Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 Review

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

snfonseka:

Rainboq:

snfonseka:
Does it have vehicles in multiplayer?

When has CoD ever had vehicles in its multiplayer?

True. But I thought they would have made that change in MW3, due to the competition of BF3.

Uh...Call of Duty 3, and World at War? Did we forget them already?

I picked this up tonight and intended to play through the SP campaign, yet, given how absurd and quite frankly insulting the premise of the second mission was I pretty much just quit playing and tried out the multiplayer. The MP is addictive, even if the progression is kind of ass.

Why give you default classes that are better than anything you can get at the start? I tried making a custom class, discovered I could only make a super-suck one and went back to default.

Sinister Minister:

snfonseka:

Rainboq:
When has CoD ever had vehicles in its multiplayer?

True. But I thought they would have made that change in MW3, due to the competition of BF3.

Uh...Call of Duty 3, and World at War? Did we forget them already?

Eh, we play Call of Duty - United Offensive at work and it has vehicles. So . . yeah. UO is super old btw. Dunno if it's Cod1 or 2 as I never played them really.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
4/5 would have been better, not 4 and a half, IMO at least. I fucking hate it though, worst in the series behind Black Ops.

AnarchistFish:

If you're not fatigued by the series, you should definitely pick up MW3.

Yeah, basically what it's saying is, "this game is fantastic because some people will like it, 4.5/5, let's not take into account its faults"

No, its not. Its a highly polished game which does its thing and does it well. You might not like it, but thats an opinion.

Although I would love to hear its faults aside from HURR INNOVATION DURR, which isnt really a fault at all.

42:

AnarchistFish:

If you're not fatigued by the series, you should definitely pick up MW3.

Yeah, basically what it's saying is, "this game is fantastic because some people will like it, 4.5/5, let's not take into account its faults"

What faults? Destructoid gave MW3 a 9.5 compared to BF3's 7.5, and both were reviewed by Sterling. and he did name the flaws but he still praised it because it CoD does what it does so well. plus You don't need a FRICKING web browser to access the games Multiplayer. which is a grievance that Sterling also brought up in his review.

The game, even based on what this review says, doesn't sound like it deserves a 4.5 even if is a good game (which, if it's anything like MW2, I don't think it will be).
"Although I would love to hear its faults aside from HURR INNOVATION DURR, which isnt really a fault at all."
Yeah it is.

No it isn't, iterative game design has been happening for as long as there have been games. You can't reinvent the wheel whenever you make a game, sometimes you shouldn't even try it, especially when making a sequel. If you try to "innovate" too much the game will become unrecognisable compared to its predecessor. Just look at how fans are reeling against the latest Brothers in Arms game, they hate it because it's not the game they remember.

And heck, last page someone claimed BF3 was trying to be innovative, I dare them to explain how, for its single player it largely borrows from Modern Warfare, only with more QTEs and boring turret segments. And the multiplayer is a new iteration of the tried and true Battlefield design. It's no more or less innovative than

radeonox:
MW3 just did what it does well and sold 12312312312312 million copies, just like 4 and MW2.

that just means they are at least 12312312312312 people with low standards. Though i will admit i am biased towards BF3. BF3 has problems too. I am very disappointed in the way Dice handled single player and MP should have stuck to its well balanced game play like BF2142. now you have freakin snipers running around with shotguns putting down tac inserts everywhere. tsk tsk...

sinister minister:
Uh...Call of Duty 3, and World at War? Did we forget them already?

You forget that majority of CoD's fan base don't realize that the game didn't start at number four

Can you please get some reviewers who a)are not warped by corporate/traffic interest and b)have decent fps experience?
BF3 and MW3 are roughly the same in MP? MW3 has vehicles? Most idiotic comment and lame attempt at preventing the blatant, and fair, comparison between the games.

MW3 is just an over glorified map pack for a series that has last almost all it's steam. Shame that only a handful of sites admit this and instead just want to make the pre-order kids feel like they have invested their cash well.

AnarchistFish:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
4/5 would have been better, not 4 and a half, IMO at least. I fucking hate it though, worst in the series behind Black Ops.

AnarchistFish:

Yeah, basically what it's saying is, "this game is fantastic because some people will like it, 4.5/5, let's not take into account its faults"

No, its not. Its a highly polished game which does its thing and does it well. You might not like it, but thats an opinion.

Although I would love to hear its faults aside from HURR INNOVATION DURR, which isnt really a fault at all.

42:

AnarchistFish:

Yeah, basically what it's saying is, "this game is fantastic because some people will like it, 4.5/5, let's not take into account its faults"

What faults? Destructoid gave MW3 a 9.5 compared to BF3's 7.5, and both were reviewed by Sterling. and he did name the flaws but he still praised it because it CoD does what it does so well. plus You don't need a FRICKING web browser to access the games Multiplayer. which is a grievance that Sterling also brought up in his review.

The game, even based on what this review says, doesn't sound like it deserves a 4.5 even if is a good game (which, if it's anything like MW2, I don't think it will be).
"Although I would love to hear its faults aside from HURR INNOVATION DURR, which isnt really a fault at all."
Yeah it is.

No, its not.

Do you want me to list you a number of classic games that were sequels which innovated just as little or even less than the last Modern Warfare titles? Between MW2 and MW3 we have a few new perks, a new killstreak system, some new guns, meh. No big deal. Between BC2 and BF3 we have the same and JETS. Woop de fucking doo. And what about the Total War series? No big difference between the most recent games, they are still great. Or Warcraft in its days of RTS?

Modern Warfare 3 does what it does and does it well. If you are looking for something else, then look for something else; it still doesnt mean the game should have a lower score. Im not going to review Skyrim and give it a 2/10 because while the game is good, anyone who wants to use the game as a microwave will be disappointed.

You can bitch all you want, you are simply in the wrong here.

Someone please tell me they took out insta-win killstreaks from objective multiplayer games.
Kuddos for the Kill-Confirmed mode, though. Camping Dependency is for pussies.

In MW2 you can successfully defend an objective...by nuking it. That's pretty hilariously ironic from a game prides itself in "Realism," and I don't care how much skill you think you need to get a nuke.

Its all good in deathmatches, but being able to use them in team objective matches is lame. 75% of the objective games I played were full of cowards who camp for their nukes, and was the reason why I stopped playing. Seriously, why even bother playing objective matches if everyone is just going to hide and camp? Man up and play some deathmatch if all you want to do is snipe from the comforts of your hiddiehole. Or better yet, play Kill-Confirmed so I can steal all your lame kills.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

No, its not.

Do you want me to list you a number of classic games that were sequels which innovated just as little or even less than the last Modern Warfare titles? Between MW2 and MW3 we have a few new perks, a new killstreak system, some new guns, meh. No big deal. Between BC2 and BF3 we have the same and JETS. Woop de fucking doo. And what about the Total War series? No big difference between the most recent games, they are still great. Or Warcraft in its days of RTS?

Well they all suffer from it then. Why bother making a sequel if it is barely any different.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
Modern Warfare 3 does what it does and does it well. If you are looking for something else, then look for something else; it still doesnt mean the game should have a lower score. Im not going to review Skyrim and give it a 2/10 because while the game is good, anyone who wants to use the game as a microwave will be disappointed.

I like online multiplayer. I liked the BF3 Beta, Halo, etc. But CoD multiplayer really bores me

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
You can bitch all you want, you are simply in the wrong here.

lol

Can I just get a helping of the single player campaign, for say $20? Because it is waaaay overpriced considering it is just DLC from MW2...

Towels:
Someone please tell me they took out insta-win killstreaks from objective multiplayer games.
Kuddos for the Kill-Confirmed mode, though. Camping Dependency is for pussies.

In MW2 you can successfully defend an objective...by nuking it. That's pretty hilariously ironic from a game prides itself in "Realism," and I don't care how much skill you think you need to get a nuke.

Its all good in deathmatches, but being able to use them in team objective matches is lame. 75% of the objective games I played were full of cowards who camp for their nukes, and was the reason why I stopped playing. Seriously, why even bother playing objective matches if everyone is just going to hide and camp? Man up and play some deathmatch if all you want to do is snipe from the comforts of your hiddiehole. Or better yet, play Kill-Confirmed so I can steal all your lame kills.

Yep, they took out the nuke. But they do have something similar but less frustrating called the mother of all bombs. You have to get 25 kills with just your gun and then the entire enemy team is killed but your team aren't, it also doesn't finish the game. After that your team gets an advanced UAV for about a minute. So it's not as frustrating as the nuke.

ToastiestZombie:

Towels:
Someone please tell me they took out insta-win killstreaks from objective multiplayer games.

Yep, they took out the nuke. But they do have something similar but less frustrating called the mother of all bombs. You have to get 25 kills with just your gun and then the entire enemy team is killed but your team aren't, it also doesn't finish the game. After that your team gets an advanced UAV for about a minute. So it's not as frustrating as the nuke.

Ok, now I that I can get behind. Skillful players are rewarded but they still have to fight for the killing blow. Thanks for the info.

CoD4.4 set 1st day sales records yet again, and I died a little more inside.

Really? The "best game" out there is just going to be the same game year after year?
Shit, this really is Halo all over again (and just when Halo had finally decided to try something different, Bungie left and now it's going right back to its original safe formula courtesy of a remake).

Its success was cool at first, but now this has just become oppressive; the market is going to continue to stagnate further by enticing yet more developers and publishers to hyper-focus on CoD4.x's success on as they churn out clone after clone after clone after motherfucking clone...

Worse, it appears that there's no end in sight...*sigh* back to wishing for games that are actually fun and don't contain abject amounts of the color grey.

maddawg IAJI:

I would, but I've only seen one so far and he tried to assassinate me :<

I saw that guy. I lifted him off the ground.

With my sword.

Dalisclock:

HobbesMkii:

Ironically, the whole thing seems to be a "callback" to MW2, so much so that the game seems to be saying "Hey, you played MW2, right? Good. Then I won't have to explain who these people are, why you should like them, or why Russia is invading everyone. We just saved a whole hour!"

And your point is? Considering it is a sequel, there's the inherent assumption you played at least the previous game and know what the story is. So there's no need to summarize those events(other then the little flashback sequences early in the game when Soap is getting Operated on).

If you want to bash the game for not resolving the plot holes from the first game or for having it's own plot wierdness, that's legitimate, but saying you're annoyed because it didn't provide you with a summery to 1 and 2 is weak.

Frankly, for sequels in any media, it's pretty common to have some reference back to the story that has come before that involves if not summary of the entire plot, then at least of the most important points. Even Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2, a film that cannot stand alone on its own and requires the viewer to have seen Part 1 has lines of dialog where characters explain how things have gotten to where they are and what the hell certain things are. In fact, if you watch those two films pretty close together, you might feel they're a little redundant.

It happens in gaming, too. Mass Effect 2 has characters explaining what, specifically, Saren did, even though all the characters involved should know what that was (like Shepard to the Council). Bioshock 2 has characters explaining who Ryan is and what Rapture's about, even though we've heard all this in the first game.

The point is, having played MW and MW2 and having scratched my head at how foreign relations got to where they were in MW3, it would have been decent of them to at least say "Oh, yeah, General Shepherd & Makarov tricked us into war, which is why the Russians are pouring into Central and Western Europe" which is something I was lucky enough to remember half-way through the Prague mission.

One might be tempted to argue that MW3 is not in the business of hand-holding with its players but, really, this is a game that will loudly shout "Grenade!" and it marketed to have broad appeal. It's totally into hand-holding (especially in plotting & characterization, for example pointing out how bad its bad guys are. "Look! Makarov's shot your player character in the head! Again!").

Yes, you're right there are a thousand other points I could've made about the plot-holes and whatnot in what is otherwise a really fun game. But others have done that for me. My point was that if the OP I was responding to was confused by the plotting in MW2, then they were about to be doubly confused by the plotting in MW3, because it provided even less of a grounding in its predecessors.

Sinister Minister:

snfonseka:

Rainboq:
When has CoD ever had vehicles in its multiplayer?

True. But I thought they would have made that change in MW3, due to the competition of BF3.

Uh...Call of Duty 3, and World at War? Did we forget them already?

I think people are trying to forget those seeing as the tank combat in WaW (never played 3) really did not sit well with the rest of the game, at least, not in my opinion.

----------
I'll probably pick it up when it goes on sale/get's cheaper because screw paying full price for it when they failed to give me what I wanted from the game. Why oh why could they not leave the servers just like they were in CoD4 were it worked fine and everybody was happy. Noooo now you have to play on IWNet so that people can't boost their ranks. Like anyone gave a fuck about boosting ranks! We just wanted to play the game with the settings we liked, with the ability to kick pricks like that and their cheating buddies too! Might just buy it on console instead to play with my college friends rather than support their god awful bastardised PC version.

Pretty much exactly what we were expecting. A fundamentally great game that isn't going to change people's minds who were already tired of the CoD series.

Also with a superior single player and Co-op experience than BF3 but really it's just gonna come down to which style of multiplayer you like better. Run n' gun Rambo style where you can jump in whenever you want and have a blast, or a more team based larger scale game.

I have to give proper credit to Infinity Ward though. With the whole firing fiasco with Activision after MW2 it was definitely possible that this could've bombed all to hell with the inexperience, especially at the leadership positions.

Pretty much what I expected from the review, I can't wait for Yahtzee's version of it though, at least I should get a laugh out of it.

EternalFacepalm:
4.5 stars?


If someone can spend 45 minutes listing mostly flaws, I don't think it deserves 4.5 stars.
I mean, shit, you barely mentioned any flaws besides the single player. No matter what the game is, you should be pointing out more than "half-flaws", as with the single player campaign leaving you wanting more "both in the good and the bad sense".

45 minutes? My god, it's a Plinket review of MW3. Actually, that would be absolutely hilarious but not within Plinket's usual domain of absolute dissection. :/ For those who don't know what a Plinket review is, click here. Bring lots of time, especially if you're going to watch the star-wars prequel reviews. I'm not kidding. Ep3 goes on for 1 & 1/2 hours.

Fixed your vid. for youtube= embedding, just put the bits after the v= part of the url in there (e.g. youtube=23nFu4e, etc.). Just soes you know.

angry_flashlight:

45 minutes? My god, it's a Plinket review of MW3. Actually, that would be absolutely hilarious but not within Plinket's usual domain of absolute dissection. :/ For those who don't know what a Plinket review is, click here. Bring lots of time, especially if you're going to watch the star-wars prequel reviews. I'm not kidding. Ep3 goes on for 1 & 1/2 hours.

Fixed your vid. for youtube= embedding, just put the bits after the v= part of the url in there (e.g. youtube=23nFu4e, etc.). Just soes you know.

Ah, thanks for fixing ^^
By the way, the link you posted to a Plinklet review isn't working.
And I feel the urge to state that "WTF is..." really isn't a review, but rather a first impressions of it.

The single player is the most flag waving americanised pro war shit i've ever seen in a video game. Did Michael Bey buy out activision?

Accurate:

It does what it does on the tin....but its getting tired. 3.5

the skilled get better while the inexperienced get left behind. Woop. At least on BF3 or christ even Space Marine the playing field is level so you win WITH skill not perks and such.

Raiyan 1.0:
But can you talk to the Russians?

Better question. "Will it blend?"

oops - duplicate - forum took so long to update I thought it hadn't posted...

The review says that basically it's a pretty solid update of MW2, not flawless but decent.

Now, following that little linky thing at the bottom, 4 stars says "An outstanding gaming experience marred by just a few flaws."

To my reading, that's already more generous than the review, but the game got 4.5 stars.

I don't really care either way, the game isn't on my wishlist, but it does seem a little inconsistent.

EternalFacepalm:
4.5 stars?


If someone can spend 45 minutes listing mostly flaws, I don't think it deserves 4.5 stars.
I mean, shit, you barely mentioned any flaws besides the single player. No matter what the game is, you should be pointing out more than "half-flaws", as with the single player campaign leaving you wanting more "both in the good and the bad sense".

Maybe it's because the flaws don't matter so much.

If you are in the business if just spotting every single flaw you can find, then i can tell you that you can find games that justify videos much longer than the 45 minutes MW3 is getting.

If the flaws don't ruin the immersion, then the game is still good. Period. And having just finished the campaign 20 minutes ago, i can safely say that i only spotted very few of them, and that the gameplay experience wasn't ruined for me at any point. Entertainment value cannot be equated by a mathematical formula, and this exact reason is why people like you aren't reviewing games for a living.

Rensenhito:
It really does look exactly the same, honestly. I wonder if they could have just made this DLC for MW2? :D

No it doesn't. I talked to someone else who couldn't spot the improved graphics either, and my response to him was that he should get a pair of glasses.

Comparing MW2 to MW3 on the PC, the improvement in graphics easily stand out. Massively improved texture streaming means that the team managed to make the levels MUCH larger and have way more action on the screen than in the previous games. This comes along with performance improvements, improved physics and decals, and while i haven't seen the PS3/360 versions beyond videos, the PC version at the very least has improved reflections and dynamic lightning, and the team also put extra work into environmental improvements, like water that doesn't look like two textures put together at low resolution (which was a very apparent problem in MW2, and made me lol very hard on the Oilrig hostage mission).

In fact, the only major graphics problem this game has is that the PC version isn't doing very good work with the textures (as in: they are more or less low-resolution even on highest setting), which is a letdown because detailed textures (as well as bump maps etc.) is a major improvement to graphics quality, and most PC's CAN afford the extra texture memory. I mean, for christ sake I'm on a 1 year old laptop that by american standards was in the $1000 range, and my PC still has 1 gig of dedicated video memory, which even CryEngine games can't use to its full extend... Still, compared to Modern Warfare 2, at least they started using textures more smartly, even if they didn't increase the lousy resolution.

I mean no offense, but if you people can't spot the graphics difference, then you either don't know what to look for (eg. you don't understand graphics very well) or you need new glasses. I could see the improvement clear as day (including the improvement to the FPS my laptop was capable of running the game at), and i wasn't even trying to spot it.

EternalFacepalm:

Ah, thanks for fixing ^^
By the way, the link you posted to a Plinklet review isn't working.
And I feel the urge to state that "WTF is..." really isn't a review, but rather a first impressions of it.

Whoops, now I feel silly. http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/ <-- there.

I was making a comparison in terms of length of the video. Plinkett reviews are notoriously long in the realm of internet reviews/reviewers (Doug (aka the Nostalgia Critic) from ThatGuyWithTheGlasses made a point that the reviews are almost as long as the movies themselves for the star-wars prequels in one of his videos). Also I hadn't watched "WTF is..." before so, yeah. :>

Athinira:

Maybe it's because the flaws don't matter so much.

If you are in the business if just spotting every single flaw you can find, then i can tell you that you can find games that justify videos much longer than the 45 minutes MW3 is getting.

If the flaws don't ruin the immersion, then the game is still good. Period. And having just finished the campaign 20 minutes ago, i can safely say that i only spotted very few of them, and that the gameplay experience wasn't ruined for me at any point. Entertainment value cannot be equated by a mathematical formula, and this exact reason is why people like you aren't reviewing games for a living.

Did you even watch the video?
Most of the flaws mentioned were incredibly huge flaws, like nerfed dedi-servers and the low FOV. I'd say "failed host migration" DOES ruin immersion.
Perhaps "people like YOU" shouldn't be game reviewers, when you assume as much about things as you do?

EternalFacepalm:
Did you even watch the video?
Most of the flaws mentioned were incredibly huge flaws, like nerfed dedi-servers and the low FOV. I'd say "failed host migration" DOES ruin immersion.

Yes i watched the video.

The low FoV is a personal preference. Not everyone has wide-screens which fits a high FoV, and even if it's a setting, different FoV's gives an unfair advantage to people, which isn't good for a competitive game. And his personal problem with low FoV giving him a headache is that: personal. In fact, that problem is a very specific one, meaning that i believe that a total of 1 in a thousand gamers is going to experience that. He is an outlier. That simple. His argument that it's easy to "outflank" people is nullified by the fact that this goes both ways, and I'd say that motivating people to keep moving rather than camping is good game design (although there are several ways to do that beyond going low FoV). In fact, he even admits that the FoV of MW3 is higher than MW2.

The rest of his complaints are somewhat valid, but he is overdoing their impact. His problem with the experience and leveling system (and the fact that you can't level up on dedicated servers) i TOTALLY get, but his complaint about the game being "ugly" i don't to a certain extend. I'll admit that Infinity Ward could have done a MUCH greater work with the textures on the PC version, but the simple fact of the matter is that their newest incarnation of the graphics engine is, to put it frankly, f*cking amazing at putting a lot of action on the screen that looks damned impressive, and at the same time maintain a very high frame rate. Modern Warfare runs at 60 FPS on consoles compared to Battlefields 30, and that choice is one that is made with good reason considering that it's designed as a competitive FPS, even for consoles. The game might not be the best looking ever, but it isn't striding to be, and at the end of the day, the fact is that the engine is a powerhouse that has seen huge upgrades from the MW2 incarnation, and if someone thinks the game looks "ugly" then they need to readjust their standards. Not every game is going for the Crysis 2 experience, and not every PC gamer has a monster PC capable of running it at a respectable framerate (and above all else: A game doesn't NEED good graphics. It's just a nice thing to include. I'll get back to this at the end paragraph).

So to finish this off...

Perhaps "people like YOU" shouldn't be game reviewers, when you assume as much about things as you do?

...except that i don't assume ANYTHING at all, and I'd love for you to point out where i do.

You see, the guy in the video and you completely fail at putting things into context, and people who can't put things into context is the ones that shouldn't be reviewing games. You can't just take things out of context, examine them individually and conclude that sh*t isn't going to fly, because as a game reviewer that isn't your job. Modern Warfare as a series masters the art of being something more than the sum of its parts. The graphics aren't the best (although they have definitely been upgraded), the experience system isn't designed well, the online matchmaking could have been more competently executed etc. but at the end of the day, people are still going to have way more fun with the game for a way longer time than most other games because Modern Warfare makes up for its flaws in many ways, and has a huge amount of replay value in both Single and Multi-player. And no, most people aren't going to complain (or even NOTICE) the low FoV. Why? Because to most people, it doesn't f*cking matter. That's what you guys are failing to understand.

There is a huge difference between what a game INCLUDES and what a game NEEDS to provide a good experience. Modern Warfare doesn't include a lot of things that makes it that special (besides pulse-pounding action on a large scale), but it has pretty much everything else a game NEEDS to satisfy the customer and make him feel like he made a great investment.

Bishop99999999:
I have to say, after being an snobby jackass with nothing but Minecraft and Dark Souls and indie games for months, it felt great to sit back and enjoy some spectacle for a change. I think it's safe to say that MW3's single player trounces BF3's, for what that's worth, and the survival and spec ops missions add a lot of life to it.

And multiplayer? Well, I think the truth is that BF3 and MW3 are different enough in philosophy that trying to compare the two is just a waste of time.

So yeah, Modern Warfare 3 is a great game.

I pretty much agree with this wholeheartedly. I love games like Limbo, Bastion, Deus Ex, obscure and old rpgs and all that clever jazz, but I'll be damned if I'm not having a blast with my first CoD for a couple of years!

As for your comment on multiplayer... I think it's being EXTREMELY generous to BF3 to not compare them... CODs formula gets copied by its competition so much these days apparently we don't notice it, but BF3 is taking a looooot of notes from the COD book of multiplayer design.

I was caught by surprise by just how much I enjoyed the campaign in MW3 :/ not sure what to say except I had a blast, despite making jabs at the series beforehand loll

If one of my friends wanted to play MW3, I'd just tell them to take their MW2 disc, and draw a big 3 over the 2.

There, MW3 cheap.

Seriously though, the story is just... Bad, in my opinion. And where's the teamwork in Multiplayer? And WHY oh WHY would they blow up a child? Activision took out the World Trade Center towers because they thought they would be to controversial, yet they blow up a child? I really don't follow that logic.

I really like MW3. The single player was good and the multiplayer is addicting as hell. The only thing I don't like is the call signs this time. I think the one's from MW2 were better.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here