Article: Modern Warfare 3 - Review

[Pvt.Dirt]

You can view the page at http://www.video-game-forums.com/con...-3-review.html

[Libertine]

Niiice !

[SamanthaDavis]

pretty comprehensive review

[Unregistered]

MW2 DLC thats all it is.

[Alondite]

This is a garbage game and this review is total nonsense. It doesn't do any objective analysis of the game whatsoever, because if it did you wouldn't be able to avoid the laundry list of critical design flaws present. Let me break it down:

Gameplay: 9/10? Really? It's literally nothing more than "point-and-click." It's an animated computer desktop. No variety, no depth. The controls are nice and smooth and it plays quickly, but those are the only positives here. 5/10.

Replay Value: Campaign is crap and really not worth playing through even once. Multiplayer is still built around the same crap gameplay, and is only entertaining for any stretch of time if you have the attention span of a goldfish. Level-based unlocks for gameplay elements without same-level matchmaking? That's as bad as multiplayer game design gets. It doesn't leave any sort of lasting impression either. 10 years from now nobody will even remember that it exists. If, however, you are one of said goldfish you can probably play it endlessly. 7/10

Graphics: Hey this one might actually be close! Nice detail and a smooth 60 frames, effects are abundant and pretty good across the board. It does have its share of downsides here too though. Animation is awful for one; stiff and completely mechanical-looking. Overall design is very bland as well. Everything is more or less perfectly geometric and there is virtually no artistry to be found. Aesthetics and design trump technology every time. Even still, 8-8.5/10.

Sound: I'll concede that the sound is quite excellent. Voice acting is solid, gun and explosion effects are punchy and detailed, very realistic overall. Only downside is the lack of a quality musical score, which hurts it a lot in my eyes. Even still, 9/10.

Overall that brings it to about a 7.3/10. Merely average, and a much more fitting score.

[xDonna]

The reviews from the players themselves says it all:

"the average user score for one of the biggest entertainment releases of the year stands at a wretched 3.0."

And:

"At the time of writing the Activision published blockbuster holds a user review average of 2.9 based on a total of 231 ratings. Of those 56 are listed as favourable, ten have been categorised as 'mixed' while an overwhelming 165 are 'negative'."

To be honest, I believe that it was just the fact that the game was WAY too much like Modern Warfare 2. Now this is understand for the gameplay considering that unlike Black Ops (who had no set storyline and could stretch to any lengths it desires) but unfortunately for MW3 it could only move so far.

I loved and hated this game. It was spilt both ways.

I enjoyed the campaign (with games famous for their multiplayer I ALWAYS play the campaign first - no matter how long I've been following the game) because of the development of the story. With Modern Warfare 1 and 2 I found the gameplay slow in some sectors but for MW3 I was actually blown away with the gameplay.

But, online serves the problem. The graphics are pretty much the same as MW2 and they didn't really bother to change anything. The majority of the callsigns and emblems are the exact same as MW2 and the most they did to make a difference was the change the icons to them.
The gameplay is pretty much the same (although 'Kill Confirmed' and 'Drop Zone' are new) and boring.
But the thing I hate the most about the online was the spawning points. They're not as bad as they are now but when the game first game out, for the first week or two I would spawn and some other guy would just magically spawn out of my ass and kill me. Considering I hate losing that did frustrate me so I jumped back onto Blops until the glitches were fixed.

Although it's the best franchise ever to hit gaming consoles I find it completely and utterly disappointing and I believe that it doesn't deserve to win Game of the Year for first-person shooter.
I think that the only reason you have people voting for it and adoring it is because of the fact that it was an awaiting video game and the franchise is blinding it's users.

I was horribly upset with this game and really wish that I didn't purchase it. Could have pretty much played MW2 and missed out on nothing.

[Pvt.Dirt]

That was an awesome review Donna. I think perhaps many of us that wrote reviews on this game, spoke too quickly. This happens a lot of the time with reviews that are primarily multiplayer formatted games.

I'm at the point where I agree completely with you. The online is awful. I'm usually not one to gripe, but I've never seen so many campers on any shooter in my life. I've given it many chances, but this game keeps proving my fears correct, and I wish I could take back the score I gave it.

[xDonna]

That was an awesome review Donna. I think perhaps many of us that wrote reviews on this game, spoke too quickly. This happens a lot of the time with reviews that are primarily multiplayer formatted games.

I'm at the point where I agree completely with you. The online is awful. I'm usually not one to gripe, but I've never seen so many campers on any shooter in my life. I've given it many chances, but this game keeps proving my fears correct, and I wish I could take back the score I gave it.

Aw, thanks. :D
I did try to be unlike others who are like "awesome/crap game!" 'cause when people are contemplating on purchasing a video game they would preferably like something more specific that tells them the pros and cons of the game.(:

I deal with the campers simply 'cause I'm very paranoid in the gameplay. Every time I go through a doorway I HAVE to throw a flashbang or check both corners before turning satisfied enough to enter the room. My problem is the boosters but after a message or two after threatening to report them or following them to their 'boosting spot' and killing their friend each time they give up and return to the rules of the game. I've stopped so much planned killstreaks that way. :L

[Jimdalf]

Just look at the damned adverts. Its meant to be funny but that doesn't stop the fact that they revel in the ****tiness of their gameplay- more akimbo secondaries, juggernauts, gunships which also drop care packages... if other people played the game like I do, it would be pretty good. But they don't, they sprint around with SMG's the whole time or they camp with their sniper rifle, a semi-auto one hit kill with a ten round magazine and very little recoil in the scope. And he has akimbo FMG's, secondary weapons more powerful at close range than my shotgun. Then there is the M14, which can act like a full-auto assault rifle when you apply rapid fire. There was nothing wrong with having pistols as secondaries- the Desert Eagle is class in this game. Making snipers sacrifice things in order to take stopping power, that was ok. When people complained about stopping power they didn't intend for every single bloody gun to be put on steroids.

[Jimdalf]

I think perhaps many of us that wrote reviews on this game, spoke too quickly. This happens a lot of the time with reviews that are primarily multiplayer formatted games.

Thats a good point. Reviews are meant to analyse a game in full, but in reality are written on the strength of a few hour's gameplay. This might have cut it back in 1995, but its inadequate these days, when you expect to spend hundreds of hours on a multiplayer game. The game is often not even finished when the reviews are done- those massively important patches in the first two weeks after release often make the game. I think a lot more gaming journalism should be retrospective- in the run-up to a game's release the behaviour of the publisher in the past should be highlighted- how speedy and satisfactory the patches were, how the servers performed, is there long term support? (ie EA kill games within a year or two of release, sometimes even sooner), and then the glitches that became apparent after a while should be covered too. Even just how the game gets played- MW3 is a fairly good game, but the players are almost wholly complete douchebags. The gameplay is frequently abysmal even when I do well.

[Pringsp]

Brilliant article, enjoy reading...lol

[thythy9]

The campaign was alright, meh arond 8/10. pretty decent, mainly cause of the way story built up surprised me, but the gameplay had to be around a 6/10, very repetitive of just point and shoot, no aspects were seemed thought out. Multiplayer, seems just like the old CODs just new perks and what not, grapics all the same not amazing, but decent. the only reason this game is so extremely popular are the fan boys. COD 1, 2, 3, and 4 were amazing. The rest just seemed like DLCs