Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 Review

Slycne

Tank Ninja
Feb 19, 2006
3,422
0
0
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 Review

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is much like its predecessors: a bombastic but brief single player campaign coupled with laser-focused multiplayer.

Read Full Article
 

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
Tiscolfo said:
Crap storm coming :\
Pretty much. Doesn't matter how good the game actually might be, tons of people who haven't played it will come in and say it's the worst game ever made.

OT: Since I'm not interested in multi-player, I'll probably pick this up after a price drop. Having just finished Modern Warfare 2 a few days ago (I have a massive backlog of games to work through) I gotta say I'm interested to see how it ends and I love the way Modern Warfare does the single player because, love it or hate it, it is pretty much like a big old action movie.
 

SonicKoala

The Night Zombie
Sep 8, 2009
2,266
0
0
I expected as much - I'm a little put-off by the '4.5 star' ranking, though. That seems a tad generous given the fact that this seems like little more than a rehash of the previous two MW titles.
 

Jegsimmons

New member
Nov 14, 2010
1,748
0
0
the images and gameplayed he showed really contrasted from what he said, it honestly looked lackluster and didnt seem like much was new, just sort of re-skinned.
 

Dirty Apple

New member
Apr 24, 2008
819
0
0
No one's gonna be happy about the reviews. The screaming hardcores will start throwing around GOTY and BEST EVAH! While the head-shaking haters are gonna claim uninspired drivel.

I have no plan on buying the game any time soon. Not as a commentary on its perceived quality or lack thereof, but rather because paying $60 for a game at this point in my life can't be rationalized.
 

Sassafrass

This is a placeholder
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
51,250
1
3
Country
United Kingdom
And so it begins. *Sets up a chair*
This should be a gooooooooooooood spectacle.

OT: Good review, although I only read the written review. I don't watch the video reviews. I'm a stickler for written reviews.
 

Giest4life

The Saucepan Man
Feb 13, 2010
1,554
0
0
The review felt forced--as if the reviewer was forced to be diplomatic by the editor. "The game has enough new features to seem fresh" as opposed to, let's say "staying fresh"? Maybe I'm reading too much into it, I don't know. Was an uncomfortable review to watch.
 

maddawg IAJI

I prefer the term "Zomguard"
Feb 12, 2009
7,840
0
0
The 5 hour estimated single player time is generous on its own. I beat the game on Veteran in a little over 7 hours on my first go through the game and I honestly was rather upset at how weak the entire game was. I always enjoyed the Call of Duty series single player for its difficult Veteran mode, but the last couple games have become far too easy in my opinion.
 

SL33TBL1ND

New member
Nov 9, 2008
6,467
0
0
The 4.5 you gave is undermined by your caveat of "if you're not fatigued by the series". A 4.5 should be something that anyone who likes shooters should probably buy. The text itself though, is fine.
 

cainx10a

New member
May 17, 2008
2,191
0
0
maddawg IAJI said:
The 5 hour estimated single player time is generous on its own. I beat the game on Veteran in a little over 7 hours on my first go through the game and I honestly was rather upset at how weak the entire game was. I always enjoyed the Call of Duty series single player for its difficult Veteran mode, but the last couple games have become far too easy in my opinion.
Or maybe you got better ;) I know I died a lot on the normal difficulty > . >

Personally, I enjoyed the single player and felt annoyed that many reviewers just ignore this portion of the game to spend the entire review talking about how the multiplayer is the same or how the graphics are not pushing your PC to limit or even failing to run smoothly which is damn important in a multiplayer for people less fortunate to have a killer rig. So yes, I love IW and MW3 for using an 'older' engine, but damn, the game is pretty, from the submarine hunting mission to the sandstorm one, I didn't turn my eyes away from the screen a single moment.

I love BF, but BF3 is just not in my alley thanks to the QTE-heavy single player. But then again, CoD does suffer from a similar problem with way too many cutscenes that take control away from the player or turret sections which i despise though the ones in MW3 were definitely fun as hell like controlling the ground drone to unleash a hail on bullets on Makarov's bros.

Don't even get me started with how I hate Zombies and always wanted a survival mode that feels closer to MW than a Zombie game. Hurray for a real Survival mode!
 

Alexnader

$20 For Steve
May 18, 2009
526
0
0
cainx10a said:
I love BF, but BF3 is just not in my alley thanks to the QTE-heavy single player.
Wait... so if the singleplayer letting you down is why you dislike BF3 then what BF games did you actually like? Because while BC/BC2 were alright (I stress alright), almost every other BF game didn't have a single player campaign at all.
----------
Anyways, fairly standard review. Conforms with what I expected and all that and at least Justin didn't do the whole thing pretending to be Soap or Price or something :p

One thing though, it took more than a week to get the Battlefield 3 review out but very little time to do this one. Furthermore both were reviewed by Justin Clouse so it's not like there'd be too many methodological reasons for the time gap.

So either
1) MW3 has very little new content to be explored for the review relative to BF3
2) The Escapist put more of its resources (i.e. Justin Clouse man-hours) into getting out the review for the big popular FPS title as opposed to its underdog competitor.
3) I'm reading too much into this.

Edit* Also there's more people whining about the "incoming shit storm" than there have been people flaming. <3 internet.
 

samsonguy920

New member
Mar 24, 2009
2,921
0
0
I've never played Modern Warfare, but that Kill Confirmed game sounds fun. I have to say, if there was so much a push for multiplayer from most of the game's players, there probably would be more effort put into the single-player. Activision is betting that not making the extra effort is worth it.
Sucks to be in the minority.
 

maddawg IAJI

I prefer the term "Zomguard"
Feb 12, 2009
7,840
0
0
cainx10a said:
maddawg IAJI said:
The 5 hour estimated single player time is generous on its own. I beat the game on Veteran in a little over 7 hours on my first go through the game and I honestly was rather upset at how weak the entire game was. I always enjoyed the Call of Duty series single player for its difficult Veteran mode, but the last couple games have become far too easy in my opinion.
Or maybe you got better ;) I know I died a lot on the normal difficulty > . >
No, trust me, I still died plenty, but I've rarely been able to beat one of the CoD games on Veteran as quickly as this. Even Black Ops took me around a week to beat. I remember having to take a few months hiatus from my Cod 3 Veteran run, simply because it got the better of me. I still remember when I finally did beat that game, I felt so fucking happy and accomplished.

Besides, even if I did get better, I still shouldn't be capable of beating the game that quickly on my first play through, on the hardest difficulty. I didn't feel like I did something challenging when it was all done, I just looked at the clock on my xbox and literally said, 'I still got 6 hours until Skyrim comes out'
 

thethird0611

New member
Feb 19, 2011
411
0
0
Ive gotta say the review was well written, but my opinions just dont match up. (To put it out there, im a fan of IW's MW and MW2.)

I honestly believe the Single Player was extremly anti-climatic. A few firefights I liked, but it seemed to be 'Checkpoint... infinite spawn enemies... Checkpoint..." It also seemed like they took every awesome mission from 1 and 2 and tried to reform their new game around it. No creativity really. And the end... oh gosh, im still not happy about the last mission. Horrible ending to a great story. The one good thing I have to say about the story was that it was written well... just alot of fluff in it, and not delivered well.

The multiplayer now... erm... Ill make it short. Horrible spawns, no real tactics, no real sniping, alot of unorganized chaos, always feels cramped, custom classes are chaos, and it inherited the 'get killed around walls' problem from black ops.. Pro's - Pretty good looking maps, love the new game types... erm.. cant think of anymore ATM, but there are some.

So... Yeah... I feel like it was a bad end to the MW series, though it tried to bring some innovation.
 

cainx10a

New member
May 17, 2008
2,191
0
0
Alexnader said:
cainx10a said:
I love BF, but BF3 is just not in my alley thanks to the QTE-heavy single player.
Wait... so if the singleplayer letting you down is why you dislike BF3 then what BF games did you actually like? Because while BC/BC2 were alright (I stress alright), almost every other BF game didn't have a single player campaign at all.
Let's see, I played all BF games in multiplayer for quite some time except the console ones like Modern Combat and loved them all. But single player is an important component of the entire package for me now since I don't play online that much. That's why I chose MW3 over BF3, because of extended single player components like Spec Ops. And they never released that co-op part of BF:BC2 for PC too, which was a bit of a disappointment for me, onslaught I believe it was called.

maddawg IAJI said:
cainx10a said:
maddawg IAJI said:
The 5 hour estimated single player time is generous on its own. I beat the game on Veteran in a little over 7 hours on my first go through the game and I honestly was rather upset at how weak the entire game was. I always enjoyed the Call of Duty series single player for its difficult Veteran mode, but the last couple games have become far too easy in my opinion.
Or maybe you got better ;) I know I died a lot on the normal difficulty > . >
No, trust me, I still died plenty, but I've rarely been able to beat one of the CoD games on Veteran as quickly as this. Even Black Ops took me around a week to beat. I remember having to take a few months hiatus from my Cod 3 Veteran run, simply because it got the better of me. I still remember when I finally did beat that game, I felt so fucking happy and accomplished.

Besides, even if I did get better, I still shouldn't be capable of beating the game that quickly on my first play through, on the hardest difficulty. I didn't feel like I did something challenging when it was all done, I just looked at the clock on my xbox and literally said, 'I still got 6 hours until Skyrim comes out'
I see. Oh well, enjoy Skyrim and kill a few of the cat people for me. Damn Khajits.
 

maddawg IAJI

I prefer the term "Zomguard"
Feb 12, 2009
7,840
0
0
cainx10a said:
Alexnader said:
cainx10a said:
I love BF, but BF3 is just not in my alley thanks to the QTE-heavy single player.
Wait... so if the singleplayer letting you down is why you dislike BF3 then what BF games did you actually like? Because while BC/BC2 were alright (I stress alright), almost every other BF game didn't have a single player campaign at all.
Let's see, I played all BF games in multiplayer for quite some time except the console ones like Modern Combat and loved them all. But single player is an important component of the entire package for me now since I don't play online that much. That's why I chose MW3 over BF3, because of extended single player components like Spec Ops. And they never released that co-op part of BF:BC2 for PC too, which was a bit of a disappointment for me, onslaught I believe it was called.

maddawg IAJI said:
cainx10a said:
maddawg IAJI said:
The 5 hour estimated single player time is generous on its own. I beat the game on Veteran in a little over 7 hours on my first go through the game and I honestly was rather upset at how weak the entire game was. I always enjoyed the Call of Duty series single player for its difficult Veteran mode, but the last couple games have become far too easy in my opinion.
Or maybe you got better ;) I know I died a lot on the normal difficulty > . >
No, trust me, I still died plenty, but I've rarely been able to beat one of the CoD games on Veteran as quickly as this. Even Black Ops took me around a week to beat. I remember having to take a few months hiatus from my Cod 3 Veteran run, simply because it got the better of me. I still remember when I finally did beat that game, I felt so fucking happy and accomplished.

Besides, even if I did get better, I still shouldn't be capable of beating the game that quickly on my first play through, on the hardest difficulty. I didn't feel like I did something challenging when it was all done, I just looked at the clock on my xbox and literally said, 'I still got 6 hours until Skyrim comes out'
I see. Oh well, enjoy Skyrim and kill a few of the cat people for me. Damn Khajits.
I would, but I've only seen one so far and he tried to assassinate me :<
 

Bishop99999999

New member
Dec 6, 2007
182
0
0
I have to say, after being an snobby jackass with nothing but Minecraft and Dark Souls and indie games for months, it felt great to sit back and enjoy some spectacle for a change. I think it's safe to say that MW3's single player trounces BF3's, for what that's worth, and the survival and spec ops missions add a lot of life to it.

And multiplayer? Well, I think the truth is that BF3 and MW3 are different enough in philosophy that trying to compare the two is just a waste of time.

So yeah, Modern Warfare 3 is a great game.
 

RA92

New member
Jan 1, 2011
3,079
0
0
cainx10a said:
I love BF, but BF3 is just not in my alley thanks to the QTE-heavy single player.
See, BF3 was really hilarious. While the MP is excellent, all the SP did was remind me how awesome CoD4:MW1 was.

Sneaky sniper level where you follow your buddy stealthily but end up in a massive firefight anyway? Being executed in front of a camera by some Arab dude? Never seen that before.

OT: The review seemed, as someone already pointed out, rather diplomatic. ;)
 

Bucht

New member
Apr 22, 2010
315
0
0
In my opinion it was nowhere near as fun as Arkham City or Uncharted 3.
But I still had a blast playing it.
Still no matter what's being said and how good or bad it actually is, people will always bash on it just because they can.
 

LobsterFeng

New member
Apr 10, 2011
1,766
0
0
What is everyone in here going on about? I didn't think this review sounded forced at all. From someone who is neutral on CoD, and is on the fence about buying this one, I think this was a very fair review that did a good job on showing what new features are available.
 

Norix596

New member
Nov 2, 2010
442
0
0
Well it's not going to be terribly different than the last one and that can be good. If you really liked the last one then you'll be happy with an upgraded version. Personally I enjoyed Battlefield more.
 

gphjr14

New member
Aug 20, 2010
868
0
0
I you like the first 2 you'll probably like this one. I got it for the singleplayer Michael Bayish story. The only reason I still have it is because my friends have it. If you don't have at least 6-9 friends to play with, it probably isn't going to be fun.

Bottom like for me as with most games:

If you like it, be quiet, play it and go on with your life.

If you don't like it, be quiet, don't play it and go on with your life.

Although this is a more toned down version of my methodology its served me well the past 2 decades.
 

Ulquiorra4sama

Saviour In the Clockwork
Feb 2, 2010
1,786
0
0
I never owned a CoD game before so i was thinking of changing my policy about them if this looked good.

But it doesn't seem like too much has changed and Miracle of Sound's been mentioning god-awful lag so i doubt i'll give it my time of day.
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,847
0
0
oh no! a game I hate got a high score!!

aaaaaaaaaaaaand life goes on
 

wooty

Vi Britannia
Aug 1, 2009
4,252
0
0
Ive only played the mp at a mates house, but while its fun it does seem the same as previous ones and suffers from the same old problems. Xbl seems to be crippled with lag at times and the campers are still out in force.

While its not "ololol itz da terriblez, buyz da skyrimz's now!!!!", it is quite fun and like all the modern warfare series, a nice little time waster.
 

SilverUchiha

New member
Dec 25, 2008
1,604
0
0
SonicKoala said:
I expected as much - I'm a little put-off by the '4.5 star' ranking, though. That seems a tad generous given the fact that this seems like little more than a rehash of the previous two MW titles.
Jegsimmons said:
the images and gameplayed he showed really contrasted from what he said, it honestly looked lackluster and didnt seem like much was new, just sort of re-skinned.
Agreed. Is it just me, or does Call of Duty really feel similar to the Madden games, in that the tweaks to each new iteration aren't anything major and the core of the game is still, essentially, the same thing. I'm really curious as to how much of this game could have just been DLC for Modern Warfare 2.
 

CardinalPiggles

New member
Jun 24, 2010
3,226
0
0
Only played the multi player and a bit of spec ops so far, but I am thoroughly enjoying it. There does seem to be some little annoying issues with the multi player though, like seemingly being shot around corners, and Assault rifles seeming over powered/ shotguns and SMG's feeling under powered. But as a whole the multi player it quite fun for me, especially Kill Confirmed!

snfonseka said:
Does it have vehicles in multiplayer?
Nope, but it has remote drones, very much like Frontlines and Homefront, but better.
 

spartandude

New member
Nov 24, 2009
2,721
0
0
my major complaint with this review is that he said he bearly played the other CoD games, but wss then able to draw a bunch of comparisons to them
 

Nobby

New member
Nov 13, 2009
106
0
0
It appears that the review has accidentally included PC under platforms :p
 

EternalFacepalm

New member
Feb 1, 2011
809
0
0
4.5 stars?
If someone can spend 45 minutes listing mostly flaws, I don't think it deserves 4.5 stars.
I mean, shit, you barely mentioned any flaws besides the single player. No matter what the game is, you should be pointing out more than "half-flaws", as with the single player campaign leaving you wanting more "both in the good and the bad sense".
 

Slycne

Tank Ninja
Feb 19, 2006
3,422
0
0
No zombie mode? Fail!

Anyways, I've played MW2 and didn't get the story. I wonder what 'callbacks' to MW2 are there in MW3.
 

AnarchistFish

New member
Jul 25, 2011
1,500
0
0
If you're not fatigued by the series, you should definitely pick up MW3.
Yeah, basically what it's saying is, "this game is fantastic because some people will like it, 4.5/5, let's not take into account its faults"
 

rayen020

New member
May 20, 2009
1,138
0
0
damn man 11-11-11 is the magic number. four AAA games, covering all the current consoles, a decent eyecandy genre movie and the fun fact that twice in one day the time will read all ones for a second.
 

Rensenhito

New member
Jan 28, 2009
498
0
0
It really does look exactly the same, honestly. I wonder if they could have just made this DLC for MW2? :D
 

Withard

New member
Feb 4, 2010
180
0
0
If your not fatigued?

Thats like saying "If your expecting something revamped and different....find another game".

Im sick of people giving out these scores but not even looking at how it gets to that score. It should NOT be based on past experiences either. If thats the case then if Guitar Hero 3 gets 10/10 then EVERY one should get 10/10.....if your not fatigued.
 

Shoggoth2588

New member
Aug 31, 2009
10,250
0
0
Guess I can pass then what up then. Not sure why I thought this one would have a greater emphasis on single player but that's just my own ignorance. I'll focus on grabbing CoD4 when I can afford to and take it from there.
 

drobear

New member
Apr 24, 2011
7
0
0
the price drop?? you mean when cod 9 comes out that when the price will drom to any worthy dicount
 

Karma168

New member
Nov 7, 2010
541
0
0
All i can say is if you want rage free gameplay do not buy this game. The mulitplayer is just a basic reskin of MW2 and has exactly the same problems with hacks and cheats that plague MW2. While the reskin i could live with they could have at least made it harder to cheat.

Bought this hoping it would be good for a few weeks until the usual CoD crap started but it'll be gone as soon as Saints row 3 comes out.
 

Titan Buttons

New member
Apr 13, 2011
678
0
0
Well I'm going to wait for xmas sales before I buy it even though I can't wait to find out how it ends.

Jegsimmons said:
the images and gameplayed he showed really contrasted from what he said, it honestly looked lackluster and didnt seem like much was new, just sort of re-skinned.
They do go out of there way not to show anything special as a way to avoid spoilers.

Giest4life said:
The review felt forced--as if the reviewer was forced to be diplomatic by the editor. "The game has enough new features to seem fresh" as opposed to, let's say "staying fresh"? Maybe I'm reading too much into it, I don't know. Was an uncomfortable review to watch.
Well it's not like reviewers are going out of there way to make games seem more then they are. Also if it turns out you aren't reading to much into it, it would mean Justin Clouse is being bias and I find that to be rediculous given his preivious reviews. You might have found it uncomfortable because you didn't like the game he was review, as everyone is allowed too.

Vault101 said:
oh no! a game I hate got a high score!!

aaaaaaaaaaaaand life goes on
I wish more games had your attitude.

Nobby said:
It appears that the review has accidentally included PC under platforms :p
But you can get it on PC, it's on steam.
 

HotFezz8

New member
Nov 1, 2009
1,139
0
0
if this bloke hasn't played all the cod games before, he's the wrong person to review it. i'll ignore his opinion as he clearly doens't know what he's talking about.
 

lolmynamewastaken

New member
Jun 9, 2009
1,181
0
0
i don't know if it was just my headphones, but i couldn't actually hear the commentary on the the video over all the action... i had a flash back to every CoD i've actually played in that respect as well.
 

redisforever

New member
Oct 5, 2009
2,158
0
0
Well, I saw my friend playing through campaign yesterday, and while it looked really good, impressive, and it was fun, it was also really, really stupid. There was no logic to anything anyone did. But the survival mode, and spec ops modes are still incredibly fun to play with a friend in local mulitplayer.
 

Metalrocks

New member
Jan 15, 2009
2,406
0
0
im not a COD fan but i do like to play it the MP for fun.
played the SP a little bit. pretty much just shooting and explosions. still ok though. but the MP, i have actually really a good time playing it. i think its better balanced with the perks, weapons upgrades and kill streaks. at least i dont get shot as much by helis as in previous games like MW 1 or even black ops.

i dint play the previous games either, because i had simply enough of WW 2, but MW 1 was fun, until the helis pissed me off and the spawn kills, i dint get MW 2 because i dint agree with the changing host stuff (my connection at that time was really bad to be a host. my ping would be great wile others would have a ping of over 300), black ops was pretty much the same as with MW 1, plus it was buggy that it needed few patches to make it half way work.
but MW3, now this works really well and im having a good time with it.

about the review:
pretty much agree with him about the MP part and i dont think you must be a some one who must have played the previous once. if the game makes fun and works well, then why complain.
 

Nobby

New member
Nov 13, 2009
106
0
0
Titan Buttons said:
Well I'm going to wait for xmas sales before I buy it even though I can't wait to find out how it ends.

Jegsimmons said:
the images and gameplayed he showed really contrasted from what he said, it honestly looked lackluster and didnt seem like much was new, just sort of re-skinned.
They do go out of there way not to show anything special as a way to avoid spoilers.

Giest4life said:
The review felt forced--as if the reviewer was forced to be diplomatic by the editor. "The game has enough new features to seem fresh" as opposed to, let's say "staying fresh"? Maybe I'm reading too much into it, I don't know. Was an uncomfortable review to watch.
Well it's not like reviewers are going out of there way to make games seem more then they are. Also if it turns out you aren't reading to much into it, it would mean Justin Clouse is being bias and I find that to be rediculous given his preivious reviews. You might have found it uncomfortable because you didn't like the game he was review, as everyone is allowed too.

Vault101 said:
oh no! a game I hate got a high score!!

aaaaaaaaaaaaand life goes on
I wish more games had your attitude.

Nobby said:
It appears that the review has accidentally included PC under platforms :p
But you can get it on PC, it's on steam.
I'm aware of that, but perhaps the point of my comment wasn't clear. There is no fathomable reason to get it on PC, there are many reasons why you wouldn't.

In fact since MW2 shafted PC players so hard by removing important features necessary for the enjoyment of the game on PC this franchise has died in my eyes.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
11,706
1,056
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
maddawg IAJI said:
The 5 hour estimated single player time is generous on its own. I beat the game on Veteran in a little over 7 hours on my first go through the game and I honestly was rather upset at how weak the entire game was. I always enjoyed the Call of Duty series single player for its difficult Veteran mode, but the last couple games have become far too easy in my opinion.
Keep in mind that reviewers tend to have to play a game on either easy or normal since they are on a deadline.
 

HobbesMkii

Hold Me Closer Tony Danza
Jun 7, 2008
856
0
0
Sgt. Sykes said:
Anyways, I've played MW2 and didn't get the story. I wonder what 'callbacks' to MW2 are there in MW3.
Ironically, the whole thing seems to be a "callback" to MW2, so much so that the game seems to be saying "Hey, you played MW2, right? Good. Then I won't have to explain who these people are, why you should like them, or why Russia is invading everyone. We just saved a whole hour!"
 

orangeapples

New member
Aug 1, 2009
1,836
0
0
You gamers need to stop being such snobbish elitists. The game is fun. It is put together very well. The review admits, if you are in the game just or the single player, it is kinda short but kinda fun, so that's your warning. It lists changes to the multiplayer from previous titles. You cannot really ask for more from a review of this franchise.

Basically every CoD review boils down to:
did you buy the last CoD game?
-Yes, then probably skip this one unless you REALLY want it.
-No, then sure, why not pick it up?
 

Mantonio

New member
Apr 15, 2009
585
0
0
I really liked the singleplayer. It was awesome, if a bit brief.

However, I was vaguely disappointed in the lack of variety. First you're as the Americans in New York (cool), then you're International with Price and Soap (cool) then you're with the SAS in London (very cool). Then you get to France and Germany... and you're the Americans again.

It's the sort of game that just SCREAMS for an expansion pack. I want to see more sides of this war. I want to see some French army levels, some German army, some Polish! I want to see a mission where I play as the Czech resistance! Give me MORE!

'Dust to Dust' was beyond awesome, by the way. 10/10.
 

Rainboq

New member
Nov 19, 2009
16,620
0
0
SonicKoala said:
I expected as much - I'm a little put-off by the '4.5 star' ranking, though. That seems a tad generous given the fact that this seems like little more than a rehash of the previous two MW titles.
*shrugs* a game should be based on its own merrits, even if it does rip off other games, if it does it well and its fun, it should still be rated according.

OT: A fairly unbiased review, excellent job! I'm not sure if I will or will not pick this up, I have a shelf overflowing with FPS titles now...
 

WanderingFool

New member
Apr 9, 2009
3,991
0
0
I just finished the Singleplayer portion, and tried my hand at the multiplayer. It basically reminds me of my first time in MW2... which is along the lines of a virgin having their virginity taken away via rape. Good God...
 

Slycne

Tank Ninja
Feb 19, 2006
3,422
0
0
Is there a code to put in for multiplayer? Could I rent it and try it online?
 

Slycne

Tank Ninja
Feb 19, 2006
3,422
0
0
4/5 would have been better, not 4 and a half, IMO at least. I fucking hate it though, worst in the series behind Black Ops.

AnarchistFish said:
If you're not fatigued by the series, you should definitely pick up MW3.
Yeah, basically what it's saying is, "this game is fantastic because some people will like it, 4.5/5, let's not take into account its faults"
No, its not. Its a highly polished game which does its thing and does it well. You might not like it, but thats an opinion.

Although I would love to hear its faults aside from HURR INNOVATION DURR, which isnt really a fault at all.
 

Slycne

Tank Ninja
Feb 19, 2006
3,422
0
0
Mantonio said:
I really liked the singleplayer. It was awesome, if a bit brief.

However, I was vaguely disappointed in the lack of variety. First you're as the Americans in New York (cool), then you're International with Price and Soap (cool) then you're with the SAS in London (very cool). Then you get to France and Germany... and you're the Americans again.

It's the sort of game that just SCREAMS for an expansion pack. I want to see more sides of this war. I want to see some French army levels, some German army, some Polish! I want to see a mission where I play as the Czech resistance! Give me MORE!

'Dust to Dust' was beyond awesome, by the way. 10/10.
Really? I havent touched the single player since COD 4. Kinda a pity that you only play americans and englishmen, I remember one of the things I liked about COD 2 is how it had you play so many different characters.
 

D-Ray

New member
Oct 4, 2011
76
0
0
I don't understand why people keep saying "It's the same as MW2 with different levels." DUH that's why it's MW3! What do you want them to do? Change the game engine everytime a new one comes out? COD I already VERY succesful. What isn't broke, don't fix it. If you were in Infinity Ward's shoes....or worked for them, wouldn't you want to keep being successful?
 

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Apr 18, 2020
6,634
1,281
118
Country
United States
Gender
Male
HobbesMkii said:
Ironically, the whole thing seems to be a "callback" to MW2, so much so that the game seems to be saying "Hey, you played MW2, right? Good. Then I won't have to explain who these people are, why you should like them, or why Russia is invading everyone. We just saved a whole hour!"
And your point is? Considering it is a sequel, there's the inherent assumption you played at least the previous game and know what the story is. So there's no need to summarize those events(other then the little flashback sequences early in the game when Soap is getting Operated on).

If you want to bash the game for not resolving the plot holes from the first game or for having it's own plot wierdness, that's legitimate, but saying you're annoyed because it didn't provide you with a summery to 1 and 2 is weak.
 

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Apr 18, 2020
6,634
1,281
118
Country
United States
Gender
Male
SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
Mantonio said:
I really liked the singleplayer. It was awesome, if a bit brief.

However, I was vaguely disappointed in the lack of variety. First you're as the Americans in New York (cool), then you're International with Price and Soap (cool) then you're with the SAS in London (very cool). Then you get to France and Germany... and you're the Americans again.

It's the sort of game that just SCREAMS for an expansion pack. I want to see more sides of this war. I want to see some French army levels, some German army, some Polish! I want to see a mission where I play as the Czech resistance! Give me MORE!

'Dust to Dust' was beyond awesome, by the way. 10/10.
Really? I havent touched the single player since COD 4. Kinda a pity that you only play americans and englishmen, I remember one of the things I liked about COD 2 is how it had you play so many different characters.
I haven't finished the game, but this one seems to be jumping around a bit more then the previous games. I rather liked the idea of playing a Russian Secret Service Agent for the plane mission(though I also suspected how that mission was going to end because of that).

Now, playing as an American Tourist for 30 seconds was just lame.
 

Radeonx

New member
Apr 26, 2009
7,014
0
0
snfonseka said:
Rainboq said:
snfonseka said:
Does it have vehicles in multiplayer?
When has CoD ever had vehicles in its multiplayer?
True. But I thought they would have made that change in MW3, due to the competition of BF3.
BF3 was the one trying to be hyper creative and cool, since they were challenging MW3.

MW3 just did what it does well and sold 12312312312312 million copies, just like 4 and MW2.

Dalisclock said:
SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
Mantonio said:
I really liked the singleplayer. It was awesome, if a bit brief.

However, I was vaguely disappointed in the lack of variety. First you're as the Americans in New York (cool), then you're International with Price and Soap (cool) then you're with the SAS in London (very cool). Then you get to France and Germany... and you're the Americans again.

It's the sort of game that just SCREAMS for an expansion pack. I want to see more sides of this war. I want to see some French army levels, some German army, some Polish! I want to see a mission where I play as the Czech resistance! Give me MORE!

'Dust to Dust' was beyond awesome, by the way. 10/10.
Really? I havent touched the single player since COD 4. Kinda a pity that you only play americans and englishmen, I remember one of the things I liked about COD 2 is how it had you play so many different characters.
I haven't finished the game, but this one seems to be jumping around a bit more then the previous games. I rather liked the idea of playing a Russian Secret Service Agent for the plane mission(though I also suspected how that mission was going to end because of that).

Now, playing as an American Tourist for 30 seconds was just lame.
Well, you also play as Yuri for some time, but since he is just working with Price and Soap it doesn't seem any different then if you were an American/Englishmen.
 

Titan Buttons

New member
Apr 13, 2011
678
0
0
Nobby said:
I'm aware of that, but perhaps the point of my comment wasn't clear. There is no fathomable reason to get it on PC, there are many reasons why you wouldn't.

In fact since MW2 shafted PC players so hard by removing important features necessary for the enjoyment of the game on PC this franchise has died in my eyes.
Arh see I didn't know that. It is just in general FPS can bo more fun playing them on the PC.
 

Gmans uncle

New member
Oct 17, 2011
570
0
0
Only watched this review 'cause all my friends seem to be regarding this thing as the second coming of Christ, sorry, it just looks to me like grayish-brown cold war fantasist trash to me, But I've never played a COD game so, maybe I'm wrong, might rent MW2 or something, but I'm not seeing this as being the kind of thing I would buy.
 

42

Australian Justice
Jan 30, 2010
697
0
0
AnarchistFish said:
If you're not fatigued by the series, you should definitely pick up MW3.
Yeah, basically what it's saying is, "this game is fantastic because some people will like it, 4.5/5, let's not take into account its faults"
What faults? Destructoid gave MW3 a 9.5 compared to BF3's 7.5, and both were reviewed by Sterling. and he did name the flaws but he still praised it because it CoD does what it does so well. plus You don't need a FRICKING web browser to access the games Multiplayer. which is a grievance that Sterling also brought up in his review.
 
Feb 9, 2011
1,735
0
0
lolmynamewastaken said:
i don't know if it was just my headphones, but i couldn't actually hear the commentary on the the video over all the action... i had a flash back to every CoD i've actually played in that respect as well.
Sounded okay to me (using headphones). Perhaps your mixer has the headphones volume down low?
 

Slycne

Tank Ninja
Feb 19, 2006
3,422
0
0
I picked this up tonight and intended to play through the SP campaign, yet, given how absurd and quite frankly insulting the premise of the second mission was I pretty much just quit playing and tried out the multiplayer. The MP is addictive, even if the progression is kind of ass.

Why give you default classes that are better than anything you can get at the start? I tried making a custom class, discovered I could only make a super-suck one and went back to default.


Sinister Minister said:
snfonseka said:
Rainboq said:
snfonseka said:
Does it have vehicles in multiplayer?
When has CoD ever had vehicles in its multiplayer?
True. But I thought they would have made that change in MW3, due to the competition of BF3.
Uh...Call of Duty 3, and World at War? Did we forget them already?
Eh, we play Call of Duty - United Offensive at work and it has vehicles. So . . yeah. UO is super old btw. Dunno if it's Cod1 or 2 as I never played them really.
 

AnarchistFish

New member
Jul 25, 2011
1,500
0
0
SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
4/5 would have been better, not 4 and a half, IMO at least. I fucking hate it though, worst in the series behind Black Ops.

AnarchistFish said:
If you're not fatigued by the series, you should definitely pick up MW3.
Yeah, basically what it's saying is, "this game is fantastic because some people will like it, 4.5/5, let's not take into account its faults"
No, its not. Its a highly polished game which does its thing and does it well. You might not like it, but thats an opinion.

Although I would love to hear its faults aside from HURR INNOVATION DURR, which isnt really a fault at all.
42 said:
AnarchistFish said:
If you're not fatigued by the series, you should definitely pick up MW3.
Yeah, basically what it's saying is, "this game is fantastic because some people will like it, 4.5/5, let's not take into account its faults"
What faults? Destructoid gave MW3 a 9.5 compared to BF3's 7.5, and both were reviewed by Sterling. and he did name the flaws but he still praised it because it CoD does what it does so well. plus You don't need a FRICKING web browser to access the games Multiplayer. which is a grievance that Sterling also brought up in his review.
The game, even based on what this review says, doesn't sound like it deserves a 4.5 even if is a good game (which, if it's anything like MW2, I don't think it will be).
"Although I would love to hear its faults aside from HURR INNOVATION DURR, which isnt really a fault at all."
Yeah it is.
 

Pedro The Hutt

New member
Apr 1, 2009
980
0
0
No it isn't, iterative game design has been happening for as long as there have been games. You can't reinvent the wheel whenever you make a game, sometimes you shouldn't even try it, especially when making a sequel. If you try to "innovate" too much the game will become unrecognisable compared to its predecessor. Just look at how fans are reeling against the latest Brothers in Arms game, they hate it because it's not the game they remember.

And heck, last page someone claimed BF3 was trying to be innovative, I dare them to explain how, for its single player it largely borrows from Modern Warfare, only with more QTEs and boring turret segments. And the multiplayer is a new iteration of the tried and true Battlefield design. It's no more or less innovative than
 

Pr1de

New member
Dec 14, 2010
63
0
0
radeonox said:
MW3 just did what it does well and sold 12312312312312 million copies, just like 4 and MW2.
that just means they are at least 12312312312312 people with low standards. Though i will admit i am biased towards BF3. BF3 has problems too. I am very disappointed in the way Dice handled single player and MP should have stuck to its well balanced game play like BF2142. now you have freakin snipers running around with shotguns putting down tac inserts everywhere. tsk tsk...
 

Pr1de

New member
Dec 14, 2010
63
0
0
sinister minister said:
Uh...Call of Duty 3, and World at War? Did we forget them already?
You forget that majority of CoD's fan base don't realize that the game didn't start at number four
 

Slycne

Tank Ninja
Feb 19, 2006
3,422
0
0
Can you please get some reviewers who a)are not warped by corporate/traffic interest and b)have decent fps experience?
BF3 and MW3 are roughly the same in MP? MW3 has vehicles? Most idiotic comment and lame attempt at preventing the blatant, and fair, comparison between the games.

MW3 is just an over glorified map pack for a series that has last almost all it's steam. Shame that only a handful of sites admit this and instead just want to make the pre-order kids feel like they have invested their cash well.
 

Slycne

Tank Ninja
Feb 19, 2006
3,422
0
0
AnarchistFish said:
SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
4/5 would have been better, not 4 and a half, IMO at least. I fucking hate it though, worst in the series behind Black Ops.

AnarchistFish said:
If you're not fatigued by the series, you should definitely pick up MW3.
Yeah, basically what it's saying is, "this game is fantastic because some people will like it, 4.5/5, let's not take into account its faults"
No, its not. Its a highly polished game which does its thing and does it well. You might not like it, but thats an opinion.

Although I would love to hear its faults aside from HURR INNOVATION DURR, which isnt really a fault at all.
42 said:
AnarchistFish said:
If you're not fatigued by the series, you should definitely pick up MW3.
Yeah, basically what it's saying is, "this game is fantastic because some people will like it, 4.5/5, let's not take into account its faults"
What faults? Destructoid gave MW3 a 9.5 compared to BF3's 7.5, and both were reviewed by Sterling. and he did name the flaws but he still praised it because it CoD does what it does so well. plus You don't need a FRICKING web browser to access the games Multiplayer. which is a grievance that Sterling also brought up in his review.
The game, even based on what this review says, doesn't sound like it deserves a 4.5 even if is a good game (which, if it's anything like MW2, I don't think it will be).
"Although I would love to hear its faults aside from HURR INNOVATION DURR, which isnt really a fault at all."
Yeah it is.
No, its not.

Do you want me to list you a number of classic games that were sequels which innovated just as little or even less than the last Modern Warfare titles? Between MW2 and MW3 we have a few new perks, a new killstreak system, some new guns, meh. No big deal. Between BC2 and BF3 we have the same and JETS. Woop de fucking doo. And what about the Total War series? No big difference between the most recent games, they are still great. Or Warcraft in its days of RTS?

Modern Warfare 3 does what it does and does it well. If you are looking for something else, then look for something else; it still doesnt mean the game should have a lower score. Im not going to review Skyrim and give it a 2/10 because while the game is good, anyone who wants to use the game as a microwave will be disappointed.

You can ***** all you want, you are simply in the wrong here.
 

Towels

New member
Feb 21, 2010
245
0
0
Someone please tell me they took out insta-win killstreaks from objective multiplayer games.
Kuddos for the Kill-Confirmed mode, though. Camping Dependency is for pussies.

In MW2 you can successfully defend an objective...by nuking it. That's pretty hilariously ironic from a game prides itself in "Realism," and I don't care how much skill you think you need to get a nuke.

Its all good in deathmatches, but being able to use them in team objective matches is lame. 75% of the objective games I played were full of cowards who camp for their nukes, and was the reason why I stopped playing. Seriously, why even bother playing objective matches if everyone is just going to hide and camp? Man up and play some deathmatch if all you want to do is snipe from the comforts of your hiddiehole. Or better yet, play Kill-Confirmed so I can steal all your lame kills.
 

AnarchistFish

New member
Jul 25, 2011
1,500
0
0
SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
No, its not.

Do you want me to list you a number of classic games that were sequels which innovated just as little or even less than the last Modern Warfare titles? Between MW2 and MW3 we have a few new perks, a new killstreak system, some new guns, meh. No big deal. Between BC2 and BF3 we have the same and JETS. Woop de fucking doo. And what about the Total War series? No big difference between the most recent games, they are still great. Or Warcraft in its days of RTS?
Well they all suffer from it then. Why bother making a sequel if it is barely any different.

SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
Modern Warfare 3 does what it does and does it well. If you are looking for something else, then look for something else; it still doesnt mean the game should have a lower score. Im not going to review Skyrim and give it a 2/10 because while the game is good, anyone who wants to use the game as a microwave will be disappointed.
I like online multiplayer. I liked the BF3 Beta, Halo, etc. But CoD multiplayer really bores me

SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
You can ***** all you want, you are simply in the wrong here.
lol
 

Fursnake

New member
Jun 18, 2009
470
0
0
Can I just get a helping of the single player campaign, for say $20? Because it is waaaay overpriced considering it is just DLC from MW2...
 

ToastiestZombie

Don't worry. Be happy!
Mar 21, 2011
3,691
0
0
Towels said:
Someone please tell me they took out insta-win killstreaks from objective multiplayer games.
Kuddos for the Kill-Confirmed mode, though. Camping Dependency is for pussies.

In MW2 you can successfully defend an objective...by nuking it. That's pretty hilariously ironic from a game prides itself in "Realism," and I don't care how much skill you think you need to get a nuke.

Its all good in deathmatches, but being able to use them in team objective matches is lame. 75% of the objective games I played were full of cowards who camp for their nukes, and was the reason why I stopped playing. Seriously, why even bother playing objective matches if everyone is just going to hide and camp? Man up and play some deathmatch if all you want to do is snipe from the comforts of your hiddiehole. Or better yet, play Kill-Confirmed so I can steal all your lame kills.
Yep, they took out the nuke. But they do have something similar but less frustrating called the mother of all bombs. You have to get 25 kills with just your gun and then the entire enemy team is killed but your team aren't, it also doesn't finish the game. After that your team gets an advanced UAV for about a minute. So it's not as frustrating as the nuke.
 

Towels

New member
Feb 21, 2010
245
0
0
ToastiestZombie said:
Towels said:
Someone please tell me they took out insta-win killstreaks from objective multiplayer games.
Yep, they took out the nuke. But they do have something similar but less frustrating called the mother of all bombs. You have to get 25 kills with just your gun and then the entire enemy team is killed but your team aren't, it also doesn't finish the game. After that your team gets an advanced UAV for about a minute. So it's not as frustrating as the nuke.
Ok, now I that I can get behind. Skillful players are rewarded but they still have to fight for the killing blow. Thanks for the info.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
CoD4.4 set 1st day sales records yet again, and I died a little more inside.

Really? The "best game" out there is just going to be the same game year after year?
Shit, this really is Halo all over again (and just when Halo had finally decided to try something different, Bungie left and now it's going right back to its original safe formula courtesy of a remake).

Its success was cool at first, but now this has just become oppressive; the market is going to continue to stagnate further by enticing yet more developers and publishers to hyper-focus on CoD4.x's success on as they churn out clone after clone after clone after motherfucking clone...

Worse, it appears that there's no end in sight...*sigh* back to wishing for games that are actually fun and don't contain abject amounts of the color grey.
 

HobbesMkii

Hold Me Closer Tony Danza
Jun 7, 2008
856
0
0
Dalisclock said:
HobbesMkii said:
Ironically, the whole thing seems to be a "callback" to MW2, so much so that the game seems to be saying "Hey, you played MW2, right? Good. Then I won't have to explain who these people are, why you should like them, or why Russia is invading everyone. We just saved a whole hour!"
And your point is? Considering it is a sequel, there's the inherent assumption you played at least the previous game and know what the story is. So there's no need to summarize those events(other then the little flashback sequences early in the game when Soap is getting Operated on).

If you want to bash the game for not resolving the plot holes from the first game or for having it's own plot wierdness, that's legitimate, but saying you're annoyed because it didn't provide you with a summery to 1 and 2 is weak.
Frankly, for sequels in any media, it's pretty common to have some reference back to the story that has come before that involves if not summary of the entire plot, then at least of the most important points. Even Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2, a film that cannot stand alone on its own and requires the viewer to have seen Part 1 has lines of dialog where characters explain how things have gotten to where they are and what the hell certain things are. In fact, if you watch those two films pretty close together, you might feel they're a little redundant.

It happens in gaming, too. Mass Effect 2 has characters explaining what, specifically, Saren did, even though all the characters involved should know what that was (like Shepard to the Council). Bioshock 2 has characters explaining who Ryan is and what Rapture's about, even though we've heard all this in the first game.

The point is, having played MW and MW2 and having scratched my head at how foreign relations got to where they were in MW3, it would have been decent of them to at least say "Oh, yeah, General Shepherd & Makarov tricked us into war, which is why the Russians are pouring into Central and Western Europe" which is something I was lucky enough to remember half-way through the Prague mission.

One might be tempted to argue that MW3 is not in the business of hand-holding with its players but, really, this is a game that will loudly shout "Grenade!" and it marketed to have broad appeal. It's totally into hand-holding (especially in plotting & characterization, for example pointing out how bad its bad guys are. "Look! Makarov's shot your player character in the head! Again!").

Yes, you're right there are a thousand other points I could've made about the plot-holes and whatnot in what is otherwise a really fun game. But others have done that for me. My point was that if the OP I was responding to was confused by the plotting in MW2, then they were about to be doubly confused by the plotting in MW3, because it provided even less of a grounding in its predecessors.
 

Techno Squidgy

New member
Nov 23, 2010
1,045
0
0
Sinister Minister said:
snfonseka said:
Rainboq said:
snfonseka said:
Does it have vehicles in multiplayer?
When has CoD ever had vehicles in its multiplayer?
True. But I thought they would have made that change in MW3, due to the competition of BF3.
Uh...Call of Duty 3, and World at War? Did we forget them already?
I think people are trying to forget those seeing as the tank combat in WaW (never played 3) really did not sit well with the rest of the game, at least, not in my opinion.

----------
I'll probably pick it up when it goes on sale/get's cheaper because screw paying full price for it when they failed to give me what I wanted from the game. Why oh why could they not leave the servers just like they were in CoD4 were it worked fine and everybody was happy. Noooo now you have to play on IWNet so that people can't boost their ranks. Like anyone gave a fuck about boosting ranks! We just wanted to play the game with the settings we liked, with the ability to kick pricks like that and their cheating buddies too! Might just buy it on console instead to play with my college friends rather than support their god awful bastardised PC version.
 

Awexsome

Were it so easy
Mar 25, 2009
1,549
0
0
Pretty much exactly what we were expecting. A fundamentally great game that isn't going to change people's minds who were already tired of the CoD series.

Also with a superior single player and Co-op experience than BF3 but really it's just gonna come down to which style of multiplayer you like better. Run n' gun Rambo style where you can jump in whenever you want and have a blast, or a more team based larger scale game.

I have to give proper credit to Infinity Ward though. With the whole firing fiasco with Activision after MW2 it was definitely possible that this could've bombed all to hell with the inexperience, especially at the leadership positions.
 

angry_flashlight

New member
Jul 20, 2010
258
0
0
Pretty much what I expected from the review, I can't wait for Yahtzee's version of it though, at least I should get a laugh out of it.

EternalFacepalm said:
4.5 stars?
If someone can spend 45 minutes listing mostly flaws, I don't think it deserves 4.5 stars.
I mean, shit, you barely mentioned any flaws besides the single player. No matter what the game is, you should be pointing out more than "half-flaws", as with the single player campaign leaving you wanting more "both in the good and the bad sense".
45 minutes? My god, it's a Plinket review of MW3. Actually, that would be absolutely hilarious but not within Plinket's usual domain of absolute dissection. :/ For those who don't know what a Plinket review is, click here [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tPNUhtOVLM]. Bring lots of time, especially if you're going to watch the star-wars prequel reviews. I'm not kidding. Ep3 goes on for 1 & 1/2 hours.

Fixed your vid. for youtube= embedding, just put the bits after the v= part of the url in there (e.g. youtube=23nFu4e, etc.). Just soes you know.
 

EternalFacepalm

New member
Feb 1, 2011
809
0
0
angry_flashlight said:
45 minutes? My god, it's a Plinket review of MW3. Actually, that would be absolutely hilarious but not within Plinket's usual domain of absolute dissection. :/ For those who don't know what a Plinket review is, click here [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tPNUhtOVLM]. Bring lots of time, especially if you're going to watch the star-wars prequel reviews. I'm not kidding. Ep3 goes on for 1 & 1/2 hours.

Fixed your vid. for youtube= embedding, just put the bits after the v= part of the url in there (e.g. youtube=23nFu4e, etc.). Just soes you know.
Ah, thanks for fixing ^^
By the way, the link you posted to a Plinklet review isn't working.
And I feel the urge to state that "WTF is..." really isn't a review, but rather a first impressions of it.
 

Slycne

Tank Ninja
Feb 19, 2006
3,422
0
0
The single player is the most flag waving americanised pro war shit i've ever seen in a video game. Did Michael Bey buy out activision?
 

Withard

New member
Feb 4, 2010
180
0
0
Accurate:

It does what it does on the tin....but its getting tired. 3.5

the skilled get better while the inexperienced get left behind. Woop. At least on BF3 or christ even Space Marine the playing field is level so you win WITH skill not perks and such.
 

mikespoff

New member
Oct 29, 2009
758
0
0
The review says that basically it's a pretty solid update of MW2, not flawless but decent.

Now, following that little linky thing at the bottom, 4 stars says "An outstanding gaming experience marred by just a few flaws."

To my reading, that's already more generous than the review, but the game got 4.5 stars.

I don't really care either way, the game isn't on my wishlist, but it does seem a little inconsistent.
 

Athinira

New member
Jan 25, 2010
804
0
0
EternalFacepalm said:
4.5 stars?
If someone can spend 45 minutes listing mostly flaws, I don't think it deserves 4.5 stars.
I mean, shit, you barely mentioned any flaws besides the single player. No matter what the game is, you should be pointing out more than "half-flaws", as with the single player campaign leaving you wanting more "both in the good and the bad sense".
Maybe it's because the flaws don't matter so much.

If you are in the business if just spotting every single flaw you can find, then i can tell you that you can find games that justify videos much longer than the 45 minutes MW3 is getting.

If the flaws don't ruin the immersion, then the game is still good. Period. And having just finished the campaign 20 minutes ago, i can safely say that i only spotted very few of them, and that the gameplay experience wasn't ruined for me at any point. Entertainment value cannot be equated by a mathematical formula, and this exact reason is why people like you aren't reviewing games for a living.

Rensenhito said:
It really does look exactly the same, honestly. I wonder if they could have just made this DLC for MW2? :D
No it doesn't. I talked to someone else who couldn't spot the improved graphics either, and my response to him was that he should get a pair of glasses.

Comparing MW2 to MW3 on the PC, the improvement in graphics easily stand out. Massively improved texture streaming means that the team managed to make the levels MUCH larger and have way more action on the screen than in the previous games. This comes along with performance improvements, improved physics and decals, and while i haven't seen the PS3/360 versions beyond videos, the PC version at the very least has improved reflections and dynamic lightning, and the team also put extra work into environmental improvements, like water that doesn't look like two textures put together at low resolution (which was a very apparent problem in MW2, and made me lol very hard on the Oilrig hostage mission).

In fact, the only major graphics problem this game has is that the PC version isn't doing very good work with the textures (as in: they are more or less low-resolution even on highest setting), which is a letdown because detailed textures (as well as bump maps etc.) is a major improvement to graphics quality, and most PC's CAN afford the extra texture memory. I mean, for christ sake I'm on a 1½ year old laptop that by american standards was in the $1000 range, and my PC still has 1 gig of dedicated video memory, which even CryEngine games can't use to its full extend... Still, compared to Modern Warfare 2, at least they started using textures more smartly, even if they didn't increase the lousy resolution.

I mean no offense, but if you people can't spot the graphics difference, then you either don't know what to look for (eg. you don't understand graphics very well) or you need new glasses. I could see the improvement clear as day (including the improvement to the FPS my laptop was capable of running the game at), and i wasn't even trying to spot it.
 

angry_flashlight

New member
Jul 20, 2010
258
0
0
EternalFacepalm said:
Ah, thanks for fixing ^^
By the way, the link you posted to a Plinklet review isn't working.
And I feel the urge to state that "WTF is..." really isn't a review, but rather a first impressions of it.
Whoops, now I feel silly. http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/ <-- there.

I was making a comparison in terms of length of the video. Plinkett reviews are notoriously long in the realm of internet reviews/reviewers (Doug (aka the Nostalgia Critic) from ThatGuyWithTheGlasses made a point that the reviews are almost as long as the movies themselves for the star-wars prequels in one of his videos). Also I hadn't watched "WTF is..." before so, yeah. :>
 

EternalFacepalm

New member
Feb 1, 2011
809
0
0
Athinira said:
Maybe it's because the flaws don't matter so much.

If you are in the business if just spotting every single flaw you can find, then i can tell you that you can find games that justify videos much longer than the 45 minutes MW3 is getting.

If the flaws don't ruin the immersion, then the game is still good. Period. And having just finished the campaign 20 minutes ago, i can safely say that i only spotted very few of them, and that the gameplay experience wasn't ruined for me at any point. Entertainment value cannot be equated by a mathematical formula, and this exact reason is why people like you aren't reviewing games for a living.
Did you even watch the video?
Most of the flaws mentioned were incredibly huge flaws, like nerfed dedi-servers and the low FOV. I'd say "failed host migration" DOES ruin immersion.
Perhaps "people like YOU" shouldn't be game reviewers, when you assume as much about things as you do?
 

Athinira

New member
Jan 25, 2010
804
0
0
EternalFacepalm said:
Did you even watch the video?
Most of the flaws mentioned were incredibly huge flaws, like nerfed dedi-servers and the low FOV. I'd say "failed host migration" DOES ruin immersion.
Yes i watched the video.

The low FoV is a personal preference. Not everyone has wide-screens which fits a high FoV, and even if it's a setting, different FoV's gives an unfair advantage to people, which isn't good for a competitive game. And his personal problem with low FoV giving him a headache is that: personal. In fact, that problem is a very specific one, meaning that i believe that a total of 1 in a thousand gamers is going to experience that. He is an outlier. That simple. His argument that it's easy to "outflank" people is nullified by the fact that this goes both ways, and I'd say that motivating people to keep moving rather than camping is good game design (although there are several ways to do that beyond going low FoV). In fact, he even admits that the FoV of MW3 is higher than MW2.

The rest of his complaints are somewhat valid, but he is overdoing their impact. His problem with the experience and leveling system (and the fact that you can't level up on dedicated servers) i TOTALLY get, but his complaint about the game being "ugly" i don't to a certain extend. I'll admit that Infinity Ward could have done a MUCH greater work with the textures on the PC version, but the simple fact of the matter is that their newest incarnation of the graphics engine is, to put it frankly, f*cking amazing at putting a lot of action on the screen that looks damned impressive, and at the same time maintain a very high frame rate. Modern Warfare runs at 60 FPS on consoles compared to Battlefields 30, and that choice is one that is made with good reason considering that it's designed as a competitive FPS, even for consoles. The game might not be the best looking ever, but it isn't striding to be, and at the end of the day, the fact is that the engine is a powerhouse that has seen huge upgrades from the MW2 incarnation, and if someone thinks the game looks "ugly" then they need to readjust their standards. Not every game is going for the Crysis 2 experience, and not every PC gamer has a monster PC capable of running it at a respectable framerate (and above all else: A game doesn't NEED good graphics. It's just a nice thing to include. I'll get back to this at the end paragraph).

So to finish this off...
Perhaps "people like YOU" shouldn't be game reviewers, when you assume as much about things as you do?
...except that i don't assume ANYTHING at all, and I'd love for you to point out where i do.

You see, the guy in the video and you completely fail at putting things into context, and people who can't put things into context is the ones that shouldn't be reviewing games. You can't just take things out of context, examine them individually and conclude that sh*t isn't going to fly, because as a game reviewer that isn't your job. Modern Warfare as a series masters the art of being something more than the sum of its parts. The graphics aren't the best (although they have definitely been upgraded), the experience system isn't designed well, the online matchmaking could have been more competently executed etc. but at the end of the day, people are still going to have way more fun with the game for a way longer time than most other games because Modern Warfare makes up for its flaws in many ways, and has a huge amount of replay value in both Single and Multi-player. And no, most people aren't going to complain (or even NOTICE) the low FoV. Why? Because to most people, it doesn't f*cking matter. That's what you guys are failing to understand.

There is a huge difference between what a game INCLUDES and what a game NEEDS to provide a good experience. Modern Warfare doesn't include a lot of things that makes it that special (besides pulse-pounding action on a large scale), but it has pretty much everything else a game NEEDS to satisfy the customer and make him feel like he made a great investment.
 

Slycne

Tank Ninja
Feb 19, 2006
3,422
0
0
Bishop99999999 said:
I have to say, after being an snobby jackass with nothing but Minecraft and Dark Souls and indie games for months, it felt great to sit back and enjoy some spectacle for a change. I think it's safe to say that MW3's single player trounces BF3's, for what that's worth, and the survival and spec ops missions add a lot of life to it.

And multiplayer? Well, I think the truth is that BF3 and MW3 are different enough in philosophy that trying to compare the two is just a waste of time.

So yeah, Modern Warfare 3 is a great game.
I pretty much agree with this wholeheartedly. I love games like Limbo, Bastion, Deus Ex, obscure and old rpgs and all that clever jazz, but I'll be damned if I'm not having a blast with my first CoD for a couple of years!

As for your comment on multiplayer... I think it's being EXTREMELY generous to BF3 to not compare them... CODs formula gets copied by its competition so much these days apparently we don't notice it, but BF3 is taking a looooot of notes from the COD book of multiplayer design.
 

duchaked

New member
Dec 25, 2008
4,451
0
0
I was caught by surprise by just how much I enjoyed the campaign in MW3 :/ not sure what to say except I had a blast, despite making jabs at the series beforehand loll
 

shawnchi

New member
Dec 15, 2011
2
0
0
If one of my friends wanted to play MW3, I'd just tell them to take their MW2 disc, and draw a big 3 over the 2.

There, MW3 cheap.

Seriously though, the story is just... Bad, in my opinion. And where's the teamwork in Multiplayer? And WHY oh WHY would they blow up a child? Activision took out the World Trade Center towers because they thought they would be to controversial, yet they blow up a child? I really don't follow that logic.
 

Adam Galli

New member
Nov 26, 2010
700
0
0
I really like MW3. The single player was good and the multiplayer is addicting as hell. The only thing I don't like is the call signs this time. I think the one's from MW2 were better.