"Modern Warfare 3 improves on the few flaws of Modern Warfare 2 while building an even deeper multiplayer experience and a campaign that can only be described as ridiculous" Jeff - 5 stars

Three.

@Grissefar said:

The game will be reviewed by Jeff and given five stars saying "Despite the lack of major improvements, Infinity Ward along with Sledgehammer has yet again showed why they sit comfortably on the FPS throne." The Quick Look will be conducted by Jeff and Brad, it will be 45 minutes long and feature more than a healthy amount of dead air and uncomfortable laughs. The TNT will take place on Nov 10 and will feature one hour of Jeff dying in Team Deathmatch followed by an hour of coop modes with Ryan and Jeff on the couch and Brad and Patrick in the back. Because Jeff insisted, Vinny will not be present.

Harsh, but fair.

@Yanngc33 said:

"Modern Warfare 3 improves on the few flaws of Modern Warfare 2 while building an even deeper multiplayer experience and a campaign that can only be described as ridiculous" Jeff - 5 stars

This is spot on too.

@Yanngc33 said:

"Modern Warfare 3 improves on the few flaws of Modern Warfare 2 while building an even deeper multiplayer experience and a campaign that can only be described as ridiculous" Jeff - 5 stars

lol :D

none out of 5 if they want any internets credibilities

@Intro said:

@Yanngc33 said:

"Modern Warfare 3 improves on the few flaws of Modern Warfare 2 while building an even deeper multiplayer experience and a campaign that can only be described as ridiculous" Jeff - 5 stars

lol :D

I went to the future to get you guys that quote, be thankful

Barring the obligatory rash of multiplayer exploits at launch, Call of Duty games have consistently been the most polished games on the market. I don't think there's any argument about this. The campaign will deliver lots of great thrills and set pieces, Spec Ops will be just as awesome as before, plus Survival mode and Multiplayer will continue to be one of the most addictive things one can be addicted to.

The guys at Infinity Ward have to work like clock hands at this point, with or without Jason West and Vince Zampella. I don't really get why anyone thinks somehow this game will be any sort of decrease in quality from the last games. The only thing you could really criticize this game about at this point would simply the fact that it's another Call of Duty game, and people still buy those things, if you hadn't noticed.

People do have some intelligence, they won't continue buying something if they really are tired of it. Evidently, people aren't truly tired of Call of Duty yet.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a five but if I have to come down on one side of the question I'd guess it's going to be given a four.

Four stars. I'M CALLING IT!

@Grissefar said:

The game will be reviewed by Jeff and given five stars saying "Despite the lack of major improvements, Infinity Ward along with Sledgehammer has yet again showed why they sit comfortably on the FPS throne." The Quick Look will be conducted by Jeff and Brad, it will be 45 minutes long and feature more than a healthy amount of dead air and uncomfortable laughs. The TNT will take place on Nov 10 and will feature one hour of Jeff dying in Team Deathmatch followed by an hour of coop modes with Ryan and Jeff on the couch and Brad and Patrick in the back. Because Jeff insisted, Vinny will not be present.

LMFAO you totally nailed it! This is pretty much all we need right here.

I'll say 4 on-less they have been keeping an ace up their sleeve that we haven't seen yet... but considering how the last few CoD have been I've come to accept hype and expect less.

But who know maybe Sledgehammer will drop the ball on this whole thing and we'll see a 2.

Best use of a poll ever.

@Swoxx said:

@rebgav said:

Somewhere between one and five stars, depending on how much they like it?

Now that's just not possible.

@Yanngc33 said:

"Modern Warfare 3 improves on the few flaws of Modern Warfare 2 while building an even deeper multiplayer experience and a campaign that can only be described as ridiculous" Jeff - 5 stars

That is indeed spot on with the text, but I think Jeff has enough sense in him to give the game a 4 if it is just a minor improvement over the other game. While he did give MW2 5 stars black ops was a 4 star review. But I wouldn't put it past him, he does seem to really love the MW games. In any case we all know his feelings about the series and can take that into account. I already know that whatever the score is I'm going to take away 1-2 stars because that's how little I care about a new CoD game. And in the end I make my decision not based on stars, but on the text. there have been plenty of games he reviewed and gave 3 stars that I bought and loved because I realized I could live with the flaws described in the text.

C.

It looks worse than Black Ops, I wouldn't be too shocked if it ended up getting a 3, but a 4 is most likely.

@jillsandwich said:

Call of Duty games have consistently been the most polished games on the market.

No they haven't. Black Ops was borderline broken with its absolutely pathetic spawn system and the matchmaking was extremely flaky for a good few weeks.

and how can you say barring multiplayer exploits? Some of them have had so many, that you cannot call them polished games if such a number of exploits have been possible.

They also have a poor netcode and bullet registration.

Wouldn't be surprised if Jeff gave it a 5.

I'm not sure, but I do know that if Jeff gives it 5 stars the comments of that review will fucking explode.

I'm in the four star camp. I don't think they messed with the formula to make a bad game, but I doubt there will be any real improvements at all. The game will be good, but because its the same, it will not get five stars. Therefore I say 4. They won't give a good game 3 stars even if its more of the same, just look at Forza. If its good it will still get four stars even if its near the exact same formula as before.

Unless there is something seriously wrong with the game, it can't get less than 4 stars. Battlefield 3 with all of its HORRIBLE bugs and glitches even, and it got 4 stars. I'd say 4 as well for MW3

I'll guess 5

There will be a drop off in quality no doubt, Infinity Ward isn't the same before their massive restructuring and they had to get other studios to help finish the project.  I'd be surprised if it gets a 5/5 stars,  4/5 seems a good estimate.

ONE STAR!!!













But seriously 4 stars.

I predict that they will stop giving star ratings and/or scores to reviews when Modern Warfare 3 comes out and will instead rely on their written words.

3 stars and everyone will call it controversial because of it.

★★★

Probably 5 ... they always have been COD fans (which is fine).

@jakob187 said:

I predict that they will stop giving star ratings and/or scores to reviews when Modern Warfare 3 comes out and will instead rely on their written words.

God, I wish that would happen. My respect for them would skyrocket if they finally ditched scores.

Who knows, the changes they made could make the multiplayer way more awesomer. Or they could make it worse.

Maybe the single player is way more awesomer, maybe it's worse.

I can't see it being terrible though

I'm guessing 3. Good, but a stale formula.

4 stars if the campaign is good then 5

Well BF3 is very similar to to BC2 and comes with a crappy campaign. Got a 4/5

MW3 will probably have a great campaign but will be similar to the other MW games.

Chances are it will be 5/5 games don't have to redefine the genre to get perfect scores (precedent has been set with Batman and Uncharted) they just have to continue being the best at what they do and I haven't seen anything that makes it look like MW3 is a step back.

I say 4/5 stars. The review score doesn't really matter though, as Modern Warfare 3 will not drive away from the basic formula that is Call of Duty.

Gray Whitta was saying something about a level in the game that is one of those 'deliberately controversial' bits. He said it is pretty distasteful and sleazy (I'm paraphrasing here). So that might turn some reviewers off...

At a guess, you probably can cut and paste the reviews from the previous Call of Duties. 5 stars, good game, go buy it, etc. As far as releasing the same game again and again getting lower scores, that shouldn't happen, since the game is reviewed on it's own merits. I agree CoD 5 will be tiring. That is, it's not going to deviate from it's formula, but I don't think anyone expects it to.

While CoD isn't my thing, a lot of people enjoy it, not just despite its unchanging philosophy, but because of it. At this point, the bigger question is why even review the game? Honestly. I mean if it's going to be so very similar to the others in the series, it's almost pointless.

As much as shit that I give the CODs recently I can see it getting 4/5 and deserving it.
 
As much love as I give BF3, it deserved its 4/5. It just happens to be a 4 that speaks so much better to me than the inevitable 4/5 coming to MW3, but I do think it's not at all impossible to see it given a three with the TL;DR along the lines of "do something new for the love of god, and drop that Quake 3 based engine already", with how the map design being straight out of Black Ops multiplayer and the single being quite basic.
 
(MW1 for single player, MW2 for multiplayer, in my book)

I hope a 3/5. There's not enough of a change compare to the older CoD games.

Somewhere between 0 and 5 stars.

Easier to predict text- tired campaign and MP still solid, but doesn't really change much.

Stars are harder- either a 3 or a 4.

@EuanDewar said:

I was thinking it would be a three. However a four seems possible.

Also, don't care.

@Mr_Skeleton said:

Who cares, seriously after four nearly identical games, people already know whether they are going to buy the game or not. Also score doesn't matter, the review does. The whole fixation about the review scores is stupid and childish.

Get over yourself. Let people have fun with it if they enjoy it.

Oh, and just to spite you: 3 stars. Asshole.

4 stars.

@Grissefar said:

than a healthy amount of dead air and uncomfortable laughs. The TNT will take place on Nov 10 and will feature one hour of Jeff dying in Team Deathmatch followed by an hour of coop modes with Ryan and Jeff on the couch and Brad and Patrick in the back. Because Jeff insisted, Vinny will not be present.

Wait, I don't ever remember there ever being a quick look (not a QL: EX, mind you) with a bunch of dead air and uncomfortable laughs, and I especially can't fathom why Jeff would ever request Vinny not to be at any event at all. Where did you come up with these?

Oh, and I'm calling a 3 star review.

I'm legitimately interested on how this game turned out. Usually I have a pretty good idea of what they're going to think of a game before the review but I really have no idea this time.

They gave MW2 five stars, so I think MW3 will get the same. It all depends on how good the special ops stuff is.

3 should be an option my bets are on that

@Mr_Skeleton said:

Who cares, seriously after four nearly identical games, people already know whether they are going to buy the game or not. Also score doesn't matter, the review does. The whole fixation about the review scores is stupid and childish.

Thanks for that tired, generic answer. Guessing what the review score is going to be is completely different from bitching about the score after the review comes out.

@TheWyotee93 said:

Why are there only two options? I'd say three.

I would agree, but reviewers dont factor blind hate for a game into their reviews.

after playing some, i think a 3 would be appropriate.

@Th3_James said:

@EuanDewar said:

I was thinking it would be a three. However a four seems possible.

Also, don't care.

I'm sure you kids say the same thing in all the MW3 threads... unsure if you realise "not caring" doesn't work that way.