News Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 Review

To me Joe is just voicing what so many people feel about the game, but that is just compounded by having to go into work and hear people talk about how amazing the new cod is.

A lot of people enjoy it, fair enough. That doesn't mean reviewers should have to pander to the masses, he stated an opinion and its one that a lot of people agree with. If he'd written a review full of phrases like "visceral combat" and "rock solid frame rates" there would have been plenty that agreed with him, and plenty that put comments here saying, "there we go, another crap bit-tech review. BF3FTW!".

Also I am currently playing BF3 and thoroughly enjoying it, however if I thought MW3 had anything to offer me whatsoever over MW or BLOPS then I'd probably buy it too. As it stands it doesn't so I'll buy Skyrim instead, which seems to offer plenty over its predecessor.

 

This review was spot on thank you for being honest.

I'm going back to BF3 now

bye

 

I'd be interested in hearing Joe's opinion on Battlefield 3 (as well as Harry Butler's opinion on this game). I've played neither MW3 or BF3, but based on reviews it seems to me that they're both pretty much more of the same.

 

Because for exactly 100% less cost, I can just play Battlefield 2 and Modern Warfare 1 again and get exactly the same enjoyment.

The point isn't that these games are bad, it's that they are wholly unoriginal and fundamentally identical to their predecessors, and therefore not worth the price tag.

If they were free? Sure, no criticism. But personally, £40 is a lot of money for me when I already own what is functionally the same game. That's like paying to have sex with your wife.

 

Quite enjoying mw3,oh well each to there own

 

This is nothing more than a money milking load of crap from a greedy publisher. They should had stopped after the first one and takes these shoved it up from their behind.

 

some of the rhetoric here is diluting the message, and this is not about BF3 vs. MW3. i have all CoD's now (since the start) but blackops yet only BF i play/enjoy is BC2 (and barely made it through 2nd mission SP on that), couldn't get into BF2. same time i play CoD games for singleplay and the wonderful setpieces they often bring - while most the characters are generic and bland CoD games have provided a lot of amusement over the years, which is why i picked up MW3 mainly for singleplay - i perfer the wider more varied BF style online personally but i'm happy with BC2 for now.

needless to say i was horribly disappointed by MW3 as it's singleplay is a joke, if i had the will to replay mw2 and 3 (1 is still fun to replay a lot of scenes) i dare say i could give you exact comparisons where mw3 was scene by scene identical to bits of previous instalments, gameplay as well as 'plot' - game starts, you fight a bit, some plot starts, **** blows up, things get bad, things get better, you track down bad boss henchmen, big fight, QUICKTIME EVENT. multiplay seems a step back too as MW2 at least had some open maps and more vertical play wheras mw3 has so many unnecessary unlocks yet small close maze maps that seem to reward constant running.

skipping the pc vs.console, BF vs. MW, user review vs. press, sequel vs. original nonsense and getting to the heart of it - it might have been a good game if everything it does hasn't been done several times before and better to boot. and here is the kicker - it didn't even have to be good to sell, even i bought a copy and i've only spent more than £20 on a single game once in the last 3~years (literally, and that was witcher 2). blame media, advertising, top-heavy games industry pumping money into sequels or whatever but this is what gamers wanted years back as the industry emerged and this is what we got.

 

seems you agree with TB on this. good, shows your honest.

 

Exactly. The point of the review isn't that it is bad (I say it isn't), but that it's only barely better than average. Call of Duty has become static and dull; it is the average.

As for Impar's comment about page hits, it's honestly been years since I cared about that. Not only is it a faulty metric and a slippery slope (one which I've been warned about since Day One, as it was part of the issue with my predesscor) but they also aren't a good indicator or method towards generating revenue, if that's what you're referring to.

In fact, if revenue was all that I was interested in then I wouldn't have put a review online - I'd have teased an exclusive in the magazine. Instead, I'm writing a new review for the mag as we speak.

 

Who?

Edit: You mean Total Biscuit? Never read any of his stuff. After a brief interaction with him and his readers on Twitter it became clear that we have different ideas of what it means to be professional about games journalism and how civilly we should interact with our audiences. He seemed to think it involved being a total dick, insulting and patronising anyone who tried to even have a conversation with him.

 

The review is completely uneven. There is no 'honesty' a review which does not reflect the merits of a game properly.

In one way, the review is fair to point out that CoD MW3 brings little new to the genre. But for less experienced players of the CoD series, or even new players CoD MW3 is a good stuff. For those players, there is a load to recommend this edition. In some cases, even for the some experienced players there is fun to be had.

So, to end up giving CoD MW3 55% is a joke. The game is significantly better than that. Perhaps you should have offered separate percentage ratings, one for CoD vets and another for CoD beginners?

 

So that's a win for BF3 on the PC then?

 

the likelihood of anyone being a cod beginner nowadays is fairly slim, let alone people who read this site and own a gaming pc

 

If you're new to COD, then just pick up MW1 for £5 and enjoy that instead.

Anyway you look at it, MW3 for £40 is just bad value, either for beginners or for vets.

 

Modern Warfare 3 is a game about erm lets see, oh yeah Modern Warfare. What are you expecting it to look like and play like??!! It does what it says on the tin and then some. Sure its at times mindless and over the top, but its entertaining all the same and incrediably well presented. You are marking a game down on its name, and because you don't like this particular game genre, and not because its a poorly made.. Would you make a game about sheep farming low purely becasue you find sheep farming boring?

I ve often found Bit tech reviews needlessly over critical, this is the pinnacle.

 

How can you ever give this game such a low score???

That you don't like the game doesn't mean it's a bad game.
Sorry, but this game is very well made. It's extreme fun to play.

You know what to expect with COD, and that’s why it is so good.
I already know I'm going to play this game more than 600 hours. (at least 600, think it will be somewhat round the 1000)

I'm glad they didn't give up on the concept, because this is what I want in a game. I have never played a better game than COD. It's the only game that keeps me interested, even after so many hours.
I played MW2 for 1200 hours now, and would still play it if MW3 wasn’t out yet.

So, it’s pretty cheap if you think about it. So many hours of fun, for such a low price.

For the people that think this is a map pack for MW2: Well, I think it’s better than MW2, new game modes and the overall feeling is even better than its predecessor.

I already gave up on BF3, what a boring **** game is it. Looks great, but that’s all. No feeling with the weapons at all. No feeling with your team mates. No feeling of the whole game. You haven't got the feeling that you want to play this game any longer. If I make a kill in BF3 I'm like: ok, well, killed someone.... If I make a kill in MW3 I'm like: YEAH, IN YOUR FACE! I just want to say that the game has the feeling you’re right into it. BF3 feels like you are behind a screen, clicking with your mouse now and then, and then walking half an hour to click again or get shot by a sniper on the other side of the map, to do it all over again. It doesn’t matter if you die, your behind your screen controlling someone you don’t know and you do not care about his life.

At least you can play this game with a reasonable frame rate without having to buy a new pc.
(No, 40 FPS is not enough. You will notice the difference when playing at 60 FPS. At 40 you’re too slow, you’re dead before noticing the enemy. This isn’t very much of a point for BF3, because you will only encounter enemies twice an hour. How can they call it a first person SHOOTER anyway?)

Ok, enough trolling, made my point I think.

If you like action in a game, and you like FPS, get MW3.
If you like to do nothing for 80% of the time, and you like FPS, get BF3.

 

This review took some guts as did the score.

In many ways I agree and thought it may go down this road since modern warfare 2.

They have created a monster with Call of duty Modern warfare - a monster they cant risk taking in any other direction out of fear of losing their many fans.

Dice however have been taking risks for a while, their very first battlefield game was one helleva risk and they have been pushing the boundaries; they went to the past with 1942, they went to the future with 2142, they went to vietnam, they brought us modern warfare too.

But the thing with Modern warfare is...well its modern warfare - they cant risk pushing it in any other direction - the game engine is really beginning to show it age and seems to be designed around close-quarters warfare and fast paced gunning...i dont think it can handle a wider scale such as the frostbite 2 engine.

And here lies the problem - they cant break out this mold and it will be interesting to see what they do with Modern Warfare 4...because people are beginning to talk, people are beginning to look behind the curtain and wonder who this wizard is..and unfortunately its becoming apparent that it is an old man using smoke and mirrors.

Battlefield on the other hand is introducing something a bit more newer and fresher, the new engine has shown us just what it can do - It has left us wondering what they could do with it with more time building on the work they have created.

Their innovation is what is allowing them to succeed currently because Battlefields fan-base are happy with Dice/EA exploring different styles to take the series in, unfortunately "infinityWard" dont have that luxury as the expectation is the fans want innovation but will no doubt slate it even if they got that because it wont be what they expect.

I think Activision/Infinity ward will need to create a whole new game engine for future versions to create a bigger scale and compete with battlefields game engine..unfortunately that means making it from scratch which Dice are well ahead of..

 

Great review - I now know that I will be one of those "sad people" who really enjoy the game for the single player campaign as I did MW and MW2.

Why great review? It's got EVERYONE to read it and respond judging by the 7 pages that the feedback currently sits at.

If only someone would make the game as large and free roaming as Crysis was then I'd be buying as opposed to sticking on my Xmas list.

 

This is the most refreshing review on the game I have read. I honestly cannot believe some of the reviews from hugely popular sites that have given this game such high scores, despite the fact there is no innovation at all.

If you like arcade style shooters then MW3 is a good game, its basically an expansion pack of MW2, which was a good game, but for the price you're paying, it's simply not worth it.

 

BF3 is also m'eh, quite frankly.