Disclaimer: I haven't played, nor intend to play the Multiplayer aspect of the game.

The game is stale. Sure it runs on a solid 60 fps on the 360, but the gameplay and story has gotten horrifically stale. Every time something 'exciting' happens, you can't help but think it's a parody of what the original MW stood for. It's very sad for a franchise like this to fall so far. Boring and I completely regret my purchase.

Don't even get me started on Battlefield 3's single player, it's absolutely fucking abysmal as well.

I played both BF3 and MW3. I'm in a shitty third world country so black markets have this game for sale pirated on a burned DVD. (BF3 came on 2 DL DVD's).

They are both equal in quality, however both are equally boring. Not bad, not buggy, not laggy, but BORING. It's the same shit. Literally, different maps in the campaign but the game 'oscar mike bravo zulu 'mericuh ramirez lets do this hooo haaaa' schtick of the previous games.

I regret buying them both, but fortunately they only cost me $1.50 each.

I can't understand how these games are getting high 90 scores. It's just mind boggling.

Take this small reviews as a warning. Save your money, the games aren't worth 60$. Buy Dark Souls or Skyrim instead.

Disclaimer: I haven't played, nor intend to play the Multiplayer aspect of the game.

The game is stale. Sure it runs on a solid 60 fps on the 360, but the gameplay and story has gotten horrifically stale. Every time something 'exciting' happens, you can't help but think it's a parody of what the original MW stood for. It's very sad for a franchise like this to fall so far. Boring and I completely regret my purchase.

Don't even get me started on Battlefield 3's single player, it's absolutely fucking abysmal as well.

I played both BF3 and MW3. I'm in a shitty third world country so black markets have this game for sale pirated on a burned DVD. (BF3 came on 2 DL DVD's).

They are both equal in quality, however both are equally boring. Not bad, not buggy, not laggy, but BORING. It's the same shit. Literally, different maps in the campaign but the game 'oscar mike bravo zulu 'mericuh ramirez lets do this hooo haaaa' schtick of the previous games.

I regret buying them both, but fortunately they only cost me $1.50 each.

I can't understand how these games are getting high 90 scores. It's just mind boggling.

Take this small reviews as a warning. Save your money, the games aren't worth 60$. Buy Dark Souls or Skyrim instead.

And if someone wants to play multiplayer, your advice is...?

It's cause the multi-player is hella fun on both accounts... dumbass

as non biased as you claim to be.. and I believe you. That was a pretty shitty review.

I'm guessing that if you skip over the main part of any game that you would feel ripped off.

As some people have already pointed out, these games are about multiplayer.

Sure, the original Modern Warfare's campaign was really damn good, and World At War's was decent as well, but since then all of these games have had a focus on multiplayer.

On the Battlefield side of things, Bad Company 1 and 2 had decent single player campaigns. Otherwise, same story. The single player is basically training for the multiplayer.

If you want a good modern single player shooter, play RAGE or Resistance 3 or Crysis 2.

...you get what you pay for?

Hey saying your "non-bribed and honest" is stupid

@BlameGamer said:

I played both BF3 and MW3. I'm in a shitty third world country so black markets have this game for sale pirated on a burned DVD. (BF3 came on 2 DL DVD's).

That sounds like my country, except pirated DVDS are EVERYWHERE!

I don't think anyone likes the actual gameplay in FPS campaigns any more (barring Crysis maybe). It's all about the scripted Michael Bay moments now. 
 
If I were to buy MW3, it'd be only for the SP, because I can play a better version of the multiplayer in CoD4 that I already own.

@BlameGamer said:

Disclaimer: I haven't played, nor intend to play the Multiplayer aspect of the game.

Whoops!

Why even purchase MW3 or BF3 if your not going to touch the Multiplayer? BF3 MP disc was disc 1 on the xbox, that is saying a lot.

@BlameGamer said:

Take this small reviews as a warning. Save your money, the games aren't worth 60$. Buy Dark Souls or Skyrim instead.

Excellent suggestion! Especially if you don't like fantasy or RPGs but who the hell cares, it's all digital stuff on a screen!

@Ghostiet: My advice would be just buy last years MW2 for much cheaper. It's the same game. Or even better get BF3 as it has 64 v 64 PC maps.

Did you play them on hard or normal? Because that changes A LOT.

I played (and beat) both of them on Normal. The difficulty was very balanced, not Dark Souls hard, but not easy.

Well its a good thing your not brided or this review would be meaningless.

How do you know Skyrim is worth playing, have you actually played it yet?

Dark Souls and Skyrim are completely different games, why not recommend a different FPS?

@BlameGamer: um, isnt it 32 v 32, with a total of 64? and have you beat skyrim, i dont see how you can make a purchasing recommendation without having done so.

@BeachThunder: Yes, the game was available here in South America.

What does "non-brided" mean?

Whatever you say. I still like it a lot, and I'm actually somewhat surprised at how much I like it. I thought it'd be a step down from MW2, and while it sounds like a bad thing, which it may be because you're paying 60 bucks for it, it's the same thing. I enjoy it as much as I did Modern Warfare 2, and that's a lot.

@Ghostiet: My advice would be just buy last years MW2 for much cheaper. It's the same game. Or even better get BF3 as it has 64 v 64 PC maps.

@Ghostiet: Because obviously bigger maps mean more people, mean more fun. I have played Battlefield 1942.

@CLinendoll: I meant to type in non-bribed, as I think it's fucking ridiculous these games are getting solid 90's on the reviews sites. It's akin to giving each iteration of FIFA or NFL 201X 5 stars.

@Ghostiet: Because obviously bigger maps mean more people, mean more fun. I have played Battlefield 1942.

@TooWalrus said:

It's cause the multi-player is hella fun on both accounts... dumbass

This

Also the OP is either trolling for reactions or he's such an idiot that he didn't realise he doesn't like modern military FPS games until he cleared two different single player campaigns!

ignoring half the package great review.

I don't really care about someone's opinion if they spent a dollar on the game. You're not even able to access 66.66% of the game's content.

It seems I struck a nerve here. Listen if you guys spent 60$ on a game and feel the need to justify your purchase, that's pretty pathetic. If you enjoy it, good for you! But I don't see the FIFA's and the NFL's getting 5 stars every year. ;)

Also I judge the shooters by their single player campaigns as I remember CoD 1 and 2 being fantastic games. I still remember putting explosives at the base of a building where nazis were hiding and running away before it exploded. The smoke was beautiful and the story pretty decent. Don't give me that shit that it's a multiplayer game. That's no excuse. If that were the case why is there a single player campaign?

This thread and your review blows.

this shit is sooo old. its the same game that came out in 07 just a diff name.

@BlameGamer said:

@CLinendoll: I meant to type in non-bribed, as I think it's fucking ridiculous these games are getting solid 90's on the reviews sites. It's akin to giving each iteration of FIFA or NFL 201X 5 stars.

i get the feeling you one of these everything is either WOOOOO AMAZIN!!!!! or FUCKING SUKS!!!!!!!! no middle ground for a game to by just good or ok. which imo MW3 was good not WOOOO AMAZINNN!!!! nor FUCKIN SUCKSSS!!!!! but just good.

i had fun.

Where do you people live?!

@doobie: On the contrary, I feel this game deserves a solid 70, 80. But not a 90. I'm not one of those guys that think a game is either fantastic or abysmal. In fact, that's the entire point of this thread. It's same old same old, just like a new Winning Eleven game.

When the fuck did you review this game? The reason you're not "bribed" is because no one would want to pay you for writing with no content. Tell us why the single-player game sucked past an ignorant rant and then maybe we will talk about having an "honest" gamer review.

Just to let you know, I did not enjoy the Single-player myself, but the multiplayer in both games are still top-notch and that is what everyone fucking plays the game for. Stop bitching, the reason everyone gives it 90+ is because we all know the single-player will be a scripted Michael Bay movie and the Multiplayer is where it's at. That would be like reviewing Mass Effect 3 low because the Multiplayer feels bland but the Single-player still shines.

Sheesh.

@BlameGamer said:

@doobie: On the contrary, I feel this game deserves a solid 70, 80. But not a 90. I'm not one of those guys that think a game is either fantastic or abysmal. In fact, that's the entire point of this thread. It's same old same old, just like a new Winning Eleven game.

did you read your own post.

there is not one positive word in it(well apart from when you say its 'not bad', but id hardly call that positive) and the whole vibe i got from it was that you fucking hated it (abysmal usual suggests that).

it just reads like a typical THIS GAME FUCKIN SUX!!! knee jerk reaction thread.

lol and after all that youd give it a 8/10

non-brided huh. cool

Get out of here your piracy supporting piece of trash. $1.50 for the games and you have the gall to even say you regret buying them? I may agree, I think BF3 on the 360 is pretty boring, and I have only played multiplayer. But i regret my 60 dollar purchase. You have no right to review these games.

I thought I could have a good discussion on this website but it seems the 12 year old tough guys here are taking things a bit too personally.

@BlameGamer said:

Disclaimer: I haven't played, nor intend to play the Multiplayer aspect of the game.

So your review is useless. Awesome.

Just curious, are you including Spec Ops in your statement about multiplayer?