Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 Review

[Fr]anc[is]

All I want to know is if Gaz/Ghost's reincarnation's name also starts with G.

 

[Dalisclock]

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]

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.

 

[snfonseka]

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.

 

[Radeonx]

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.

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]

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]

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.

 

[RA92]

But can you talk to the Russians?

 

[42]

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.

 

[Dr. Pepper Unlimited]

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?

 

[Sinister Minister]

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?

 

[AnarchistFish]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Towels]

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]

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.

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

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

lol