gamers (77%) found this review helpful
First and formost, I am a Call of Duty fanboy and this game isn't that great. Why? Because as a lot of others have pointed out..... its a lot of the same. Cool weapons. Cool leveling system (MP). Awesome campaign. But the thing that keeps a lot of us playing COD all the way untill the next one comes out is multiplayer. This is the one area that they didn't make the kind of inovations in as they did with every other COD. A couple tweaks here and there. Such as Kill Confirmed, a "new" gamemode which is just a variation on TDM. Or what they did to the killstreak system allowing you to choose from 3 to cater to your playstyle. The killstreaks arent that balanced and everyone seems to just settle for the shock and awe assault class (which caters to anyone willing to sacrifice winning for individual stats like K/D ratio). By biggest beef is by far the maps. They are all relativly small close quarter. And if they are larger they are split up into narrow corridors which favors any team with a UAV. There is hardly any open areas to cover and suport your team, just seems like everyone is running around like chickens with thier heads cut off.
The campaign is probably the best yet. From a cohesive story standpoint its much more easy to follow and the scale is much bigger. It still is a cycle of getting to some LZ, defending an area, or getting some intel and the bad guy cues are as obvious as ever but it is still more satisfying at the end.
The multiplayer is what stands as this games biggest dissapointment. I think that after the initial glow of having a new COD game out, people will not be naming COD:MW3 as thier favorite. Although they will play it untill the next one, i think unless infinity ward reinvents this franchise, this game will be marked as the beginning of the end of one of the most coveted FPS franchises in video gaming.
Should you rent, absolutely. But ask is a 60 dollar map pack with new weapons worth buying?
posted by JNFattorini (VIRGINIA BEACH, VA) Dec 7, 2011
Member since Dec 2011
gamers (80%) found this review helpful
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.
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.
Inexcusable. If you don't agree, get a better audio setup and try anything else, then try this. Your TV's speakers are thin.
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.
posted by SpeaksTheTruth (MANALAPAN, NJ) Nov 10, 2011
Member since Nov 2011
gamers (76%) found this review helpful
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".