hacking towards release
We've endured two delays to get here, but Watch_Dogs is finally within release sights, and ahead of that event we go hands-on with the latest build. Read on for our full thoughts!
inquisitive minds
AusGamers managed to catch-up with BioWare's Cameron Lee, an Aussie expat who serves as a producer on Dragon Age: Inquisition. Check out our full interview!
oracle of ages
Batman: Arkham Knight is set to be Rocksteady's final in the Arkham series, so it's fitting that it's just so damn big. And Batmobiles. Nuff said. Click for more!
to the moon, athena
We caught up with 2K Australia and Randy Pitchford to discuss Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel and why Australia is making an impact on the moon. Click for more!
AusGamers Games
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

PC | PlayStation 3 | Xbox 360
Genre: First Person Shooter
Developer: Infinity Ward Official Site: http://www.callofduty.com
Publisher: Activision Classification: MA15+
Release Date:
8th November 2011
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

Genre: First Person Shooter
Developer: Infinity Ward
Official Site: http://www.callofduty...
Publisher: Activision
Classification: MA15+
Release Date:
8th November 2011
Hide Video Player
Click To View the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 Video
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 Review
Review By @ 04:12pm 08/11/11
XBOX360
Now, where were we?

Oh yeah, so in 2011 a Russian Ultranationalist by the name of Imran Zakhaev decided to puppeteer a series of international events to sidetrack the US and NATO while he set plans in motion -- in secret -- to bring the former Soviet Union back to the main stage. His goal, it turns out, was successful despite his demise at the hands of one Soap MacTavish in an incident involving the SAS, but that’s because Zakhaev's movement had a little help.

Orchestrating this conflict alongside Zakhaev were a number of high-profile targets, and some not so well-known (including some Americans). But ultimately, it’s one of Zakhaev’s lieutenants, Vladimir Makarov, who takes up the handle of global muckraker, and with his former commander’s death being looked upon as martyrdom in Russia where Makarov has seized control, the stage is set for him to realise Zakhaev’s dream.



And thus begins five years of global terrorism at the underhanded bequest of Makarov, concluding the memorable “No Russian” incident. And thanks to well-placed evidence left at the scene in the form of an undercover American who was infiltrating the Ultranationalists, who in turn were posing as the international terrorists attacking Russia, Makarov is able to calls to arms against the United States who he claims were supporting the terrorist organisation.

His first act of war then is to invade the US with his own forces thanks in equal part to another well-placed piece of Trojan Horse warfare, a tampered-with ACS (Attack Characterisation System) that thwarts any form of early warning of the attack.

Meanwhile, an elite squad of soldiers known as Task Force 141 break into a heavily guarded and fortified prison where Makarov is harboring his most dangerous foe along with many political prisoners. It turns out to be Captain Price, an SAS veteran who shot Zakhaev’s arm off in a sniping incident some 15 years before in Pripyat, and the man most responsible for teaching “Soap” everything he knows.

Price, with his new-found freedom joins forces with Task Force 141 but realises the US, on the back foot, won’t stand a chance in the Russian invasion and so goes rogue on a mission, launching a Russian nuclear warhead against Washington DC, detonating it in the upper atmosphere. The explosion wipes out the International Space Station, but also causes an EMP blast that affects both sides, thus giving the US a chance to regroup and go on the counter-offensive.

Meanwhile, a splinter group of Task Force 141 operatives gathers vital evidence implicating Makarov and the Ultranationalists in the “No Russian” terrorist attack, but upon extraction they’re betrayed by a US Lieutenant General. Price and Soap learn of this and strike a deal with Makarov to reveal his location. The two then infiltrate his stronghold and the incident ends with Soap stabbed in the chest and Captain Price fighting for his life. Soap somehow manages to pull the knife from his chest and throw it at the turncoat before both he and Price are extracted by the Russian underground.

And so begins chapter three.



Basically, all you need to know to really understand what’s going on is that Makarv is bad, the Russians have invaded the US and are attempting to do the same to the rest of the world’s major powers and that you, as a handful of known and unknown soldiers, have to do whatever it takes to recoil the international threat that is the Ultranationalists and get some freaking revenge for the death of Ghost in Modern Warfare 2 (well, maybe that’s just my goal).

I’m probably only going to offer two main comparisons in this review to Battlefield 3, and that is that in the single-player campaign space; narrative, scripting, voice-acting and set-pieces, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is king. There’s no question about it. It was always one of the series’ strongest points, for those who took the time, and in Modern Warfare 3, it’s Infinity Ward’s swansong as well as proof of life after (apparent) death.

A lot of people didn’t think they had the chops with all the internal turmoil that happened at the departure of founders Vince Zampella and Jason West, but Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is proof that they did, and with a bit of help from fledgling studio Sledgehammer Games, it’s more than reasonable to say this is easily the best in the series.

Almost everything we’ve been put through over the past few years is laid to rest when the credits roll, and let's be honest, it’s been one heck of a rollercoaster ride. I also haven’t had such a satisfying and gripping ending to a videogame happen in such a long time (Arkham City aside). It thoroughly ends the journey well, and with flair. Where one studio has gone after gritty realism, the Modern Warfare 3 team went after satisfaction and indulgence. The final sequence of the game really is something to behold.

Moreover, said campaign is now much lengthier than in previous outings. I played through the game on Hardened and, without sprinting to each Checkpoint to die and trigger the next section (ie, playing the game the way it was intended *cough* Gob, *cough*), I managed to clock in around 11 and a half hours. It’s also looking mighty pretty, with a new pass on lighting that really makes the game pop (given Sledgehammer Games’ pedigree, I’d venture a lot of this was their doing). It’s also by far the most epic of the three and sells the previous games’ stories because its epicness. If you were confused at the end of Modern Warfare 2, you won’t be at the end of Modern Warfare 3.



In saying all of that, it’s still Call of Duty at its core, and if you’ve played any of the previous games, you’re going to be in familiar territory. You could look at that statement as either a good or a bad thing, but I’d argue having a bigger, longer and more blockbuster campaign (replete with much better enemy AI than we’ve seen before) is just how the trilogy needed to end. The game is the biggest franchise in the world because they make great blockbuster moments and tie them into a reasonably deep and complex narrative, juxtaposing political machinations and international intrigue with Michael Bay explosions and action. It’s a work of marketing genius, and Modern Warfare 3 is the pinnacle of this fine balance.

Familiar-yet-new territory comes in the form of AC-130 missions, only these are far more robust, and desperate. You’re clearing a path on-the-fly for teams on the ground, but equally switching between the two. And it’s not just decimating ground forces, either. There’s no arguing Infinity Ward make a chopper crash look the best in the biz, and you’ll be swatting enemy helicopters from the sky like so many flies under your fly-swatter.

Or through germ-warfare sequences that require gas-masks and plenty of peripheral observation. There’s even a fog-of-war sequence akin to the end of Black Ops where your only point of enemy reference is tracers, flashlights and vaguely silhouetted movement. It’s one crazy sequence after another, and the action -- and intrigue -- never lets up for a moment, even in the more stealthy moments of the game.

But I’m not going to spoil any of the game’s narrative for you, because chances are anyone who invested in the narrative of the first two games will be champing at the bit for some closure, and believe me, they’ll get some.

Obviously the other side of the Call of Duty coin is multiplayer, and I’m happy to report it’s as solid as ever. I’m not so happy to report that it hasn’t changed a great deal. There are some cool new additions, such as Custom Games where you can set a huge amount of variables and host your own matches. If they become popular enough, Activision will even promote them through the Elite service and host games for you. On the PC side of multiplayer, this is obviously not even close to an original idea, but it’s a nice addition for the console players.



Two new stand-out game modes include Kill Confirmed, where you need to actually collect the dogtags of someone you fragged for it to be added to the score, and if you’re killed on your way to said collection, then the other team can grab them and deny you points. Or Juggernaut, which is basically a game of tag where one player is put into a Juggernaut suit and given a riot shield. You need to kill as many people as you can while being the Juggernaut, because the person who actually winds up killing you then becomes the Juggernaut. It was a ridiculous amount of fun that saw every single person on the map just mowing virtual lead into this slow-moving behemoth of a player until he was killed. This one will definitely become a crowd favourite.

Favourites return such as Domination, Team Deatmatch, Deathmatch, Demolition, Headquarters et al, and with a host of awesomely designed maps (some quite big for Call of Duty), there’s no reason it won’t spend another year as the most played first-person multiplayer title. I had a huge amount of fun playing multiplayer during the review period, and there are massive amounts of unlocks and a new level cap set to 80, which should keep people grinding for a lot longer. The key thing with Modern Warfare 3’s multiplayer seems to be a bigger emphasis on customisation and community, which really goes hand-in-hand with the new Elite service.

The other major addition to the game, and likely my favourite outside of the campaign, is Spec Ops Survival. This is essentially Infinity Ward’s version of Zombies, only more visceral. GameArena’s Joab “Gob” Gilroy and I smashed a few hours on this and made it right through to Wave 25, which was no mean feat. Different waves of enemies come at you in various ways with myriad variations, such as dogs strapped with explosives, suicide bombers, or the aforementioned Juggernauts. Kills earn you cash which you can then spend at ammo, weapon and support stations. You can pay for your own Delta Squad, for example, who will stay with you until the last one is killed (and the person who called them in will accrue money and XP), but like most Tower-Defense/Horde Modes, the longer you’re out in the field, the harder they come.

There are also a host of Spec Ops co-op missions that all stem from sequences in the game. Some stealth-oriented, others time-based or even just full-on action-based. But as a stand-alone product, the addition of all of the above plus what we’ve come to expect from the series really puts the game over in my opinion.



Unfortunately to gain lengthy access to it for review purposes we all played the game on Xbox 360, but we’re looking at adding some supplemental PC coverage as well. Mostly looking at the server situation, potential for LANs and just how it holds up in all of the above on the desktop platform, so stay tuned for that.

But, if you haven’t guessed already, I’ve walked away from the game pretty happy with the end product. On a multiplayer plane, it obviously can’t compete with the scope of Battlefield 3, which is, and always has been, a multiplayer title first and foremost. You could argue DICE probably shouldn’t have tried to match Call of Duty on all fronts, because as far as a full package goes, there’s more variety here and a much more engaging and superior single-player campaign than BF3 offers at all. But realistically, at the end of the day it’ll come down to choice.

Don’t go hating on this because it’s Call of Duty. This is Modern Warfare 3 - the final chapter in an epic tale, and part of a series that changed the first-person shooter landscape forever. It’s an absolutely solid title, the best entry in the series and something that should keep you playing for some time to come. More than worth the investment.
WHAT WE LIKED
The perfect finale for an amazingly deep and complex narrative. Absolutely satisfying
Looks amazing in comparison to the previous game with excellent new lighting
Longer, more challenging campaign thanks to the best AI the series has seen
Spec Ops: Survival is insanely addictive
Solid Spec Ops co-op and solo missions
Solid multiplayer with some great new modes
WHAT WE DIDN'T LIKE
Not a lot has ultimately changed, especially in multiplayer
There are still a few nagging choke-points, but far less than previous iterations
Multiplayer doesn't look nearly as good as single-player visually
MORE...
WE GAVE IT:
9.6
OUT OF 10
AusGamers
Latest Comments
fade
Posted 07:07pm 08/11/11
Dammit i will have to also purchase this now.

edit: Can someone please explain (for the nagging half) the difference between BF3 and COD:MW3. she won't listen to me.
DM
Posted 07:16pm 08/11/11
11 1/2 hour single player compaign is like the first 2 MW games combined so that is a good step in the right direction. I kind of wonder why games like COD and BF3 even really bother with a single player really. I mean i've played over 55 hours of BF3 and I havn't loaded up the campaign a SINGLE TIME. Instead of spending all this time with a single player aspect of it why not announce... say BF4 or COD#whateverthefucknumbertheyareuptonow and have it jsut a pure multiplayer based game. Least that way we could have much more maps and weapons. Nice screenshots in the review too.

EDIT - BF3 is much more focused on large scale maps with vehicals and team work is a must. You can sometimes be left out in the sprawling maps with no one to kill and not run across anyone for awhile if you are taking it slow.

MW3 is more solo based where you can go do your own thing and is a smaller scale game but has lots of action very quickly.

last edited by DM at 19:16:05 08/Nov/11
arkter
Posted 07:14pm 08/11/11
^ I don't even know where to start. BF3 = poster child for pc gaming, graphics and gameplay wise. MW3 is just the same shit repackaged with a new single player campaign. IMO anyway.
Robbo
Posted 07:14pm 08/11/11
I don't understand why you guys seem to think the Modern Warfare series has a deep narrative. It started well in the first one but the second one was an absolute joke. I had to force myself to watch any cutscene.
Pirroh
Posted 07:22pm 08/11/11
Having seen the ending a couple of days ago for MW3, I find the praise for it rather amusing.

Anyway, some fellas on youtube are streaming it though it won't load for me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0aO75RV0mY
Khel
Posted 07:33pm 08/11/11
The two then infiltrate his stronghold and the incident ends with Soap stabbed in the Lieutenant General and Captain Price fighting for his life


Nothing worse than being stabbed in the Lieutenant General :(

I dunno if thats a typo or some kind of slang or metaphor, but it made me laugh either way.
Pirroh
Posted 07:49pm 08/11/11
11 1/2 hour single player compaign is like the first 2 MW games combined so that is a good step in the right direction.


Gametrailer's review said Modern Warfare 3 clocked in at around five hours for them.
Crakaveli
Posted 07:47pm 08/11/11
who'd have thunk it, a massively popular game getting a high score even though it's the same shit in a new box.

reviews are so fucking pointless these days.
skythra
Posted 07:47pm 08/11/11
Trolls have decided BF3 is clearly the supreme champion. I'd like to play MW3 for the single player, i'll hire it sometime. Probably could finish it over a weekend.
Robbo
Posted 07:55pm 08/11/11
I have never had any problems with reviews on AusGamers. Thought they were reasonably fair compared to other websites. However I can't get over the high score because of the narrative. The second one had a ridiculous story. It didn't even make sense and any apparent twist could be seen when you first see the character.

http://www.gamesradar.com/modern-warfare-2s-glaring-plot-holes-exposed/
Eorl
Posted 07:57pm 08/11/11
Yeah, not to be all negative nancy, but why the high score? Why would a easily scalable lighting technique garnish such a high score out of 10?
fpot
Posted 07:59pm 08/11/11
Jesus christ 9.6.

Whatever.
Khel
Posted 07:59pm 08/11/11
Yeah, the narrative in MW2 was pretty disjointed, I never really had much of an idea what was going on, I was just shooting bad guys and enjoying the explosions. It wasn't until I read the recap at the start of the MW3 review that I even really got the story straight, and even then, it sounds pretty twisted and convoluted (and not in an intelligent way, more in a messy, confusing way).
Midda
Posted 08:01pm 08/11/11
I kind of wonder why games like COD and BF3 even really bother with a single player really. I mean i've played over 55 hours of BF3 and I havn't loaded up the campaign a SINGLE TIME. Instead of spending all this time with a single player aspect of it why not announce... say BF4 or COD#whateverthefucknumbertheyareuptonow and have it jsut a pure multiplayer based game.

You mean like every Battlefield game before Bad Company?

I really hope developers don't listen to people like you. Obviously most people buy these games for the multiplayer, but I sure as shit enjoy the single player campaigns and wouldn't want to see them go. In fact, if I even buy MW3, it'll be for the single player. I don't give a shit about CoD multiplayer anymore, but I do enjoy the single player campaigns.

Don't just assume that everybody is like you and doesn't care about single player.
Robbo
Posted 08:06pm 08/11/11
I think this review is just about going to put me off from reading more from this site. If it was said that this particular narrative was worthy of this score by itself then I would be like ok, I'll take your word for it and try it myself. But "The perfect finale for an amazingly deep and complex narrative. Absolutely satisfying" means it is getting a higher score because of the narrative of the previous games, which had one game with an ok narrative and one with an appaling one.
You also said not a lot has changed. So gameplay is essentially the same? The gameplay in MW2 was stale and boring. Hardly something that would be anywhere near this score. And lighting, they add lighting to boost its score from previous games?
jackflash
Posted 08:06pm 08/11/11
In fact, if I even buy MW3, it'll be for the single player.


*sigh* Sadly this looks like it's going to be the case, i really hate giving my money to these people...
Eorl
Posted 08:09pm 08/11/11
Midda, the BF series, as you said, before BC had no singleplayer what so ever. And it worked perfectly. It meant the developers could put more time and effort into fixing bugs, making sweet changes etc, without having to worry that this scene doesn't work here or that characters dialogue for this part isn't quite right or this scripted event doesn't work. Multiplayer is where the bulk of FPS games shine. Just look at CSS, pure multiplayer, and works like a charm.

In other words, if you want a singleplayer game, go play a RPG with FPS elements.
Sc00bs
Posted 08:26pm 08/11/11
9.6 is a bit rich for a re-skinned black ops :/
Steve Farrelly
Posted 09:06pm 08/11/11
I love that everyone is calling is a reskinned Black Ops and it's only been out less than 24 hours. You all claim to be experts, why not spend some time with the game and see what's actually under the hood rather than immediately dismissing it.

It's an infinitely better game than Black Ops, it has a great, lengthy single-player campaign (on the harder difficulty levels) and a lot in the way of replayability even outside the base multiplayer). The product is well polished and serves its purpose well.

Dan was right when he mentioned a lot of people are just falling on tall poppy syndrome, and I said it in my conclusion - don't hate on this because it's a Call of Duty game. If you don't like the rehashing of the series yearly, that's Activision's doing. This game has been in development for two years and is part of what I rate as a damn good series. I even liked number 2. And yes, I think given the landscape of games out there, the narrative is relatively seep and complex, half the world didn't understand MW2 because they crammed so much in to a short space, but it's all explained in full here.

It's the only time I'm going to come in and defend my score, but consider that Dan gave BF3 a 9.8 and it's SP isn't even half as good as this, yet this still has decent, rewarding multiplayer and you should be able to see where we're coming from.
CHUB
Posted 09:09pm 08/11/11
15 years ago a 9.6 would be a one of kind ground breaking game.

The highest rated movie of all time on IMDB is 9.2.
fpot
Posted 09:11pm 08/11/11
I reckon it is a good thing that you defend your reviews. You've got me second guessing myself and maybe thinking I am a bit silly for not trying out this game, and that it might actually be good.

Hmmmmm
Eorl
Posted 09:16pm 08/11/11
But that's the thing Steve, this game doesn't really deserve such a high score that all the reviewers are giving it. It doesn't revolutionize anything. It sticks with a formula that hasn't really changed in the past few years. It has become a joke of a game to the industry, with it's repetitiveness and complete lack of new things. I know the saying if it works stick with it, but in the gaming industry, if you don't change, you will be left behind with angry fans. And that is starting to happen, people are starting to get sick of the same thing over and over. Will it change? Who knows, maybe, but with the way it's going now, I doubt it.

Call of Duty is a great series, and one that has been quite apparent as a ground shaker in modern FPS gaming. But does it really deserve a 9.6 when all it has REALLY done, is change up some titles, put perks into the guns, and killstreaks into classes? Oh yeah, and apparently increased their lighting. It's apparent they aren't really bothering with the storyline anymore, as it's pretty much a Hollywood movie, but a really bad script. The multiplayer is great, but it's only great because it's the same thing as MW2. I jumped into a match before, and it PLAYED EXACTLY THE SAME WAY. How is that good? Shouldn't I be challenged a bit? Shouldn't I be like "wow, that was interesting!".

Call of Duty is turning into the Madden Series, or even worse, the sporting game industry, where people are paying $60+ for new skins (maybe) and some re-designed maps. I don't think that is going to do well for them, and that was shown with the collapse of the Guitar Hero franchise. People got sick of the same thing, so they voted with their wallets. Yes people enjoy this game, good on them. Yes people are having fun, yes people are going to still buy the COD franchise, even with all the negativity.

But really, is this good for the industry as a whole? Especially when companies are now going, "we want COD's numbers, let's make the same shit as them".
ctd
Posted 09:18pm 08/11/11
That is If you dig single player. I dont plan on loading up either of the sp campaigns so bf3 will do for me.
FraktuRe
Posted 09:19pm 08/11/11
You say it brings the story to an end, but as if activision will give up on the most profitable franchise of all time. There will be a mw4.
Khel
Posted 09:44pm 08/11/11
Midda, the BF series, as you said, before BC had no singleplayer what so ever. And it worked perfectly. It meant the developers could put more time and effort into fixing bugs, making sweet changes etc, without having to worry that this scene doesn't work here or that characters dialogue for this part isn't quite right or this scripted event doesn't work.


Times change, the market changes, Brink was essentially an FPS without a single player campaign and look how that tanked. The only place you might see a multiplayer-only FPS fly is on Xbox Live Arcane or as an indie/cheaper title on Steam, the bigger publishers aren't going to put money behind something like that. They want the best return on their investment, which means they want to appeal to as many different people as possible.

Also, its not like the single player game takes resources away from the multiplayer, thats not how these things work. If the game didn't have a single player campaign it'd just have a smaller team and less resources assigned to it. End result being there wouldn't be any more people working on the multiplayer than there already was.
butters
Posted 10:07pm 08/11/11
I don't play CoD multi, I would never pay for it if there was no single player.
arkter
Posted 10:38pm 08/11/11
You say it brings the story to an end, but as if activision will give up on the most profitable franchise of all time. There will be a mw4.


MODERN WARFARE 4!
THIS TIME THINGS WILL BE DIFFERENT.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW MORE?
Mosfxx
Posted 10:46pm 08/11/11
CoD is fun for it's own reasons, just like I eat pink lady apples instead of red delicious.
DK
Posted 10:52pm 08/11/11

But really, is this good for the industry as a whole? Especially when companies are now going, "we want COD's numbers, let's make the same shit as them".


This ^

Could even see it with bf3's shit house single player. Imagine if they just stuck to the multiplayer. Or hell came up with a single player where it taught you the ropes for multi..you know actually FLY the jets..helicopters, etc

But at the end of the day it comes down to what the consumer will pay for. And for some reason the consumer (or should I say console faggot) wants a b-grade movie where they get to press x a couple of times.
Phooks
Posted 10:59pm 08/11/11
Good review as always.

Re; the tall poppy comment, not really.

I absolutely love the all of the cod games (save for last one). I do however hate how popular it is as a series. There are so many other titles and companies that deserve such spotlight.
eXemplar
Posted 11:55pm 08/11/11
All these rabid bf3 fanbois remind me of what cs players were like compared to quake players, it's lols. Give it another year and bf will be shameful to even own.

(I've been playing both and they're both fantastic games)
Ryan
Posted 12:26am 09/11/11
Bought it, playing it, having fun.
Deserving of such a high score for the same thing we've been shamelessly buying for years? No.
Metacritic - 90 from critics, 3.0 from Users.
I think some critics have some greasy hands...
Fixah
Posted 01:23am 09/11/11
I rate Steve's reviews and in saying that i'll be hiring this one out to finish the campaign over the weekend. I'll also give multiplayer a shot and I'll then make my own judgement as to whether or not i'll get this game. My 11 year old brother has been begging me to get this game for him (11 year old COD fan hah yeah that'd be right) so if I don't like it i know he will.
Stalfax
Posted 01:20am 09/11/11
9.6 is almost a perfect score. So you're saying that this game almost couldn't be improved? Future games should strive to be as amazing as MW3? Ridiculous.
bepatient
Posted 01:41am 09/11/11
I just finished the game now, approx 6 hours on hardened.

Was an absolute blast. Looking forward to playing it again although the reuse of assets is very disapointing. A lot of the same textures, sounds, images as mw2.

I don't understand what exactly makes it infinitely better than Black Ops but its def the best sp experience for the franchise. I havent even loaded up MP yet.
skythra
Posted 03:53am 09/11/11
why not spend some time with the game and see what's actually under the hood rather than immediately dismissing it.
hahahaha funny because while they're posting flames, their downloads for 14gb of content is coming down at 200kb/s off steam.

Way to rub salt in their wounds.

Edit as an aside here's how my university ranks my studies:

Grade X: No assessable work received.

Grade 1, Fail: Fails to demonstrate most or all of the basic requirements of the course:  

Grade 2, Fail: Demonstrates clear deficiencies in understanding and applying fundamental concepts; communicates information or ideas in ways that are frequently incomplete or confusing and give little attention to the conventions of the discipline:  

Grade 3, Fail: Demonstrates superficial or partial or faulty understanding of the fundamental concepts of the field of study and limited ability to apply these concepts; presents undeveloped or inappropriate or unsupported arguments; communicates information or ideas with lack of clarity and inconsistent adherence to the conventions of the discipline:  

Grade 4, Pass: Demonstrates adequate understanding and application of the fundamental concepts of the field of study; develops routine arguments or decisions and provides acceptable justification; communicates information and ideas adequately in terms of the conventions of the discipline:  

Grade 5, Credit: Demonstrates substantial understanding of fundamental concepts of the field of study and ability to apply these concepts in a variety of contexts; develops or adapts convincing arguments and provides coherent justification; communicates information and ideas clearly and fluently in terms of the conventions of the discipline:  

Grade 6, Distinction: As for 5, with frequent evidence of originality in defining and analysing issues or problems and in creating solutions; uses a level, style and means of communication appropriate to the discipline and the audience:  

Grade 7, High Distinction: As for 6, with consistent evidence of substantial originality and insight in identifying, generating and communicating competing arguments, perspectives or problem solving approaches; critically evaluates problems, their solutions and implications:  

Other Requirements & Comments :


Notice this grade 7 requirement? "Consistent evidence of substantial originality and insight" that sounds like a good basis for requirements for videogames of the highest level. Even if we consider some of this other stuff as a metaphor "generating and communicating arguments" in a narritive form in single player, how well have they conveyed their meanings to the players? In multiplayer; how well have they created the atmosphere? Was it so effective that a player will remember a story from the shooting? Will it matter that they're shooting in WW3 as opposed to 1990 or 2000 or even 1942? "(idenifying and generating) Problem solving approaches" almost a metaphor for the old game development problem of fun. How can they portray their argument/story in an approach which is significantly solving the issue of fun.

In any case, if you think this is the high distinction of videogames, and has gone above and beyond just being the best of mediocre, trust me when I say I'm believing you until proven otherwise. I sure don't believe metacritic. That's for sure. I will be playing this game, perhaps purchasing it from a non-reputable cd key store or just from a rental store two overnights in a row.

Multiplayer isn't my thing with this game (except co-op) but i should be able to see past the polish of a 4-5 credit student and into the meat of an innovative game worthy of 9.6. (aka 96% or higher than anyone in any of my classes scored in their midsemester or assignments)
boba
Posted 07:42am 09/11/11
Python
Posted 08:14am 09/11/11
It's in the original COD too, probably something the developers are doing on purpose as an in joke or something. Valve and others do the same thing, I remember the WOW stuff being directly copied into Diablo3...

link

last edited by Python at 08:12:17 09/Nov/11

last edited by Python at 08:14:25 09/Nov/11
Eorl
Posted 09:35am 09/11/11
All these rabid bf3 fanbois remind me of what cs players were like compared to quake players, it's lols. Give it another year and bf will be shameful to even own.

(I've been playing both and they're both fantastic games)

I did not once mention BF3 in my post. So someone is clearly jumping their guns.

No one can say that COD isn't hurting the industry. That there is true, and it seems from everyone else here, that the high score is a bit bizarre for a game that doesn't really try hard to change up the formula. Again, putting a game mode that is exactly like TDM but instead just drops dog tags that you have to pick up to actually get a kill, isn't really new.

Also, I laughed at this error



Also a great review here

Morbz
Posted 11:11am 09/11/11
Hmm read all the comments... Alot of haters... But did you bring it and frag on ? screw the dev side of things i played multiplayer last night and loved it! This game has some beefy guns and neat upgrades.

The graphics arent all that great maxed out but still good fun. I enjoyed the lobby side of things when connection to certain game type it matched you up with players gave you a solid host and you could chat or reconfigure you loadout while waiting etc. BF3 aside i am hooked again :)

Peace out people
paveway
Posted 12:49pm 09/11/11
Eorl, unfortunately it's going to take us some time to get used to your backflip from rabid frothing at the mouth bf3 zealot not that long ago to now trying to be some moderate type
Tollaz0r!
Posted 01:11pm 09/11/11
That score does seem a bit high. I'll have to play the game now and see. To be honest I also think the BF3 score is also too high.
Fixah
Posted 01:15pm 09/11/11
Batman Score was spot on. But then again Steve Farrelly is Batman, why wouldn't he get the score right.
Eorl
Posted 01:17pm 09/11/11
Eorl, unfortunately it's going to take us some time to get used to your backflip from rabid frothing at the mouth bf3 zealot not that long ago to now trying to be some moderate type

Haha, I'm sorry :(

I try to be as level headed as possible when it comes to my opinions, but sometimes things will escape! I am enjoying MW3 though, the multiplayer is what I've come to expect, no real downtime in trying to learn. Maps are nice, small, but some have little nooks and crannies. Overall, its a solid game, but is it really as innovative as it should be? No, not really, but is that due to Activision wanting to keep to a working formula, or is it due to current console technology only being able to do so much now?
DM
Posted 01:50pm 09/11/11
link
HERMITech
Posted 02:08pm 09/11/11
Oh and Boba, don't kid yourself.

There are buildings from Bad Company 2 in BF3 as well.

FraktuRe
Posted 02:37pm 09/11/11
yeah but at least they've upgraded them in bf3, those buildings in cod are the same between 4 and mw3... and they're probably been in others too, like in pythons post.
trog
Posted 02:48pm 09/11/11
Eorl, what is the current Aussie server situation like?
ZeeDoktor
Posted 04:09pm 09/11/11
I personally had grown tired of COD mp good while go so the focus for me for MW3 was the SP and Co-op modes. I thought the SP was great (especially in comparison the MW2's jumbled mess). It was nice to see a conclusion to it all for the main MW characters. I really enjoy the Spec Ops survival mode, that's a lot of fun with a buddy. For me personally it has been worth my money from those two aspects of the game. Hell I used to by the older COD games (COD1, UO, 2) for SP only since I only had dial up, I really kind of loath the fixation people have with MP in games these days.

11 1/2 hour campaign O_o. Is that person rubbish at FPS games? I finished the campaign on veteran in a little over five hours.

This will be the last COD I buy or am really interested in as I see the franchise becoming very stagnant. Activision are just slowly digging a grave for it IMO (which they already have with the PC community).
FraktuRe
Posted 04:14pm 09/11/11
trog: The dedicated servers are useless, they're unranked, so no one will use them.
Dan
Posted 04:36pm 09/11/11
trog: The dedicated servers are useless, they're unranked, so no one will use them.
Not everyone cares about long-term stats. Presuming you can still access your ranked unlocks on unranked servers, anyone that wants to play a serious tournament or ladder will use dedicated servers.
trog
Posted 04:41pm 09/11/11
trog: The dedicated servers are useless, they're unranked, so no one will use them.
so where are the "ranked servers"? Or are the ranked games done p2p?
Pirroh
Posted 04:49pm 09/11/11
Ranked games are p2p, yes.
Deviouz
Posted 06:10pm 09/11/11
DM
Posted 06:55pm 09/11/11
Jesus christ how fast is reload in this game? The fuck is with that?
Midda
Posted 07:17pm 09/11/11
Midda, the BF series, as you said, before BC had no singleplayer what so ever. And it worked perfectly. It meant the developers could put more time and effort into fixing bugs, making sweet changes etc, without having to worry that this scene doesn't work here or that characters dialogue for this part isn't quite right or this scripted event doesn't work. Multiplayer is where the bulk of FPS games shine. Just look at CSS, pure multiplayer, and works like a charm.

And what, you think BF3 is a weaker multiplayer game compared to when it was multiplayer only?

Having a single player campaign doesn't mean resources are taken away from multiplayer, it means more staff are involved in the game, some working on core gameplay, some on single player, some on multiplayer. If there were no single player, there'd be less people working on it, with a smaller budget. The biggest sacrifice in this situation is being made by the publisher, as they're pumping more money into it. Seems to have paid off to me.
Ha
Posted 07:23pm 09/11/11
There was an old penny-arcade comic that had some guy who reviewed *shit game* come into their apartment and comment on how the lamp 'floored him' and he pissed his pants when he turned a light switch on.

Sounds like our ausgamers reviewers.

Don't worry though guys, you aren't alone, everyone does it nowadays, perpetuating the joke that is reviewing serves a purpose, I just can't tell you what it is.
ctd
Posted 07:36pm 09/11/11
Hahaha love that swedish guys videos

yeah not getting mw3. mp is samey and i got bored of mw2 and blackops real quick.
BladeRunner
Posted 08:13pm 09/11/11
I found the multiplayer clunky in regards to movment, Was MW2's movement like that? Very little recoil on weapons too. Ill have another crack at multi later on.
Eorl
Posted 08:20pm 09/11/11
Eorl, what is the current Aussie server situation like?

There are a few floating around, but I think people are taking their time, as you have to download a whole 16GB of the game again for dedicated servers. So expect GSP's to take their time.
parabol
Posted 09:01pm 09/11/11
Um, 9.6 seems excessively high for a yearly COD iteration.

Can someone more familiar with the reviewing process answer this: in the real world if a game reviewer doesn't give a good score for a 'blockbuster' game, do the chances of them getting early access for later games decrease? Don't mean to do a Faceman with conspiracy theories.

Can't say I'm pleased with the scores I've been seeing for games over the last year from a number of sites - they are like "it lacks X, falls short on Y, doesn't have Z ... but we'll give it almost a perfect score anyway!". Much more useful reading user comments to pick out the common themes/issues.
Eorl
Posted 09:48pm 09/11/11
Um, 9.6 seems excessively high for a yearly COD iteration.

Can someone more familiar with the reviewing process answer this: in the real world if a game reviewer doesn't give a good score for a 'blockbuster' game, do the chances of them getting early access for later games decrease? Don't mean to do a Faceman with conspiracy theories.

Can't say I'm pleased with the scores I've been seeing for games over the last year from a number of sites - they are like "it lacks X, falls short on Y, doesn't have Z ... but we'll give it almost a perfect score anyway!". Much more useful reading user comments to pick out the common themes/issues.

No, from what Steve/Dan and Trog said last time this came up, apparently they are just given copies if they enquire hard enough. Publicity, either good or bad, is free publicity.
59fifty
Posted 10:26pm 09/11/11
wow 9.6?

I would have thought a 9 and above would be for ground breaking games - absolutely best of the best - disregarding the other iterations of MW this may have been a 9 but that's not the case - how many cracks has activision had at this now - there has been nothing game changing since Modern Warfare... I would have thought a 7.5/8 would have been more appropriate - and that's not a bad score by any means..

The score should have nothing to do with how much hype a game has, or how many people will buy it. If this came out with a different title and to no fan fare would it have gotten the same mark? Or would it have been branded a COD ripoff and gotten a score of 3/4 for adding nothing new to the genre...

Same for BF - BF though has evolved more than COD has I guess...
Pirroh
Posted 10:29pm 09/11/11
So there are over 400 negative user reviews on Metacritic now, lol.
maRtz
Posted 01:28pm 10/11/11
520 now lolz
DM
Posted 01:31pm 10/11/11
If they didn't keep deleting all the negative posts it would be over 1000 negative. Everytime it got to about 200 - 300 they would erase them all and that happened at least twice that I saw.
Pirroh
Posted 01:46pm 10/11/11
Photobucket

lol
DK
Posted 01:52pm 10/11/11
lmao at the Swedish guy video. How bad are cod players now days. Jesus christ
DM
Posted 02:13pm 10/11/11
Last time I saw such overwhelming negative comments was on Duke Nukem Forever.
maRtz
Posted 03:26pm 10/11/11
And what, you think BF3 is a weaker multiplayer game compared to when it was multiplayer only?


I actually think that.
Sc00bs
Posted 04:00pm 10/11/11
wonder how many free MW3 moomoo's dan and the boys got sent for giving it a 9.6 ;)
kappa
Posted 04:04pm 10/11/11
They give them good scores just to get on the commercials :P
Sc00bs
Posted 04:05pm 10/11/11
ahh so its like a symbiotic promotional relationship they have?

Eorl
Posted 04:06pm 10/11/11
Was playing a match before, feels more clunkier then previous titles. And the hit detection is crap, shoot some guy and they turn around and shoot me. Though I think it was the P2P system, as I kept getting disconnected.
copuis
Posted 04:10pm 10/11/11
BF3, failing to connect with gamers outside of the euro zone/US
trog
Posted 04:10pm 10/11/11
wonder how many free MW3 moomoo's dan and the boys got sent for giving it a 9.6 ;)
zero - as always, we don't get shit. Count the MW3 ads we have on the site. Zero.

There sure is a lot of random hate considering most people don't even seem to have played this game at all and just want to compare it to BF3.

Maybe Steve just thinks its a really good game and those few hundred or thousand people complaining about it are just the usual vocal whining minority out of the ~9 million or so other people that appear to have more than happily bought it in the HUNDRED HOURS since it came out?
Deviouz
Posted 04:13pm 10/11/11
HAHAHAHHA:

https://twitter.com/#!/GlenSchofield/status/134474564234256384

MW3 devs asking for ppl to help with the metacritic issue!
ravn0s
Posted 04:21pm 10/11/11
They give them good scores just to get on the commercials :P


hehe can see an ad already.

"9.6. GOTY!" - Steve Farrelly, Ausgamers


:P

last edited by ravn0s at 16:21:26 10/Nov/11
copuis
Posted 04:25pm 10/11/11
zero - as always, we don't get shit. Count the MW3 ads we have on the site. Zero.

There sure is a lot of random hate considering most people don't even seem to have played this game at all and just want to compare it to BF3.

Maybe Steve just thinks its a really good game and those few hundred or thousand people complaining about it are just the usual vocal whining minority out of the ~9 million or so other people that appear to have more than happily bought it in the HUNDRED HOURS since it came out?



Dan got to play it early....bonus!
then he had work because of it......negates bonus

best ask for some summer moomoos
Eorl
Posted 04:46pm 10/11/11
Eh, I've seen people who have bought it complaining as well. It's not just trolls trolling, but legitimate customers complaining as well.
trog
Posted 05:07pm 10/11/11
Eh, I've seen people who have bought it complaining as well. It's not just trolls trolling, but legitimate customers complaining as well.
Yeh, but, and no offence to anyone who did that, fuck those people for pre-ordering a game and not waiting until it was out to read reviews and stuff.

If you pre-order the game you basically lose all right to complain about it, because you decided to give them money before you had determined you were going to like the game before you had any real evidence to support that theory. Sure, there are some clues - have you enjoyed a game in this series before? Have you enjoyed a game by this developer before? What is their track record in delivering sequels? How many other games are out grabbing your attention at the moment? But those things are all just clues and the only real test is when you, or someone whose opinion you trust, get your hands on the game to actually finally play it.

I can imagine being pissed if you waited until it came out, read a bunch of reviews, bought it based on those reviews, and then went "hey, I don't think this game is nowhere near as good as those reviews said!" At the moment metacritic/gamerankings scores indicate to me that, statistically, it is probably unlikely that this would cover a really significant number of people though, unless every single other website that reviewed this game all got bought off and we're the only assholes who actually thought it was a good game :)

Our review at least explains in pretty painstakingly excruciating detail why Steve thought it was a good game; if you just look at the number and base your purchasing decision off that, well, that's probably not a great idea. But if you read the review and think that all that text stuff sounds like your cup of tea, it should align with the score and thus give you a good indication of whether or not this is the right game for you.

(Note: I haven't played a CoD game since the very first one because none of them have really appealed to me since, and the further along in the series we get the less interested I get. I think it has sooo much potential to be a really awesome game but it clearly is now a mass-market shooter and not a hardcore tacshooter thing, which is what I would like it to be. So YMMV with my comments; I am just talking about how I personally read reviews, and how I would like everyone in the world to behave :)
Ha
Posted 05:09pm 10/11/11
I think this is a long overdue outcry. Consumers don't want the same shit resprayed and pushed out onto the stage for reviewers to throw roses at their lazy feet.

Trog, don't get defensive. Steve's just doing what literally everyone else is doing. Like I say, this outcry was always going to happen, I just hope it gets louder and louder as games like MW3 do nothing for this industry.
trog
Posted 05:15pm 10/11/11
I'm not defensive at all; I'm not emotionally involved in this whatsoever - it doesn't bother me if yall disagree with Steve or not on this one (unless you have not played the game, in which case you're just being an irritant that is contributing nothing).

I am not surprised people here disagree with it based on the "it's an expansion pack" complaint because I feel like most of yall probably are more veteran than most and would be much more dismissive of such an approach. But I can totally imagine the more casual gamer picking this up and thinking it was the hottest thing since sliced bread.
Consumers don't want the same shit resprayed and pushed out onto the stage for reviewers to throw roses at their lazy feet.
Then they should stop pre-ordering and letting them rack up millions of sales before the game is even out.

As long as they can scrawl "Call of Duty" on a box in crayon and shovel some bits into it and people still buy it, they'll keep doing it!

Again, I repeat, I haven't played the game so am not making a comment on whether it is good or bad. I'm just saying the Same Old Thing I always say - stop buying the game until you've read a review from a trusted source.

If you trust AusGamers and Steve's review of CoD games, then that is great and I hope we continue to be a useful tool to help you decide where to spend money. If you don't trust our CoD reviews, then I hope you find some other place that aligns with your expectations or requirements so you can get the information you need before shelling out the bucks.
Ha
Posted 05:23pm 10/11/11
I completely redact my earlier statement. Apparently, consumers DO want the same shit repackaged and pushed out on stage to what must be, in sales terms, a standing ovation.

Was just thinking about how each 'madden' game outsells the last.

I guess I blame people like Steve, who have a voice that goes out to many people, when they don't use that voice to call them on lazy, cash grabbing safe formulas. Not only do they not call them on it, they praise it like it shits rainbows and pays for your sick relatives life-saving operation. Enough hyperbole. I'd write a letter but, you know, can't be arsed.
trog
Posted 05:30pm 10/11/11
I guess I blame people like Steve, who have a voice that goes out to many people, when they don't use that voice to call them on lazy, cash grabbing safe formulas.
It seems to me that part of the review also needs to take into consideration the game in isolation and not just as an extension of the series.

I take your point, but realistically if all games were reviewed like that it would be a pretty depressing read. That is probably how I, personally would write reviews - which is a large part of the reason I don't review any more; I know my reviews would generally be incredibly pessimistic and negative and noone wants to read what jaded old trog has to say about why Quake 3 was vastly superior in every possible way.

It is also interesting to note the Steam multiplayer stats: http://store.steampowered.com/stats . Almost everyone has jumped ship onto the new title from the old ones (we will have graphs of this later I hope).
Eorl
Posted 05:31pm 10/11/11
Well, the COD series in the past few years has been turned into the Madden, and so we will see a simple change in names/items then they'll call it a day.

Trog, people have obviously over-reacted what seems to be an iffy score for a glorified expansion, and I was one. It just doesn't seem right to grant such a high score for something that doesn't REALLY improve on a already existing template. To be honest, they could have easily added the new game mode in, and did the stats thing in a expansion pack for MW2. Really your just paying for more maps, a new game mode, stats for guns, a mix and match of perks/killstreaks, and a 5 hour story.
deadlyf
Posted 05:36pm 10/11/11
Yeh, but, and no offence to anyone who did that, fuck those people for pre-ordering a game and not waiting until it was out to read reviews and stuff.
But all the reviews seem to be really high scores, so waiting for the reviews seems like a waste of time in that regard. Also, not sure about COD particularly but there are heaps of incentives to preorder a game like discounted price, extra content or early access being applied now days.

I preordered BATMAN! on the basis of glowing reviews which is a rare thing to be able to do as reviews come out as the game gets released a lot of the time but because of the PC delay for BATMAN! I was able to make an informed purchasing decision. That early preorder meant I paid $40 for the game a few days before the price got regionally raped and doubled in price, if it wasn't for reviews coming out before the game was available I probably wouldn't even bother buying it (not really because there are alternatives to Steam for BATMAN!, but that's not always the case)

I'm not a fan of the decimal system in reviews, half points are acceptable IMO but these 9.6/9.7 type scores sound way to definitive.

Also negative metacritic scores by users aren't even worth commenting on, if you take the opinions of trolls seriously then you are doing it wrong.
Tollaz0r!
Posted 05:42pm 10/11/11
My only issues is with the scores being so high this year has seen some of the most incredible almost all time outstanding games released. Is this CoD (and BF3) seriously better then 99% of all other games ever released?
maRtz
Posted 06:16pm 10/11/11
User score distribution:
Positive: 377
Mixed: 63
Negative: 1,167

Metacritic user score of 2.8

It's a shit game, dodge review, end of story.

Can't say I'm pleased with the scores I've been seeing for games over the last year from a number of sites - they are like "it lacks X, falls short on Y, doesn't have Z ... but we'll give it almost a perfect score anyway!". Much more useful reading user comments to pick out the common themes/issues.
Reverend Evil
Posted 06:31pm 10/11/11
I'm looking forward to the single player part of it. I had heaps of fun playing MW2 SP so i'm hoping this will be more of the same. Will just wait till it comes down in price and then order from ozgameshop.
Enska
Posted 06:38pm 10/11/11
Lulz, hating on a game that is essentially the same as a game that pretty much everybody loved.
Its the new trend with the cool hipster kids, 18 months ago you couldn't get them to say a bad word about the SAME GAME.
trog
Posted 06:40pm 10/11/11
It's a shit game, dodge review, end of story.
Have you played it?
Enska
Posted 06:44pm 10/11/11
I for one look forward to some mp action on the weekend if I can pry myself out of Skyrim Heaven :D
Raider
Posted 09:58pm 10/11/11
Honestly are people suprised? IMO CoD1 was the best in the series, MW was pretty decent but it's gone downhill since then, not sure why people thought this repetition would be any different or better.
parabol
Posted 10:01pm 10/11/11
fuck those people for pre-ordering a game and not waiting until it was out to read reviews and stuff.

I still don't understand why people pre-order games. I don't think I've ever pre-ordered anything, ever. Also, pre-ordering makes many people think they are entitled to an awesome blockbuster experience since they handed over cash.
Eorl
Posted 10:14pm 10/11/11
I still don't understand why people pre-order games. I don't think I've ever pre-ordered anything, ever. Also, pre-ordering makes many people think they are entitled to an awesome blockbuster experience since they handed over cash.

I only pre-order games I know I will enjoy. Like Skyrim, or BF3.
Timmeh
Posted 10:35pm 10/11/11
This game is shit.
Nothing but a fucking mw2 port with a few shiny tweaks.
This P2P connection is bullshit, got my NAT finally open and still shit connections pair against US players and hackers.
The only thing they got right was the grammar.
This has killed the MW series for me and Im finding hard to justify $88 on a less than acceptable product.
Boxhead
Posted 11:22pm 10/11/11
I paid 40bux for it and to me, its 40bux worth of entertainment... About 1/2way through singleplayer and i've enjoyed it, some of the on rails bits are annoying to me and it almost felt like they're in some sort of separate physics world to the rest of the game..

I've run into some silly error in the goldpost mission where it crashes because im on a street instead of going through a building and getting a checkpoint thats in there.. (QA???) i thought that was the point of COD games, you get a different viewpoint of the battles and as you slaughter the enemy your guys magically move up??
SnotOne
Posted 01:48pm 14/11/11
The devs think the MW3 users score is ... "It’s suspiciously low"
On the contrary i find the so called expert critics opinions more sus as they review games before theyre out and what do they get for favourable comments. Just like some gardening shows full of new garden equipment and furniture... its a add.
Commenting has been locked for this item.
100 Comments
Show
 
Log In
User:  
Pass:  

Advertise with Us | Download Media Kit | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
© Copyright 2001-2014 AusGamers™ Pty Ltd. ACN 093 772 242.
A Mammoth Media web development / Australian VPS Hosting by Mammoth Networks