Google+

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 review

Back to Article

180 comments

  • SerpentineZERO - November 8, 2011 6:40 p.m.

    Why does everyone want them to compare it to BF3? No matter what they say if they do so, it'll just start a dumb flame war. I mean, like why the hell do you care. They're different enough games to the point where you can make your own decision about whichever one's better for you.
  • Spybreak8 - November 8, 2011 10:04 p.m.

    Mainly because they are very similar and they were marketed as you know that other game well we're better. It would be nice to have a little detail on the strengths and weaknesses of each game. I would say BF3 has the better multiplayer and MW3 has the better single player bu that's just speculative since I don't have either. (unemployed atm)
  • TheSatur9 - November 8, 2011 10:24 p.m.

    Agreed. Besides, everyone already knows that if they did do a "Is it better than..." it would just end up telling people which would be best depending on preferences. They have been doing that a lot lately.
  • pyrosomniac - November 8, 2011 7:06 p.m.

    Thanks so much for mentioning that it feels like an Infinity Ward game. I was pretty concerned with all the developer drama going on during production, since my favorite Call of Dutys were all Infinity Ward productions. Thanks for acknowledging the differences in the games between developers, and thanks for reassuring me that this is going to be like the other Infinity Ward games!
  • Yeager1122 - November 8, 2011 8:05 p.m.

    Maybe ill play this sometime in the future hopefully when the price drops but doubt that will happen for like 2 years would rather play skyrim saints row 3 or assassins creed revelations wont even be able to get all of those.
  • BudaBaker - November 8, 2011 8:24 p.m.

    I think it is sad when people buy things like this just because everybody else does. Just like the ipod if you market it right and get enough people behind you you can sell them same thing over and over again and call it new and revolutionary.
  • Zepaw - November 8, 2011 9:07 p.m.

    I think it is sad when ever people dismiss popular things as just being bought by sheep. No I couldn't have tried out around 10 phones over the past couple years and determined the iPhone was best for me; I just wanted to be special and get attention. I buy CoD because it is always fun for me. GoW is popular and I don't like the game at all. I don't dismiss people who like it as fools. I just don't play it and move on. Why can't CoD haters do the same?
  • avantguardian - November 9, 2011 12:56 a.m.

    zepaw is 100% right. while i agree with the sentiment that buying stuff because it's popular is sad, lumping everyone who buys something into that one category is even moreso. is that a pic of master chief? irony...
  • StuntzMcKenzy - November 9, 2011 1:19 a.m.

    That doesnt change the fact that a lot people only buy the game for the same reason people buy Madden every year. BECAUSE ITS POPULAR!!! 95% of my co-workers will buy MW3 just because its everyone will. Those same co-workers wont buy another game the entire year!
  • Zepaw - November 9, 2011 5:11 a.m.

    Many buy it because it is popular just for popularity sake but because it means they can pretty sure their friends will have it and they will be able to play together. Whether I think people will still be playing X game a few months out is an important factor in buying a game. I don't want to toss $60 into a multiplayer game with no community behind it.
  • StuntzMcKenzy - November 9, 2011 9:53 a.m.

    Thats not my point. My point is just because people buy it doesnt make it great. And thats from a person who loved COD up until the recent years.
  • Zepaw - November 8, 2011 8:58 p.m.

    Just finished Single Player. MW2 was a near perfect game for me so unsurprisingly this did not quite reach that high but I would easily give it a 10/10. After a couple hours of multiplayer once I got a little used to the new maps etc I am really falling for it. Very glad I bought it.
  • KillerTofu - November 8, 2011 9 p.m.

    GR really needs to implement an up/down vote system for these comment sections...and a community that knows how to write at least semi-intelligent and worthwhile comments. 1 in 10 of you are useful, congrats.
  • number1hitjam - November 9, 2011 1:30 a.m.

    eh, it's better than gamespot's
  • DevonOO7 - November 8, 2011 9:11 p.m.

    I just beat the campaign. And for someone who plays ARMA and doesn't really like Call of Duty that much, I really enjoyed the Single player.
  • gmcb2011 - November 8, 2011 10:54 p.m.

    More of the same...worthy of a 9? Maybe. Worthy of 60 more of my dollars? Not one bit. I'll pass.
  • Lucas - November 8, 2011 11:50 p.m.

    I'll stick to Banjo Kazooie...
  • Cruddi - November 9, 2011 1:53 a.m.

    For me i felt like the mulitplayer in Black ops had more guns and extras such as face paints, your character changing the way he looked depending on the perk you chose and being able to create your own Emblem although i was poor at it i still liked it. Other than that it's a good multiplayer well worth waiting in the cold on a monday night for.
  • farsided - November 9, 2011 5:15 a.m.

    You know what? I used to come to gamesradar for its reviews because I felt they were fairly balanced. I actually recommended the site to most of my friends. But this? Giving the 7th CoD title in 7 years- which has done nothing to really advance its genre in the past 4, and is such a rehash that in an error popup, it refers to itself as MW2- a solid review, and on top of that a 9? Are you f*cking kidding me? Meanwhile, BF3- the first real battlefield experience in 6 years, running a fresh and utterly brilliant frostbite engine, with guns and combat that actually feel weighty, whose only real fault I've found lies with the flashlight- got picked at for its campaign (which honestly nobody really cares about) and received an 8? Or Rage- probably the most beautiful game I've ever played, where I constantly find myself stopping to scan the horizon, and take in the awesome scenery that is this wasteland, with memorable character designs and believable animations, on top of a perfect arsenal of weapons that can be selected, in addition to having their ammo picked out, in mere moments- getting criticized for not forcing you to take part in races (let's be honest, you would have whined twice as hard had they forced you to do it instead), or the fact that the authority aren't as interesting as the wildly acrobatic shadow clan (they're heavily armored, what did you honestly expect? Besides, they make up for it with jetpacks, shields, snipers, and grenades), or the texture pop (which is only really an issue if you don't install, and seriously, who doesn't?) receiving an 8 as well? Meanwhile MW3 is sitting around reusing buildings from CoD4, using 2009 era textures, and looking like an all around GIANT GRAY SH*T. You can sit here and say, "well the number system is pretty arbitrary. You shouldn't make such a big deal of it." The problem with that is that people are going to look at the scores and say, "well MW3 is rated more highly than these other games, I guess that's the one I'm getting this season." And you will have been the one to lead those lambs to the slaughter. F*ck you Charlie Barrat. Grow some balls and give this game the review it deserves, not the one Activision paid you for. Feel free to stick this in your next podcast, I'd be eager to hear it read out loud to the tunes of Inception.
  • BladedFalcon - November 9, 2011 7:23 a.m.

    "OH NO YOU GAVE THIS GAME A SCORE I DON'T AGREE WITH! YOU'RE SUCH A SELLOUT AND ACTIVISION'S B*TCH!" I'm not a fan of CoD at this point, and like I stated before, even if everyone says it's good, I'm not gonna bother buying this game anymore. But I'm also sick of imbeciles like you calling the reviewers of an article "Sellouts" for giving a score YOU think it's too high. Considering most major sites have reviewed the game with such high scores as well, I'm then to assume all those have been paid of by activision as well, eh? Grow a brain, will you?
  • farsided - November 9, 2011 2:19 p.m.

    No, he's giving the game a score I KNOW is too high. I sit on this site day after day seeing complaints of genuinely good games not getting a chance because people are too busy shelling out for their 4th CoD in just as many years. And those people are often enough looking to the reviewers to justify their purchases. I have enough experience with this series. Though I haven't purchased a copy since CoD2, I've logged more than enough time in every version to have a solid opinion of it. I've seen enough videos, and I've done my reading. MW3 is, in all honesty, a $60 map pack. The textures are just as muddy and gray as they were in MW2. They've said it themselves, it's just a few new modes and a handful of balance changes. Until the reviewers start to step up and slam it for how much of a rehash it is, no matter how solid the original was, people are just gonna keep handing over their money for it, and until that stops, we're going to coming up to 2013 with CoD 10 (9 has already been announced), and until that slows or stops, we will not see progression in the industry we care about. But you can just sit there and say, "quit complaining about review scores!" and yet I'm the one that needs to grow a brain? *facepalm*

Showing 121-140 of 180 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000

More Info

Available Platforms: Xbox 360, Wii, PC, PS3
Genre: Shooter
Published by: Activision
Franchise: Call of Duty
ESRB Rating:
Mature: Blood and Gore, Drug Reference, Intense Violence, Strong Language