVERHAUL IT. I dont want the excuse of well it runs60 frames per second. Well so does RAGE and look what that looks like . Graphics the game gets a 4 out of 10 cause its not passable anymore. Off to sound. SOund is something else that needs to be overhauled. Although the guns sound a little better everything ELSE from EXPLOSIONS to the same RECYCLED sound effects sound awful in this day and age. SOUND to me gets a 3 out of 10. FUn FACTOR does get a 8 out of 10 for the simple fact that the formula does work as far a multiplayer . Its addictive and fun. IF this game overhauled the sound and engine and took a huge leap forward in those departments this game would of gotten a 9.5 out of 10 but BF3 is doing too much that with this engine COD cant compete with it. OVER ALL the average is a 6 out of 10. IF they were to over haul everything its would of gotten higher but thats what holds it back.… Expand
  54. Rocknrolla420
    Nov 12, 2011
    6
    The amount of fan boys here suck. Both CoD and BF3. straight up game is the same as MW2. Just better graphics but really not too much. And a richer exp. Outside of multiplayer.
  55. 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
  56. Cicatrix1307
    Nov 13, 2011
    6
    Now, I'm an old gamer (not too old) and I like COD, but it does annoy me when it comes to the hype of many games - sometimes they do live up to it but unfortunately in the case of MW3 (in my opinion) this is not the case. I have played the game (even bought the extortionate hardened edition - for elite access, but I guess that's for another gripe later if they ever get the service up andNow, I'm an old gamer (not too old) and I like COD, but it does annoy me when it comes to the hype of many games - sometimes they do live up to it but unfortunately in the case of MW3 (in my opinion) this is not the case. I have played the game (even bought the extortionate hardened edition - for elite access, but I guess that's for another gripe later if they ever get the service up and running) and where it is a very good and compelling campaign it helps to finish the story - isn't that what we've een waiting for?

    I was looking forward to the Spec Ops side of the game - my favourite part if I'm honest and it hasn't let me down, it's challenging in places but not too much that I wanna throw the controller at the screen.

    The biggest let down is (wait for the screams of derision) - multiplayer! Go ahead, scoff!!!

    The reason I say it's a let down is that the illustrious makers have (again in my opinion) spent more time on the scenery rather than actual gameplay - too much on scenery, maybe that wouldn't be a problem if I could walk over a stone on the ground without being able to move (other than moving left or right to walk around it!).

    Let's also just take a moment to mention weapons - now I'm no expert (only in my own head) but as far as I am aware a shotgun (no matter what kind) doesn't need nor can or should it be fitted with a silencer not to mention the fact that it is not a SNIPER RIFLE and therefore CANNOT kill from great distance with one shot - hell, in accordance with COD a .50 calibre sniper rifle needs at least 3-5 shots to put a man down!

    Hey, it's not just COD that falters with the weapons but that's just the way I feel after all the hype and the wait for such a poor show of what should have been a fantastic game. Thanks if you have waited until the end to berate my opinion - guess I'm off to play some BF3.    … Expand
  57. 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.
  58. SimonEverard
    Nov 14, 2011
    6
    On the 7th November I did what many people did and queued up for my copy of Modern Warfare 3 with great expectations. A lot of excitement was in the air and once I received the game I couldn't wait to stick in my xbox and give it a go. The first thing I tried when I started the game was multiplayer. In the multiplayer physics had been improved slightly and things looked a lot moreOn the 7th November I did what many people did and queued up for my copy of Modern Warfare 3 with great expectations. A lot of excitement was in the air and once I received the game I couldn't wait to stick in my xbox and give it a go. The first thing I tried when I started the game was multiplayer. In the multiplayer physics had been improved slightly and things looked a lot more polished. Maps have also been made larger than previous titles which is a welcome change. However, after playing the multiplayer for quite a while now I find myself frustrated and disappointed by the maps. They seem to have made an effort to stop campers and snipers more on this game but with that they have made the matches very frustrating. even when you think you are in a relatively safe area, there are actually 3 or 4 angles where you can be shot from. In addition there are not really any maps that I can call my favorite on this Call of Duty. On Black Ops I had a few (Firing Range, Jungle and Summit) but these maps provide nothing special.

    On the other hand, there are some great weapons in the multiplayer and the new perks and weapons upgrades make it very easy to tailor the multiplayer to your style. The campaign has also disappointed me this time. The storyline is very predictable and the last mission just turns into button mashing for to end the story. I could rant forever about my disappointment about this game but I will summarize. There was a lot that could have been done with the game and in the end it has let me down. Despite this I cannot stop playing. Maybe its down to the £90 I spent on it...    … Expand
  59. thor0298
    Nov 14, 2011
    6
    Modern warfare 1 & 2 were some of my favorite CoD games. This one is ok. It feels very uninspired. Black ops was way better than this one. This game is a complete cash in. No updated engine or anything. uninspired maps and levels
  60. Mpatton07
    Nov 14, 2011
    6
    Multiplayer only impressions. Positives - good quantity of maps (16), noob tubing no longer an issue, shotguns now primary weapons, no ridiculously overpowered weapons (as was the case with the M16 in MW1), smooth 60fps, fewer cheap claymore deaths, interesting having to choose between the different strike packages, killstreak bonuses seem less overpowered vs MW2. Negatives - Sub-HD 600pMultiplayer only impressions. Positives - good quantity of maps (16), noob tubing no longer an issue, shotguns now primary weapons, no ridiculously overpowered weapons (as was the case with the M16 in MW1), smooth 60fps, fewer cheap claymore deaths, interesting having to choose between the different strike packages, killstreak bonuses seem less overpowered vs MW2. Negatives - Sub-HD 600p graphics look very muddy and dated, you can't move 5 feet without getting shot in the back (encourages camping in corners), often spawned extremely close to enemy, no option to set sensitivity of aiming down sight separately from look sensitivity, at £40 the Elite service should be included to compensate for the game being so similar to previous titles, silly that a sniper can beat you from 5m when you have a reflex sight and he/she has a x12 zoom scope, no dedicated servers, every map feels the same - filled with alleyways, cramped, no big open maps to mix things up.… Expand
  61. abelxc
    Nov 14, 2011
    6
    A bit disappointed by the moment. The campaign is ok but the visuals look outdated and recycled from previous COD games. The multi is more similar to Black Ops than MW2, especially the clustered maze-like maps with horrible spawns. I recommend to try it before buying.
  62. RUBBERPANTS
    Nov 14, 2011
    6
    This game is just a repacked retweaked version of modern warfare 2 it feels like I am playing the exact same game it has so much hype and so much suck's save your money for battlefield 3 now that's a real first person shooter game
  63. phillyphanatic
    Nov 14, 2011
    6
    Overall good game but the multiplayer level design is garbage. Rehashed core design of mw2 maps only they aren't fun this time around. They claimed to have fixed spawning but it is worse than ever. I'd rather having the old COD2 or COD4 maps over this crap. What happened to inventive maps like "Carnival"?
  64. EpicAcidic
    Nov 15, 2011
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Modern Warfare 3 is claimed to be the "Most anticipated game in history", as i recall from the launch trailer, yet, for some this may be true, but for others, it is not. The single player campaign has always felt engaging like the multi-player but with more control, like difficulty and pausing. The story is both a triumphant and tragic tale of where everything is lost, all to defeat a single man, and feels like a powerful conclusion to the story of Price and Co. The multi-player, however feels neither powerful, nor triumphant when victory is achieved, and the progression in multi-player feels unusually fast paced, and undermines many unlocks gained (apart from Gold camouflage of course, ha ha). The multi-player, however IS a great step-up from Modern Warfare 2's formulae of multi-player, promoting more "Gun-on-Gun action", for example. And whilst this is true, the sky seems just as saturated with point-streaks as any other CoD, making some Perk choices such as Blind Eye a must for an Anti-air class needed to prevent most targets from mowing down the team, or just your self in the the case of free-for-all. The strike packages are a great addition, but feel a bit too rewarding for some tasks, such as the support class granting an EMP after 18 point-streak, which may seem like a lot, but for the player with an overpowered class, the reward is always within reach. Overall, the multi-player feels like some changes are needed and some things simply removed. Some maps, for example, feel too small, and some feel too easy to exploit. While the multi-player is not the best, it still provides many hours of game-play, especially with friends, which, feels like the best group to play on-line with. The single player, while epic in its scenes and story, felt marginally brief for a first time play-through to simply absorb the story. The Spec-Ops, by the way is just as great as its predecessor and the survival is a neat addition, as well as the levelling system, making progress more worth the time.

    Overall, as a package, MW3 delivers to most, but not all. The Campaign is for a great story of a roller-coaster ride, Spec-ops for the dynamic duos of buddies who enjoy working together (or alone if desired) and the multi player is, as usual, the instant jump-in action station people hunger for.    … Expand
  65. p-dizzle
    Nov 15, 2011
    6
    only just above average as i loved single player and spec ops were brilliant as for online what a load of poop i thought everyone was camping because the maps were new oh how i was wrong, reminds me of a **** mw2 but a better black ops
  66. Madeyepadeye
    Nov 16, 2011
    6
    For a game that most people know and love, you will still love this game. If you had fun with the mulitplayer in past cod games you will sure enjoy this; yes the maps are uninspiring and rather small in scale but the action is as fast paced as normal. But For me that is where it stops, it just feels far to much like the same old same, an before people say well what did you expect, IFor a game that most people know and love, you will still love this game. If you had fun with the mulitplayer in past cod games you will sure enjoy this; yes the maps are uninspiring and rather small in scale but the action is as fast paced as normal. But For me that is where it stops, it just feels far to much like the same old same, an before people say well what did you expect, I excepted more; I just excepted it to be worth the 45 pound that people parted with, i'm glad I rented this game because in the end of the day it is a 4 year old game. On the campaign The story is very predictable and the explosions that happen every 5mins are far to over the top and just don't look very good on a engine that is far to dated. The spec ops is far the best part of the game in my eyes.… Expand
  67. 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
  68. 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
  69. mxnbl
    Nov 17, 2011
    6
    This game is just another addition to the COD series. Nothing innovating, just create a sequel and sell it because of the brand. The franchise needs innovation to stay alive and this game does not do it justice. Everything that is claimed to be "new" is just a rip off of other great games that not everyone knows of. The problems with the past games are still in this game. There is noThis game is just another addition to the COD series. Nothing innovating, just create a sequel and sell it because of the brand. The franchise needs innovation to stay alive and this game does not do it justice. Everything that is claimed to be "new" is just a rip off of other great games that not everyone knows of. The problems with the past games are still in this game. There is no innovation, just the same old stuff.… Expand
  70. EliteOrion
    Nov 19, 2011
    6
    Another year another call of duty. Modern Warfare 3 is a game that will be familiar with most gamers because much hasn't changed or been improved upon since the last one in the series. The one thing that has been improved upon is a couple of elements of multiplayer such as strike packages and the prestige shop. Strike packages allow players who are more/less skilled to hone theAnother year another call of duty. Modern Warfare 3 is a game that will be familiar with most gamers because much hasn't changed or been improved upon since the last one in the series. The one thing that has been improved upon is a couple of elements of multiplayer such as strike packages and the prestige shop. Strike packages allow players who are more/less skilled to hone the killstreaks they receive to how they play, and it is a welcome addition to Call of Duty as is the prestige shop. No longer will you prestige and only receive a emblem, title, and an extra create a class slot. Now you can choose what you want whether that be double xp, early weapon unlocks, and resetting your stats if you reach 10th prestige. These are changes that help the game, unfortunately much hasn't changed from the last Modern Warfare or Call of Duty for that matter and many problems still persist such as lag, hit detection that's off, odd grenade bounces, and maps that are forgettable. If you've bought a Call of Duty in the last four years this will feel no different but it does conclude the story and there will be more people to play with.… Expand
  71. 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
  72. 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
  73. 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
  74. 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
  75. gonrambo
    Nov 20, 2011
    6
    Let me start off by saying that since cod4 I have been playing every call of duty title. Cod4 was an amazing and realistic shooter game. But the modern warfare series has steadily grown stagnant. I for one am sick of playing these games online because they reward people for not moving at all (camping). At least Black Ops got their killstreaks right. And another thing that bugs me: for allLet me start off by saying that since cod4 I have been playing every call of duty title. Cod4 was an amazing and realistic shooter game. But the modern warfare series has steadily grown stagnant. I for one am sick of playing these games online because they reward people for not moving at all (camping). At least Black Ops got their killstreaks right. And another thing that bugs me: for all of the money that infinity ward rakes in on these games, they still have not implemented dedicated servers. It is darn near impossible to take an enemy out when you have three bars. Don't get me wrong. This game still gets some things right. For instance, the control scheme is still as good as ever and I rarely realize I have a controller in my hands. The online leveling system is really addictive, although I would have liked a currency and contract system a lot more than the standard "wait til you unlock it" of previous mw games.While the campaign is at times thrilling, I believe IW could have done better in the enemy spawn system they have implemented in the game than have enemies come flooding in to the map every time you turn the corner.Why couldn't the enemies just be there waiting for you?( in some instances). Finally, I wish that IW would listen to their fans more instead of resting on their past success. We the consumer do know a thing or two about what we would like in future games.… Expand
  76. 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
  77. thegreatwall72
    Dec 2, 2011
    6
    The game so far has been quite fun. Definitely what MW2 should've been. Still rage inducing at times, especially with stupid and unnecessary noob tools, like the Heartbeat Sensor, and deathstreaks, such as Final Stand and Dead Man's Hand. Btw, Bowling if you're reading this, you are such a troll (e.g. the "ecstatic" announcement of Last Stand being removed, then leaving Final Stand in).The game so far has been quite fun. Definitely what MW2 should've been. Still rage inducing at times, especially with stupid and unnecessary noob tools, like the Heartbeat Sensor, and deathstreaks, such as Final Stand and Dead Man's Hand. Btw, Bowling if you're reading this, you are such a troll (e.g. the "ecstatic" announcement of Last Stand being removed, then leaving Final Stand in). There are still weapon imbalances, but at least the support for the game by the devs is much better compared to MW2, though that's not saying much considering the debacle that occurred during MW2's post release. Speaking of support, the support strike package is absolutely devastating in the hands of good players. Killstreaks are pretty much nullified in this game due to map design, great team players with Stingers, and the ability to scroll through your killstreaks so you'll save that EMP for when you really need it.

    Aesthetically, the game is pretty much a copy+paste. If, by any chance, this is your first time playing CoD since MW1, you won't get lost. At all. If you jump from MW2 to MW3, the only difference you'll notice is that the backdrop of the menus is a darker shade of grey. Graphically, there is little to no difference, which is inevitable since they're still using the same engine since MW1.

    The campaign was rather forgettable. Then again, it was pretty hard to top the MW1 campaign, but more action-packed set pieces after action packed set pieces kind of nullifies the player to such spectacles since the saying "you've seen them once, you've seen them all" applies here. Only exemption is the collapsing of the Eiffel Tower, nothing against the French. Spec Ops is pretty fun, as the missions offer a different take on the scenarios players experienced in the campaign. Survival's leveling up system is a welcome addition, as it gives players incentive to play on as the unlocks really help to survive the later stages. Overall, is the game deserving of the hate? That's arguable, as I'm sure considerable efforts could've been made to really move the game forward. The budget shouldn't be a concern, for obvious reasons. It's really a love it, hate it kind of deal, but more incorporation of community feedback would be welcome. After all, consumers purchase their games, and they're the ones to please. Complaining about metacritic scores is one thing, failing to act upon constructive criticism is another. While the latter is evident, it is still sufficiently lacking.    … Expand
  78. pachowski
    Nov 21, 2011
    6
    this game is a disappointment, we all know is more of the same but sometimes this is a good thing if you can refresh the formula. the story its ok and the multiplayer is what i dislike. 90% of the Cod player buy this game for the multiplayer, my friends call themselves hardcore player but when you ask them about the main story they are like ????? i think paying 50$-60$ for somethis game is a disappointment, we all know is more of the same but sometimes this is a good thing if you can refresh the formula. the story its ok and the multiplayer is what i dislike. 90% of the Cod player buy this game for the multiplayer, my friends call themselves hardcore player but when you ask them about the main story they are like ????? i think paying 50$-60$ for some maps-perk-guns is ridiculous. i would rather pay 30$ for an ultimate DLC with all the new multiplayer things… Expand
  79. niner4life8
    Nov 20, 2011
    6
    Great multiplayer game when it isn't being hacked. The graphics are nothing new but good nonetheless. I do dislike how there is respawning enemies in single player. You have to run through the campaign or else the enemies just keep coming and coming. The Special Ops mode is fun but can be to hard on Veteran. Overall it is not as good as Black Ops but it is a way to have some fun and wasteGreat multiplayer game when it isn't being hacked. The graphics are nothing new but good nonetheless. I do dislike how there is respawning enemies in single player. You have to run through the campaign or else the enemies just keep coming and coming. The Special Ops mode is fun but can be to hard on Veteran. Overall it is not as good as Black Ops but it is a way to have some fun and waste some time with friends.… Expand
  80. 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
  81. Bizuk
    Nov 21, 2011
    6
    There's not really a whole lot to say - MW3 is truly showing its age at this point. The single-player campaign was decent, albeit more of the exact same thing we've had in the previous two MW titles. The multiplayer is where I, personally, was really let down, the whole thing feels more like an expansion pack to MW2 than a game in its own right. How this is able to get such high criticThere's not really a whole lot to say - MW3 is truly showing its age at this point. The single-player campaign was decent, albeit more of the exact same thing we've had in the previous two MW titles. The multiplayer is where I, personally, was really let down, the whole thing feels more like an expansion pack to MW2 than a game in its own right. How this is able to get such high critic reviews is beyond me - but at the same time MW3 isn't riddled with bugs and is definetly playable, so there won't be a zero rating from me.… Expand
  82. bibble9000
    Nov 21, 2011
    6
    Modern Warfare 3 isn't a bad game. It just isn't a good one either. The campaign feels a little forced, while the multiplayer is just a rehash of the past few call of duty games. The violence in modern warfare 3 is a little over the top and is unnecessary in some parts. The story also really doesn't come to a satisfying conclusion. The multiplayer is still plagued with the same problems asModern Warfare 3 isn't a bad game. It just isn't a good one either. The campaign feels a little forced, while the multiplayer is just a rehash of the past few call of duty games. The violence in modern warfare 3 is a little over the top and is unnecessary in some parts. The story also really doesn't come to a satisfying conclusion. The multiplayer is still plagued with the same problems as black ops and modern warfare 2. It doesn't do anything new and really feels like an expansion to black ops than a stand alone title. But it is from activision who is known for skipping innovation and new ideas to push out a damn near exact copy just to turn a profit.… Expand
  83. brykam51
    Nov 21, 2011
    6
    If you enjoyed MW2 then you are definetly going to enjoy MW3, due in large because its the same exact game. I found nothing new in the single player campaign, but there seems to be a few more options for multiplayer. Having said that, I still enjoy playing the game and think that its a definite buy.
  84. NazTfox
    Nov 21, 2011
    6
    The single player is another blockbuster masterpiece. I enjoyed every minute. The multiplayer is the same old cake we have been eating for a while now, it just has some new frosting. I am content with my purchase of this game since I never outplayed the other two. You may want to rent this game instead of buying it if you have already had your fill of modern warfare. CoD Elite has alsoThe single player is another blockbuster masterpiece. I enjoyed every minute. The multiplayer is the same old cake we have been eating for a while now, it just has some new frosting. I am content with my purchase of this game since I never outplayed the other two. You may want to rent this game instead of buying it if you have already had your fill of modern warfare. CoD Elite has also flopped on release as well. It is completely broken at the moment. Supposedly there is a fix on Dec 1st. But we will see what happens.… Expand
  85. Jaeger74
    Nov 22, 2011
    6
    To say that MW3 is more of the same is correct to an extent, the main thing is that it goes both ways. Why fix what isn't broken and conversely why are the same mistakes being made? MW3 is an easy to pick up game that encourages fast game play and gives a positive reinforcement to continue playing with the way the leveling system works. However the idea of rewarding players who get killsTo say that MW3 is more of the same is correct to an extent, the main thing is that it goes both ways. Why fix what isn't broken and conversely why are the same mistakes being made? MW3 is an easy to pick up game that encourages fast game play and gives a positive reinforcement to continue playing with the way the leveling system works. However the idea of rewarding players who get kills is ludicrous outside of adding points to the score board. IW and Sledgehammer openly admitted that their reward system was designed around the high kills low death players for previous games, so why is that system still implemented into the game? Even if someone is running a Support package the other team is spammed Stealth Bombers and EMPs giving negative reinforcement to even bother continuing the game. Initially I liked the idea of the new game modes Kill Confirmed and Team Defender but I quickly noticed that Kill Confirmed still has too many campers and Team Defender seems to suffer from people spamming the Riot Shield Juggernaut making getting the flag near impossible. How is it that the original issues still exist and new ones are made? It's become obvious that the CoD series is nothing more than a cash grab to Activision, no real advancements were made and only one or two things were added to the overall experience. But it's not enough to keep the series alive for any longer. Hopefully the creators of Black Ops (Treyarch) can take what they did with Black Ops (simply adding total player customization) and add to the CoD series instead of rehashing the same thing, because it's clear IW and Sledgehammer have no clue where to take Call of Duty.… Expand
  86. 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
  87. Trickyeddy9
    Nov 23, 2011
    6
    Well its what you except the graphics are the same the mulitiplayer is way better than modern warfare 2 its probably the best cod mulitiplayer! And the campaign was dumb and super short as usual but what ever spec ops is boring again except survival mode that's pretty fun but doesn't come close to black ops zombies or world at war zombies. buts pretty much modern warfare 2.5 with someWell its what you except the graphics are the same the mulitiplayer is way better than modern warfare 2 its probably the best cod mulitiplayer! And the campaign was dumb and super short as usual but what ever spec ops is boring again except survival mode that's pretty fun but doesn't come close to black ops zombies or world at war zombies. buts pretty much modern warfare 2.5 with some patches so its not worth a buy unless your a die hard fan. but i got it any way! because its a new cod! lol… Expand
  88. ChrisStone
    Nov 23, 2011
    6
    Disappointing sums MW3 up nicely. The trailers made it look like it was shaping up to be one of 2011's best games. Instead we got MW2 with a couple of add-ons. Multiplayer, is well MW2, it's the exact same, plays the same, looks the same but it does have some different kill streaks which is a positive. I gave MW3 a 6 purely for the story, it was compelling and it was just a really good story.
  89. Next_metal_god
    Nov 24, 2011
    6
    I bought Modern Warfare 3 because I felt like an online shooter and it seemed like my best bet. I didn't like Bad Company 2 so Battlefield 3 was out of the question, and nothing else really appealed... I'm not really a Halo fan but I played Reach until I got bored, which was fairly quickly. And personally I thought Gears 3 was less than amazing, But I have had some fun on Call Of DutyI bought Modern Warfare 3 because I felt like an online shooter and it seemed like my best bet. I didn't like Bad Company 2 so Battlefield 3 was out of the question, and nothing else really appealed... I'm not really a Halo fan but I played Reach until I got bored, which was fairly quickly. And personally I thought Gears 3 was less than amazing, But I have had some fun on Call Of Duty games, for all the inevitable frustration that goes with them. I'll admit, my favourite was World At War, but I played COD 4 enough and spent some time on Modern Warfare 2 before I got distracted by something else and never came back. I will say I wasn't really interested in the campaign. Despite completing COD 4 and MW2 I can't really remember much at all and I'm not a big fan of this kind of on rails campaign anyway. I doubt I'll ever complete this one with Skyrim and even Saints Row: The Third still to be played. The new Spec Ops modes are entertaining enough, though. At least it wasn't zombies again, right? And even if you liked the zombies, at least they're not charging you money for the same old zombies mode (at least for now,) right? Anyway, multiplayer is exactly what I expected; Modern Warfare 2, more or less. As a casual COD player I can't really tell the difference. And by reading this, I'm guessing you kind of fit into the same crowd. Don't get me wrong, it plays well enough and it's still worth some fun but it's nothing new and it still has the same set of problems, especially with not using dedicated servers... I know people have ranted about that fact since it was released, but it is annoying. The weapons roster consists of exactly the guns you could have guessed... AK, M16, etc. They're 'customised' in the same ways. But as mediocre an offering as Black Ops was, at least it had a crossbow and a **** axe to mix things up a bit. The maps aren't great either. They mostly look cool but they're not a lot of fun. I can understand the phrase 'if it ain't broke don't fix it,' but I would have used something more along the lines of 'not bad, not perfect' to describe the last few games, and that's definitely true this time around as well. I'll give it a 6, because while it's still good enough to exceed mediocrity, it's nothing amazing or even new. I'll still play it until I get bored, but sadly I can already feel it'll be collecting dust on a shelf in my local CeX soon enough.… Expand
  90. oRazielo
    Nov 24, 2011
    6
    First of all i think all of the people that gave this a 0 you should be ashamed of yourselves, you are esentially saying this game is worse then Rogue Warrior i dont think so!!!!..... Ok the issues people seam to have with this game including myself is the fact it feels the same as COD 4 onwards but to be honest that is as much the consumers fault as the developers, we demand the nextFirst of all i think all of the people that gave this a 0 you should be ashamed of yourselves, you are esentially saying this game is worse then Rogue Warrior i dont think so!!!!..... Ok the issues people seam to have with this game including myself is the fact it feels the same as COD 4 onwards but to be honest that is as much the consumers fault as the developers, we demand the next instalment and we expect this to be delivered within 12 months of the last game. this does not leave much scope for any improvements to the engine or games mechanics, The game works and the story is good which is enough for a 6 in my opinion i was never a fan of the multiplayer but i have started to give it a try, will see how that goes... Final thaughts if you loved the other COD games you will enjoy this, but if you after a game that feels fresh and new look elsewere as its more of the same...… Expand
  91. IKEDIE
    Nov 25, 2011
    6
    Coming fresh off Black Ops, I hated this game at first. Mainly because of the less damage it takes to kill an opponent and thus be killed. But now as the maps become more familiar the game is more fun. Great graphics, but theres really nothing better about this game than MW2, its basically a $65 map pack. This game gets a 6 because activision seems to be putting forth a lot of effortComing fresh off Black Ops, I hated this game at first. Mainly because of the less damage it takes to kill an opponent and thus be killed. But now as the maps become more familiar the game is more fun. Great graphics, but theres really nothing better about this game than MW2, its basically a $65 map pack. This game gets a 6 because activision seems to be putting forth a lot of effort eliminating hackers, modders and all the other serious problems with the other modern warfares.… Expand
  92. Booseyw
    Nov 25, 2011
    6
    As an avid player of Call of Duty titles for the past 6 or so years I have to say I'm quite disappointed with Modern Warfare 3. The single player Campaign is not why I bought Modern Warfare 3, but I did enjoy the plot for the modern warfare series (especially the first one), but I can't really say I feel the same about this game's campaign. The plot was weak at best, bouncing aroundAs an avid player of Call of Duty titles for the past 6 or so years I have to say I'm quite disappointed with Modern Warfare 3. The single player Campaign is not why I bought Modern Warfare 3, but I did enjoy the plot for the modern warfare series (especially the first one), but I can't really say I feel the same about this game's campaign. The plot was weak at best, bouncing around from location to location fighting off Makarov's shinnanigans with different teams of undeveloped characters who for some reason all seem to know each other closely with very little explanation of how (particularly Sandman and Price).

    Spec-ops is basically horde-mode from Gears of War, was fun for about 30-40 minutes and then I got bored, I'm sure there are people out there that will enjoy it, but it's not really my thing and I didn't feel that it had too much in the way of extended entertainment value.

    Now to the real core of Call of Duty; the multiplayer. They essentially threw out the majority of the positive changes black ops had implemented, made a rehashed version of their player statistics into call of duty elite which you can't even check in game between matches. They brought back quick scoping (which is basically nothing more than abusing aim assist), location lock Javelin missiles which have more power than a predator missile and can reach more than half way across the map. The maps themselves are filled with tight corners and I swear the flanking routes to the flanking routes have flanking routes...combine that with what can be questionable spawning locations and claymores/bouncing bettys which only work maybe 30% of the time you can expect to be shot in the back a lot. New strike packages are pretty cool, Assault is pretty much the same as ever, I think Specialist is awesome, and then there's support which for reasons unknown holds the stealth bomber killstreak. Aside from maybe the sentry gun, which I can accept as more of a defensive oriented killstreak a strike package that doesn't reset on death should not have offensive based killstreaks like a stealth bomber which I usually see about 5 times a match if not more. Advanced UAV, Stealth Bomber and EMP were some of the most valuable killstreaks attainable in previous games, now they're tossed around like loose change, even if your actively seeking out and killing the players on the other team who are getting kills you can do nothing to deny them these streaks which can be relatively frustrating. My final gripe with this game isn't a balance issue but the matchmaking and hosting in general, the lag and poor connectivity in games is horrendous, 3/4 games will have lag issues, 1/4 will just die and send you back to the lobby, I've never had these issues playing any of the previous Call of Duty titles (should probably note I play on xbox360).

    In summary I wouldn't write this game off completely, it has a lot of potential, and it still has the solid mechanics of any modern warfare game, but they've definitely taken a few steps backwards, and if you're a player used to a high K/D ratio be prepared to get really frustrated as maintaining much above a 2-1 k/d is a lot more difficult than previous games.    … Expand
  93. 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
  94. 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
  95. Evanrocks66
    Nov 30, 2011
    6
    Call of Duty my favorite franchise. I was disappointed with this game. I expected more than I got. I would never ever ever give this game a 0 or a 1 its call of duty. I didn't like black ops and I would say this game is way better. ITS STILL CALL OF DUTY I am sure people love call of duty, and think about it this game is not like some dora or spongebob game made in a year or less this isCall of Duty my favorite franchise. I was disappointed with this game. I expected more than I got. I would never ever ever give this game a 0 or a 1 its call of duty. I didn't like black ops and I would say this game is way better. ITS STILL CALL OF DUTY I am sure people love call of duty, and think about it this game is not like some dora or spongebob game made in a year or less this is call of duty and for you haters that put a 0 or 1 or even negative are a disgrace! Sure it wasn't what you expected. But the game had a decent multiplayer and campaign! You acted like it was 2d and the graphics were like a free computer game. No this game had great graphics and yeah great graphics like Mw2. But back to the point it was not a 9 or a 10 or a 8 unless of course u just picked it up and never played any other cod you would give it a 10. Back to the point the maps was the most I was disappointed in! *THIS GAME DIDNT FEEL RIGHT TO ME!! I thought it was a alright game and I have played all COD and am a pro at gaming in COD. I UNDERSTAND PEOPLES PAIN!! But don't say goodbye to the franchise and don't talk smack about the game. It was disappointing and leave it at that. AND NO OTHER FRANCHISE CAN BE BETTER THAN COD!!… Expand
  96. 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
  97. he4then
    Dec 3, 2011
    6
    how is this game rated so low?
    its a great game. personally i hated blops
    the net code was **** the lag was terrible the maps were garbage what i dont understand is HOW ON EARTH did you not expect this to be MW 2.5 did no one watch the video trailers did no one read the blogs they stated over and over they were using the exact same engine what was it you were all expecting . . . i knew    how is this game rated so low?
    its a great game. personally i hated blops
    the net code was **** the lag was terrible
    the maps were garbage

    what i dont understand is HOW ON EARTH
    did you not expect this to be MW 2.5
    did no one watch the video trailers
    did no one read the blogs
    they stated over and over they were using the exact same engine
    what was it you were all expecting . . . i knew what i was buying and i didnt mind spending the money
    i got an expansion pack for mw2 that contained a bunch of new maps
    [just like mw2 - some **** - some great]
    a lot of re-balancing and tweaking
    and few new gadgets and streaks

    im not disappointed or let down from the game
    but thats because im a realist who actually looked in to it
    i didn't just think to myself "ohh new call of duty!"
    this game is the Michael bay of FPS war shooters
    and i hate that douche, the campaign means nothing to me
    spec ops is fun for one run through them but its all about the MP and on that front they made ALOT of improvements
    if this was the first CoD it'd be a 9/10
    but IW gets only a 6/10 for the minimal work done    … Expand
  98. Tnolfi1
    Dec 3, 2011
    6
    This is an honest review of the game. While the campaign is fun it is only five hours long with little replay value. Multiplayer is fun for a few hours but then it becomes super repetitive and frustrating. The series was once fun but it honestly an average experience now. I can't really even justify a score above a 7. But don't pay attention to all the 0s. This game is certaintyThis is an honest review of the game. While the campaign is fun it is only five hours long with little replay value. Multiplayer is fun for a few hours but then it becomes super repetitive and frustrating. The series was once fun but it honestly an average experience now. I can't really even justify a score above a 7. But don't pay attention to all the 0s. This game is certainty above a zero, but not close to amazing.… Expand
  99. 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
  100. 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
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 »