Genre
Format
You can read this review in full in our print edition.
Our Christmas 2011 issue, which is on sale November 22, will include an examination of the way Activision has sculpted its miltary shooter into gaming's biggest brand.
You can subscribe to Edge in print, on iOS via Newsstand and on Android, PC and Mac via Zinio.
--
Against all odds, in light of what has happened at Infinity Ward since Modern Warfare 2, the third game in the series is remarkable. Modern Warfare 3 is an ending, and one that resists the easy temptation to leave threads dangling. More importantly than that, it’s a hell of a package: MW3 not only maintains the high standards of the series’ previous singleplayer campaigns, but offers what feels like the best iteration of COD’s world-conquering multiplayer thus far, as well as a thrilling update of the second game’s Spec Ops missions and a new Survival mode.
The worst thing you can say about MW3’s campaign is that its first half can lapse into COD formula, despite several excellent set-pieces, before everything is forgotten in an absolutely bombastic concluding half. Infinity Ward’s singleplayer design specialises in giving the firstperson perspective a physical presence – through a peerless use of blur and focus, and the simple expedient of jarring the camera around – and MW3 once again offers sequences that are exceptional.
An early mission, Turbulence, is set on a plane carrying the Russian president. You’re a member of the Russian special forces tasked with his protection, and soon after the mission begins the aircraft is hijacked. During the next few minutes the plane goes increasingly out of control, with everyone inside battered off the ceilings, sides and seats – and then it heads into a nosedive. Have you ever shot terrorists in zero-G before? It’s not only a piece of visual and aural magic, with suitcases and enemies crashing about like lottery balls before floating in a queerly peaceful manner as you try to get a bead, but it’s one you’re always fully a part of. Brief as it is, Turbulence is a brilliantly conceived and executed moment.
Taken as a whole it doesn’t quite live up to the original Modern Warfare’s outstanding campaign – but it gets closer than it has any right to. It’s let down by a few uninspiring urban shootouts early on, and one proper howler: the game’s ‘No Russian’ moment is a schmaltzy London-based sequence that really should have hit the cutting-room floor. There are other clunkers in the script, but not many, and everything can be forgiven for Blood Brothers, a mission that sees MW3 at its narrative height – and it’s because you care, to a degree you may not expect, about the characters IW has crafted and brought to life over this series. MW3’s singleplayer ends up just as memorable as what has gone before, not least because it ties everything up in a finale of supreme catharsis – and restraint.
Comments
27Good review. Honestly didn't expect this to get a 9 after Black Ops and the drama of Infinity Ward.
November is turning out to be an expensive month for games!
I have to admit, I'm almost interested in a purchase now after that review.......... oh. No, hang on a moment. Skyrim in three days... and Dark Souls until then.
A very positive review. Not sure I can justify this so soon after buying BF3 (and only just scratching the surface on the BF3 MP), so it'll have to wait a while. Appreciate they have their individual nuances, but there's only so many military shooters one needs in a year...
As polished as it may be, I'll never go near another MW (or CoD) SP campaign again after the abomination that was the MW2 'game'. The Favela level was the single worst piece of gaming in history, and I'm not exaggerating.
I'll be interested to know how the public finds the weapon balancing. BF3 hasn't quite got it right IMHO (Engineers with their mines and rocket launchers seem to strong), and MW2 wasn't a patch on the 'original' MW, with the stupid dual-wielding shotguns creating a mess of the MP. Often it's only when large numbers of gamers get stuck in to servers that we really understand how finely tuned a MP truly is...
The very nature of CoD's swift annual appearance is what turns me off in the first place. By the time you get good at one game and get used to the maps/weapons and get your perks a new one has come along.
nice to see that they toned down the speed of sprinting and got rid of lightweight, however didn't we hear this last time and it still made an appearence!
becouse of the review im tempted, but only to blaze thru the campaign and spec ops.
doubt there will be anyone to play spec ops with though as my friends list is full of bf3 players and i prefer that style myself.
the review mentioned the new survival mode after spec ops but never said anything about it, would have liked to have known more.
im 50/50 about picking it up now or leaving it on my lovefilm list as a rental.
If there were bots in multiplayer I'd buy this game. Even though I've got xbox live, i'm still disappointed there's not. There were bots in last years game. That's the only reason I bought Black Ops.
No mention of whether the campaign still has the checkpoint trigger mechanic. If so, I'll pass again.
Given that I thought MW2 had incredibly low standards for a single player campaign, I think it's safe to say my and the reviewers opinions aren't going to co-incide for the rest of the review. So despite the [9], pass.
In what way did MW2 have low standards for a single-player campaign? I thought MW2 was a polished, well delivered, and feature packed game, with little to no flaws (multiplayer imbalances aside). And frankly I'm glad I got MW2. If MW3 can deliver another 500 hours of playtime for me to sink my teeth into, then I will be very happy.
IW and Activision deliver the most stunning and polished games I have ever seen, we accept that there are stupid bugs in Fallout 3 and that Portal 2 LITERALLY holds your hand all the way through (sneaky set pieces there Valve) and none of us complain about them. Why are we complaining about a game that delivers the best quality experience gaming can offer?
Will rebuy all the MW games as a trilogy to keep for life =)
You know how Call of Duty 4 had possibly the best constructed, and well tied together narrative threads of any game ever? You know how Modern Warfare 2 decided to do the opposite of that?
The constant waves of enemies until you trip an invisible line were tolerable in 4, but incredibly grating in MW2, because we didn't have the window dressing to distract from it.
It looks good, very very good. I can't recall encountering a bug. But it doesn't matter how technically sound the game is, because that's all it was particularly good at. Timeshift managed to put together a more coherent narrative structure for christs sake.
I really don't think that MW2 delivers the best quality experience gaming can offer. Call of Duty 4 was Pulp Fiction. Modern Warfare 2 was Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.
Most users aren't happy with this game...
Despite good critic reviews, the hype was too much for the game.
User Review on Metacritic:
This is the BEST map pack for MW2 so far. It's a little over priced though, they're usually like $15. There is a glitch however- usually my profile carries over from one map pack to the other, but this time my stats reset.
I think I'll pass.
the game is great load of old misery guts lol
And here I was thinking Edge would actually review this game in a fair manner, obviously the temptation of a cash injection from Activision's PR team made them act otherwise. (I mean jesus wept Edge here actually state that reusing assets from a 4 year old game as a GOOD thing)
Every single person I have spoken to is dissapointed with this game, hell, it currently holds a 1.4 User Score on Metacritic (for PC, 2.6 for Xbox 360 and 2.1 for PS3, with thousands of people writing their own reviews for each platform), while the seemingly professional review scores are all in their 9's and 10's, something smells fishy.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the previous Modern Warfare games, but this is just one step too far, and for Edge to "review" this game in such a manner makes me feel resentful to what used to be such an un-biased and objective magazine.
Looks like my subscription fee to the physical magazine isn't enough, I can obviously see you don't need it...
houldendub,
Might I suggest you take care in where you inherit your perception of certain games from? Gamerankings is much less biased than Metacritic which is being flooded by Battlefield 3 fans at present (according to the Battlefield forums I post on.)
90% score based on 31 reviews. Have they all been paid off? [Can you substantiate this allegation or is it just a random slur, come to think of it?] 90% being equivalent to 9 out of 10?
I'm amazed you didn't sign off your comment with : Yours, Disgusted, Tunbridge Wells.
I do see your point with the re-used assets comment - I'm not sure what Edge means, but I intend to find out first-hand.
Really, if you don't know what to expect from Modern Warfare by now, the series, this game, is simply not for you; that fact alone doesn't entitle you to slur publications about alleged cash handouts.
@ZoDiAC_
A company as large as ActivisionBlizzard (remember, they own two of the most prominant and largest grossing videogame IP's (CoD & Warcraft)) would have no touble paying off a review team in order to gain better review scores. Hell, even EA aren't above dictating who reviews what in order to better their average review scores.
I know exactly what to expect from Call Of Duty, high octane single player with an epic story that's full of large shootouts, explosions and Russians, with the same tacked on multiplayer (albeit with a few extra modes) as before. As good as it may be in some cases, it is still the same game I've played for year after year, and I truly do not think that because a game retains exactly the same gameplay as the last game that it warrants such an exceptionally high score.
In the music industry, if an amazing song releases to high critical acclaim, is then followed up by a second song which is exactly the same except a certain note is a different octive, then what would be the point of said song? People wouldn't justify spending more money on exactly the same thing, and I have no idea why this has happened in the videogame industry.
Which leads me back into the paid review topic, any other game is generally slated if it plays exactly the same or similar to it's predecessor, so why is it the case that such a high profile game like Call of Duty gets the treatment of consistantly high scores while constantly maintaining low user reviews?
Again it's not just Metacritic that I've heard negative user reviews from this game, nearly every one of my friends has bought MW3 (it's the reason I've played it, me and a mate went to midnight release and both took the day off work (hey, I believe in at least giving a game a chance)), and all of them say it's a complete dissapointment and a shameless ripoff (not their exact words, but this long reply would be even longer if I stated what each and everyone has to say).
I've never been one to slander a publication about whether or not words are bought out, and I believe that most journalists are honest, hard working people that try to objectify each and every article they write, but when I see this from Edge, I am genuinely confused by what has been written, and I still can't get over the re-used asset put down as a good mark...
Yours,
Disgusted, Tunbridge Wells.
@houldendub
I find it extraordinary that you can make that statement....
With no proof and a complete disregard for the magazine and their writers, you are basically accusing them of lying. And taking money to do so.
You typed a lot to try a justify your nonsense, when in fact you should have just typed the following:
"Edge are in the pay of Activision and anyone else that waves enough cash in their face"
As for being "confused" at the review that therefore means, according to your logic, that they must be lying. Re used assets and the music industry argument you put forward are simply a joke.
Ok then,
Edge are in the pay of Activision and anyone else that waves enough cash in their face.
Happy?
"Re used assets and the music industry argument you put forward are simply a joke":
How so? The music industry is as well, an entertainment industry, maybe it's hard to get your head around the example I give, plainly because nobody in the music industry has the gall to make said song, which again, is why I find it so difficult to understand why Activision has decided that's exactly what they're going to do...
As for the re-used assets, Activision pumps hundreds of millions of dollars into IW/Treyarch/Sledgehammer to make this blockbuster game, yet I find it hard to see where the money goes when all they're essentially doing is pressing CTRL + C along with CTRL + V for a hell of a lot of assets within the game.
hmmm yea... Edge are definitely the one mag that are NOT in the pocket of any publisher. If you think they are then it is probably not the mag for you.
Its not that I don't understand the how the music industry works or the fact that assets get re used in games. That was not my point.
But to intimate that somehow by doing so is always a bad thing is a bit daft. How many games, films music etc have retread or re used the same ideas and technology and been brilliant? Answer; is a shit load. Yes there is laziness in order to make a profit in abundance, and Activision are no different I agree. But could it not be possible that edge gave it a good review because it is a good game? You ever thought of that?
I'm all for originality and advancing things along. But to suggest that just because MW3 uses the same tech as the previous entry in the series, and that by giving it a high score is tantamount to being bribed, is pretty far fetched in my opinion.
But hey, believe what you want to my friend. ;)
Then how do you explain Black Ops getting a 7/10, mainly due to it's unoriginality, and then MW3 obtaining a 9/10, even though we're further down the line of unoriginality, and being presented with yet again the same game but with a few tweaks. They also stated in the Black Ops review that points in the campaign was "ludicrous", mentioning in particular the scene where you put the glass in a guy's mouth, punch it, and then continue the level with him yelling commands at you, yet they mention here in the MW3 review that you partake in a mission on a plane, which ends up gettings attacked, and eventually ending it with the plane blowing up into two pieces and having a zero-g fight, ludicrous? Not in this game apparently. Something just doesn't add up.
As I've stated, I've never been one to accuse someone of falsifying a review due to cash, ever, and I'm almost ashamed that I've done so, but nevertheless, my points still stand.
There is one logical problem with claiming the re-used assets thing is an example of Edge being in a pocket:
There are far less conspicuous things to praise, and far less eyebrow-raising examples than "re-used assets" to bring up if this was a whitewash review.
If I said to you "this game re-uses assets from the previous title" you would immediately attach a negativity to that comment, right?
So why not choose something easier, something you don't and wouldn't normally, and immediately, disagree with? It sticks out like a sore thumb.
If this is a whitewashed review, then throwing up innately bad examples that have an immediately negative connotation is the dumbest and most transparent thing you could do as a reviewer. I don't think that is what is happening here.
This simply doesn't fit with what Edge is.
Also, in regards to iteration in games - I'm enjoying FIFA 12, and Football Manager 12 at the moment. I'd give them 7,8, out of 10, would anybody be outraged by this? Probably not, as you expect the iterative element which necessitates sometimes, simply reusing assets.
Reusing is not inherently bad. If this is somebody's first FPS, then subjectively speaking any "re-used assets" is simply irrelevant.
By damning iteration as a concept, you are damning your own potential enjoyment of a game.
I would say Modern Warfare is the FPS equivalent of the yearly sports title - you might not like this, and it may be a ripoff to some, but it's new for the genre, not new to gaming, it doesn't necessarily suggest anything about the game's quality or not.
Frankly I'd expect this kind of complaint about Dead Rising: Off the Record more than Modern Warfare 3. Yes, MW3 reeks of the familiar; if the familiar is good, what is the problem, unless it's something subjective to you? Vote with your wallet if you don't have room for it in your gaming diet.
Personally I think 9 is a bit high. But not so high I'd stoop to accusing anybody rating it that high of essentially corruption. The original Call of Duty 4 was perhaps a 10; certainly if you look at the longterm influence of the formula it introduced, maybe Edge is making amends for that oversight, maybe Edge thinks this is a 9. I think the magazine has done that before, or at least mentioned it in passing.
Dare I say as a formula, and an iteration of that formula, this is very much a 9. Even if I'm personally not in thrall to it myself, I can respect that.
As you say, iteration no, is not inherently bad, at least until applied to an FPS, especially one that is so influential and basically dictating modern FPS standards (see: BF3 campaign).
In this day and age, where publishers want to push releasing games on a download basis only, why are we being sold what is essentially an update and expansion pack for full price? I've always maintained my opinion that since the start of central services (such as XBL, PSN, Steam etc), iterative games (such as Fifa, Football Manager and such), should simply be updated on a download basis, via an update or expansion pack / DLC, and certainly not at a ridiculessly high RRP of £40.
Instead this iteration via full release ideology has simply stagnated the gaming industry. If the creative model employed by Activision and other companies that release iterative games on a regular basis started back in the days of Quake, where do you think we would be now? Deffinately not at the standard we are at now. Instead, companies strived to create something new, fresh and intersting, in every single one of their titles, this may not have worked in some cases, but sometimes it actually did, hence we got progression in the industry.
And yes, Dead Rising : OTR is a ridiculess example of "iteration", why didn't they call it a GOTY edition or something and release at £20-25? God knows.
Hell, Paranormal Activity 2 was dismissed as a simple copy of the first, and was bashed by reviewers and customers, yet the average film viewer would have only paid around £8 or so to go see that, so why do we pay £40 for much of the same videogame and praise to the high heavens about it, yet bash a film that we only paid less than a quarter for?
I respect that me being here calling people corrupt will seem ridiculess, hell I used to be in your shoes as well, but when talking about a company that is so insanely huge, and about a game that (for good or not) is so influential within the industry, even stating that a bad review might push the number of readers down doesn't seem so ridiculess. For a magazine that I've read slate games that other reviewers praised massively, I was expecting something other than "this game has really good explosions" and an easy 9 stamp on the review.
"why do we pay £40 for much of the same videogame and praise to the high heavens about it, yet bash a film that we only paid less than a quarter for?"
Because films last 2 to 3 hours where your average single player campaign lasts around 9 hours combined with the hundreds of hours you can get off multiplayer. Though I feel most games are worth no more than £35.
******
Now sequels being sold at full price being a rip of I do agree with. I also have a real beef with Steam (for example) charging £40 for a brand new PC downloadable title. I mean; really?
Its funny how the PC market become "consolfied" (sorry about that) when not so long ago you could pay up to £15 less for the PC version. MW3 on steam is a prime example of this problem.
I agree that this version is essentially an update, but still a bloody good one.
Wait a second .. if battlefield 3 got 8 score .. then WHY THE HELL THIS PIECE OF TRASH GOT A Fxxkn 9 SCORE .. Oh wait- its bobby kotick market !!
I bought Call of Duty: MW3 at http://videoshed.gknu.com for 42.48@! This site has great deals on a lot of video games! Check it out!
http://videoshed.gknv.com/shop/shop.php?c=Games1&n=14220271&i=B00503E8S2&x=Call_of_Duty_Modern_Warfare_3