Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3

Reviewed by inoshiro | 20 November 2011
Genre: FPS | Publisher: Activision | Developer: Sledgehammer Games
TOG Score
Members (av.)
The Good
  • Wraps up the loose ends of the Modern Warfare Storyline
  • Lots of varied locations (including identifyable cityscapes)
  • Lots of varied vehicles
The Bad
  • Graphics same or worse than MW2 (2 years later)
  • Repetitive objectives
  • Easy Level too easy, Veteran Level too hard

The End of an Era?

Name: Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3
Genre: FPS
Publisher: Activision
Developer: Sledgehammer Games
Where to buy it: Steam, or any good game store
Overall Score: 3.5 stars
Homepage: Call of Duty®

The Good:

  • Wraps up the loose ends of the Modern Warfare Storyline
  • Lots of varied locations (including identifyable cityscapes)
  • Lots of varied vehicles

The Bad:

  • Graphics same or worse than MW2 (2 years later)
  • Repetitive objectives
  • Easy Level too easy, Veteran Level too hard

Single Player - Review by Hoppy

As an unashamed Call of Duty fanboy, I approached this new game with a high level of anticipation. From late September when the family gave me a pre-order to the game, through to the midnight launch of the game at my local EB games, I was looking forward to it.

So did the game deliver to my expectations? I would have to answer with a fence sitting, yes and no. Whilst the gameplay and storyline of the single player was pretty much as expected, with a couple of minor twists here and there (no spoliers here!!) and the eventual expected conclusion, there was not a lot of improvment in the graphics (and in some cases it was worse.) I suspect that this is due to it being a console port, so again PC gamers luck out!

I found the game to be stable and glitch free and the AI was reasonably adaptive and flowing, even when I ran off to investigate areas that weren’t part of the action.

In terms of game play, there is the standard “attack the rampart” scenes, as well as the sneak around and hide scenes, shoot wildly whilst being bounced around in the back or a car/truck/boat/crashing plane, as well as bomb the crap out of the bad guys from a plane. But again, nothing that made me think this game was particularly special.

The difference in scenery was good to see, from the street of New York, London, Berlin, Paris, Prague, Washington, Seira Leone to name a few, but again, gameplay was the same in a lot of those areas.

The single player took about 6 hrs on the easiest level, and yes you can virtually walk through a lot of levels hardly shooting at all, and I am still working on Veteran mode, so other than it being damm hard, the game play is the same. So length wise it is pretty good, and I would be surprised if anyone has purchased the game just to play the single player version!!

All in all, this is another edition of the greatest selling gaming franchise in history, why would you change things too much, you have a winning formula, stick to it. And stick to it they have. So there is enough in this game to keep COD tragics like me happy, as well as entice anyone who hasn’t considered this franchise previously.

Multiplayer - Review by A_Rageaholic

The multiplayer portion of this game is the part I’ve most been looking forward to. After the (what most people would consider) failure with Modern Warfare 2, the franchise seemed to pick back up again with the release of Black Ops. The dedicated servers that were missing in MW2, returned for Black Ops and made the PC fans of the Call of Duty series extremely happy and with the announcement that MW3 would again return to its roots and provide dedicated servers, there was renewed hope for the game.

Things were extremely quiet on the details of the dedicated servers until just before release when we heard that they would be unranked which in all honesty, deflated the excitement quite a lot in this gamer. But once I got my hands on it, I’ve been quite pleased for the most part. The graphics are nothing to write home about with the standard Call of Duty “arcade” look and feel.

The lobby system is still lacking for the most part with Australian players joining lobbies hosted in America and ending up with bad pings. But when the game connects to a decent host, it plays just as well as when we played on a dedicated server in Black Ops.

Many people are calling this game, Modern Warfare 2.5, meaning it’s really just a patch with new maps for Modern Warfare 2 and with my limited knowledge on MW2, I’d say that is a fair assessment. But does that take away from the value or enjoyment of the game? Not by any means.
Modern Warfare 3 has been released with 16 new maps which provides many hours of just learning not to get lost.

It comes with a couple of new game types including Kill Confirmed which plays like Team Death Match but requires the team players to capture the tags from a dead enemy to have the score count. This is quite a popular game among players especially here in TOG.

There are several new killstreaks including a recon drone that can be remotely driven around the map killing the enemy all from the comfort of your hidey hole, as well as the usual new guns and attachments.

All in all, the multiplayer component of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is solid and enjoyable providing many hours of gaming fun for the COD fans.

TOG Members: CoD: Modern Warfare 3 Division Forum

What do you think of Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3?
Post a review below!

Popular Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 Videos

Videos courtesy of

Member reviews

Met Requirements - Hippymonkey |
| 21 November 2011

Seeing the headline above "end of an era?" I am inclined to agree. After playing MW1 and Black Ops on PS3 I was very excited to play this on release. And it was fine... But I do feel as though Black Ops had more technical and inspired maps for the variety of game modes, and the small additions in kill streaks have not added greatly to the game. There is nothing at all wrong with it, and it is still getting some playtime between BF3, though I am fairly certain it will be a few years before I pay full price for a CoD game again.

My review of MW3 - recon |
| 24 November 2011

Below I have pasted the mini review I posted in the MW3 divison forum. This is Part 3 of the game series that started with COD4 Modern Warfare and as such it is a direct continuation in almost every sense. If you are expecting something else you haven’t been following the game news. Following are my initial impressions. Verdicts are out of 5 therefore 5 is 81% or higher, 4 61 % - 80% etc No game is perfect so 5/5 doesn’t imply this game is perfect in any area just very, very good. Graphics – The graphics are still very good but only slightly better then MW2 but we knew this was the case for a long time. They are different to BO’s with more subtle colouring which can mean that players are harder to spot. Verdict – 4/5 Sound – Not much different here with MW2 which isn’t really a bad thing. People complain about the guns not sounding right. Take it from someone who has suffered hearing loss from the real things – they are fine… Verdict – 4/5 (considered marking down for the music in lobby – annoying as hell especially while talking in TS) Maps – So far I’ve played on about half of the 16 maps. They are similar to many other FPS maps with limited approaches but IMHO a few of them have more approaches then I am used to in COD maps. There are so many routes to and from many areas of the map that camping effectively for any length of time will be difficult. As I have said I have limited experience so far but I am yet to play on a map that I instinctively disliked. Even the small maps like “Dome” are made in such a way as to preclude spawn tubes and grenades. Verdict - 5/5 Weapons – a good mix of new and old favourites. The old gats are little different with much more recoil and sway then has been evident in past games. This is probably in response to the new weapon specialisations where you can reduce these with experience invested in a particular weapon. For example, the UMP is still a good SMG but harder to use as easily as MW2 until experience has been banked. I still pick one up every time I see one lying around to replace my secondary. Verdict – 5/5 Perks – One word – Balanced. Usually I look at a tier and see the one I will be using by default straight away. This time around I am finding that much more difficult. The pro versions are easier to get then Black Ops. I have several pro versions already and am only level 28. I really like the way these perks are optimised. Verdict 4/5 Streaks – not killstreaks anymore so you get rewarded for kills and for completing objectives. I was racking up so many vests last night in kill confirmed simply because I was killing my opponent and working hard to get the tags and return friendly ones. About time you were rewarded for carrying out objectives. It may be considered an individual game but I saw the results of unconscious teamwork many times last night with corresponding success. Conversely it’s harder to rack up huge killstreaks legitimately though I did manage a fairly long 12 or so. This also means that protecting yourself from air support is not quite as important as it was. The changes here are excellent. Verdict 5/5 Challenges – MW2 like with new additions obviously due to the perks, weapons etc and daily and weekly challenges. Nothing really new here but still quite solid though I still haven’t found a big enough hole to throw myself into … 3/5 IWNet – it’s still IWNet but it is improved over MW2. Dedicated servers are available after a fashion but only ranked. My experience has for the most part been that IWNet was as stable as or more so then many BO servers. Still the chance of a bad host or ending up playing with US or Euro hosts but appears to happen less. Regardless I don’t rate IWNet highly at all but the ability to join on friends from Steam is a bonus. Disclaimer - I’m an unabashed ranked dedicated server supporter. Verdict 2/5 (MW2 I’d rate a 1/5) Overall Verdict – 32/40 (80%) Missions – the usual Call of Duty offerings in both vanilla and Hardcore varieties with 2 new missions. I have only played one of these new missions – kill confirmed. For those that like run and gun action this mode is highly recommended. I really enjoy it and I’m not a run and gunner by any means. No rating at this stage till I play them all on the new maps. Summary – This is once again a fine addition to the Call of Duty series, a series that is unabashedly about man on man combat at close range. Frenetic fire fights are the order of the day. It’s not a simulator and never pretends to be, so do not expect it have bullet drop etc. Over the ranges that combat typically happens in this game bullet drop is not much of factor anyway. It’s a game designed to be fun and it does that admirably in my opinion. It's not revolutionary but evolutionary which is why the launch was almost without incident. Radical change is not always a good thing and I've seen many games where the publisher has decided they needed to do something "different" to keep their customers happy. A lot of the time it ends in tears.

my htoughts - soz4tk |
| 25 November 2011

l agree the graphics could be better but like all the new gadgets you can get and the fact the game is noob friendly l could not use a sniper rifle in cod4 very well but l shoot like a pro in mw3. l was finally happy to break macfoviks neck never ever thought they would let us catch him. Anyway thats what l think.

- okkervil |
| 25 November 2011

This game is simply awful. I couldn't give two hoots about the campaign. I started my COD journey with MW2 on Xbox, thought it was fantastic, then BLOPS on PS3 - then PC and thought it was brilliant but frankly, MW3 on PC is a disgrace. The graphics are awful, the servers are awful, the sound is a disgrace and even though I purchased a cheap Russian cd key, I am ashamed to say that it's ~$25 wasted. An absolutely embarrassing release for the publishers, and a deep, spurting wound which will no doubt become a brutal scar to plague the producers for subsequent releases.

i like it MW3 - AusGunner |
| 10 December 2011

love it

- Father |
| 22 December 2011

They should sell the single player option standalone, not paying $99 for a 5 hour game no matter how good it is.

opinion - eastwoodone |
| 31 March 2012

For someone who isnt much into fps, I actually enjoyed the game, beat it on both the pc and xbox360 (even tho they were both on easy mode). Don't do much online content due to the fact that I am not too good at it and other players tend to make fun of those who dont do too well. This making fun of others in their poor performance is main reason I dont do online content much. To me that is the only downfall to the game, its the other gamers and how they respond to people.

- ChocodileHunter |
| 24 May 2012

I by far am not an expert. But being a Call of Duty fan from the beginning, like this game. I feel that they are keeping the game (at least on the Multiplayer) new, by releasing new maps every month, thats great. And the new special ops DLC's, awesome. to be honest i have only played about an hours worth of the single player. I feel that the computer AI is just ridiculous on any game, I much rather prefer to play online.

Write a review

 You must be logged in to post a review.

Poll: How much time do you game each week?

Popular articles

Popular videos

Courtesy of | Top 20 »