Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 review

Back to Article


  • 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.
  • 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.
  • AMayer - November 8, 2011 5:25 p.m.

    I'm sorry if someone already said this, but I was hoping in the "Is it better than..." section you would have compaired MW3 to Battlefield 3. I know that you guys gave BF3 an 8, but I feel the comparison is olbigatory. Otherwise, sweet review, brah.
  • spideralex90 - November 8, 2011 4:10 p.m.

    Every COD review makes me lose faith in this blog. You guys always scrutinize games hard for not reinventing the wheel, or 'trying to be COD'. COD IS TRYING TO BE COD. IT'S NOT CHANING EVER, yet somehow it still gets high scores? Higher than BF3 Who really deserves the attention? Come on GR.
  • spideralex90 - November 8, 2011 4:11 p.m.

    Sorry rage made me forget how to spell Changing.
  • mopfish - November 8, 2011 5:21 p.m.

    Battlefield had a worse campaign, no equivalent to special ops and survival mode and didn't evolve it's multiplayer :L
  • spideralex90 - November 8, 2011 8:07 p.m.

    Major visual overhaul? Rather in depth unlock system? Free stat tracking?
  • Jacko415 - November 8, 2011 9:51 p.m.

    The campaign was a neat side project. The multiplayer is the game. Stop bringing the singleplayer into your arguments.
  • SerpentineZERO - November 8, 2011 6:23 p.m.

    Everyone that usually tries to be CoD more often than not fails. COD may deliver more of the same, but it's still better than all the copycats.
  • spideralex90 - November 8, 2011 7:58 p.m.

    Better? Yes. Worth $60? No.
  • Meleedragon27 - November 8, 2011 4:08 p.m.

    As much fun as I had with the campaign mode in MW2, I just cannot excuse how terribly short it was. No game should be able to have such a short campaign mode and get away with it - and no, a bigger multiplayer is not an acceptable substitute for this flaw. I may pick up MW3 some day (or maybe just rent it), but judging from the review, it seems like it's more of the same from MW2, but more refined (fun but unforgiveably short campaign, needlessly strong focus on multiplayer and co-op, etc.). That's saddening, but I wasn't really expecting anything different from CoD at this point.
  • Zepaw - November 8, 2011 3:20 p.m.

    I seem to be around halfway through Single Player and I love it. Story is predictable but it is a blast to play.
  • TheGuy0526 - November 8, 2011 3:16 p.m.

    I bought the game and I completely agree with the review. Sure, innovation is something to look for in games. But honestly, Call of Duty is the way I like it and i'd be pissed off if they completely revamped the way the game operated. I admit, some improvement in graphics would be nice, but the actual gameplay continues to build on what makes the CoD formula successful. You're better off building upon a formula that works than completely changing a formula thats already known for working. And no matter how many "hardcore" gamers disagree with that, the rest of America is gonna love it. And yeah, Skyrim looks ridiculous. Cant wait to get it.
  • Security77 - November 8, 2011 2:54 p.m.

    It blows my mind that this game is able to receive these amazing review scores after not doing ANYTHING. Usually "more of the same" is a criticism, yet when Modern Warfare is involved, "more of the same" magically becomes praise. Is it because the COD formula is so good it can last this long? Well then if it is, why don't people still play COD4? It's the same, right? We live in the world where developers can put everything on the line by investing in new and amazing technology, and not one reviewer bats and eyelash, but yet another developer releases a game that has virtually remained the same for four years, and everyone thinks it's incredible. This game is worth $60 you say, yet some expansions offer more content for just $15. "...can you honestly remember or distinguish every level from the last Halo...?" YES! Any self-respecting Halo fan can perform a mental walkthrough of any Halo level! You're saying that moving from one hallway to the other, shooting bland enemies, is better than what Halo has to offer? I would LOVE to hear what David Houghton has to say about MW3. Also I would love to hear someone read this dramatically on Talk Radar, set to the Inception theme, of course.
  • c-c-c-combo breaker - November 8, 2011 2:59 p.m.

    Oh dear, calm down a little. Too many people whine about games developers changing the formula of their games, only to whine when they stick to it. Look at pokemon. Still loveable, same decade-old formula - only difference is, the cuteness stops the whole 'hurr same game-engine' hate. Good review, I wasn't expecting this game to be as good as it was.
  • kingsmikefan - November 8, 2011 3:15 p.m.

    Zelda says hi. Shut up.
  • Moondoggie1157 - November 8, 2011 3:17 p.m.

  • TheGuy0526 - November 8, 2011 3:21 p.m.

    You can't blame them for not making some radical change in their formula. Why would you make a huge change when people like how it was before? Instead of going along with your grand idea of screwing up what made the last game good, they just improved upon what the fans like already. Makes sense to me.
  • Security77 - November 8, 2011 6:05 p.m.

    They don't have to change how the multiplayer works, an engine update would be nice, though. Each installment in the COD franchise is stacking bricks higher and higher, and the higher you go, the weaker the tower gets. They need to add more bricks to the bottom, by that I mean they need to change the formula up at least a little. Sticking to the same, well, everything, might keep your hardcore base playing and buying, but people who aren't crazy about Call of Duty are going to realize that they don't need to keep shelling out $60 to get the premier experience.
  • spideralex90 - November 8, 2011 8:11 p.m.

    You can make major changes while not effecting the core values of the game. IE Halo. Killzone. Battlefield. The list goes on.
  • spideralex90 - November 8, 2011 4:51 p.m.

    When I saw that thing about remembering Halo levels, I about crapped myself. Halo has such diverse levels, and rather memorable campaigns.

Showing 61-80 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