50 of 77 people found the following review helpful
More Of The Same, with some updates,
This review is from: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 - Xbox 360 (Video Game)
UNLESS YOU just want new MULTIPLAYER, i don't recommend this game, if so, go for it!! So while Modern Warfare was really groundbreaking for it's time, i have to agree with most reviews i've read or seen that it is becoming "stale". Not much has really changed with the game, only the graphics have been bumped up (just a tad) from MW2. A bit better textures, more varied sound, a few new psychics, and of course new better looking weapons make for a pretty enjoyable experience. However the only things with games like this and BF3 is that there is only a certain amount of innovation you can keep adding to a war game. Or just first person shooters in general. After a while as with any game, you get tired of looking at a gun, or your hand with a knife in it. At least i do. I actually prefer platformers, or something a bit more in depth like Elder Scrolls when it comes to first person. That doesn't mean that MW3 isn't fun, especially the multiplayer which is why 90% of people buy it in the first place. I played the campaign for about an hour, and it's really nothing new under the sun. And from what i've heard it's only 5 hours long, guess we'll see. So yes this really is a lot like the last one, and to me it's basically just another war game, even though i know i'll get lynched by "fans" for saying that. I'm a 36 year old man, and my gaming time is limited, so i'm not a troll (whatever they really are) or some little 15 year old who sits for 18 hours a day playing, who has no life. I'm a casual gamer.
I did grow up with video games from their inception, so that's what still makes me a fan today. So i've gotten to see everything from Atari, Nintendo, to PS, Sega Dreamcast to 360 and PS3, but i'm more of a PC gamer. So in conclusion the game itself is still a MW game, with a few slight differences, that being the graphics, new maps(which mostly consist of cities and a jungle here and there), for multiplayer. I got it strictly for multiplayer, and have only done that for about an hour as well. But it was very fast paced and a lot of fun, except for all the little kids getting mad when they go down. The controls and aiming are very spot on, and killing does seem easier and smoother than the last game. Melee attacks also seem easier and less sloppy than the previous two games. So as far as multiplayer it's still one of the funnest games around. That being said from what i've played it's really not a step forward or backward, it's just another step. MW with a 3 in it. BF3 may be a lot prettier, but it's basically the same as well. Even great games like Drakes Fortune are seeming to run out of ideas, but honestly how many ways can you sing the same old song. Here's an idea, bring back a game like Redneck Rampage revamp it,Boogerman, or Blackthorne (these are computer, and nintendo classics btw) something not so serious and definitely different. I like these games for what they are, but nothing more. War is war, and shooting is shooting, after a while your thinking wow, lets race.
Pros-Graphics improved a bit, good multiplayer, new weapons are a treat, small new psychics features.
Cons-Same ole story, uninteresting dictator(again), only 5 hour single player, it's like every other war game, only with great multiplayer. Which i knew.
Btw. If you post a response and it's negative, i will only respond with. Because I Like The Multiplayer. Because I Like The Multiplayer. So enjoy. ;)
Tracked by 2 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 12 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 8, 2011 8:45:16 AM PST
I'm really sorry W. Freeman but I can't respect this review in the slightest. There are clearly just so many things wrong about how you decided to review this game. "And from what i've heard it's only 5 hours long, guess we'll see." When I first read that, I thought you must have been making a joke. Are you seriously telling me that you haven't even finished the campaign yet? Was it so necessary to post a review in the first 24 hours the game came out that you decided to only play an hour of the single player experience. I'm glad other reviewers on this site managed to at least finish the story before they took to the web to make a review of this game. I don't have a problem with you saying this is just another war game or saying your gaming time is limited or I'm just a multiplayer but my overall impression from reading your post is you haven't invested nearly enough time in Modern Warfare 3. Say you don't like it for valid reasons and I'll accept it and move on. But when you forget to even mention the new survival mode or the revamped spec-ops mode? You can do better, sorry.
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2011 9:08:39 AM PST
W. freeman says:
I just like it for Multiplayer. No i don't have the kind of time of my hands most people do. It may take two weeks for me to get through the whole game. I have kids, work etc. I don't get that in depth with any games, i'm not hardcore, just casual. But yeah i'll check those modes out thanks.
Posted on Nov 8, 2011 9:17:29 AM PST
Jeffrey Myers says:
Any time someone adds a line in their review like "If you post a response and it's negative...", means he's just trolling. He's looking to incite some controversy. Reading the text, this would seem like a four-star review; why only 3?
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2011 9:23:43 AM PST
Jesse Boldt says:
"Any time someone adds a line in their review like "If you post a response and it's negative..."" Or it can mean that the reviewer is used to fan boys trolling the reviews to either get into it or justify their own tastes. When looking at reviews, I try to find the person that likes or dislikes the same things about games that I do, because it's all just an opinion. The reviewer did a fine job saying exactly what kind of player he was and what he wanted to see. If someone isn't the same type of gamer, then the review should be meaningless and they should move on.
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2011 9:26:40 AM PST
W. freeman says:
I Like it For Multiplayer. ;o) (don't know what a troll is son)
Posted on Nov 8, 2011 10:07:15 AM PST
Jeffrey Lasalle says:
I can understand why people would take issue with a review that is supported by only an hour or so of actual gameplay. His assessment of the game should come when he had several more hours under his belt, in my opinion. Especially as it relates to the new and updated modes. However, I do agree with the gist of what he is saying here. This genre has run it's course, and is in desperate need of fresh ideas. But like Freeman mentioned, you can only do so much with a war game. COD and BF have become limited in scope, and I can't shake the feeling that they have exhausted all of their resources creatively. The "think tank" has run dry.
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2011 11:02:33 AM PST
Jeffrey Myers says:
"you can only do so much with a war game"?? 10 years from now you don't think there will be significant changes and improvements to the genre? War games (aka shooters) have the potential to infinantly improve and inovate to reflect the complexity of war.
Posted on Nov 8, 2011 11:14:30 AM PST
Well they ran the tank dry on WWII shooters then CoD4 hit and was a modern setting and everyone loved it again (the campaign was good). Even though it was ideas used from battlefield and halo for MP. They did streamline things for the console. So they could change a few things up to make it fresh again...Definitely should not be 1 and 5 score reviews on the first day. They are really useless in helping people make choices.
Posted on Nov 8, 2011 11:24:13 AM PST
I understand where you're coming from with the three stars as its relative to the series, its an average, but good(maybe 4 stars) update so it gets an average rating. But everyone's going to buy it so if you want to stay on track with everyone and play with more people then it's worth it. It's always a bummer when you all your friends are playing the newest game (but still a GOOD game, not just "keeping up with the Jones") and you don't have it.
Posted on Nov 8, 2011 1:49:43 PM PST
A. Customer says:
"Trolls" are people who comment or post things merely to incite anger/debate, etc....and honestly I'm GLAD people (such as you) post before finishing the game, so others who haven't yet gotten it can get a review early on in regards to whether or not it's even worth buying/playing. If you supposedly played approx. 20% of the game, it isn't absurb to be able to make an educated guess on how you'll enjoy the rest of the game (generally, graphics don't improve level to level)....so keep on reviewing, casual gamer, because my only question to you is "why do you like greek bath houses?" (because you like the mulitplayer)