NXGM says: "This year the war is more open than ever. Reaches around the world in a conflict worthy of a Hollywood blockbuster. "
I'm sorry but I think Google Translate is struggling with translating this review a tad bit. A summary from the site: The best (The good): -The Online will give you endless hours of entertainment. -Spec Ops mode (and especially the ability to play splitscreen) -Campaign effective and fun. -Unlock all game content (Solo, Spec Ops, Competitive) Worst(The Bad): -Graphically left behind in all the fields in front of the exponents of the genre. -Lack of innovation in multiplayer, changes, tweaks upgrades, but nothing significant or surprising to anyone who has played the previous titles. -The feeling that most elements of the plot and we have seen, both playable, as the tale. -The lack of interaction with the environment, takes away the whole dive.
I don't really think the graphics are that bad. Granted they are not the greatest out there and I know it's the same as MW2 but I found those decent enough and especially considering it's 60FPS. "Lack of innovation in multiplayer" What are they expecting? It's an arcade shooter and it sells. Why would they completely change the formula? If they want more realism and vehicles play BF3. Just my opinion anyway.
You sound a bit angry that there is no innovation. It never said rework the formula, just put some new unseen ideas in it, such as BlackOps' wager modes. Speaking of which, does mw3 have wagering?
@fluffydelusions Rage runs at 60fps and it looks gorgeous, COD has no excuse.
@Gamer-Z, It also has the worst texture streaming. Ever.
I agree, I have bf3 and I still play bops and look forward to mw3 . Bf3 and mw3 are totally diff....
@gin no, it doesn't, because it doesn't have that stupid ass currency system in black ops.
That's rediculous because MW3 looks better than any other multiplatform multiplayer fps shooter on consoles.
Innovation as in new features? Maybe adding something not seen before instead of making the FPS genre more like a sports genre in which every year is the same crap and sheep consumers gobble it up. The graphics suck, at least imo, the environment is too sterile, the best thing about call of duty is its arcade style online which is easy to pick up, I'll give it that, but it doesn't come close to the fun online I've had with other shooters.
Agreed its the same crap every year and people gobble it up like drugs.. Shame really. Also I bought a copy of Gears 3 for £20 today its been reduce to half price within weeks of release. Nobody wants it no more. In fact I got 2 copys thought it was a steal at that price went to trade it in to find nobody was giving over £16 trade! In fact my local CEX wouldn't take it claiming they had too many copies! Seems Gears is dead now :(. Gears 1 was amazing and crappy shooters like COD destroy great series like Gears.
I guess they want something new thrown into the mix. CoD is a milked franchise and there doesn't seem to be a big enough difference between the games.
I probably wouldve bought it tonight if they at least put some crazy shit into it like modern warfare 2 Cant afford to spend $60 on a rehash
"That's rediculous because MW3 looks better than any other multiplatform multiplayer fps shooter on consoles." Hahaah, that's so cute. John Madden trying to be funny.
No environmental destruction seems to be a strong critical point
"What are they expecting? It's an arcade shooter and it sells. Why would they completely change the formula? If they want more realism and vehicles play BF3. Just my opinion anyway." Serious? We shouldn't expect anything new yeah? That doesn't exempt the game from trying anything new, it deserves score slash for literally nothing at all. It is literally Cod4 again with new maps and perks and a campaign. New content, not new game. Expansion pack is what this truely is, yet again, for the fourth time.
"Worst(The Bad): -Graphically left behind in all the fields in front of the exponents of the genre. -Lack of innovation in multiplayer, changes, tweaks upgrades, but nothing significant or surprising to anyone who has played the previous titles. -The feeling that most elements of the plot and we have seen, both playable, as the tale. -The lack of interaction with the environment, takes away the whole dive." FINALLY, a review with enough sense to call it out as it is. I don't want to hear "but it's 60FPS excuses." Many 30fps have increased their visual/tech fidelity while maintaining the same frame-rate, does this mean once a game reaches 60fps the graphical and other technical aspects of the engine are stunted? Give me a break.
Exactly. Look AT RAGE. THATS 60 frames per second and the graphics are great. Just goes to show that the devs are lazy and would rather just sit on their billions while they rape the hardcore gamers that play COD. The game is so mainstream and casual now that the hardcore gamers are being flushed out by more 5yr olds.
Well one thing about Rage was that even after installing it on my PS3 there was still a massive amount of texture pop in, which I haven't seen in COD titles. At least to the degree that I saw it in Rage anyhow.
they have also been putting a lot of their resources into CoD elite which instead they should have put into making MW3
If there was no CoD Elite you can rest assured that MW3 would be just what it is. Love it or leave it.
Well considering MW3 actually has a great single player campaign compared to the competition, I will take that with a dash of polish over a buggy game, crappy campaign, disorienting and annoying shine in your face lighting effects, fancy looking graphics and new engine any time. Whatever floats your boat!
One thing I wanna know about Spec Ops is if you can play with a random person. You couldn't just join up with a random person and start playing. Needed a friend. Sometimes, I wanted to play, but other people didn't or they weren't on. It was quite aggravating, if you ask me. But, overall it's not a big deal.
Thats a respectable review, not because they gave it a 7.6 score but because they iterate whats plaguing the series over the past few years.
One thing I think a lot of people are missing here is that if the developers had to stick with the same engine (and I am not a MW3 supporter by far) but f they HAD to stick with the same engine then they look like they did pretty good with the tools they had. The set pieces and cut-scenes are all pretty much done in game and while Call of Duty is not a shining beacon of hope for graphics in video games they did look like they worked hard for it. that does NOT mean the graphics are good by any means. Uncharted 3 can run at 720p 30fps and look twice as good as MW3. Battlefield is argueably better looking than MW3 and I would also say that gears of war 3 looks better than MW3. (infamous 2 easily looks better than MW3 and that was released way earlier this year)
I'm sure this will be one of the reviews (of course I mean, score) that "certain" N4G members will be happy to see. Enjoy yourselves... :)
haha its so true.Everyone wants to see COD crash an burn.
Absolute rubbish meercat
Did Meerkat just say BF3 was sh!t and COD is a solid game that should hold his attention for 4 days??? Hmmmmm.
PC gamers also want it to crash and burn...
As a ps3 owner I hope mw3 does well as my gf and I tend to play it throughout the year between game releases. I just wanted to put that out there in case anybody actually believed meercat.
REAL gamers want to see CoD crash and burn.
No not really. People just want to see something better. COD makes a ludicrous amount of money and yet you would not know it by what comes the following year. I paid £45 for Black Ops and if I pay £45 for MW3 am I going to feel anything different when I play it,no. Kill streaks, perks etc, it's all the same. Within days it will feel like what it is, just a glorified map pack.
I want to see it NOT LAG to hell in a day or two.
my hats off to the poster who said "just a glorified map pack"..perfectly said =) finally someone calling a spade for what it really is..
This is a decent review, isn't it?
Sounds fair for all COD games. Waiting for Tom Chick to give it a 10.
7.6 isn't a bad score. All I know is cod is cod and the negative aspects that the writer talks about won't bother me. In fact I think the fact that one of the negatives is that it is too similar to previous instalments is a good thing for me, as I have always enjoyed the online multiplayer of call of duty games. No, this review doesn't put me off the game at all.
That it ain't.
"This is the score MW3 deserves, but not what it needs right now."
I'm certain Commissioner Jim Gordon didn't mention a video game in a batman comic/movie. He did say something about batman being the hero gotham deserves but not need.
Bubs up funny..
Lmfao it's funny how like half of these comments were voted as trolling
It will be interesting to watch reviews on this game. Clearly given what I have seen so far the vast majority of reviews will be 9's, but its the reviewers that have BF3 bias that I will be most interested to read. Do they give this game a fair shake? Will they just overlook the SP Campaign as so many did for BF3? Or will they crap on the game just to crap on it because its MW3?
i could care less bout the graphics. the gameplay is what matters most and the cod formula has been perfected. Nuff said haters go play bf lmao
* and the cod formula has been perfected.* What you mean just spray and get kills lol what's next just aim and you get a kill??xDDDD Oh and yes i am playing BF3 and enjoying it very much.
Then trade in your 360 and get yourself yet another PS2, seeing that you dont care about graphics.
Finally a decent CoD review
Spot on, glad someone has the balls to call it like it is. This game is yet another rehash, simple as that.
finally a review that doesnt say ZOMG COD!!! lack of innovation is a huge hit, especially when you played the exact game already 4 times. What happen to redefining the genre like COD4 did (which i regard as one of the best FPS ever)... but after that its finally gotten stale.
Finally a realistic COD review score. I used to love the series but this game deserves to have low scores because it is the same every year. If you look at the games this year that have got perfect review scores Gears of War 3, Uncharted 3, Batman Arkham City etc they deserve them, but if this COD gets some the kind of critical acclaim it will all be for the wrong reasons. Critics are suppose to review the game based on the current market - COD shouldn't even be mentioned in awards this year. Once the critics start giving this game bad reviews, the sales will decrease and then Activision will come up with something truly great - in the same league as COD MW 1 or COD 1/2.
"-Graphically left behind in all the fields in front of the exponents of the genre. -Lack of innovation in multiplayer, changes, tweaks upgrades, but nothing significant or surprising to anyone who has played the previous titles. -The feeling that most elements of the plot and we have seen, both playable, as the tale. -The lack of interaction with the environment, takes away the whole dive." You won't see too many of these type of reviews for MW3 stating this. You will see many stating how its cutting edge, fresh etc...
Agreed. When the reviews come out tonight, it'll be very interesting. I'm expecting perfect scores from IGN and such, and the lesser known websites to give 6/7 out of 10. Happens every time.
Who ever decided to post this review from a site that said "No online play" is a dumb ass and just wanted to score n4g.com points. :(
just cause u suck at cod doesnt mean u have to hate on it lamo. oh and bf3 doesnt take any skill all you do is camp or get kills in vehicles lol.
"all you do is camp" Speak for yourself. It doesn't take skill to get kills in vehicles? So you just get in one and everything around you explodes and dies? Wow, that does take no skill.
You upset that it didn't get that high of a score? No need to attack bf3 out of nowhere. It's funny that you think cod takes more skill than bf. lmao, or as you say lamo.
you havent played BF3 have you? The jet & Heli takes a lot of effort just to maneuver let alone get kills with & u also dont take into account the other team has vehicles to & every class is equiped with a explosive weapon/gadget able to destroy vehicles
idk about yall, but MW2 and blackops maxed on my PC are darn pretty games Sure they aren't the top of the line in graphics, but they do look good in motion and thats what you are doing as you play
7.6 huh?? Waiting to see what other sites will give it.
VICTORY TO MY BF3 BROTHERS
My god, I think the world is finally starting to open their eyes to COD and it's crap.
Wow, Google translate really hurts the old brain. What I got from this was: 7.6. Missing Infinity Ward yet, Kotick?
Im dead certain Infinity Ward is making this... Or a part of them
Glad,game got the score it deserved
It's sad, Halo Anniversary is a remake of a 10 year old game and has more new features than a full blown CoD sequel. Fuck Call of Duty. Halo/Half-Life > CoD
Can we not get foreign reviews to 900 degrees maybe? And 7.6 isn't even bad, if good games were only 9-10 then people wouldn't fucking use a 10 point scale to rate games. Do you people not understand ratios or something? Additionally, what possible reason could any of you have for discussing video game publicity? What could you possibly accomplish by arguing about ratings when they're completely fucking subjective.
i knew its gonna be a failure!
Like outsell any other game.