The overall rating of a review is different from a simple average of all individual ratings.
Share this review on
Activision and Infinity Ward didn't think having two identical games was good enough, so why not shake the story up a bit, add a few perks and weapons and slap a "3" on the end of "Modern Warfare" and call it a 'new game'? Don't get me wrong, the game is by no means bad, I just struggle to see how it differs from the other two Modern Warfare games.
I know that by saying that I'm vulnerable to 10th prestige level 80 ten-hour-a-day 12-15 year olds shouting at the screen at my lack of knowledge in the field of Modern Warfare 3 for not knowing the difference, but the difference/s seem to be very indistinct. Taking out the fact that the storyline is different (since it pretty much has to be) and a few new weapons/kill streak packages, what is so different about this game that makes it any more special than Modern Warfare 2 or, to a further extent, Modern Warfare? The release of Modern Warfare was - and still is - the best game released based on real-time warfare and because of this statistic, it's almost as if Activision can't stand to be beaten by EA, who have recently produced the modern Medal of Honour and Battlefield instalments. In Modern Warfare 3 you can still go on single-player, join lobbies, go online, shoot, kill, raise up in level, unlock new guns, play Spec-Ops mode with your friends, unlock new guns, gain stars and unlock kill-streaks... forgive my saying so, but that isn't any different to the first two Modern Warfare games whatsoever; as I've previously said, Activision feels so threatened by EA that they feel the need to copy-and-paste 95% of their previous game, delete 5% and add an extra 5% that seems to make everyone happy.
It's not all doom and gloom
Now, folks, don't think I'm giving this game a bad review. As is with every other Call of Duty game (particularly Modern Warfare), this game can provide a solid half-day's entertainment on the campaign, many many hours on Spec-Ops with your friend and countless hours online if that floats your boat. The gameplay is still fantastic, and taking out the fact that you seem to be able to hide behind objects in order to let your wounds heal up in the style of a vampire, the realism is still there; bullets shoot, kill, grenades blow up and leave bits of bodies everywhere, you press the mouse button and you shoot, the graphics are fantastic and the game itself provides enough intensity to give you stomach-ache, but like me, you may find this game sat on your shelf as you realize you've already "been there and done that" with Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2.
Good review. MW3 is hardly any different to it's predecessor's, they just change the graphics, sound and guns a bit and release the exact same game every year, it's a scam!
Personally, I enjoyed Medal Of Honor more. It has a much more genuine war-like feel to it.