Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 picks up where Modern Warfare 2 left off with the invasion of Manhattan by Russian forces. You will blaze through 20 action-packed missions located in England, Russia, America, Germany, and France, playing as a Russian Federal Protective Services agent, an SAS Operative and a tank gunner. The Spec-Ops missions from MW2 will make a return, split into "Mission" and "Survival" modes. Also, Call of Duty: MW3 will have the amazing CoD-style multiplayer that you have come to known.
Call of Duty returns with the Final Chapter in the Modern Warfare series, and third time's the charm... right?
Single-player: Right from the beginning you are dropped into the action. This campaign keeps you on your toes and hooked in. I will admit, Soap's death was a little anticlimactic. I mean, he's survived showers of bullets, grenades, etc. but he is finally killed by a 2x4. The storyline, either way, is brilliant and I enjoyed it. I give it a 9/10.
Multi-player: The classic style is back with some improvements from its prequel. New weapons and the return of the G36C give you a new collection of weapons to choose from. The stupid 3rd person game mode was removed, but a much better gamemode, Kill Confirmed, replaced it. The maps are a lot more balanced and fun to play as well. I give it an 8/10.
Spec-ops: Back again is Spec ops, but with the new Survival Mode, which in essence is Nazi Zombies with humans. The missions are new and fresh and are fairly entertaining to try out after you've beaten the campaign. I give it an 8/10.
Gameplay: Gameplay is almost exactly the same as MW2's with some improvements. As for multi-player, be ready for Juggernauts and campers. Once you get comfortable, though, it is easy and fun. I give it a 8/10.
Graphics: This is what everyone complains about, graphics. That ridiculous shiny shader is back, but PC Gamers can disable it. There are improvements and it is a newer engine, but deep down in its mechanical heart, it is MW2. I give it a 7/10.
Battlefield 3 vs. Modern Warfare 3, Who will win? Neither. The two don't belong on the same field because they are two completely different experiences. If you are looking for a fast paced shooter that doesn't need classes and has more ways to play, Go for Modern Warfare 3. If you want to go for impressive graphics, realism, and tactical I recommend trying Battlefield. Either way, play both. Both are equally brilliant. I give MW3 an 8/10.
The gaming community has never had a shortage of First Person Shooter games. Almost like clockwork, every year a new FPS comes out that breaks sales records and dominates the market and receives critical acclaim. Doom, Quake, Halflife, Halo, Medal of Honor and on and on, the FPS marches forward to dominate sales and past glories set. So what was it about Modern Warfare that, despite being a basic clone of games before it, has continued to grow?
The renewable fanbase is something that I think few critics of the series have not considered. For fans that have been around since the 2007 release, the game has either not lived up to expectations or grown stale due to its repeat game model.
The critics fail to realize that every year new players who have never played a MW game are experiencing the game for the first time. To them, and me, MW is a brand new experience. I've played Battlefield 3, and the game is not for me. Where BF3 is a huge game that you can walk around for five or ten minutes without seeing anyone, in MW3 you can't run around five or ten seconds without running into someone.
Many critics have cited that not only is the game ”more of the same” but that the maps are also bland and uninspired. When I first started the game, I recognized the MP maps as following two models- maze and linear. Maze maps are basically hallways, clutter and obstacles that litter a map and force players into close combat. This model is usually tough to learn and benefits players with fast reaction times that favor close quarters weapons such as shotguns and sub-machine guns. The linear maps are typically wide open maps with little to no Z-axis play and a central focus. These maps are prone to snipers and medium range weapons such as assault rifles. An experienced FPS player will quickly identify these maps and adapt their game-play for each map rather than forcing the same style of play for every map.
For me, this is a fresh experience which I give an 8.
Getting quite annoyed at the "MW3 SUCKS PLAY BATTLEFIELD" comments. To compare MW3 and Battlefield would be like comparing apples and oranges. MW3 is more based towards faster game play, which one might argue Battlefield is more strategic. In any account, I found MW3 to be very enjoyable. Though I never was a fan of the rather simple plot line, the graphics were very nice and the maps were well executed, as I would expect from one of the largest entertainment companies in the world. What I enjoy most about the Modern Warfare series is seeing the technological progress between each game. And lets face it, you guys who all hate it still buy the new one every time it comes out. ...And subsequently complain about how horrible it is.
Awesome game! new campign and new Guns. 3th Modern Warfare Call of Duty that has bring the game to the top. i've got my favorite chracters back: Captain John Price, Captain Soap Mactavis and Nikolai. you fight at Paris, London, New York, Somalia, Planes and somewhere in Germany. you back to fight against Makarov! You play As 2 characters: Ameircan Delta Force unit Frost and in Taks Force 141 as Yuri. Yuri is an ex-Spetznaz fighting with Price, Soap and Nikolai. Gameplay is just old-school CoD! and Black Ops don't deserve the name Call of Duty! i recomend this game if you came out of school or work and thinking: I gonna Shoot evryone in Old-school FPS style! i recomend this to because it's not only killing, killing, killing without story. it has a huge story line and that's why there are 4 MW titles. So why you waiting?