Your verdict on Modern Warfare 3?

  • 72 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Posted by Branthog (6045 posts) -

The campaign was pointless, which would have been okay, if it was at least paced better. We always joke about how they're going to top themselves in the next game and this is the result of that joke. A campaign that is always turned up to eleven. I don't even remember half the stuff that happened in it and the plot was basically "this dude made everyone fight each other so we killed him".  It made the story in Black Ops look like a fucking masterpiece.
 
More attrocious is the map design in the multiplayer. I really enjoyed a lot of the maps in MW2 and thought the Black Ops maps were fantastic. They had a wide range from a colorful and huge Stadium with many levels to them to the arctic science outpost and the array. The great jungle map. They all had color and depth to the maps and felt roomy and filled with great places to battle. In MW3, everything feels drab, dark, ugly, bland, and flat. Pretty much everything takes place on the same "level" of the map and a lot of areas are conveniently blocked off in huge sections by a fence inside a building or a vehicle. Places that would have been open to move around in with one of the previous titles.
 
It's a let down from MW2 and Black Ops and, frankly, it makes me look forward to the next Treyarch attempt, because Infinity Wart has clearly lost their fucking mind. I thought I'd be splitting a lot of my time between MW3 and BF3 (and RO2 and CS:S/GO) but I'm not sure how much more of these god awful fucking uninspired and simple maps I can take.

Online
#52 Posted by SSValis (1136 posts) -

So pretty mixed results I'm seeing from you guys. Damn your different opinions! After I'm done with Skyrim( I don't know when that will be...) I plan on buying either BF3 or MW3. I'm pretty torn about it. I actually really enjoy the goofy campaign of MW, but the slower pace of Battlefield's MP I love.

I also am going to be playing the console version of either one, and BF3 sounds like a lesser game on consoles. Fuck it. I'll probably just end up buying both.

#53 Posted by pweidman (2326 posts) -

While it's still fun, it seems this game is just a retreading and reusing of old ideas. MW3 seems to have been made purely to meet a profit goal.

It's also obvious some of the original talent at IW has been lost. I think Treyarch's last effort tops it easily. I still have to play more mp and spec-ops, but I can see already this just isn't on the same level as the past few CoD's, MW2 especially, which I consider the high water mark for the franchise.

#54 Posted by mac_n_nina (272 posts) -

4/5

my biggest issue with the game is that it's stale really fucking stale

it feels like an expansion of 2 and not a completely new iteration

#55 Posted by Branthog (6045 posts) -
@SSValis said:

So pretty mixed results I'm seeing from you guys. Damn your different opinions! After I'm done with Skyrim( I don't know when that will be...) I plan on buying either BF3 or MW3. I'm pretty torn about it. I actually really enjoy the goofy campaign of MW, but the slower pace of Battlefield's MP I love.

I also am going to be playing the console version of either one, and BF3 sounds like a lesser game on consoles. Fuck it. I'll probably just end up buying both.

If you have to choose one - and especially if the choice is BF3 on a PC (where it's meant to be played) versus MW3 on console (where it's meant to be played) - it's not even a fucking contest. BF3 has massive, beautiful, stunning, inspired, colorful, groundbreaking maps. Maps with complexity and various levels of vertical to them that cater to many different styles of play. There are more "ooh, this map is up next!" maps than there are "oh, fuck I hate this one" maps.
 
The maps in MW3 are just bad. They're lacking in every way and only really cater to run and gunners. Everything looks the same and is boring to the eyes. It all pretty much occurs on street level with a couple floors inside buildings that you can go to. I don't know how to put it other than saying that the maps in MW3 feel like what I would have expected if this was a launch title for this current generation of consoles. That is, the maps feel like they were designed in early 2005 rather than 2011. Having played Modern Warfare 1, 2, World at War, and Black Ops in this generation I can say that all the maps in all of those games are great leaps beyond the maps in MW3. Since each annual release is really just a tweaking of the rules and game play and some new "arenas", it's really a shame that they butchered the maps this time around. The changes to the rest of the game are fairly minimal, so the only thing you can really judge them on is the maps . . . (well, and some of the streaks and rewards which I'm not sure about just yet).
Online
#56 Posted by SSValis (1136 posts) -

@Branthog said:

@SSValis said:

So pretty mixed results I'm seeing from you guys. Damn your different opinions! After I'm done with Skyrim( I don't know when that will be...) I plan on buying either BF3 or MW3. I'm pretty torn about it. I actually really enjoy the goofy campaign of MW, but the slower pace of Battlefield's MP I love.

I also am going to be playing the console version of either one, and BF3 sounds like a lesser game on consoles. Fuck it. I'll probably just end up buying both.

If you have to choose one - and especially if the choice is BF3 on a PC (where it's meant to be played) versus MW3 on console (where it's meant to be played) - it's not even a fucking contest. BF3 has massive, beautiful, stunning, inspired, colorful, groundbreaking maps. Maps with complexity and various levels of vertical to them that cater to many different styles of play. There are more "ooh, this map is up next!" maps than there are "oh, fuck I hate this one" maps. The maps in MW3 are just bad. They're lacking in every way and only really cater to run and gunners. Everything looks the same and is boring to the eyes. It all pretty much occurs on street level with a couple floors inside buildings that you can go to. I don't know how to put it other than saying that the maps in MW3 feel like what I would have expected if this was a launch title for this current generation of consoles. That is, the maps feel like they were designed in early 2005 rather than 2011. Having played Modern Warfare 1, 2, World at War, and Black Ops in this generation I can say that all the maps in all of those games are great leaps beyond the maps in MW3. Since each annual release is really just a tweaking of the rules and game play and some new "arenas", it's really a shame that they butchered the maps this time around. The changes to the rest of the game are fairly minimal, so the only thing you can really judge them on is the maps . . . (well, and some of the streaks and rewards which I'm not sure about just yet).

So you would say BF3 even if it was on a console?

#57 Posted by AjayRaz (12424 posts) -

campaign is fun and exciting. spec ops is cool, but i find it very difficult to imagine myself ever having a good time with the multiplayer from what i've played.  
 
3/5 

#58 Posted by spazmaster666 (1966 posts) -

It's definitely a 4/5 for me. I liked the campaign much more than BF3 and I think what they've done with Spec Ops is pretty interesting. However, I still have no interest in playing the multiplayer; at all. And while I felt the campaign was enjoyable, I don't think I necessarily had a lot of fun playing it. As Jeff said in his review, MW3 is more fun to watch than to play, which to me was not the case in MW2 or Black Ops.

#59 Posted by Branthog (6045 posts) -

@SSValis said:

@Branthog said:

@SSValis said:

So pretty mixed results I'm seeing from you guys. Damn your different opinions! After I'm done with Skyrim( I don't know when that will be...) I plan on buying either BF3 or MW3. I'm pretty torn about it. I actually really enjoy the goofy campaign of MW, but the slower pace of Battlefield's MP I love.

I also am going to be playing the console version of either one, and BF3 sounds like a lesser game on consoles. Fuck it. I'll probably just end up buying both.

If you have to choose one - and especially if the choice is BF3 on a PC (where it's meant to be played) versus MW3 on console (where it's meant to be played) - it's not even a fucking contest. BF3 has massive, beautiful, stunning, inspired, colorful, groundbreaking maps. Maps with complexity and various levels of vertical to them that cater to many different styles of play. There are more "ooh, this map is up next!" maps than there are "oh, fuck I hate this one" maps. The maps in MW3 are just bad. They're lacking in every way and only really cater to run and gunners. Everything looks the same and is boring to the eyes. It all pretty much occurs on street level with a couple floors inside buildings that you can go to. I don't know how to put it other than saying that the maps in MW3 feel like what I would have expected if this was a launch title for this current generation of consoles. That is, the maps feel like they were designed in early 2005 rather than 2011. Having played Modern Warfare 1, 2, World at War, and Black Ops in this generation I can say that all the maps in all of those games are great leaps beyond the maps in MW3. Since each annual release is really just a tweaking of the rules and game play and some new "arenas", it's really a shame that they butchered the maps this time around. The changes to the rest of the game are fairly minimal, so the only thing you can really judge them on is the maps . . . (well, and some of the streaks and rewards which I'm not sure about just yet).

So you would say BF3 even if it was on a console?

From what I understand, the console version of BF3 is a fairly faithful and well-done iteration. It's not going to be exactly what you get on PC (even mechanically, graphics aside) as they obviously adjust the size of maps and teams accordingly. However, I haven't heard anyone with serious complaints about it. I can't imagine the console version of the maps could be much less enjoyable than the PC ones. I hope the Black Ops community sticks to Black Ops, because while I'll keep playing mW3 because, well, I bought it and am playing it with someone else regularly, I'll be returning to Black Ops as well. If you already have that... I'd stick with Black Ops and BF3 :)

Online
#60 Posted by august (3836 posts) -

GUILTY

#61 Posted by billyhoush (1192 posts) -

I never play the shit out of them since my attention span for a video game is like 2 months max. It's fun and exactly what I wanted. The end.

#62 Posted by bybeach (4792 posts) -

I'll tell you what my written verdict is, single player only, first mission done...KABLAAAAMMMMMM!!!!! This game rocks. They give me a fancy rifle with a secondary scope, and a separate grenade launcher with a scope also, and they push me on out there. Sure it's really on rails ,except I can flank right or left, and that's whats important.Now I am going to go do...something ridiculous

I'm really loving it.

#63 Posted by Twisted_Scot (1177 posts) -

Only played the MP so far and not impressed. Is it just me or does it just feel as tho they made all the maps too small and then to cover it they make you move slower and spawn in terrible places? I'm yet to find a map that stand out let alone like, or even just don't hate. The kill-streak system seems odd to me at the moment, it just feels like there's too much shit going on at one time (usually just a sky FULL of UAV's. I didn't go into this game expecting anything to be really that different but it feels it has changes and definitely not for the better. The Assist streaks and a nice new addition and the fact that doing things for the team counts like taking down UAV's etc but that's about it. Tried playing a few rounds of HQ and every time they were just a ruined mess again because of the maps and spawning. I feel the maps are cheaply cluttered with destroyed vehicles to give it a certain look but in reality just to be used by guys to sit and camp even more than they could in previous games. 
The game doesn't look great and doesn't sound great which has been an issue with other COD games in recent years but this one just feels worse. Ive been tryign to stay positive and the hopes that I didnt just waste $70 but im not so sure. Surprisingly the one thing that I feel is AWESOME and have complained about and desperately wanted since COD4 is actually in the game yet strangely I didn't hear a word about it until I started playing it....the ability to choose which kill-streak to use first by pressing up or down on the D-pad. This is a great addition and long overdue. 

#64 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7077 posts) -

3/5. They need to start doing something new. Adding a few weapons and perks no longer cuts it for me.

#65 Posted by VictorK (73 posts) -

3/5. It made me realise how tired I am of playing cod-multiplayer. I´ve played it online for about 5 hours total and I don´t feel like playing it anymore, at all. 
I thought the campaign was ok,  easiest one yet to complete on Veteran. Not that is was easy, bit there was no too frustrating parts.

#66 Posted by Hexogen (766 posts) -

I like it so far. The guns feel good and the game runs silky smooth. The campaign, which I'm about 2/3 done if I had to guess, is a fun thrill ride as CoD campaigns always are. It doesn't blow me away or anything, but it's good. The multiplayer is simultaneously fun and frustrating. I like the return to just leveling up instead of leveling up and having to purchase everything with in-game currency. The support package is a great addition since most of my go-to killstreaks are fairly passive, and I like to help my team win instead of worrying about my kill/death ratio.

As for the frustrating parts, the lag compensation in this game is ridiculous. My game seems to be a half second or more behind everyone else's quite often. On my screen I'll dump four or five bullets into a guy before they shoot at me and then I get killed by what seems like one bullet from them. I look at the killcam and from their perspective it looks like I'm oblivious to their presence. And yet the game lists everyone in the lobby, including myself, as having a four-bar connection. It can be maddening sometimes. I know there's always going to be moments like that due to latency, but I've never experienced it to this degree, and so often, in a Call of Duty game.

The spawns are terrible sometimes, but IIRC Black Ops was the same way at launch and it got a lot better with some tweaking. And the maps overall seem really small and labyrinthine, which I'm not ecstatic about. But, believe it or not, I do like the multiplayer. I just find it a lot easier to go into detail about what I don't like rather than what I do.

#67 Edited by NTM (7343 posts) -

Five. I loved MW2, and it's pretty much the same, so if we're going off the fact that it's not all the original, I guess a four, but I still like the way MW2 plays, looks, and sounds, so I'm giving a five. And no, that doesn't mean perfect. It's in the nine range. 9.4 I'd say. I'm much more of a campaign person, but with the extra's (or so I'd call them), that helps it.

#68 Posted by Brazooka (15 posts) -

4/5

The game just feels very complete and polished... I've been playing BF3, you know, it's great, but when you step into MW's multiplayer, you're at home. You know what I mean. Jeff Gerstmann knows what I mean.

PS.: BF3 x MW3 maps: No way to compare. MW maps are always memorable, even if you don't like some of them. BF3 maps are BAD, with very few exceptions.

#69 Posted by Entreri10 (197 posts) -

I really enjoy the game both SP and MP but I also am definitely getting the feeling of ok...i've been here before.

#70 Edited by valrog (3671 posts) -

4/5 (I accidentally hit 3/5). Though my verdict is solely for the campaign.

#71 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3663 posts) -

The spawns, the maps, and most of all the HUGE step backwards for theater mode when compared to Black Ops means that I have to go with a 4. If it were an option, maybe even 3 1/2. Still loads of fun, though.

#72 Posted by bybeach (4792 posts) -

I just finished the campaign, haven't done the other mode because I wanted to get on to Batman. It was a competent game and I liked it well enough. I found it both interesting and tragic that Price wanted to marry Soap but jealous Makerov made sure that wouldn't happen..the bastard! So the story was okay, but they did drama for real game play changes or anything else that would have constituted change, so in the end it was really same ole same ole, despite the pain and loss of love. It was also very very short, so short I replayed and about finished Fear 2 (a much longer game) just to pad it out. Fear 2 is about love and loss also, though more the carnal and physically involved aspects of it, so it fit in...sort of. (Hint, the protagonist should have used a rubber..)

The Single player campaign just and only..3 out of 5, or on a base 10 scale,7.5 out of 10. Not the total score for MW3 in all I'm sure.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.