Customer Reviews: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 - Playstation 3
Your Garage botysf16 Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Drowners Explore Premium Audio Fire TV Stick Sun Care Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis UniOrlando Best Camping & Hiking Gear in Outdoors STEM

Format: Video Game|Change
Price:$11.96+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on November 11, 2011
I bought this game knowing it would be a redux of MW2, I didn't care as I enjoyed that game. COD has always been a game that I could easily pick up and play for a few hours a couple of times a week. The good news is that this game still runs smooth as butter and has the same smooth controls. The bad news is that the new maps are all garbage (well ok not all of them, but you get the point). Its a total --to borrow a phrase from Fantastic Mr. Fox-- "Clustercuss". The maps are decently sized, but they're also cramped and claustrophobic. Way too many small alleys and corridors that eliminate the ability to get a feel for where the opposition is coming from.

Any indoor/enclosed area is a death trap, apparently in the world of COD there are building laws and building codes that require every wall in every structure to have at least one door and one window. Meanwhile the open areas are full of boxes, crates, burning cars, and yes even ANOTHER downed helicopter (really? we already played Crash twice). The turf war aspect of multiplayer is what I enjoyed about COD4 and MW2, that dynamic is sorely missing from this game, basically you run around and hope that when you come across someone you are behind them, and not the other way around.

When I go to the firing range I don't go there to shoot targets four feet away, if I wanted if i wanted to that I'd go play Lasertag with a bunch of 11 year olds, which is think is actually the age demographic this game is trying to appeal to.

If you are going to release what is essentially a re-do of your old game at least create some new and interesting maps. If you've ever played paintball at a speedball/indoor course then you know how every map will play out in this game, except that when you play indoor paintball people don't magically spawn 10 feet behind you.

COD we had some fun together, we knew it wouldn't last forever, and we've both changed. I'd love to tell you that it's not you, it's me, but that would be a lie. It's you. Sorry. Now go make me a sandwich
5252 comments|730 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on December 5, 2011
This game currently holds the record for sales in a week and sales in one day for any video game. People like to say this is a bad game that only sells well because of advertisement and hype. If that were true it would not explain why people continue to play it or why they continue to pick this up year after year. Are all these COD fans just miserably playing online not having fun? The series maybe boring and unimpressive to many but it appeals to a demographic and it appeals to it well.

It's simple: if you've liked the previous CoD games then you'll like this one. If you were expecting something ground-breaking and new then this game is not for you. This game is like Madden. All you're going to get is new weapons, maps, some tweaks, and some new features. Whether or not this justifies the price tag is a different story. I'm purely basing my review on entertainment.

As a long-time fan of the series I'll start off with the bad. The singleplayer is as useless as ever with a non-sense story that you simply will not care about. It is repetitive and linear with overwhelming spawning enemy AI shooting from all directions serving as the only challenge. The only variation is some vehicle levels reused from previous Call of Duty entries. There are no tools at your disposable to change things up. It's the same shoot, cover, grenades mechanic in place since the first Call of Duty on PC. At least back then the firefights felt intense and you were part of an actual historical event. While Call of Duty 4's campaign was entertaining the following MW2 and MW3 don't add anything, the surprises and thrills are gone. SPOILER: when Jackson died in COD4 it was dramatic and unexpected. When this same trick is used in MW2 (twice) and MW3 it's just not as interesting.

**My major gripe is that there's no consistency of characters. Characters are constantly being introduced and killed off in every entry. Soap, Price, and Nikolai are about the only consistent thing about this series in terms of story. Even then they are just empty NPCs providing orders and guidance to the player. There's never any interaction or personality shown to make you care.

I'll move on to the reason why most people buy this game or any CoD game for that matter: the multiplayer. As usual thing are played out on medium-sized maps between 6-player teams. The most popular game modes are TDM and Domination. Multiplayer is fast, intense, and catered towards those with short attention spans like myself. You won't have to traverse much ground in order to find something to shoot at. Some prefer more variation, obviously Battlefield 3 being the main example. There's nothing wrong with that game but I prefer the down and dirty street fight. If you do too, you'll feel right at home.

The new "strike packages" are welcome giving players different options in terms of playing style and tactics. For instance, the support strike package does not rely on consecutive kills. It continually stacks and does not reset after dying. This allows players to be more aggressive while still supporting team members. Likewise the specialist strike package allows players to add perks to their original 3. After getting 8 kills they player will have all perks becoming a super soldier. Now they won't be able to call in any killstreaks but the advantage of additional perks is a great advantage in a gun vs. gun situation.

Maps were advertised as being more balanced. This is a matter of opinion but I'll have to agree. For the most part the maps have been designed to weaken camp areas. Most sniping/camp spots will have too many alternate routes to enter and flank. Other spots will just be awkwardly placed not giving the player enough view over heavy traffic areas. There are plenty of camping players but what do you expect in an FPS game.

Perks have been reorganized in a way that forces players to make some hard choices on how they set up their classes. Of course the specialist strike package remedies that but in general I've seen people go with the normal killstreaks. For instance, in previous games the player would use a perk to be invisible to radar. This perk would also double as protection against air support. They have now been separated into two different categories. The same goes for the popular 'sleight of hand' perk that allowed faster reloads as well as faster aiming. Now as two separate perks players will need to rely more on careful playing and good old reflexes.

Not such a big deal since it's identical to MW2 but the weapons are great. In Black Ops each category (assault, light machine gun, sub machine guns) had only a couple of weapons worth using. These weapons were so good there was no point in using anything else. MW3 has the reverse effect where everything works great, almost too great, where gun selection sometimes feels like it doesn't make a difference. It comes down to preference.

The downsides of multiplayer is the lack of dedicated servers which I've complained about since CoD switched over from PC. This causes you to rely on the host system. I'm not sure why but every now and then I'll be 'slower' than everyone else usually getting shot after getting behind cover or just a second before I actually spot an enemy. Sometimes I can tell this is working in my favor and I'll have an amazing time but I'd much rather everyone just be on the same level in terms of online latency.

This system prevents users from joining games. It'll just randomly throw you into any game that has a slot for you or your party. This results in throwing players into a lot of losing games. Why? With a lot of people getting frustrated and leaving a losing round it creates gaps on the losing team. Innocent players looking to join a game are suddenly thrown into a round with a 30 score gap that's about to end. The game counts this as a loss! You literally can join a game, do nothing, and still lose.

Another issue is the auto-balancing system. I don't play in a party so when I do well the next round assures that I get stuck with all of the less skilled players to make sure I lose so things stay 'fair.' I'm not using anything that puts me at an advantage over anyone else so I'm bothered that the game feels I need to be punished for playing well. To put things in perspective I have a 2.00 KDR for TDM but only a 1.20 win record. In theory that is about right since the autobalancing is doing it's job. 50 percent of the time you should be put on a good team and the other 50 the losing team. So maybe this is a good thing for some?

I've ranted on long enough but I will repeat what I said before. People do not like this game and never will. The people that do (there are obviously many) wilkl play it and enjoy it as always. The graphics are aging, the game is very similar to MW2, and if you had problems with the series before most of those problems are still there.

The game is FUN. That's all there is to it. If it's not for you that's fine. To be fair I think this is the last COD game for me. It's a solid final entry to the series but if they make another one and it's still the same I'm probably satisfied with this one.

I look at the progression of this series like this:

COD4 - Introduced classes, perks, modern setting, and more arcade-like gameplay

MW2 - Introduced "super power" type perks, pushed the game over the top in terms of arcade style, introduced killstreaks which would become a staple of the series, finalized the game to a console audience in terms of style, maps, and controls/weapons

Black Ops - balanced the game, took a step back in terms of style, map design, weapons, and was actually a little too watered down from what MW2 was.

MW3 - Balances between COD4 and MW2 very well, really no where for the series to go from here
0Comment|22 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on November 15, 2011
I have always loved the Call of Duty series but as of late it has been given the same treatment as the Madden series (IE they add TINY features each year and ask you to pay 60$ for a """new""" game). But this latest installment has crossed the line. Most of the fanboys constantly ask well WHY do you not like this game? (Valid question and i shall go through that in multiple points)

1. The maps are the smallest in ANY Call of duty game to the point your nearly always spawning right on top of someone.

2. The graphics engine is the exact same as MW2 regardless of what any fanboy tries to tell you. This may have been ok if this game was released a year after MW2 but not now.

3. Already new Wall glitches in the game and similar problems MW2 was plagued with (Youtube and see it for yourself).

4. P2P 2011? REALLY? Why on earth would you use P2P servers which are Laggy,Slow,Disconnect often,Easily hackable when most other major IP's use Dedicated servers.....Activision will make 3-4X more money then EA will see from BF3 and even they put dedicated servers into BF3.

5. The Campaign is Short/easy and Extremely predictable....a rather large disappointment for a direct sequel.

6. Rampant Killstreaks What i mean by this is since the maps are so insanely small you can rackup killstreaks way way easier then in previous CoD titles. So you see 3-4X more killstreaks then in previous versions.

7. The leaderboards have ALREADY been hacked again....(Look at the leaderboards see for yourself)

8. The hit the worst i have seen in any shooter since...hell ever?

9. No Marathon perk (Opinion)

10. EVERY gun is insanely overpowered, literally even the SMG's kill in 2-3 Shots at medium distance. Combine that with small maps and it becomes a Camp fest of who runs around corner A first.

All in All this is the biggest disappointment in the series in my mind...Save yourself the 60$ and take a woman out to dinner.
1313 comments|213 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on November 16, 2011
I played the first Call of Duty on a friend's PC way back and had fond memories of my short experience with it. Next, was COD2 for the 360 and I loved it. The game was challenging when played on Veteran, but always seemed reasonable. It had a good story, and just felt tight. I didn't really get into multiplayer at this point.

Next, Call of Duty 3 was a let-down. It was buggy and just felt like it was missing something. After a little research, I discovered that it was developed by a back-up studio and I really started to appreciate how good the original developer, Infinity Ward, was at their craft.

So, I was super-excited about Call of Duty 4, and it didn't disappoint. The graphics were excellent, the story was epic, and I even got into the excellent, revolutionary, multiplayer. Infinity Ward did it again! It was, for me, my top action shooter ever.

Now that I knew what to expect from Treyarch, the second developer, I didn't really have high hopes for World at War and wasn't surprised to find that, at least the single player, was pretty dull... Dull enough that I have yet to finish it. I was bored enought with WW2 shooters at that point to not even really delve into multiplayer. Thinking back, it may have also been a result of Treyarch locking players out who hadn't purchased extra content. I may be wrong, but I remember not being able to easily get into a game at a certain point. So, more hate on Treyarch from me.

I was, again, ready for the next Infinity Ward iteration, Modern Warfare 2. I got it, and it felt a little less magical. The campaign story was bombastic and incoherent and, at the end, I didn't really feel satisfied. The multiplayer, while fun, and addictive, felt like I was at a disadvantage... Dieing when I was safely under cover, only to see a completely different version on the opponent's kill-cam... me, out in the open, peppered with bullets. It could have been lag, but I was on a good connection, so maybe it was the way they changed how the games were hosted? I got a bit frustrated with it, but played a lot, enjoyed the maps, and mostly had fun.

Treyarch! Again I took a gamble and got Treyarch's next version, Black Ops. Surprisingly enough, although the campaign was so-so, the multiplayer was a lot of fun. The dieing under cover issue seemed to be less prevalent, the maps were well designed, and I spent a good deal of time enjoying multiplayer.

Dun-dun-dun... Modern Warfare 3! Over the prior year plus, the original Infinity Ward team had been dramatically destroyed from within, by Activision's management team. Many of the Infinty Ward team jumped ship to follow some of the top guys to a new independent studio. It was a cause for concern, but I thought, maybe, enough of the old team were left to carry on the quality expectations that Infinity Ward had engendered, for the most part, excepting the hiccups in Modern Warfare 2. So, it was with slight trepidation, I opened my copy of Modern Warfare 3, popped it in, and jumped into multiplayer.

Within a very short amount of time, well almost immediately, I gathered that the maps lacked any sort of character that many of the old maps had. Not only did they all feel very similar, but they had been designed full of openings so that you, at an incredibly annoying rate, get shot in the back. The old maps tended to be designed so you could run around, watch your corners, and be wary of the several flanking spots. Now, nearly every 10 feet, there's a spot where someone can pop out of a hole from nearly 6 places at once, meaning, if you choose to run around, you will get shot in the back. And, Call of Duty is nothing, if not a run and gun game. So what happens when a run and gun game has maps that make it hard to run and gun?

I read that these maps were designed to discourage camping, but you almost have to stay in one place to have a chance of not dieing in constant cross-fires. And, I would assume that these small maps, full of holes, would not be very ideal for snipers, which is fine with me, because I never snipe. But, good god, if these maps are not chock full of snipers running around, laying waste at close range, by simply tapping on the aim button and instantly pulling the trigger. But, sniping involves careful positioning, long range, and time, right? Apparently, not in Modern Warfare 3. The designers consciously allow players to have the game aim for them (auto aiming, aka quick-scoping), which sort of feels like cheating, and certainly removes any of the skill of actually aiming, and pulling the trigger, on the mark. When you run into a room, sporting an assault rifle, put 3+ bullets in an opponent's chest, and he still is able to pull the aim trigger, fire, and one shot kill you, without actually aiming, just doesn't make a lot of sense, and is slightly more frustrating than what you might call fun. Add to the fact that you can also shoot someone several times while they bull-rush through the hail of direct, knock even a fantasy video game guy off his feet, hits, and stab you to death in 1 slash... yeah, not fun either. Still dieing, with magical fly around corner bullets, when at least a second under cover, too? Yup. Still on a connection where that probably shouldn't be an issue? Yup.

So, terrible maps full of constantly getting shot in the back goodness, mechanics that reward non-skill, and legacy connection/lag issues that I'm sure could be fixed with dedicated servers, makes for... lots of Un-fun. COD4, Modern Warfare 2, and Black Ops had great maps that were lots of fun. Why such a huge step back? At this stage, this game is not even worthy of an $8 map pack add-on to one of the old games. It has some new modes, perks, and killstreak rewards, but it's not worth it without the well designed maps, and a slew of regressive mechanics.

Lest I forget the single player campain, and spec ops; The campaign, to about the half-way point, feels just as dumb and incoherent as Modern Warfare 2. It's chock-full of giant explosions, and no longer shocking deaths of your playable characters. Half the time, it feels like you're just watching. I'll finish it at some point, but I always used to play the story first. As the games have gone on, and the stories have gotten more re-hashy, poorly written, and cliche, I've cared less about enjoying that singular experience. But as both sides, single and multiplayer, devolve into a mess, what's left? Spec Ops, and the attached Survival Mode, are a nice distration, but these are bonus features. They can't even begin to carry the game.

When compared to the vast selection of games that are available, Modern Warfare 3 is not a bad game. It's polished, it's loud, and it has a lot of content. Tons of people will buy it, and continue to buy it for iterations to come, but as of this version, at least from the smoking shell that was Infinity Ward's greatness, I'm probably done. It's just not fun anymore and has lost its inspiration. Respawn, the new version of Infinity Ward, is working on a new title with, apparent, creative freedom. I'll look forward to that. I'll continue to have Dice's style of multiplayer ( Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 3 ) grow on me, which Modern Warfare 3 has heartily encouraged. And, I'll lament the now lost risk taking that Infinity Ward pushed through with Call of Duty 4, but I fear Activision's corporate interests have sunk that boat. And, to top it all off, what's with all of the glowing critical reviews of a game professional critics should recognize for its iterative failings? I think that's a rhetorical question referencing the prior sentence.

I don't always think a 5 star scale is quite specific enough, so I'll go to 10 and give Modern Warfare a 6 out of 10. For reference...
COD4 = 10
MW2 = 8.5
MW3 = 6
1515 comments|11 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on December 11, 2011
Once again, any semblance of a single-player experience is tossed out the window so a bunch of preadolescents can waste months of their lives online. It's on rails, the enemies come from the same place every time and after awhile it's just plain boring. And that's the best I can say about this huge waste of time and money. When the original Metal Gear Solid on a 20 year old platform is BETTER than this over wrought piece of crap, that's saying something. I don't care about cut scenes. I don't care about "realism." I want a GREAT playing experience...and this ain't it.
0Comment|11 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on February 2, 2012
I liked MW2. MW3 not so much. The only good part about this game is survival mode. It reminds me of the awesomeness of the Horde mode in Gears of War 2. Online multiplayer in this game is worse than MW2 and it is designed to reward respawning idiots. If you enjoy an endless barrage of racism and proudly ignorant aggression than you will love the online multiplayer in this game. There is an angry hillbilly spawning behind you in every corner.
There is no strategy or tactical playability at all in this game. You know like something that actually registers hits. I thought they are meant to represent bullets. A sniper rifle in capable hands should not need 3 shots to kill a target. Instead with all of the whining by the morons that supply 80% of the COD franchise purchases daddy lets you get your way. Instead we get the weakest form of gameplay possible, the quickscope. Some douches actually brag about it if you can beleive that. I could deal with MW2 even though, and it seems true of all COD games, it lacks any kind of tactical or stealth play at all.
I have been waiting for a game similar to Rainbow Six Vegas 2. A game that can be played tactically without the need for a team. I don't know how many times I was able to defend myself against entire teams filled with clan members in Vegas 2. You know something that can equalize the playing field when you don't subscribe to some juvenile representation of a virtual gang. I want a realistic game that tests a persons skills. In this game there are no spots on the map to set up shop and snipe. There is no ability to hunker down and pick off an incoming team of hopped up morons. You know like resorting to a well put together tactical assault rifle after my sniper ammo runs out or when I need to make a hasty retreat because becoming overrun is inevitable. Like Carlos Hathcock and his spotter fighting waves of enemy Vietnamese. Now that is a satisfying experience. Racking up 12 or 20 kills to 1 even when they know your general position.
Unfortunately this game is designed to discourage tactical and sensible play. It rewards the hordees of respawning idiots that have no life. Unproductive members of society that sit around all day memorizing maps so they can always find you a minute after they respawn. Totally destroying a well earned 5-10 kill streak. It destroys any chance of satisfaction for casual gamers. The only reason this game exists is to satisfy the insatiable stupidity of the COD fanboy (and fangirl :). People that lack the personal fortitude to excel in life certainly will enjoy this game. The frustration of repetively getting killed by some kid with a modded controller I think is as equally frustrating as a ludicrous button masher game like Mortal Kombat.
So if you want to spend your days boozing up to drown out the endless frustration of a game rigged to reward douchebaggery than this one is perfect for you.
0Comment|4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on December 26, 2011
I have enjoyed the COD series, but gave up on Black Ops after a bit - it just wasn't any fun. I was getting butchered all the time. Whether or not people cheat isn't clear to me. It may simply be that a 12 year old boy raised on FPS's can kick my 52 yo butt with ease.

I missed the game play though, so took on MW3. The single player is fine. Lots of scenarios and fun ops. Not terribly hard on normal settings.
Multiplayer has so many games that I haven't touched, but I enjoy Dominion and Kill Confirmed. I like Barebones, which is still present. Somehow I tend to do better there.
My issue with the game is that it disenfranchises the marginal player. You enter a match with your Sergeant's stripes and everyone else has Prestiged a couple of times around. You are really fresh meat. There is just not much that a sucky player can engage in without invoking the wrath of little punk brats, dragging down your team, or just feeling like you spend more time dead than alive, all of which seriously diminishes the fun of the game. It would be nice to have some stratification of talent, and advance through a grouping of more similar talents and expertise rather than just throwing us all in together. Or have casual rooms to play in.

If you are in the same boat, what helped me a lot was finding a clan. They do help coach me, tolerate me, and make for just a good time rather than a harrowing experience.

I do think that the online service has improved. I don't get dropped nearly as much. There is occasionally some lag, but not often enough to matter. You occasionally respawn right in the middle of the other team's presence, but this is sort of funny - you gotta laugh at getting pummeled soundly at some point.
0Comment|16 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on November 17, 2011
I played through the campaign in a day and it was just so-so. I was very disappointed that they did away with the multiplayer combat training, which (in COD: Black Ops) a good place to warm up and a nice refuge when it became tiresome being paired with foul-mouthed adolescents. I can't recomend this game.
11 comment|27 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on December 2, 2011
I have been playing the cod series since big red one. I have owned all of them excluding the original. I loved cod 4 W@W even mw2 was alright until the hackers got a hold of it, I loved Blops. But I hate this game, The map designs are terrible its very easy to trap people in their spawns. After playing cod for so many years I am use to their maps design and can sort of feel my way around a map I have never played before, just from my past experiences but not in this game. The maps are very small and full of tiny building and debris to hide behind. Guns like the ump and the dual fg are over powered combine that with the small maps there really isn't a reason to use any other guns. The spawns are worse than the unpatched spawn from blops. For those of you who purchase blops last year you probably remember how bad the spawns were before they were patched, but this takes the cake I have literary spawned on top of a enemy almost every game. Getting spawned killed happens all the time. The single player is alright I enjoyed it, the one thing that cod developers do right on all the games is the single player. Its action packed and fun for a play though. After playing the single player I imagine this will be the last Modern Warfare game. What will be next IDK but the story pretty much ends here. Spec ops is fun but does not hold my attention like nazi zombies did. If your looking to buy this game I suggest not and to stick with blops. Their are a ton of other games out there right now that are better. Gears 3, skyrim, bf3.
11 comment|12 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on December 11, 2011
The Campaign was pretty fun.. But no one cares about the Single Player when talking about CoD.. So lets get straight to the Multiplayer

The Multiplayer has potential to be so good, but failed. The maps are very claustrophobic. Theres obstacles everywhere, hallways are narrow, and full of so many props you'll find yourself getting stuck on this things more often than not. Another thing is Assassin Pro. When we first heard about Assassin, most people knew that everyone would use it. Everyone is an understatement. Slows the game down like crazy, and just makes it boring. Quick-Scoping is back, and if your competitive and hate quickscopers, don't even bother.. Everyone who uses a sniper, you can almost guarantee will quick-scope, and that hurts your team.. Nobody wants teammates that go 6-34, and not go for the objectives.

So to summarize:
- Bad Maps
- Assassin Pro is overused
- Quickscoping is back

I suggest you rent it first. Game is fun for about 2 rounds then it gets old...
0Comment|9 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Questions? Get fast answers from reviewers

Please make sure that you've entered a valid question. You can edit your question or post anyway.
Please enter a question.
See all 27 answered questions

Send us feedback

How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you?
Let us know here.