- OXM (95/100): "Sure, we can come up with a list of things we'd love to see from the series - whether it's a revamped campaign approach or a revitalized game engine and aesthetic - but when everything here is this well-executed and offers so many enduring thrills, it's hard to knock it too much. MW3 absolutely delivers."
- Game Trailers (93/100): "As attention spans dissipate, games like this strike the sweet spot of time spent versus reward gained. Yet there's also an extremely deep multiplayer experience where the changes seem minimal but pack a big punch. If you're expecting a huge departure from what's come before you'll be disappointed, but fans will get exactly what they're looking for. World War III shouldn't be this fun."
- Gamespot (85/100): "Whatever diversions or innovations may lie in Modern Warfare 3's future, the competitive multiplayer still offers the same sweet satisfaction you've come to expect from the series. This is some of the best online shooter action around, and with the daunting challenges of Spec Ops and the exciting, globe-trotting campaign, Modern Warfare 3 stands tall as another great descendant of the game that changed a generation. "
- Eurogamer (80/100): "Whatever next year's entry brings, some measure of reinvention will be essential. For now, its exuberant blend of testicular bravado and blockbuster gloss ensures that Call of Duty retains its crown as the shooter genre's biggest, boldest rollercoaster ride for at least one more year."
Metareview: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3
85
We said that "Modern Warfare 3 is a great Call of Duty game, just as every other entry in the franchise is a great Call of Duty game." It's not perfect, but it's the best at what it does... and what it does best is make a whole ton of money. Here's what others had to say:
Reader Comments (85)
Posted: Nov 8th 2011 6:08PM ItsameMatt03 said
Conspiracy! Bias!
Activision must have paid all of these sites!
Activision must have paid all of these sites!
Posted: Nov 8th 2011 9:41PM ScruffyTheJanitor said
@Vidikron
It happens on IMDB so it's entirely plausible it could happen to a video-game too. Haters gonna hate as per.
Reply
It happens on IMDB so it's entirely plausible it could happen to a video-game too. Haters gonna hate as per.
Posted: Nov 8th 2011 10:46PM LeonX84 said
@ItsameMatt03
I just spent all day playing MW3 and I gotta say it's a little disappointing... I did however like the survival mode which I guess you can call it something new. Multiplayer is terrible... Shotguns and grenades are nerf and sniper rifles are overpowered and quick scope is seriously an issue. Even tho they said their multiplayer maps will have less choke points, I beg to differ... If you're new to a map, well you'll be the only ones that are running around like a chicken with his head cut off while the rest are camping. Perks are also broken IMO... Good thing I didn't bight it, instead i borrowed a friend's instead and saved myself $60 :)
Reply
I just spent all day playing MW3 and I gotta say it's a little disappointing... I did however like the survival mode which I guess you can call it something new. Multiplayer is terrible... Shotguns and grenades are nerf and sniper rifles are overpowered and quick scope is seriously an issue. Even tho they said their multiplayer maps will have less choke points, I beg to differ... If you're new to a map, well you'll be the only ones that are running around like a chicken with his head cut off while the rest are camping. Perks are also broken IMO... Good thing I didn't bight it, instead i borrowed a friend's instead and saved myself $60 :)
Posted: Nov 9th 2011 3:38AM Juneau888 said
@Vidikron I would agree with you however, the majority of user reviews are more pissed that when they bought a "New" game, all they got was a £50 map pack.
Me personally, I have no idea how a game that doesn't change throughout it's series can still score so highly on metacritic reviews. Any other game and i'm sure it would be the main complaint from reviewers. However, it's not so all I see from reviews atm is
"BESTEST GAME EVVEERRR!" >_
Reply
Me personally, I have no idea how a game that doesn't change throughout it's series can still score so highly on metacritic reviews. Any other game and i'm sure it would be the main complaint from reviewers. However, it's not so all I see from reviews atm is
"BESTEST GAME EVVEERRR!" >_
Posted: Nov 9th 2011 11:13AM Vidikron said
@Juneau888
No, it's still obviously largely non-CD players. "It's the same game" is the standard argument used by all anti-CoD people even if they haven't touched the game. Don't be fooled into thinking all those people have actually bought and then reviewed the game. I guarantee you most have not.
Reply
No, it's still obviously largely non-CD players. "It's the same game" is the standard argument used by all anti-CoD people even if they haven't touched the game. Don't be fooled into thinking all those people have actually bought and then reviewed the game. I guarantee you most have not.
Posted: Nov 9th 2011 12:51PM thenutman69321 said
@Vidikron
I'm a huge CoD fan and have bought every one of them. The past 3 or 4 are all the same game with slightly changed graphics. The same good game but still the same game.
Reply
I'm a huge CoD fan and have bought every one of them. The past 3 or 4 are all the same game with slightly changed graphics. The same good game but still the same game.
Posted: Nov 8th 2011 6:09PM ReadingRambo said
Posted: Nov 8th 2011 8:34PM Warlock234 said
@ReadingRambo
So it's one building they reused for an Easter Egg type thing... what a big deal. I have three words for this-Back to Karkand.
Reply
So it's one building they reused for an Easter Egg type thing... what a big deal. I have three words for this-Back to Karkand.
Posted: Nov 9th 2011 1:54AM Mattjm991 said
@ReadingRambo
So your saying a game sucks if the designer use level assets from their other games?
Well I guess every game Valve has made sucks with that reasoning. This is a common practice used in many games. At least the building was textured differently.
Reply
So your saying a game sucks if the designer use level assets from their other games?
Well I guess every game Valve has made sucks with that reasoning. This is a common practice used in many games. At least the building was textured differently.
Posted: Nov 8th 2011 6:13PM Special Agent Bob said
I never thought I'd see the day when I agree with eurogamer.
Posted: Nov 8th 2011 6:35PM Special Agent Steve said
@Special Agent Bob
I never thought I'd see the day when I agreed with you, Bob.
Reply
I never thought I'd see the day when I agreed with you, Bob.
Posted: Nov 8th 2011 7:57PM A Sandwich said
@Special Agent Bob
Most Eurogamers Reviews:
"How dare they give this game less than a 10/10!? All they do is buck trends for the sake of bucking trends! Dirty, average-score-lowering hipsters douchebags!
Eurogamer's MW3 Review:
"In the savage, lawless wilds of bought and paid for video game journalism, Eurogamer is the light!"
Reply
Most Eurogamers Reviews:
"How dare they give this game less than a 10/10!? All they do is buck trends for the sake of bucking trends! Dirty, average-score-lowering hipsters douchebags!
Eurogamer's MW3 Review:
"In the savage, lawless wilds of bought and paid for video game journalism, Eurogamer is the light!"
Posted: Nov 8th 2011 8:42PM Zolbrod said
@Special Agent Bob I find they score/criticize games in a fair way pretty consistently, actually.
Uncharted 3 got an 8 too, which it deserves much more than a 10, or even a 9, being as unbalanced as it is.
Arkham City got a 9, though, as did Xenoblade.
Both games are MUCH better than BF3, UC3 and COD3 as far as I'm concerned too.
Reply
Uncharted 3 got an 8 too, which it deserves much more than a 10, or even a 9, being as unbalanced as it is.
Arkham City got a 9, though, as did Xenoblade.
Both games are MUCH better than BF3, UC3 and COD3 as far as I'm concerned too.
Posted: Nov 8th 2011 6:14PM SmashZilla said
Another year for me to begrudgingly invest far too much time into this game/series. Thank god I can skip the story mode.
Well, I guess I can't complain about 60fps, near seamless online experience. Spec Ops looks cool too.
Well, I guess I can't complain about 60fps, near seamless online experience. Spec Ops looks cool too.
Posted: Nov 8th 2011 6:35PM SmashZilla said
@gold163
It's like crack though. I want to quit but I just need one more hit of Prestige.
Reply
It's like crack though. I want to quit but I just need one more hit of Prestige.
Posted: Nov 8th 2011 6:38PM SKYRIM111111 said
@gold163
begrudgingly still addicted. doesn't sound like he hates the game
Reply
begrudgingly still addicted. doesn't sound like he hates the game
Posted: Nov 8th 2011 6:16PM BrianH said
Posted: Nov 8th 2011 10:54PM Warlock234 said
@BrianH
Everybody knows it runs the same engine...
Reply
Everybody knows it runs the same engine...
Posted: Nov 9th 2011 12:51AM WiredKnight said
@BrianH
Not sure what you're trying to prove here...that this is the first time you've played MW3 on that computer? What else would it base it on besides the previous version?
Reply
Not sure what you're trying to prove here...that this is the first time you've played MW3 on that computer? What else would it base it on besides the previous version?
Posted: Nov 8th 2011 6:18PM King Johngie the Fourth said
I'll admit, multiplayer feels disappointingly similar to MW2, but so far it seems to be way more balanced, making for a very enjoyable experience.
Posted: Nov 8th 2011 6:19PM DekuTree said
If it's only great as a CoD game, shouldn't it get its own rating scale? Not 4.5 stars compared to non CoD games?
Posted: Nov 8th 2011 6:27PM Doctor Who said
@DekuTree
I'm gonna have to agree with you on that. The current system means that MW3 and Deus Ex: Human Revolution have about the same score. I think we can all see though which game is clearly superior, but because most COD game reviews just rate the game in comparison to the last COD, the score isn't an accurate reflection of how this game stacks up to others in the industry. Its aggravating!
Reply
I'm gonna have to agree with you on that. The current system means that MW3 and Deus Ex: Human Revolution have about the same score. I think we can all see though which game is clearly superior, but because most COD game reviews just rate the game in comparison to the last COD, the score isn't an accurate reflection of how this game stacks up to others in the industry. Its aggravating!
Posted: Nov 8th 2011 6:31PM Roflrex said
@DekuTree The scores are just an arbitrary scale to show whether the reviewer thinks the game is worth getting or not. Read the actual reviews and the rating is meaningless. That way you will be able to differentiate the different between Deus Ex and Modern Brofare 3.
Reply
Posted: Nov 8th 2011 7:15PM Doctor Who said
@Altrix
I'm not saying I don't enjoy both equally, but Deus Ex: Human Revolution was a better game. It brought more to the medium both in storytelling, game play, and design. Modern Warfare 3, though it does make slight changes to the general CoD formula, is still basically the same game we've been playing for the last 5 years. It doesn't really make sense why they'd be put on the same scale of rating.
Personally, I like to see a rating scale that shows the impact a game makes as a whole on a medium. Maybe I'm the odd one out, but I feel this impact should be held to a higher level of importance in the industry than it is. Might just be me though
Reply
I'm not saying I don't enjoy both equally, but Deus Ex: Human Revolution was a better game. It brought more to the medium both in storytelling, game play, and design. Modern Warfare 3, though it does make slight changes to the general CoD formula, is still basically the same game we've been playing for the last 5 years. It doesn't really make sense why they'd be put on the same scale of rating.
Personally, I like to see a rating scale that shows the impact a game makes as a whole on a medium. Maybe I'm the odd one out, but I feel this impact should be held to a higher level of importance in the industry than it is. Might just be me though
Posted: Nov 8th 2011 7:48PM Vidikron said
@Doctor Who
That's kind of silly though as it implies you must be innovative to get a good score. I see people use that line of thought all the time but it's horrendously faulty as it means a good formula must be changed or discarded for the next game. It's change for the sake of change. While I think innovation is necessary for the overall health of the industry, there's nothing wrong with a game doing what it does best when people enjoy it.
Reply
That's kind of silly though as it implies you must be innovative to get a good score. I see people use that line of thought all the time but it's horrendously faulty as it means a good formula must be changed or discarded for the next game. It's change for the sake of change. While I think innovation is necessary for the overall health of the industry, there's nothing wrong with a game doing what it does best when people enjoy it.
Posted: Nov 8th 2011 8:03PM Doctor Who said
@Vidikron
Hmmm, you make a valid point. Looking back on it, my argument does seem quiet silly. Haha, I guess my hate for anything Activision is just making me a little butt hurt that its getting such good scores. XD
Reply
Hmmm, you make a valid point. Looking back on it, my argument does seem quiet silly. Haha, I guess my hate for anything Activision is just making me a little butt hurt that its getting such good scores. XD
Posted: Nov 8th 2011 9:58PM (Unverified) said
@Vidikron
See, I agree with most of what you're saying, but I also think you're at least starting to run into an issue when 3 out of 4 reviews talk about the next game. Half of the discussion is on past iterations, or what people expected but didn't get and are therefore hoping for next time. From just glancing at this metareview, it seems like people are saying "It's not what you'd dream of, but it's still a lot of fun" and I think people aren't as concerned as they should be with the distinction between "good" and "good enough." Is it worthwhile or compelling for any reason other than that it's new?
That's what I think the core of this is, and not necessarily what people are always talking about.
Reply
See, I agree with most of what you're saying, but I also think you're at least starting to run into an issue when 3 out of 4 reviews talk about the next game. Half of the discussion is on past iterations, or what people expected but didn't get and are therefore hoping for next time. From just glancing at this metareview, it seems like people are saying "It's not what you'd dream of, but it's still a lot of fun" and I think people aren't as concerned as they should be with the distinction between "good" and "good enough." Is it worthwhile or compelling for any reason other than that it's new?
That's what I think the core of this is, and not necessarily what people are always talking about.
Posted: Nov 8th 2011 6:30PM McPo said
"If you're expecting a huge departure"
Yeah right.........
Yeah right.........
Posted: Nov 8th 2011 6:31PM DavieD123 said
"This looks like the same as all other COD's"... *End up still buying it*... *Rave reviews*... "Why all the COD bashing guys?"... *Glitches/overpowered weapons discovered*... "Multiplayer is an unbalanced mess, I'm never buying COD again"... Rinse and repeat.
Posted: Nov 8th 2011 6:33PM SkizzNutt509 said
for me the difference between mw3 multiplayer and bf3, is that i actually feel guilty in bf when i walk away from the game during a match and leave my team to fend for themselves while a smoke a cig, or grab some dinner. It just doesn't really matter in mw3.
Posted: Nov 8th 2011 6:57PM SKYRIM111111 said
@SkizzNutt509
that's because bf3 is more squad based than mw3.
mw3 repeats the same kind of game play because it works. its incredibly addictive. but sense they don't have squads you don't feel so bad when you quit mid game.
if they gave it squads it would be so addictive we would lose 10% of the population to cod.
Reply
that's because bf3 is more squad based than mw3.
mw3 repeats the same kind of game play because it works. its incredibly addictive. but sense they don't have squads you don't feel so bad when you quit mid game.
if they gave it squads it would be so addictive we would lose 10% of the population to cod.
Posted: Nov 8th 2011 7:46PM SkizzNutt509 said
@SKYRIM111111 haha i disagree good sir. i honestly think it would ruin their twitchy arcade shooter feel, which is what people want. Fast paced means the rewards come faster. Gaming is a simple reward system, you do good, you get reward.... more or less but you get what i'm saying. mw is all about pace i think
Reply
Posted: Nov 9th 2011 1:25PM GreenLight said
@SkizzNutt509 I'm a proud camper and a fan of both games. That being said, it's much easier to walk away and drop a mid-game deuce while playing BF3, than it is in MW3. Modern Warfare is much too fast-paced and the maps are smaller, making it easier to get caught and shot (with your pants down). with Battlefield 3, I can comfortably drop a deuce, grab another beer, and get back to the sticks without anyone even noticing, because the maps are so damn huge. Your comment is fanboy-ish and I projectile vomit in it's general direction. Long live both games.
Reply
Posted: Nov 10th 2011 4:50PM SkizzNutt509 said
@GreenLight It's great how you got all childish at the end of your comment. No fanboyism here broham just how i feel. You don't need to insult somebody to get your point across. I understand what you're saying but i disagree, i think that my team would need me more while i'm smoking during bf3. Actually i know they would, cause it's team based gameplay. Mw3 is good for hanging with friend and killing people at a fast pace. It's all about k/d ratio in mw. I will gladly take bullets and be a meat shield for my teamate if it's for the objective and expect them to do the same in bf3. In mw not so much. People are too worried about their own personal ratio and streaks, but that's how the game is built and that's completely fine.
Reply
Posted: Nov 8th 2011 6:40PM SisypheanLife said
I would call CoD multiplayer a lot of things, but I certainly wouldn't call it "extremely deep", as Game Trailers did.








