Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

If you are sick of MW2 (Modern Warfare), then don't buy MW3, its not the game for you. There are new maps (there are some nice maps but the rest are avg), new guns (smg seems to be the popular gun) and new game modes ( kill confirm is like a blitz of people running around like headless chickens) and a new kill streak system (improvement) but not much innovation in terms of graphics, single player campaign (4 hours game time to complete) and game play is more or less the same. The developers of the game have stuck with the same formula that made mw1 and 2 so popular but they have refined and made certain tweaks to the Multiplayer arena that fan boys will love. As for me I didn't buy this game (I played on a friend's PC) as i knew what to expect already from all the you-tube vids out there. I was already disappointed with Black Ops so i decided to put a hold on getting mw3. Will get this game on Steam when there is a sale but for fans who have played more than 800 hours on mw2 and still want more, then mw3 is the game for you.

Did you play CoD4: Modern Warfare? Great! Did you play CoD: Modern Warfare 2? Great! Because this is the same for better and worse. In keeping what must be exactly the same formula of the first two Modern Warfare installments in both campaign and multiplayer, Infinity Ward delivers nothing new with this installment; fortunately that formula is a pretty great one. Survival is the only thing I can think of that is new, it was a nice distraction but nothing huge. Spec Ops and multiplayer are still fun, but again, nothing new. The campaign is once again well directed and voiced, with a satisfying conclusion and a nice twist in playing as Yuri for a time. The problem is, as you've read before here, we've seen it before. All of the hallmarks of the CoD campaign gameplay returns without any new fun twist that makes it disappointing. Look, all in all it's a fun game. I enjoyed it. I have good memories with it. But was the beginning of my disinterest in CoD, especially because it was the beginning of Activision trusting the once legendary formula so much turning out bad Call of Duty games.

MW3 is probably the weakest game in the trilogy, but is still a pretty good game. After the first two MW games. expectations for this game were through the roof and that was probably one of the reasons people overreacted a bit when it came out, admittedly this game isn't as strong as it's predecessors but is still a good game, the campaign is short and unfortunately it doesn't have as many memorable set pieces as the previous games, with only two of them being stand outs for me, the score is good but again not as good as the previous ones, gameplay is the standard stuff, not many changes from MW2, the story is actually better than MW2 in my opinion, with the stakes actually feeling pretty high and the game has a pretty satisfying conclusion. Even though MW3 was weaker than what came before, I would still recommend this game solely to see how this particular storyline is concluded.

When Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 was released in 2011, it immediately divided players into two camps. Some began to scold the game for its predictability and "chewing over" past ideas, while others enjoyed the proven formula with cinematic explosions, machine-gun bursts and the pace of battles. I definitely ended up in the second camp. Yes, the MW3 did not invent anything very new, but it masterfully "rode on proven wheels."

The plot continues the events of "Modern Warfare 2" and picks up the story right from the moment where the last part ended. The world is on fire, World War III is breaking out, and the United States, Europe, Russia, and the Middle East find themselves at the epicenter of a global conflict. The location changes every 10 minutes: One minute we're fighting off Russian troops in New York, the next we're running through the streets of Paris, and then suddenly we're in London.

The main characters are already familiar faces: Captain Price, Yuri, Cope (what a stupid name) and, of course, the main villain is the treacherous Vladimir Makarov. At some point, the plot turns into a personal vendetta, and, as usual, we, driven by a thirst for revenge, go through blood and battles to get to the main villain. The story is full of epic moments. All this is served in a typical style for the "Call of Duty" series - a minimum of time to contemplate the world around, a maximum of explosions and unexpected turns.

The gameplay in MW3 is the same polished mechanics that have long made the series a hit. Hurricane shootouts, spectacular missions, escapes from collapsing buildings - all this works flawlessly.

Did I like the shooting system? Yes. The shooting is juicy, the weapon feels heavy and powerful, and each shot "reverberates in the hands" (and speakers) with a characteristic crunch of metal. The enemies are behaving quite aggressively, and the hero needs to fight for his life with all his might.

But, of course, we must not forget that this is a "Call of Duty", so we can forget about the tactical approach. There is no need to think through complex strategies here - the main thing is to recharge in time and not forget to hide behind shelters.

What are the locations? I would call this an adventure like a bullet-ridden trip around the world. One of the main advantages of the game is its variety of locations. New York, Paris, London, Berlin - you will be able to visit the hottest spots on the planet. The streets of megacities are blazing colorfully with the fire of war, destroyed buildings are crumbling like houses of cards.

I especially remember the scenes in London and Paris. The London mission, where you have to fight with all your might, cross the subway tunnels, looks like a scene from a Hollywood action movie. And in Paris, one of the most spectacular moments of the game takes place - the collapse of the Eiffel Tower. If after that someone says that "Modern Warfare 3" does not know how to surprise, then I do not know how to impress them.

Graphics in MW3 are the case when everything is done with high quality. Yes, the engine is slightly outdated, but the developers have made the most of it. The explosions are juicy, the surroundings are clear, and the lighting looks nice.

But the main thing is the staging. Everything here is built on entertainment: the cameras shake at the right moments, the characters dramatically fall, the enemies effectively "knock the doors off their feet," and the buildings collapse according to the laws of Hollywood. It's not just a shooter, it's an interactive action movie where the player is literally bombarded with epic scenes.

"Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3" is a classic example of a game that takes not novelty, but high-quality performance. Yes, the formula hasn't changed much from the previous parts, but I personally don't need it. When I launch Call of Duty, that's exactly what I want: drive, cinematic scenes, dynamic gameplay, and epic shootouts.

Of course, you can find fault with the fact that the game is following the beaten path and does not offer fundamental innovations. But why break something that works? Personally, I enjoyed MW3 - it's a strong, entertaining action movie that gives exactly what you expect from it.

8 out of 10.

As sure as winter follows fall, the final quarter of the year sees another in the Call of Duty franchise pop onto shelves giving fans more of what they want but with new maps, weapons, story and so on. Having been badly burnt with MW2 (where I found myself a paying beta tester for the massive problems with that game) I was wary but was able to get it cheap as supermarkets tried to lowball each other to get volume in place of profits. Part of the reason for this was that, although short, I do enjoy the MW campaigns and, wary of spoilers, this is where I started.

The campaign continues the OTT plot and takes the same model of playing several characters across various global settings. OK the device of making Makarov all-powerful and central doesn't totally work but what does work is the delivery. The game play allows for some flexibility within the "rails" on which you're on; I found I could rush direct or flank and the layout of the levels. It is gloriously over the top and it is like being in an action movie. The voice action is manly and urgent, the soundtrack is loud and dramatic and the overall effect is that you really feel you're in the middle of a Michael Bay action movie. It is very short if you're only buying the game for the campaign, but I found it enjoyable and very satisfying as a game. It manages to be incredibly cinematic but yet I never felt like I was a tiny part of something bigger (like I did with the World at War campaign) and instead it was focused, with skirmishes having global meaning and urgency but yet being tight and contained. It doesn't all work in terms of plots and events but I enjoyed it a great deal and the ending was a great build-up to a really satisfying conclusion.

The Spec Ops part of the game remains a little stuck on in terms of the missions – on hardest setting some are near impossible without 2 players but mostly you'll get through them easily enough and their standalone nature means they are not that engaging. Massively better though is the addition of the Survival mode wherein you try and hang on through waves of increasingly difficult enemies. I enjoyed this mode a great deal and it was the one I played most – the supernatural force of the zombies in the Treyarch games (which Infinity Ward have ripped off here) never appealed to me because it felt like just battling the tide. However here the "human" foes armed with guns and moving tactically (as opposed to rushing mindlessly) made me feel I could outsmart and out play them. I'd have loved the fun of 4 players in a party doing it but it does work best with 2 players in terms of the challenge and gameplay.

This leaves the multiplayer – a game mode that has eaten so many days of my time on COD4 that I would be embarrassed to write it down! I have noticed that over the consecutive games I have put less and less time into it, to the point now that the game is social for me – I play it with friends but never alone. Even with friends though MW3 is a weirdly frustrating experience. The spawns are terrible and even in domination (a very stable game mode) you'll appear in front and behind of people all the time – I guess it balances out but it is still annoying. The game play is frantic but not in a good way, streaks are difficult and (with the spawns) deaths are often random. I liked some of the changes to the pointstreaks but too much felt like a step-back from Black Ops – the theatre mode is terrible, the lack of caps/defs for objective games is poor, but these are all details, it is the gameplay that matters. Sadly it is too frantic, too random and too lacking in tactics to be fun. I used to love the mode Domination and "understood" the flows of the game so well I could even "feel" when the other team sort of gave up trying to win. With MW3 there is no "flow" to feel, no tactics to read – no point in trying to flank to the far side of the map when you'll probably spawn there in a second or two! For my money MW3 was worth it because the campaign gave me about 15 hours of fun (a few playthroughs) and the Survival mode alone saw me clock over 35 hours (and enjoy them all) but I must say I'm tiring of it all. The multiplayer is uninspired and too frantic to be fun. Infinity Ward always talk about capturing the COD4 magic, but I don't think they can – they just keep "adding" stuff and the overall effect is to detract from the multiplayer, which is a real shame. A decent game that is worth getting but neither as bad as the haters suggest nor as good as the fanboys proclaim.