Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 Review

Sounds good may pick this up near the end of november cant wait to try out the multiplayer again but these next few weeks are going to be dedicated to skyrim by me, shame this is the first CoD purchase im not going to get 1 day since WaW I would have liked this better than Blops by the sound oh well time for some dragon hunting.

Well I'll be damned...

I'm glad to see that they at least gave a negative point about the short campaign. Still won't get the game since I have BF3 and there is no point in buying two millitary FPSs (even if they arn't exactly the same), and I believe DICE has made more effort into improving their series.

I'm glad to see that they at least gave a negative point about the short campaign. Still won't get the game since I have BF3 and there is no point in buying two millitary FPSs (even if they arn't exactly the same), and I believe DICE has made more effort into improving their series.

Nice to see someone with some intelligence on here, i make you 100% right with your comment, DICE mad a huge amount of effort and a shed load of changes from the previous games to bring BF3 up to date, they really did do a remarkable job, I myself and not a MW3 fan, the Multiplayer maps are to small and the progress through the last campaigns have always been so over-frantic.
in my opinion BF3 trumps all over MW3, if not for the campaign (albeit short i thought it was a breath of fresh air and MY GOD the graphics are superb) but the Multiplayer will just never get old, with all the 31+ vehicles to drive and the HUGE maps, BF3 is the overall winner.

How can you give the game 9? It is nothing but a rehash of Modern Warfare 2! Black Ops was a far better game. I know that people will buy the game in there millions but surely Infinity Ward should have made it better. At least Treyarch tried something different with Black Ops. I mean you can't even dive on MW3! What a joke! Bursting through windows and blasting it up was an awesome addition to Black Ops. Why on earth would they not use it in MW3. It looks more or less exactly the same as MW2! I can't believe how everyone has just lapped it up! Not a happy shopper. Hopefully Treyarch will return next year with something more forward thinking.

Quickly - I would have liked OXM to have listed the primary differences between MW3 and BF3 multiplayer. I know about the vehicles thing but what about maps etc. They spent time comparing BF3 to COD in their review. What about the other way around?

Don't get me wrong - I am no :"fanboy" of any franchise - I have always got both. I think I probably racked up more hours on BF/BC MP than COD but it's a close thing.

I have MW3 pre-ordered and Skyrim and I am still playing BF3, GOW3, Batman. There really is not enough time when you have work and a family too!

I am so looking forward to Skyrim right now but I guess the BF3/GOW3/Batman campaigns can fill my time up in Spring/Summer when I have finished ME3 too!

I think I have to stop pre-ordering to be honest!

I'm not sure whats happening to me, but something somewhere around this has perked my interest. Last one i bought was the original MW so with the reviews this is getting and the fact i haven't bought another shooter since Halo:Reach then i'm very tempted to give this a go - i certainly dont want to be someone who hates on the games having not played the last five iterations. The teamwork aspect of battlefield appealed to me more but the comments from a lot of the people here have put me off that a little. Will watch the feedback for this while im playing skyrim and see - it's hard to get neutral feedback on either game though. Also be interesting to see if some of the BF complaints dry up with some of the CoD fans moving across to this - i know a few who bought BF to pass the time and are trading it.

One thing i do like the sound of is the keeping of streaks - after playing black ops at a mates for the first time a month or two ago i found it very hard to get into he had all these fantastic toys for killing things and i got a lump of coal!! My only worry with them is if they cant be lost is the game in the latter stages just going to be streak after streak after streak? Are idiot teammates going to nail you like the hopeless mortar users on GoW2 (friendly fire etc)?

The only thing really putting me off is the inevitable fact that three months in the inevitable map pack will be out which in order to keep playing with friends i'll be forced to buy

Last thing, for anyone not trading have you seen the deal on this at the supermarkets, tenner off if you spend £30 in store? Im not in the UK so maybe there's better deals but seeing as if i ever go into tescos just for milk it ends up costing £50 it sounds pretty good?

Quickly - I would have liked OXM to have listed the primary differences between MW3 and BF3 multiplayer. I know about the vehicles thing but what about maps etc. They spent time comparing BF3 to COD in their review. What about the other way around?

Primary differences

BF3 - Massive maps, destruction, vehicles, rewards primarily for teamwork support over kills

MW3 - Smaller, tighter maps (apparently higher), pointstreaks (points from kills, but they changed the streak thing). Great unlock tree.

There, I can be unbias.

On topic, you pretty much confirm my thoughts oxm, slightly better but still short campaign, everything else is what you expect.

Primary differences

BF3 - Massive maps, destruction, vehicles, rewards primarily for teamwork support over kills

MW3 - Smaller, tighter maps (apparently higher), pointstreaks (points from kills, but they changed the streak thing). Great unlock tree.

And when you put it like that it i 'swing' back towards BF >sigh< Life and its difficult choices, suppose if this is my biggest problem i should be grateful!

I've said this to the office at large already, but the thing that makes COD for me is the mode variety. Rush and Conquest are great, but they're two ways to play as against a couple dozen.

I'm sorry OXM but you give this a 9/10?? I am not surprised..

But I hardly think this rating is fair when I have this game and correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this just repetitive as always? Nothing has shocked, or thrilled me about this game so far. It just looks and plays like a revamped MW2 and Black Ops, I can hardly see where you plucked a 9 from. The enemies die the same way as in previous CoD's, gun are pretty much the same apart from some new tweaks here and there but nothing major to brag about. You might be thinking why did I buy MW3 if I am knocking the score, well if I am honest I am and have been a big follower of the CoD series and have enjoyed equally the majority of them, but now 3 MW's later and nothing has changed really apart from the locations.

While on the subject of ratings I still fail to see why you gave the epic Battlefield 3 an 8, just because the campaign was too short and coop didn't live up to what was expected among other, small (and probably fixable) gameplay issues. What was the negative for on MW3?.. Oh yea the campaign was too short, but still gets a 9. My mind boggles. I am sorry OXM, I normally agree with your rating, but I find this review very biased. (Not a dig at the writer, just the review)

I will go back to Battlefield and still be amazed at the game play over a week later when I play on-line, while unfortunately for me I will probably trade in MW3.

Primary differences

BF3 - Massive maps, destruction, vehicles, rewards primarily for teamwork support over kills

MW3 - Smaller, tighter maps (apparently higher), pointstreaks (points from kills, but they changed the streak thing). Great unlock tree.

And when you put it like that it i 'swing' back towards BF >sigh< Life and its difficult choices, suppose if this is my biggest problem i should be grateful!

lol I was trying to show each are to their own. MW has tighter maps, you get a great unlock addiction. I wont be buying mw as it just seems like mw2 just a bit different. Not enough for me.

Quickly - I would have liked OXM to have listed the primary differences between MW3 and BF3 multiplayer. I know about the vehicles thing but what about maps etc. They spent time comparing BF3 to COD in their review. What about the other way around?

Primary differences

BF3 - Massive maps, destruction, vehicles, rewards primarily for teamwork support over kills

MW3 - Smaller, tighter maps (apparently higher), pointstreaks (points from kills, but they changed the streak thing). Great unlock tree.

There, I can be unbias.

On topic, you pretty much confirm my thoughts oxm, slightly better but still short campaign, everything else is what you expect.

But here's the problem: it doesn't. The point rewards in game are dreadful. I can play as Recon and spot the entire enemy team with my MAV repeatedly and get next to nothing for it. I won't score kills (though i might get motion sensor assists and spot rewards for a total of 30 points apiece). It wants you to play as a team, but then it hobbles any attempt to do so because a) it doesn't force the issue enough and b) that's clearly not what people, unfortunately, want.

I've played the firs tmission in the MW3 single player. It blows the BF3 campaign out the water. It also handles (so far) much better with the weapons and what not. Now the rest of the game may suck for all I know, but it's not looking good for BF3 thus far and come friday i can see myself trading it in for Skyrim.

What drug do you take? The weapons on Battlefield are epic and far more realistic in terms of noise and game play, I cannot believe that statement. MW is more like an arcade shooter and always have been (IMHO). MW is based on Hollywood cinematics and fast paced adrenaline action whereas Battlefield is for people who seek a bit more realism than just "boom! head shot"

Online, played 1 match, Domination:

What. The Fudge.

Now the game has been out less than a day and I and my fellow noobs are matched against a clan (all complete with their dainty little clan tags) all of whom are of such high rank I can only assume these people are cheating. I havent' even unlocked the create a class thing. I have no idea how the game works this time around with point streaks (naturally I get none). The highest rank on the enemy team was 42!!!

Let me repeat myself: FORTY TWO!

I don't even understand how this is possible. Even if I'd played since midnight non stop I still wouldn't be that high rank.

Seriously. This is the most absurd introduction to a game i have EVER seen. If this is what Infinity Ward (or whoever they are now) want people to experience as their game then they are having a laugh. I don't even know where to begin. To say this was a beatdown would be putting it kindly.

Two highlights:

Commando is most definitely present: a melee kill (against me, I hasten to add) that I watched in the killcam was from a range that cannot possibly be considered melee.
One guy I encountered was wearing that Juggernaut armour from the second MW game. FFS! How the hell is that balanced? Ok he was using a pistol, but the leve of armour was absurd.
Another guy was dual wielding uzi's. I had hoped they'd dithced that crap. Hoepfully you can't dual wield shotguns again.

The map was some sort of european backstreets. I wasn't terribly impressed. It was domination mode as well. No different than it ever was.

On the plus side, I'm now rank 2. Only 40 more ranks till i reach Juggernaut man and his army of obsessives.

FFS, Activision: this is not a good start!

What drug do you take?

Cake.

But here's the problem: it doesn't. The point rewards in game are dreadful. I can play as Recon and spot the entire enemy team with my MAV repeatedly and get next to nothing for it. I won't score kills (though i might get motion sensor assists and spot rewards for a total of 30 points apiece). It wants you to play as a team, but then it hobbles any attempt to do so because a) it doesn't force the issue enough and b) that's clearly not what people, unfortunately, want.

Let's leave BF3 to the BF3 thread, I will reply there.

But here's the problem: it doesn't. The point rewards in game are dreadful. I can play as Recon and spot the entire enemy team with my MAV repeatedly and get next to nothing for it. I won't score kills (though i might get motion sensor assists and spot rewards for a total of 30 points apiece). It wants you to play as a team, but then it hobbles any attempt to do so because a) it doesn't force the issue enough and b) that's clearly not what people, unfortunately, want.

Let's leave BF3 to the BF3 thread, I will reply there.

This can be said for the select few, i'm hoping now MW3 is out most of the COD people will go and play that instead.

I have always managed to find games where people play as teams.

What drug do you take? The weapons on Battlefield are epic and far more realistic in terms of noise and game play, I cannot believe that statement. MW is more like an arcade shooter and always have been (IMHO). MW is based on Hollywood cinematics and fast paced adrenaline action whereas Battlefield is for people who seek a bit more realism than just "boom! head shot"

And your experience of guns is what exactly? Movies and other video games?

You can't believe the statement because, as a Battlefield fan, you seem to be unable to accept that someone has an opinion that doesn't mirror your own.

COD fans get labelled as many things, but I rarely see them display the bitterness that characterises a lot of the BF fanbase. Why do you get so pissed that a game based on Hollywood cinematics does so well? You have your realistic military shooter, so what's the problem?

But here's the problem: it doesn't. The point rewards in game are dreadful. I can play as Recon and spot the entire enemy team with my MAV repeatedly and get next to nothing for it. I won't score kills (though i might get motion sensor assists and spot rewards for a total of 30 points apiece). It wants you to play as a team, but then it hobbles any attempt to do so because a) it doesn't force the issue enough and b) that's clearly not what people, unfortunately, want.

Let's leave BF3 to the BF3 thread, I will reply there.

Nah - I'll reply here cos I"m lazy. I know what "wishface" means wit spotting. I tried Recon the other night and spent a whole game doing nothing but spotting - BORING! I got loads of spot assists but still only racked up around 500 points.

Next time I went "support" and did NOT kill anyone directly with a gun but laid down ammo, suppression, but, more importantly I laid down LOTS OF C4 - great fun. I committed suicide running at tanks and jeeps and laying C4 and blowing them up - normally killing myself in the process - came 2nd with around 3000 points - awesome fun. Not very "team" friendly but still great fun.

As it happens though I often rank say half way up the boards on a game for very few kills - normally due to ammo supply or healing along with just blowing shit up with mines or RPG's etc.

What drug do you take? The weapons on Battlefield are epic and far more realistic in terms of noise and game play, I cannot believe that statement. MW is more like an arcade shooter and always have been (IMHO). MW is based on Hollywood cinematics and fast paced adrenaline action whereas Battlefield is for people who seek a bit more realism than just "boom! head shot"

And your experience of guns is what exactly? Movies and other video games?

You can't believe the statement because, as a Battlefield fan, you seem to be unable to accept that someone has an opinion that doesn't mirror your own. And if that opinon

COD fans get labelled as many things, but I rarely see them display the bitterness that characterises a lot of the BF fanbase. Why do you get so pissed that a game based on Hollywood cinematics does so well? You have your realistic military shooter, so what's the problem?

Yeah the realism of us all sitting on our arses in a living room staring at a TV is mind blowing

If it was real we'd all be hiding behind the sofas shitting ourselves and crying for mummy

Nah - I'll reply here cos I"m lazy.

I was trying to stop people getting their knickers in a twist over the same pointless argument 'mines better than yours'. Play both douchebags. lol You said pretty much what I said in the bf3 thread though, spotting gets you slow points, real support gets you the points.

For all those implying Battlefields campaign is a realistic war shooter I have no idea what game you're playing. I'm a BF fanboy, I admit it. I gave up on CoD a while back but the Battlefield campaign could easily have been the CoD campaign. It's a standard, run of the mill, seen it a dozen time before, FPS arcade campaign. And it's very very very average. But luckily you don't play Battlefield for the campaign and I still believe the mutliplayer is a lot better than CoDs. It won't be as popular and it won't sell more copies but I prefer it and there will be enough people who do that means i'll continue to get a good multiplayer experience. Just to those BF who seem to be a bit snobby about the CoD campaign being "arcadey" I suggest you actually play a proper military sim like Operation Flashpoint before claiming BF is anything other than an arcade FPS

I have never had a problem iwth CoD being arcadey. It's stupid big dumb fun and it's enjoyable set pieces.

What frustrates me is the online: the experience is what makes a game, regardless if you win or lose (that's just numbers). By having a system that allows people to max their rank a day after release, access all the cool stuff, and muller hapless noobs (like me), you create an unbalanced experience. The good players - which is to say the obsessives that play too much (there is such a thing) - have their experience dictated by the presence of the noobs that don't know the maps or indeed what they are doing. This is what has happened in both the games i have played thus far and it's just crazy. It's a bit like being airdropped into a MASH and expected to perform open heart surgery while under mortar fire. I had hoped this would have changed, but so far i've not seen that. I've seen obsessive players with insane ranks 12 hours into the game's existence. Is that the play environment Activision wants?

For all those implying Battlefields campaign is a realistic war shooter I have no idea what game you're playing. I'm a BF fanboy, I admit it. I gave up on CoD a while back but the Battlefield campaign could easily have been the CoD campaign. It's a standard, run of the mill, seen it a dozen time before, FPS arcade campaign. And it's very very very average. But luckily you don't play Battlefield for the campaign and I still believe the mutliplayer is a lot better than CoDs. It won't be as popular and it won't sell more copies but I prefer it and there will be enough people who do that means i'll continue to get a good multiplayer experience. Just to those BF who seem to be a bit snobby about the CoD campaign being "arcadey" I suggest you actually play a proper military sim like Operation Flashpoint before claiming BF is anything other than an arcade FPS

Yeah I tried the last two flashpoints and found them to be more realistic than battlefield and CoD. Me and my friend had gone through both campaigns twice then started getting bored untill we created this thing called muggings which involved shooting our nearest comrade stealing his stuff then ramming our jeep into endless PLA what fun also this guy had no head and tried to run me over...well he did have a head.....untill I shot it but his foot was stuck on the accelerator and kept driving. L.O.L.

Back on topic that sounds bad having people high levels allready I will feel small when I eventually buy anyway isnt there meant to be like 85 levels or something before prestige?

Back on topic that sounds bad having people high levels allready I will feel small when I eventually buy anyway isnt there meant to be like 85 levels or something before prestige?

If you're ranking up to 42 in 12 hours, what's another 15 levels?

THis is a wonky play environment for sure.

Back on topic that sounds bad having people high levels allready I will feel small when I eventually buy anyway isnt there meant to be like 85 levels or something before prestige?

I never said those words. These words belong to someone else. Anyone claiming Battlefield is a war sim after (SPOILER!!!!!!!!!!!) watching Paris get nuked is seriously mental. Also there were far too many quicktime events in BF which I HATE!!!

my stepson just opened it now and started playing. exactly the same as mw2

The guns feel VERY good but apart from that it is just MW + MW2's unholy spawn. Fun flick but no real substance.

PS. 80 levels per prestige are too much

Don't read the C&VG message boards there's some prick out spoiling (possibly, I can't confirm) the story. I certainly didn't want the plot ruined, even if it is a big dumb action movie.

i have completed over half of the campaign in under 2 hours. so beware, short doesnt even cover it. the online maps are rubbish as well, i am seriously disappointed with this, ill stick to mw2 thanks.

Despite my constantly telling my wife that i wasnt keen on this - lo and behold she bought it for me...

ive pput maybe 2hrs into the campaign - its ok i guess - honestly think the levels are waaay too short - been 1 or 2 highlights but nothing amazing...

ALSO - the graphics look strangely outdated - it looks EXACTLY like MW2 but the characters look like they sorta slide around...

The movement itself feels slightly off - whcih is odd for CoD...

Aint touched the MP yet 0 i cancelled my Gold Subscription but have the 2days gold trial in the game case to try it out. Luckily theres only 3 days till Skyrim - i should definitely have seen enough the MP by that point.

I cant even admit to being disapointed - its just Cod - but not as smooth...

Not a chance I'm paying £40 for a game I can buy after work and finish before midnight.

The campaign is a joke. It's cut and pasted directly from the previous two games almost word for word. Okay it's (marginally) better looking. But it's clearly absurdly short.
Having reached that sequence, i turned off in disgust. I think the people that wrote and devised this need to get a life in every sense of the word. This is the most soulless right wing militarist fantasy i've ever seen and that it's marketed as entertainment beggars belief. I'm 100% against censorship and for freedom of expression and 100% against the Daily Mail, almost as a reflex, but this is unpleasant gun toting yankee doodle dandy cock waving bullshit. That it's preposterously unrealistic actually makes it worse. There is no point to seeing a little girl, happily playing in the street, butchered in a terrorist explosion. What is this trying to tell me; that terrorism is bad? We've been living with terrorism for years, thanks to the IRA, we don't need to play a videogame to know this. But as usual the yanks think they know best and, because they got attacked in 911, everyone else has to 'wake up' to the reality of terrorism.
I don't think it's enough to say 'oh it's only a game', publishers and develoeprs want their 'art' to be taken seriously and for it to be treated as such. Well, if you want to play with grown ups you are going to have to start acting like grownups, and not exercising your sick fantasies of world war like some nutjob survivalist.

The campaign is a joke. It's cut and pasted directly from the previous two games almost word for word. Okay it's (marginally) better looking. But it's clearly absurdly short.
Having reached that sequence, i turned off in disgust. I think the people that wrote and devised this need to get a life in every sense of the word. This is the most soulless right wing militarist fantasy i've ever seen and that it's marketed as entertainment beggars belief. I'm 100% against censorship and for freedom of expression and 100% against the Daily Mail, almost as a reflex, but this is unpleasant gun toting yankee doodle dandy cock waving bullshit. That it's preposterously unrealistic actually makes it worse. There is no point to seeing a little girl, happily playing in the street, butchered in a terrorist explosion. What is this trying to tell me; that terrorism is bad? We've been living with terrorism for years, thanks to the IRA, we don't need to play a videogame to know this. But as usual the yanks think they know best and, because they got attacked in 911, everyone else has to 'wake up' to the reality of terrorism.
I don't think it's enough to say 'oh it's only a game', publishers and develoeprs want their 'art' to be taken seriously and for it to be treated as such. Well, if you want to play with grown ups you are going to have to start acting like grownups, and not exercising your sick fantasies of world war like some nutjob survivalist.

get a grip - its a 45 second cutscene ffs

What's that supposed to mean? 'Get a grip',

It's a pointless and ugly scene that adds nothing and serves to make the point that 'terrorists are bad' by showing a young family get murdered. Just because it's a video game that means it doesn't warrant examination and criticism? So video games are to be taken seriously when it suits people? I'm criticising this on the level the developers want to be criticised on. Comments like this, or 'it's just pixels' are cheap attempts at dodging the issue.

There's no need for silly crap like this. At least the airport scene was interactive and had a point, even though it was crass and clumsy. You could choose not to mow down civilians.

Are games with stories as lauded as Mass Effect, with it's possible character deaths, just pixels then?

There's enough terrorism and ugliness in the world without it being rammed down your throad by some wannabe michael bey game developer. The first MW worked because it didn't beat you over the head with a clumsy point = the sequence in Chernobyl was understated. They didn't show families dying of cancer or radiation poisoning, they showed the city for what it was, a ghost town. The story was also, somewhat, believable. Here the shark got jumped, hung up and tortured.

One of my friends got this game this morning played it for 2 hrs completed most of the campaign went off to work came back played and hour then had finished it all before 3pm. Are they just sad or is that game extremely short?

9/10.....then again, desus ex got 10/10 when red dead redemption didnt......shows how much the OXM writers actually know about being an OXM writer..

One of my friends got this game this morning played it for 2 hrs completed most of the campaign went off to work came back played and hour then had finished it all before 3pm. Are they just sad or is that game extremely short?

I'm playing the campaign on "Veteran" and have played tonight for a total of 2 hours and 34 minutes. The title screen says I'm 29% in to the game, so I would say your mate is full of the proverbial if he/she is saying they had it done in 3 hours.......

It's a pointless and ugly scene that adds nothing and serves to make the point that 'terrorists are bad' by showing a young family get murdered. Just because it's a video game that means it doesn't warrant examination and criticism? So video games are to be taken seriously when it suits people? I'm criticising this on the level the developers want to be criticised on. Comments like this, or 'it's just pixels' are cheap attempts at dodging the issue.

I don't normally agree with Wishface but I think I might now. It's a case of being violent for the sake of being violent. It doesn't add anything to the story and is purely for shock value. I recently saw Drive at the cinema and felt exactly the same. It was overly violent just for the sake of it. Not because it added anything to the film, just because the director wanted to prove he could do it. Gore is all good and well in something like Gears where it's over the top but something like this is just pointless. I totally agree that CoD 4 worked because it was understated (atleast compared to MW2 + 3). Now they just seem to be trying to court controversy by being overly graphic and attempt to call it art or hide being some "freedom of" nonsense.

One of my friends got this game this morning played it for 2 hrs completed most of the campaign went off to work came back played and hour then had finished it all before 3pm. Are they just sad or is that game extremely short?

I'm playing the campaign on "Veteran" and have played tonight for a total of 2 hours and 34 minutes. The title screen says I'm 29% in to the game, so I would say your mate is full of the proverbial if he/she is saying they had it done in 3 hours.......

Well, you've just answered a question there... what difficulty was s/he playing on, must have been normal for it to have been so short. However, you are suggesting the game is around 7 hours on the hardest difficulty setting, when you total up the time for dying (or you might be CoD Jesus) that would transcend that normal mode could be complete in around a lot less. Is transcend the right word? I completed MW2 on both normal and veteran, took me around 10 hours, that's my reasoning.

It reads to me like the MP is the only bit worth shelling out for, and that is to be expected these days with FPSs. Bring on Skyrim.

One of my friends got this game this morning played it for 2 hrs completed most of the campaign went off to work came back played and hour then had finished it all before 3pm. Are they just sad or is that game extremely short?

I'm playing the campaign on "Veteran" and have played tonight for a total of 2 hours and 34 minutes. The title screen says I'm 29% in to the game, so I would say your mate is full of the proverbial if he/she is saying they had it done in 3 hours.......

I wouldnt take any notice of that percentage - it counts intel pickups and each difficulty level played...
Im on the last level playing on normal with 23 intel collected and it says im only 54% complete. When i finish it tomorrow my total time will be around 5 hours i think - and i left it on pause for a while when i stopped to feed my son.

All in all - meh - is had 1 or 2 standout levels but on the whole im thoroughly not impressed with any of it.

Im gonna give the MP a few hours tomorrow but i highly doubt ill be keeping it past friday...

i frustrates me how incredibly mediocre at best the game is despite the hype, publicity and indeed the popularity of the game.

wishface - its a f**kinging cutscene - u dont even see anything - ive seen far worse acts of violence on the news. If it was a scene from Saving Private Ryan 2 or Black Hawk Down 2 or some other hollywood shite you wouldn even flinch.

An update, ive completed the campaign in 4 hours, 20 mins and 54 seconds. the ENTIRE campaign. i would hope for at least double.

I will be getting this. Not for the multiplayer but for the sofa co-op.

I thought MW2's splitscreen mode was pretty fab and the fact that BF3 couldn't offer me splitscreen meant it was out of the running.

Looking forward to knifing some Juggies (again) on Spec-Ops.

Well, I have been a COD aficionado and decided to buy BF3 this year.

I did not want a COD update so decided to switch to BF3- and I am glad I did. Yes, I am having problems adjusting but it is a hell of alot of fun.

This is my first year not getting COD at midnight in 3 years and I did not miss it at all. My neighbour has just saved me some money - for a better game. After playing a few games online and reading the review from this site which was quite partial - of which there is no doubt (MW3's review was mostly focused on Single Player - read into it as you will) - I dislike this game because of the way it plays, the small, small maps, quick scopes and campers.

However, to those that like the game I wish you well and hope you enjoy it for as long as you can. I have just moved on. Good luck in whichever of the games you play.

I don't normally agree with Wishface but I think I might now. It's a case of being violent for the sake of being violent. It doesn't add anything to the story and is purely for shock value. I recently saw Drive at the cinema and felt exactly the same. It was overly violent just for the sake of it. Not because it added anything to the film, just because the director wanted to prove he could do it. Gore is all good and well in something like Gears where it's over the top but something like this is just pointless. I totally agree that CoD 4 worked because it was understated (atleast compared to MW2 + 3). Now they just seem to be trying to court controversy by being overly graphic and attempt to call it art or hide being some "freedom of" nonsense.

If we look at games as just cut scenes or just pixels then this is no more than Pong - no game is. It's just pixels colliding under a simple condition to win/score points. It's because it has some set dressing, modern graphics, and thus is abel to carry a story or context we get involved. Cosnequently scenes like this play to that.
I don't need to be manipulated like this to play a game: the incentive to play is to win, to score high, or beat the other players in the case of the online. We also live in a pretty f**ked up world where London, at least, has been the playground for terrorism for a good couple of decades, something I suspect these post 911 yank writers miss. They seem to think they are the only victims of urban terror in the west and as a result it's shocking and should be used in a game in this way. I do not agree with that at all.

Sorry, I may be looking at this from a "normal" persons point of view but let me get this straight...

So this "game" and I use that term very lightly, is essentially an interactive rail run of a shooter that has a FOUR hour single player campaign and is the predictable third instalment in a predictable franchise that just got a 9+ from most review sites?

What happend to the process of "reviewing" a game. There is no way in hell this game warrents a 9.0+ score. Either way I am in no doubt that OXM just recieved a nice fat check of cash through the post from Actvision.

Ohhh yes my mistake... You don't earn critical acclaim and sales from a deep unique and interesting game anymore you simply partner up with a large publisher ( ea/activision) and they buy it for you!

And I do chuckle over the fact that MWF 3 has a "creative director" since last time I checked copy and paste was a fairly easy process.

its funny how most games, shooters or not, are compared to this franchise in some way or another in their reviews, yet this is not compared to previous iterations. if it was, there would be a 0 and . before the review score. i have seen it being played and frankly it's just an overpriced (what isn't when it comes to value from a CoD title?) dlc on a disc. it looks IDENTICAL to mw2 with slightly different perks that seems to add nothing to the play style

I bought battlefield 3 on the day of release and can honestly say its a great and very enjoyable game both offline and online .......But i also bought MW3 on the day of release and in my personal opinion I do prefer it to Battlefield.
Dont get me wrong Battlefield is fantastic but there's something about COD that's just so fun!
Sure the graphics haven't changed much and the gameplay is still pretty much the same....But why change a perfect game?

understandably from a business aspect there is little or no reason to change the game at all but all other games are knocked back for lacking innovation or feeling too samey. just not this one which is continual dlc on a disc

understandably from a business aspect there is little or no reason to change the game at all but all other games are knocked back for lacking innovation or feeling too samey. just not this one which is continual dlc on a disc

I have always seen that too and it's annoying to see reviewers lower scores on other games for the 'just more of the same thing' reason and then overlook it when it comes to CoD.

Can't wait 4 Christmas! Spec ops and multiplayer looks great but shame they made soap die!

Having not played it I don't know if you're being an idiot or just joking. Either way I don't think anyone wants the story spolit for them

Either way I am in no doubt that OXM just recieved a nice fat check of cash through the post from Actvision.

If Activision was ever so breath-takingly, mind-boggling stupid as to send us a "nice fat check", I'd take a picture, put it on the internet alongside 1000 words of withering invective and haul in literally 10 times the traffic we're currently getting for this review. I'd then publish our review with a link to the bribe piece and be instantly hailed as the one, trustworthy review source by those who choose, inexplicably, to believe that we're all dirty sell-outs because their opinions on games differ from our own.

Real life is not as exciting as the inside of your head

Either way I am in no doubt that OXM just recieved a nice fat check of cash through the post from Actvision.

If Activision was ever so breath-takingly, mind-boggling stupid as to send us a "nice fat check", I'd take a picture, put it on the internet alongside 1000 words of withering invective and haul in literally 10 times the traffic we're currently getting for this review. I'd then publish our review with a link to the bribe piece and be instantly hailed as the one, trustworthy review source by those who choose, inexplicably, to believe that we're all dirty sell-outs because their opinions on games differ from our own.

Real life is not as exciting as the inside of your head

I always thought that for long running gaming franchise the only way to truly get an unbiased opion on whether or not its any good is to ask some one whos played it bu not a fan of the franchise.

So i have to ask - regarding the reviewer who reviewed this (Mike Channel wasnt it?) Is he a fan of CoD? Is he a hardcore CoD fan?

If IW don't take note of the toxic online environment then I'm done. I cannot play like this at all.

If IW don't take note of the toxic online environment then I'm done. I cannot play like this at all.

Heres a suggestion -

Dont play it then...

Go back to BF3 - oh wait - that didnt let you win either did it wishface? So i guess thats a broken game as well...

WHY HAS NO BODY FROM ANY PROMINENT WEBSITE OR MAGAZINE REALLY COMPARED THE MULTIPLAYER OF BF3 WITH MW3? (Read loads of crap about the campaign...which no one cares abaout!)
BF IS SO CLEARY A BIGGER, SUPERIOR LOOKING AND MUCH DEEPER ONLINE SHOOTER. IT'S JUST BETTER AND THAT'S BLATANT. YET NOBODY HAS SAID SO.

MY QUESTION IS WHY?????

EVERYBODY LISTEN AND STOP CRYING ABOUT A VIDEO GAME!

Im gonna give you the official review scores, these scores took many hours of gameplay and years of learning the ancient art of 'REEVUW' but its all been worth it.

(Heartbeat)

Ladies and gentlemen the review score out of ten for Battlefield 3 is......8.

And the review score that i personally give for Modern Warfare 3 is..... (DRUMROLL)

.......9 (FIREWORKS)

There both great games but MW3 just has the edge! (I own both so its fair)

Sorted....now stop crying.

What drug do you take? The weapons on Battlefield are epic and far more realistic in terms of noise and game play, I cannot believe that statement. MW is more like an arcade shooter and always have been (IMHO). MW is based on Hollywood cinematics and fast paced adrenaline action whereas Battlefield is for people who seek a bit more realism than just "boom! head shot"

And your experience of guns is what exactly? Movies and other video games?

You can't believe the statement because, as a Battlefield fan, you seem to be unable to accept that someone has an opinion that doesn't mirror your own.

COD fans get labelled as many things, but I rarely see them display the bitterness that characterises a lot of the BF fanbase. Why do you get so pissed that a game based on Hollywood cinematics does so well? You have your realistic military shooter, so what's the problem?

I knew it wouldn't be long before somebody tries to blow me down..

And not that it's any of your business anyway, but I have been in the army for 7 years as an armourer, so I would like to think my experience with guns is by now, extensive being the fact I have worked with 6 different nations that all use the majority of guns featured in battlefield and CoD. Just to clear that point out. None of the weapons in either game are 100% accurate anyway, but it's a game so I would expect that.

I am a battlefield and a CoD fan, before you try to label me as just a battlefield fan, you failed to see that in my previous post I said I was a CoD fan. But no doubt you will probably think of some witty remark to add to this now. So crack on..

The killstreaks are crappy. Half of them are just the same - helicopter/plane of death.
The fake care package that's a bomb is going to fool noone.
The drones are pointless as ssomeone will just kill you while you operate them.
Why give the UAV to the assault package as well? That's the whole point of the support package?

Stupid.

WHY HAS NO BODY FROM ANY PROMINENT WEBSITE OR MAGAZINE REALLY COMPARED THE MULTIPLAYER OF BF3 WITH MW3? (Read loads of crap about the campaign...which no one cares abaout!)
BF IS SO CLEARY A BIGGER, SUPERIOR LOOKING AND MUCH DEEPER ONLINE SHOOTER. IT'S JUST BETTER AND THAT'S BLATANT. YET NOBODY HAS SAID SO.

MY QUESTION IS WHY?????

Er... because it isn't!

By the way, what makes one arcade shooter "deeper" than another?

WHY HAS NO BODY FROM ANY PROMINENT WEBSITE OR MAGAZINE REALLY COMPARED THE MULTIPLAYER OF BF3 WITH MW3? (Read loads of crap about the campaign...which no one cares abaout!)
BF IS SO CLEARY A BIGGER, SUPERIOR LOOKING AND MUCH DEEPER ONLINE SHOOTER. IT'S JUST BETTER AND THAT'S BLATANT. YET NOBODY HAS SAID SO.

MY QUESTION IS WHY?????

I really enjoy the campaign of the Modern Warfare franchise and very much care about it thank you. Having played both games i believe call of duty to be the more complete package with a better campaign and spec ops areas. Battlefield multiplayer is good but they are very different. Further Battlefield has fewer maps and only a couple of modes worth playing like Rush and thus i find myself becoming more bored of that game whereas as call of duty can be mad at times and is better play with mates online and Splitscreen. I am not a battlefield hater or a cod fan as i had battlefield 1942 for PC back in the day (Possibly my favourite game in history) and i had both bad companies please take in an informed opinion.

Further the whole thing about nothing has changed those who take time to play the game will notice changes in sound and textures. People seem to get confused between art design and graphics. The Art design hasn't changed (if it had it would feel like a different game, not suitable for a threequel) but that doesn't mean the graphics haven't been improved it's just becomes more subtle. The campaign is by far the most refined of any of the previous and you can notice the sledgehammer influences in the more quite scenes before the action and the game is better for it. The survival mode doesn't have to be original to be good and fun play with a few mates on split screen.

I think some of the battlefield fans need to stop being so whiney and go play their game rather than commenting on the opposition.

What f**king game? I don't see any f**king game!!! On the rails f**king CRAP!

I knew it wouldn't be long before somebody tries to blow me down..

And not that it's any of your business anyway, but I have been in the army for 7 years as an armourer, so I would like to think my experience with guns is by now, extensive being the fact I have worked with 6 different nations that all use the majority of guns featured in battlefield and CoD. Just to clear that point out. None of the weapons in either game are 100% accurate anyway, but it's a game so I would expect that.

I am a battlefield and a CoD fan, before you try to label me as just a battlefield fan, you failed to see that in my previous post I said I was a CoD fan. But no doubt you will probably think of some witty remark to add to this now. So crack on..

No witty response required. You have the experience to back up your claims and that's good enough for me. Also, kudos for doing a job I would never have the courage to do.

Still puzzles me quite a lot why people don't post in the forums :s these comments will just get lost or be very hard to find when new stuff is added to the website homepage with more reviews etc. So weird, it never ever happened with the old site :s

In the forums it just looks like nobody is interested in any games at all! Posted my thoughts in the forum thread - the gist of it is that this games multiplayer online is the best the series has ever had, support strike package is very satisfying and the gunplay is very easy and slick. Maps are bloody excellent, lots of tactical play going on online and have been owning every match so far. Great stuff, don't care about single player

i play both bf3 and cod, qued up and brought mw3 on release,played it for a while now but its going to be traded in as its took a massive step backwards from black ops. the way to play the new multiiplayer maps is run around with a shotgun, they are so small and corners everywhere. black ops is a better multiplayer even with the hacks

Can we have an interview with the developers as to why no efforts have been made to address the massively distorted online experience and why there has been, again, no effort to include skill based matchmaking.
It is increasingly difficult trying to join in this game online because of the environment.
I get that it's popular, that's great. But the environment is so utterly hostile to inexperienced, casual, players that it's beyond a joke.
We ALL paid to play this game, and we ALL pay for XBL. It shouldn't be dominated by spoilt kids and sad people whose lives are dominated by an addiction (that's what it is, imo) to this game. FFS.

Still puzzles me quite a lot why people don't post in the forums

what forums? here?

Still puzzles me quite a lot why people don't post in the forums

what forums? here?

I would say he is referring to the fact that the "Article Comments" section of the forum has been the most prominent since the new forum layout was released. On the old site, there was no such section so all of the discussions were contained within the relevant section for the game.

As it stands, nearly every regular poster on these forums has to repeat themselves in both the "Article Comments" section and the "Games Discussion" sections. This has been mentioned to the mag staff but nothing has come of it.

Personally, I would remove the whole section for article comments and leave the forum alone so to speak.

When i saw OXM gave this a 9/10 i was excited to get my hands on it. But after playing the whole campaign and several hours of online multi-player i have to say it's the biggest disappointment this year. The campaign is boring and short by comparison to MW2 and the online feels way too easy, they've completely taken the tactical play out of it and many of the weapons are overpowered. Sure the small maps don't help, but they've taken all camping spots and bottleneck buildings out meaning you have to keep moving....meaning you constantly die! I could say a lot more but i will finish by saying this feels like a successor to black ops NOT MW2!

What drug do you take?

Cake.

I don't know why, but this has had me giggling like a girl for the last five minutes.

Up there with Dr Evil's "shit" for one word killers

Let me get this straight, you guys gave all the other games in the series good reviews, yet constantly release features about how bad they are shortly after release? Always stating that "the next one better change things up as the series is stagnating", but still give these blatant rehashes such high scores, either you guys are massive fanboys, or you're being payed off, I hope it's the former.

I don't think they were paid off. They don't need to be. It's not in OXM's interests to nefgatively review this game - something no magazine or profesional site was ever going to do, let's be honest. Activision can easily threaten people by witholding future product for review. They don't need to offer money. I'm not saying that's the case, and I'm not even saying I agree that it's a bad game. As i've said before it's no more bad than it is innovative. It's just...call of duty.

People seem to be convinced that underhand dealings are going on just because this scored highly.

Surely each game should be taken on its own merits? I don't see everyone whining about how many PES and Fifa titles there have been now.

I haven't played it, but from others' experiences, the review seems pretty fair to me.

I thought the campaign had a excellent story which i was addicted to! Great how Yuri ties into the game as he was one makarovs apprentice. Shame that soap dies!