News Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 Review

It certainly is - it's superb and I'm really, really enjoying it.

Just like I am Battlefield.

It's weird that some people seem to be a bit "Highlander" about the games - ie there can be only one.

Why not enjoy both?

 

I like it

 

COD is going to be the same game drilled out every year, this has reminded alot of people about MW2 (It looks the bloody same!)

I always thought COD had a chance to improve, but they're making it harder for themselves as they're releasing a new one every year and now every child at christmas is expecting it every year in their christmas pressie pile.

I hope they see this after releasing this game and think "Maybe we should give it a bit longer than a year and update the graphics engine, look at getting some more features in multiplayer?"

I also don't know how you can compare this and BF3 as COD is and always will be an arcade shooter, BF3 is a tactical shooter....But I do like my BF3

 

No, MW2 was your GOTY for 2009 after a user vote.

My personal votes in 2009 went to Mirror's Edge PC, Batman: Arkham Asylum and Trine.

 

Mentai, the issue is that since MW1, that is 4 years, this game has not moved a inch.

Edit: If it would be sold as €15 DLC every year, it would have probably got a 8 or 9 as a nice, long time updated game. But when you ask for same thing 60e over and over again, you get a low score.

 

I think if you take this game in isolation of it's history it would score amazingly high as would any other consistantly updated IP. It is the FPS worlds Tiger woods,FIFA, PES etc..... each to his own.

Not for me tho'.

Thanks for the honest review.

 

Hello

I reviewed MW2 alongside Joe back in 2009, and I rather controversially, gave it a good score. The users voted it GOTY, but it was still good. The MP offered a few new tricks, the single player was silly but fun. But it's two years later now and the whole industry has moved forward, except for MW3 it would seem. As Joe said in the review, there's fun to be had here, but there're no new experiences, it's unoriginal to a fault.

Also, having added dedicated servers back in BLOPS, they're now gone, at least if you want to play ranked. Erm....

 

It is one of the best COD games to date (I still love the first one). The only issue is the improvements over previous iterations isn't good enough. It's just more of the same game. If the entire MW series/story had been combined into a single game with less repetition it would have been an amazing game. It just isn't anything beyond "Meh" in it's current state.

 

M'eh.

The apostrophe is crucial.

 

Kind of. If the original game isn't bust then don't fix it. Seems that if you really like this game then it at least gets regular updates and minor tweaks that are mostly for the better and keep it fresh. No problem there, although if you are getting bored of COD then I can see why now it might be time for a break and go try something a bit different instead.

The big problem for me was they decided to screw PC gamers with MW2 and go all console oriented and that hasn't changed. Means it holds no interest for me as MW is still the best game as it's the last modern one that took the PC semi-seriously.

 

Well, I am not going to comment on the quality of the game. I haven't played it yet, and since it's November (a month where I am not allowed to buy myself anything), I am unlikely to play it before December.

What I am going to comment on though is that this review is the first time that I was disappointed by a BT review.
Specifically: I was looking at BF3 and thought "Multiplayer mainly, campaign crap (and this seems to be the consensus), Visuals on the console quite meh (and I'd be buying it on the console, simply because I prefer playing there)... thanks to bandwidth that quite frankly sucks monkey butt, nevermind the multiplayer"
Then in come the MW3 reviews, all stating that while the campaign is short (which has been the case since T-Rex walked the earth) and cliched (ditto), it's also better than BF3's. The multiplayer is more polished than any COD before, though not as brilliant as BF3. Graphics on the Console seem better as well.

And then comes the BT review.
The campaign is completely disregarded, and while I understand that most people will spend more time on multiplayer, I am a bit disappointed with the single reason for me to buy either one being not just skimmed over, but covered in a single sentence as being "m'eh".

I really do normally enjoy the reviews on the site, and especially Joe's opinion has guided my hand more than once when it comes to buying games.

That being said, this smells a bit (to my nose) of Fanboyism in the opposite direction, especially considering the trends of the other reviews, where it seems that if you prefer SP, go MW3, else go BF3.

This just feels like the thing going on on metacritic where the "favourite" game gets a million 10's from users, and the less popular one get's the wrath of all the *chan trolls unleashed on it. And that feeling is not helped byt the one-sentence coverager of the SP Campaign.

I don't mean this to be insulting to anyone, or even to compare the two games (as stated before, I haven't played either yet, so feel free to correct my interpretation of what must by now be 20 reviews of both games), I just feel that as a relatively long time reader of BT, I should voice my disappointment with the quality of the review.

Peace.

 

If you are buying a multiplayer game for the 5 hour singleplayer part for 60€, then there is something wrong at your side.

 

This.

I think MW1 (CoD4) was the best of the modern CoDs but if they pulled a Valve and actually gave us a nice long game for $50-60 I think I would have no problem putting the resulting "MW+2+3" game at the top of my all time list. As it stands, greed has ruined MW and BF. Boring.

 

The weird thing about that is that every CoD game I can remember has been rated 18. I don't think parents would be so casual giving their children a copy of the Inbetweeners or Spartacus: Blood on the Sand this Christmas, so why give 18-rated games...

#hohum

 

It might be more of the same but CoD knows its audience and what its fans want. Sure it might not win over any sceptics or haters but that doesn't seem to be its intenention.

I really do like BF3 but the truth of the matter is I don't like vehicles all that much. On the right map they are fine but generally I prefer infantry only maps. I'm also not really keen on squad play by and large. Some maps are amazing for it like Bazar but a lot of the time I just find it irritating being spammed with "I want you to attack that target" and all that jazz.

I do like going off on my own and doing my own thing. Sure I don't top leader boards but frankly I couldn't car less. It's my game and I'll play it how I please. The issue is the maps feel so huge that if I do wander off on my own I quickly find myself in the middle of nowhere with a 5 minute run to get back to the action.

CoD might cater to my current tastes a bit more than BF3. Or I'll just play them both side by side and enjoy them both for their own merits.

They are at the end of the day two different styles of game. One is a tactical squad based multiplayer expereince and the other has more in common with an arena based twitch shooter.

Horses for courses I guess.

 

I purchased and played through both BF3 and MW3 and although BF3 has better graphis you dont notice this when playing the game - for me wm3 was very enjoyable to play with high frame rates. BTW my favourite multiplayer game is still quake 3 arena (laugh if you want) but this prroves the point that graphIcs is not everything - playablility and 'feel' is key

 

The entire first page is about the singleplayer. It covers the controversy of the tourist level, the basic plot of the game (without spoilers) and outlines what the most significant elements of the game are from a functional point - stealth missions and turret sequences.

I apologise if it didn't provide the depth you were looking for, but the problem is that firstly it's hard to go into too much detail without spoiling specific plot elements (

Spoiler

Makarov dies! Soap lives!

) and, secondly, there really is nothing new here. It's characters we are all long familiar with doing exactly what you'd expect them to do in a setting which was both explained and predictable - i.e. Price and Soap chasing Makarov around the world while he continues to incite WW3.

There is lots of jumping into helicopters at the last minute; lots of slow-motion breach and clear sections; lots of gruff dialogue layered over loading sequences. Just like always.

From a singleplayer point of view there is no deep characterisation to comment on, no set-pieces that stand out as spectacular and no fundamental changes in structure for better or worse. There is very little to say which actually needs to be said, which was the point I tried to express in the review.

So, yes, I apologise if the review didn't meet your expectations, but if I'd thought the singleplayer content deserved more discussion then I'd have given it more.

 

Erm, did you land on the second page of the review by mistake? The whole of the first page is SP related. It doesn't go into gory detail, but as mentioned by Joe, it doesn't need to, as it's just the same events as any other COD game, but with a marginally different context.

I'm not sure it is fanboyism, I just can't help but feel that many of the mainstream review sites will have:
a) Given it a high score to keep those who will inevitably buy it and defend it to the death coming back
b) Perhaps to appease Activision...

Whereas Bit-Tech don't seem encumbered by either of those...

I suspect the score would have been higher if this had been the only ever COD game, but as it's just MW2 all over again (and given that in MW2 with Alter IW.net you can have proper rank-up dedicated servers, mods, and loads of different game modes), there's little reason to purchase this over the cheaper MW2 unless you must see what the SP finale is (I kind of want to know, but not "£40 kind of").

Don't give them ideas! Next year's "breakthrough" will be COD:Modern Warfare: Collection. Which basically is all three SP modes concatenated, and 3/4 of the maps from the three games (rest to come as DLC later), with "all your favourite perks and killstreaks from all three games". And the price? 60 EUR/£40 as always...

 

A very nice review. I want to be as objective as possible and the truth is I have never been a fan of warfare-like shooters, but I must admit that BF3 caught my eye. CoD is really m'eh. It simply is what the review says. If you don't improve- you die, that's it. But they announced CoD 2012, so in one year we will see what will eventually change

 

I like my films on Bluray...