Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 for Xbox 360 Reviews by Gamers

I have played every Call of Duty since CoD3, and in doing so I've put in no less than 80 hours into the multiplayer of each. I really liked all of them, but when Black Ops came out, I stopped forgiving the series for its glaring weaknesses.

Visually:
Animation has always been stiff, character models appeared plastic and the environment is the definition of static. With CoD:MW, this was understandable. There are limitations to what the hardware and software can accomplish, I understand that (I'm a software engineer). But as other games started using new tricks technologies to combat their aging engines, Infinity Ward and Treyarch felt justified in leaving their modified Quake III engine mostly untouched. These games look amazing in stills, but in motion there really is no excuse for skating models low resolution textures. MW3 is no different.

Sound:
Inexcusable. If you don't agree, get a better audio setup and try anything else, then try this. Your TV's speakers are thin.

Gameplay:
I love classic games, but I don't like playing them everyday. I respect Goldeneye for what it is, but I don't enjoy it anymore. The mechanics are dated, and we as a culture and an industry, have moved past that stage of gaming. MW3 is nearly identical in "feel" as the previous (I'm not kidding, this is the actual number of these games that have used this proprietary engine) five games in the series. This is familiar ground. If you love playing classic games, regardless of how dated they are, please stop reading now if you've made it this far. Some "new" ideas are welcomed additions, but they're bandages for deep wounds. Every new addition just counterbalances a five year old design flaw. Games boil down to two things: if you want to have fun, you'll lose. If you want to win, you'll spend most of your time exploiting the weaknesses in game design. Maps are riddled with areas designed for and cater to camping.

I understand why people like it, but I prefe

I am not a COD fanboy or a Battlefield fanboy so I think it would be fair for me to give my unbiased review of this game. I have read all the reviews on this site, so to all the people who have said that the battlefield fanboys are giving this game low scores and being trolls, why don't you actually read what the reviews say instead of assuming that they are just trolling. About 90% of the reviews that are 8 or lower actually have reasons for their scores, and im tired of seeing people give this game a ten; and for the review they just write "this game is the best game ever"

The Singleplayer was intense and actionpacked, as expected with all the COD's. But its also very short with usually no more then 6 hours gameplay. The singleplayer has never disappointed me but it should longer then 6 hours.

The Multiplayer was your standard generic COD gameplay that refuses to change. They added survival mode (which is nothing new at this point with Gears of war's Hoard mode, or halo' firefight). The survival mode is okay but can only hold up to two players (which is dumb).
The new kill Confirmed is the pretty enjoyable, and the only good thing about the multiplayer.
But as for the rest of the multiplayer it is the exact same thing (literally copy and paste) as modern warfare 2 with some new guns and kill streaks.
I Enjoyed the first modern warfare gameplay was still fresh and original. But now it has become the same thing over and over again every year.
Some people may argue that if its not broken dont fix it, but in the competitive market of the first person shooters that wont help you. Every year Shooters like Gears of War, Halo, and Battlefield are constantly changing things up and if Cod does not start changing, then it will fall behind all the shooters.
So after years and years of the same thing the game becomes stale and repetitive which why i give it a "7".