Modern Warfare 3 mauled on Metacritic

The community seems to think game reviewers have over-rated the latest CoD
Adam Smith

November 9, 2011
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 came out yesterday and we’re expecting the announcement of new record game sales figures next week (or probably later this week, in fact).

But all hasn’t gone smoothly for the latest instalment of the biggest video game franchise going.

While critics have been pretty kind to the game, with it hitting an 88% average on the PS3 and 90% on the Xbox on review aggregation web page Metacritic, users on the site have been far less impressed.

In fact, there’s been something of a rebellion against the positive press, with a user score of a lowly 2.1 out of 10 across 340 ratings on the PS3, and a 2.6 out of 10 given in 1000 ratings on the Xbox.

Of course, there have been accusations of Battlefield 3 fanboys jumping on Metacritic to award zeroes and weigh the average down as much as possible, and that’s likely true to some extent.

But many of the scathing criticisms are well ordered and thought out, and certainly aren’t your average anti-Call of Duty vent.

Here are a few example comments pulled from the many negative thoughts on the latest episode of Modern Warfare.

‘Ravager’ said: “The singleplayer is terrible, like all of the recent games, but with an even sillier plot. This is forgivable however – who plays this game for the singleplayer? The multiplayer… well… its the exact same thing as the previous two. And to be honest, I’m sick of it.”

“Sure the previous games were good, but you can only play so much of it before getting bored. Infinity Ward could have at least TRIED to change things up but they didn’t. And I feel ripped off for paying full price for it, something like this should be an expansion or DLC or something. It doesn’t justify purchasing a new game.”

‘Doctorworm’ said: “This game only reassures that the first person shooter genre is as stale and uninspired as ever. MW3 looks and feels the same as MW2 (2009), which itself looks and feels like MW (2007).”

The major criticisms seem to be overwhelmingly that the game looks too similar to its predecessors and doesn’t change or add enough to the formula beyond superficial bits and pieces.

In the interests of balance, there were positive scores of course, and folks defending the game.

‘A Closed Door’ said: “This game expanded upon a very successful predecessor. For everyone saying its the same as MW2, what do you think a sequel is? Most sequels are like the previous game.”

“The call of duty series is for more fast pace[d] action where battlefield is for more strategic spaced out action. The gameplay is completely different an[d] it is solely personal preference which style you prefer. For me I like to mix it up and think both games are outstanding.”

It would appear the definite flavour, at least from Metacritic, is that the game reviewers have overrated Modern Warfare 3. Although that isn’t likely to make a jot of difference to those record sales numbers.






 

Comments in chronological order (13 comments)

  1. Dave says:

    i would love a battlefiled idiot fanboy to say what b3 dose diffently compared to bad company 2. even the graphics are the same on consoles. as well as the gameplay, the only thing they added was jets which are impossible to fly. how in the world can you say mw3 hasnt improved ove 2, when ist the exact same thing with bc2. battlefild 3 has boring, glitchy mulitplayer and a shocking campain

  2. Dino says:

    Jets aren’t impossible to fly. Quit being an inpatient player and learn to fly.

    What’s different that BC2? Are you blind as well as inpatient?

    Graphics do look better, if you can’t see that, you’re a MW3 fasnboy so calling others fanboys is futile. Know that word?

    BF3 is faster paced than BC2. BF3 has prone, BC2 doesn’t. BC2 has less weapons, vehicles, smaller buildings, different gadgets for classes and classes themselves (ie no C4 for Recon in BF3, no Support class in BC2).

    Knifing now takes skill in BF3, it didn’t in BC2. Takes 3 C4 to kill a tank, 3 in BC2. BF3 has Suppression points, BC2 doesn’t. Health regenerates in vehicles in BF3, it didn’t in BC2.

    I could go on and on but something tells me you will remain ignorant and still think BF3 is the same as BC2 because you want to justify spending $60 on a crap game lol.

  3. Dino hater says:

    A CRAP game??!!…MW3?
    Are U f****g out of your mind
    BF3 has a campaign that is so F****G Bad…that only thing that dragged me through it was the awesome graphics (DICE did great on that)
    But whoever wrote the screenplay is Dumb…no intense moments,no memorable characters like cod…nothing interesting at all..

    as for the MP its great fun at 1st..but gets boring after some time…

    GIVE IT UP FANBOY….MW3 Had great critic reviews…I recommend everyone to buy it…its great fun..

  4. Henry says:

    well, i paid $60 plus an additional $50 for ELite and i feel like i wasted money. i didn’t feel like i got my moneys worth in buying this game. i should’ve gotten Arkham Asylum of Uncharted 3. But, as long as people think that $60 bucks was worth it, than thats fine.

  5. lee says:

    im a modest battlefield fan . . . i think the new battlefield is glitchy and the one player is crap. but nobody care’s about single player on battlefield..
    The earliest battlefields were multiplayer only.so you perfer MW3 good for you i like it too but a lot of people like BF3 more. and as for the two games BF3 is a Different game to the last one.MW3 is the same as the last two….
    BUT theres nothing wrong with that if you like it (up the bum) only kiding but seriously i like COD i have all of them.i also have had all the battlefields and its just down to personal preference… also F*** EA

  6. modern warrior 25 says:

    i have been a cod fan always over bf , my psn player name is modern warrior , and if i’m being honest , bf3 undoubtbly is much better and much more immersive than cod , cod has got stale, they have used the same game engine since cod 4 , its the same game with a few tweaks an a new skin , i will not defend cod because they will just keep giving us the same game year after year , cod fanboys are just bias and ignorant idiots who unlike me have bought and played both , and if you have played both and still say cod is better than your simply in denial , bf3 is far superior to cod , i will not buy another cod until they mix it up , and use a new game engine , mw2 was the best fps of its day , bf3 is the best of its , sales have nothing to do with wats better , michael bay movies do better at the box office than most other movies same with big dumb mindless blockbusters , cod has became the same, pure style over substance, just like the music industry nothing in the charts other than regurgitated shlop , and sadly the gaming industry is going, or has gone rather, the same way , i hope bf3 is the kick in the ass cod needs to up its game again , and reclaim its title as no1 fps , but as long as you idiots keep saying cod is not after becoming stale then iw will be happy to keep talkin your money , as a call of duty fan from the start i am the first to admit bf3 rapes it in the multiplayer department , my name is Modern-warrior25, not battlefield 25 , but i unlike most of u cod fans realise , cod needs bf3 because it got stale because of lack of compition hopefully bf3 pushes them to switcit up , cod fanboys can stay in denial playing mw3 but i will be playing bf3 simply because its much better ,ps i did not play any previous battlefield but i do own every previous cod , peace

  7. modern warrior 25 says:

    ps again jets are simple to fly , if it takes you more than 5 mins to learn how then chances are your missing some fingers or something

  8. modern warrior 25 says:

    oh and feel free to add my psn acount , also just like pes and fifa the competition is essential to us gettin the best product , cod fanboys will disagree with my comments all day long , but what will speak volumes is the fact that i guarantee you the next cod by IW will use a new game engine and will be very different to mw3, they are just milking the last few drops from us , and you fanboys act like sheep so who can blame them , mw2 was groundbreaking mw3 simply strolls along the same old worn out path and frankly i have been a sheep just like you but no more , and because i’m a true cod fan, thats 1of the reasons i’m switchin to bf3 ,that and the fact that its superior, in hope that enough people do it and force there hand to up ther game , also mw3 campaign is better then bf3 but if people played these games for single player expierence then we’d all simply just rent them but we dont we play for multiplayer expierence and bf3 will win all day long, fact

  9. Krew says:

    No. Modern Warfare 3 sucked.

  10. Reason says:

    Those reviewers get their ad revenue from who the most? Video game developers. Do you think they will give companies that give them huge sums of money from ads bad press? Think about it their are sources of this happening with other games, it just got leaked out.

  11. CBrammer says:

    I used to love the cod series. Call of Duty was all I was about as a gamer. COD3 was great and then Modern Warfare was incredible, I remember the day after I got it telling every friend I knew how awesome it was. Then it seems like they just stopped adding anything to the new games. MW2 was alright but was much cheesier than MW. The simple fact is that MW3 is not a better game. It has the same engine and mechanics and modern warfare that came out how many years ago. In most other fields of business not progressing would destroy a company but people are so dumb that they will buy the same exact game over and over again. For instance if Apple decided just to leave things how they are now and not produce any new technology Microsoft would kill them. It’s a shame that so many COD fanboys are trying to diss on bf3 for actually being different. I play it everynight and the controls aren’t clunky, I’ve only had about 5 server issues and that was on launch day. There are not really any big glitches. The difference with the two games is that in Battlefield you do everything. You fly the chopper or jet and drive the tank. You work as a team. If your team sucks then you will lose. Lone wolfing it wont work so you have to be smart. People say that it’s boring but I disagree. I would say that I kill about 2/3 of the people I used to in Cod. I die much less, and With that other 1/3 of the time I am driving vehicles, using mortars (not a mortar strike but actually firing every mortar shell whenever I want) basejumping off of cliffs to get to the next of objective, literally leveling warehouse buildings with an abrams tank to kill those hiding inside and a bunch of stuff like that. The point is, watch some youtube vids comparing the gameplay and don’t pay for a game that you already bought 4 years ago. We all know that MW3 will make more money but I think it’s clear which game is the best. Battlefield 3 is like that awesome indie movie that you watch over and over while MW3 is the New Twilight Movie. Twilight will make more money but it still F***ing sucks.

  12. Linkman81 says:

    Did we just become best friend!?!? YEp, think we did!

  13. crs says:

    BF3 is a fresh new graphically awesome game, yes the gameplay is the same as BC2 but if you have a good enough PC its far superior to MW3. I played MW3 properly last night and its the same games as black ops with new maps and some new weapons. Same can be said for BF3 but I would far rather spend hours on a quality looking game with better mechanics than spray and pray like MW3.

Post a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Visited 14166 times, 21 so far today