Google+

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 review

Back to Article

180 comments

  • alienkid771 - November 9, 2011 6:08 p.m.

    To everyone bitching about people bitching, comment sections are meant for opinions, no just everyone mindless agreeing with everything the writer says,
  • BladedFalcon - November 9, 2011 6:55 p.m.

    Complaining isn't the problem at all. it's the way a lot of people say it, and make it sound like they are either flaming trolls, mindless fanboys, or that they knew the ultimate truth for everything concerning this universe. Disagreeing and creating discussion is perfectly fine, hell, that often what I aim to do. But it's pretty jarring when some people just go for the hyperboles and extremes.
  • mothbanquet - November 10, 2011 6:17 a.m.

    Agreed.
  • zd24 - November 9, 2011 4:07 p.m.

    cod 4 is the best xbox game ever, no matter what they do the new ones will never be as good
  • c1nd3rcell - November 9, 2011 3:46 p.m.

    I buy games to enjoy their singleplayer, multiplayer rarely gets my respect. However, I can't stand the suspense of saying goodbye to Price and Soap, so I will be buying this one, maybe by the end of the month.
  • Timothy_Lemon - November 9, 2011 1:49 p.m.

    i don't understand the fanboy faggotry that surrounds big titles getting the scores they deserve? both mw3 & bf3 are great games, worthy of their review scores so why do people continually bitch and moan? just play which one YOU like more and keep your opinions about the media/game devs/publishers and other stuff you clearly know nothing about to yourself.
  • mothbanquet - November 10, 2011 6:19 a.m.

    Couldn't have said it better myself. I'm more of a Battlefield fan but BF3 was a major disappointment in everything other than the multiplayer for me. I've always said BF for MP, MW for SP and it looks like that still holds true.
  • theCROOKintheHAMMOCK - November 9, 2011 11:03 a.m.

    i have one word and one acronym for you: "battlefield FTW" it is imensley more fun with vehicles and stuff explodes. End of.
  • rtotheb - November 9, 2011 9:55 a.m.

    To all the people calling all the websites biased and sellouts for giving the game a high score, what seems more believable? That every single one of these websites is biased/in the pocket of activision, or that you might be wrong about the game?
  • Frencho - November 9, 2011 10:05 a.m.

    that media loves COD, period. And the flock of console casual braindeads follows. Cuz casual gamers play what media tells is best. MW3 is the same shit that MW1, fact.
  • mothbanquet - November 10, 2011 6:43 a.m.

    That comment shows quite clearly how little you know. MW2 was completely different in both tone and feel to its prequel, and that was to its detriment. Not that you'll appreciate the analogy but you might as well say that Saving Private Ryan is the same 'shit' and Kelly's Heroes. To you and all the other idiots who seem to suspect some kind of media/publisher conspiracy, CoD sells well because they're good games. The lack of variety WILL hurt it eventually (this is the second CoD I won't be buying new) but not every movie-goer wants to spend money going to art-house films when they know they likely won't enjoy it. Wipe the rabid foam from your chin and grow up.
  • Rhymenocerous - November 9, 2011 8:43 a.m.

    I buy games solely for single player experiences, and MW3 doesn't justify the price with a 6-7 hour slog from one scripted set-piece to another, therefore I will give this a miss. So that's that. Good review though.
  • Spybreak8 - November 9, 2011 8:42 a.m.

    For ones that are looking to compare and contrast MW3 with BF3, like me, head on over to this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=Hwg6zQ6MyE0 It does a good job of reviewing MW3 and then answering the question all of us gamers want to know. How does BF3 and MW3 stack up when they're looked side by side. It's good that Infinity Ward delivered, just a shame what happened to that developer though. Looking forward to what Respawn creates too.
  • CentipedeOrgy - November 9, 2011 7:52 a.m.

    Also why is charlie to pussy to compare it to battlefield he did the same sh*t with GOW3 grow some balls
  • CentipedeOrgy - November 9, 2011 7:46 a.m.

    do the words in the review actually matter when you give it a number grade I REALLY dont get how this translates to a 9 "Not a fan of the online in Call of Duty? This is more of the same. Enjoy the online in Call of Duty? This is a lot more of the same"
  • alphafour - November 9, 2011 5:21 a.m.

    I want Call of Duty to get its market share eaten massively. Not because I don't like Call of Duty but because I want it to change. I loved the first one I just want a game that I can look at and play and think "Wow they have really made progress since I last splashed £50 for their game". I don't get that feeling and that's why I won't buy until they change. It might not be the same opinion as the vast majority of diehard fans. Who am I to say they're idiots for buying it? They must still like something about it I guess I just don't agree with them heh. Possibly the reason why so many people can enjoy this game is because the majority of people have friends who have this game. We all know that you can make ANYTHING fun if you're doing it with friends. I don't really know where this comment is going but basically I hope some game comes out of nowhere and blows COD out of the water. If that forces COD to change, I can finally buy it again and the love I once had for the series will come flowing back!
  • 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*
  • BladedFalcon - November 9, 2011 3:14 p.m.

    Yes, you do. Because the problem is not that you're sick of CoD games, and you don't want them to keep selling them like they do. Again, I get that, I'm also against this series's popularity, and i refuse to dish any more money on it. The problem, is that in your first post, you basically gave a huge whine, rant, and ultimately flaming insult to the reviewer, and called him a sellout, ultimately destroying any credibility your argument could have had, because you reacted exactly like he stupid fanboys you claim to hate and not want to be led to buy CoD any more. As for the game itself, yeah, it hasn't evolved much, and calling it an extra map pack is probably not too far off, but then again, what big franchise doesn't do that these days? It's how the industry works, and the only way to change that, is by speaking with your wallet, and with word of mouth, to YOUR friends and people YOU know, who you can make a sensible comment or recommendation of games that are worth it. But if you start to spout insults like that, who do you think is ever gonna listen to you?
  • tyraniton - November 9, 2011 5:01 p.m.

    last comment meant for farsider
  • farsided - November 10, 2011 1:58 a.m.

    Do you honestly think anyone is going to listen either way? This wasn't intended for anyone but Charlie Barratt, and I'm really f*cking disappointed in him. Obviously, I don't think he was actually paid by activision, but I do believe he's going back on everything Gamesradar has said of what makes a good game, and what needs to be changed. In the end he just showed that he's just another one of the media that can't get off the CoD hype train, while legitimate gamers (not casuals) have been mocking this sad excuse of a release nonstop. Oh, and tyraniton, maybe I might be able to understand a single thing you're saying if you'd remove Charlie's dick from your mouth first.

Showing 21-40 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