bit-gamer.net

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 Review

Comments 1 to 25 of 160

Reply
andrew8200m 10th November 2011, 11:11 Quote
Best review ever!!
stonedsurd 10th November 2011, 11:15 Quote
An honest review that doesn't give a f**k about fanboy backlash? Excellent.
Dedlite 10th November 2011, 11:16 Quote
Funny, I know that the console kids will fall over themselves to announce 'MW3 is teh best game eva'.
xennus 10th November 2011, 11:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dedlite
Funny, I know that the console kids will fall over themselves to announce 'MW3 is teh best game eva'.

Good, then they wont be annoying those of us who play real tactical man shooters like bf3 :D
Tsung 10th November 2011, 11:25 Quote
If MW3 is more of the same, then so is BF3?. 64 players? didn't we have that in BF2? Jets, helicopter, tanks, check, check, check. I think EA has pulled a blinder in terms of convincing people they are buying something new by removing features over versions then replacing them later as new.

Still the whole BF3 vs MW3 reminds me of the early 80's Spectrum vs C64's, or 90's Amiga vs Atari ST. Some people will swear blind the other game is "more of the same" (or meh) without realising the irony in their statement.
ulfar 10th November 2011, 11:25 Quote
thumbs up for a great review. unlike other sites (i just accidentally stumbled upon one... i swear... it wasn't intentionally.. please... please, not the kneecaps), who gave mw3 and bf3 the same (high) score.
hexx 10th November 2011, 11:30 Quote
this is why love to come back to bit-tech website, proper reviews, honest and spot on. one of the best reviews I've read in a loooong time
CardJoe 10th November 2011, 11:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsung
If MW3 is more of the same, then so is BF3?. 64 players? didn't we have that in BF2? Jets, helicopter, tanks, check, check, check. I think EA has pulled a blinder in terms of convincing people they are buying something new by removing features over versions then replacing them later as new.

I've said as much many times before and likely would have raised those points had I written the BF3 review. However, remember that BF3 at least brings technical enhancements (Frostbite 2, destructibility) and has a singleplayer campaign for the first time in the (core) Battlefield series. It also has a architechture around it in terms of lobbies and servers that is more PC-supportive and has the boon of not being rinsed as regularly for as long as Call of Duty.

That alone gives it a freshness, as it's easy to forget that while Bad Company 2 came out in 2010, the last BF game on PC before that came out in 2006.
V3ctor 10th November 2011, 11:35 Quote
Thanks for a honest review... :)
Silver51 10th November 2011, 11:35 Quote
I'm not sure if it's just the screenshots, but MW3's graphics engine looks like it hitched a ride on a Delorean from 1955.
V3ctor 10th November 2011, 11:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver51
I'm not sure if it's just the screenshots, but MW3's graphics engine looks like it hitched a ride on a Delorean from 1955.

LOL!! +1
Krikkit 10th November 2011, 11:40 Quote
Good on you Joe, I can imagine this thread will degenerate into a rather enormous criticism of your review though. :p
RevDarny 10th November 2011, 11:42 Quote
Brilliant, the review is better than the game.
mikemorton 10th November 2011, 11:42 Quote
Your review is EXACTLY what I expected it to be.
Baz 10th November 2011, 11:43 Quote
This is one of Joe's best reviews. Totally spot on and highly entertaining.
Mentai 10th November 2011, 11:43 Quote
I find it funny how far this has fallen out of favour with you guys. This is the best CoD yet, and while the improvements over MW2 are minor, that was your GOTY 2009. Gaming has not moved on so much over two years that this review is fair. The majority of franchises are the same old and will continue to be so until next gen, so what gives? For most PC gamers I feel that the lack of dedicated servers in MW2 turned them off the series and whatever was added to MW3 was too little too late, and if you had that opinion it would make sense. But you don't. For you the subtraction of features from MW1 to MW2 somehow made GOTY material, and restoration of features with incremental improvements make MW3 "the most depressing part of the games industry". Wtf Bit-tech?
urobulos 10th November 2011, 11:48 Quote
Well, the problem with CoD from a PC perspective is that it is very much a console game that just happens to be ported to PC. It's not a bad thing per se and I enjoyed many a console game, but when you compare it to the PC version of BF3 then it looks rubbish. And I don't mean eye candy even. By now the hardware of consoles has become too limiting to do things like level design on the same level as even a mediocre PC.
In general I don't agree that either console or PC games are intrinsically better or worse, but in this case it seems pretty obvious. In other genres (racing, fighting and to a lesser extent action adventure games) these limitations are less apparent and in any way we don't have titles built specifically for gaming PCs to compare them with. Not the case when it comes to FPS though.

The gap between BF and CoD on PC has become massive. On the consoles the difference is much smaller as console BF3 is a different game.
Lankuzo 10th November 2011, 11:49 Quote
Awesome review! Nice to see some honest opinions.
shaunster1011 10th November 2011, 11:50 Quote
Even with the clear cut difference in graphics on the PC I just find MW3 more fun to play than BF3 and as an added bonus MW3 doesn't keep randomly closing or crashing either.
mikemorton 10th November 2011, 11:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentai
I find it funny how far this has fallen out of favour with you guys. This is the best CoD yet,

It certainly is - it's superb and I'm really, really enjoying it.

Just like I am Battlefield.

It's weird that some people seem to be a bit "Highlander" about the games - ie there can be only one.

Why not enjoy both?
Siwini 10th November 2011, 11:59 Quote
I like it
Jake123456 10th November 2011, 12:00 Quote
COD is going to be the same game drilled out every year, this has reminded alot of people about MW2 (It looks the bloody same!)

I always thought COD had a chance to improve, but they're making it harder for themselves as they're releasing a new one every year and now every child at christmas is expecting it every year in their christmas pressie pile.

I hope they see this after releasing this game and think "Maybe we should give it a bit longer than a year and update the graphics engine, look at getting some more features in multiplayer?"

I also don't know how you can compare this and BF3 as COD is and always will be an arcade shooter, BF3 is a tactical shooter....But I do like my BF3 ;)
CardJoe 10th November 2011, 12:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentai
MW2 was your GOTY 2009...Wtf Bit-tech?

No, MW2 was your GOTY for 2009 after a user vote.

My personal votes in 2009 went to Mirror's Edge PC, Batman: Arkham Asylum and Trine.
faugusztin 10th November 2011, 12:04 Quote
Mentai, the issue is that since MW1, that is 4 years, this game has not moved a inch.

Edit: If it would be sold as €15 DLC every year, it would have probably got a 8 or 9 as a nice, long time updated game. But when you ask for same thing 60e over and over again, you get a low score.
Anneon 10th November 2011, 12:08 Quote
I think if you take this game in isolation of it's history it would score amazingly high as would any other consistantly updated IP. It is the FPS worlds Tiger woods,FIFA, PES etc..... each to his own.

Not for me tho'.

Thanks for the honest review.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums