Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 [Download]
![Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 [Download]](http://ps3gamesonsale.com/review/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/fe1a3_PS3_Action_Games__51uKoRB2sOL._SL160_.jpg)
Customer Reviews
| 376 of 412 people found the following review helpful  HUGE fan of COD...and fairly disappointed, By Scuba Steve (Reston, VA, USA) - See all my reviews = Fun: This review is from: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 (Video Game) Before I start, please allow me to preface this review with three points:1) I love the COD franchise...and have played every title extensively. My wife will back that statement up...while she sighs and reevaluates her life choices. 2) BF2/BC2/BF3 are good games...and I will not bash them. That said, BF is a different experience, with huge battlefields, many different types of vehicles, and a range of player roles. COD is a different animal...and tends to be more of a "just drop into the action" experience. Choose whatever you like. This is a review of a COD title for COD fans...not a critique of BF3. 3) I play multiplayer on the PC almost exclusively, so I won't offer much in the way of comments on single player mode in this review. - So how is MW3 on the PC if you are a COD fan? Well, in my opinion, it's a step backwards for the franchise...and a relative low point for the overall series. MW3 does have its good points, but on balance, the game is a disappointment. I know that this opinion may not be popular, so please read on if you want to see why I feel this way. - >>> The good old days I started with the original COD title in 2003...and then jumped into COD:UO, which my gaming group modified heavily. The ability to host mods and custom maps on UO servers kept those servers running, fresh, and populated for years. COD2 provided a similar experience, but with much better graphics, but sadly, no vehicles. That said, we modded the heck out of it and just shut those servers down last month. That was the staying power of that game. COD4:MW (modern warfare) hit the streets and it was revolutionary...sadly though, also with no real "controllable" vehicles. Regardless, it was a great experience with fantastic graphics...and many innovations. - >>> Enter Treyarch...and World at War The three prior COD titles were developed by InfinityWard (IW) for Activision and they were all "game of the year" level titles. During that same time period, Activision had Treyarch develop COD3 exclusively for consoles...and it paled in comparison. After COD4, Activision had Treyarch develop COD:WAW (World at War) for the PC, which seemed to be a thin repackaging of COD4:MW, but set back in WW2. The good news was that they added drivable tanks and generally made a fairly decent game...but we were all still looking to IW for innovation. Treyarch, not so much. - >>> (Re)enter InifintyWard...and Modern Warfare 2 The next part is long, but relevant to MW3...I promise. IW next developed COD:MW2 and fans of COD on the PC were shocked. It was clear that IW's strategy was to converge the console and PC versions to the greatest extent possible...forcing PCs to drop to the lowest common (console) denominator. As part of that strategy, they also dropped support for "dedicated servers." The impact of that decision cannot be understated. PC fans were incensed. They were now forced to deal with "lobbies" instead of dedicated servers. No longer could they just join their favorite server and see their friends and get to meet other new folks who frequented that server. Instead, the game randomly threw 12 or so folks together, made one the host, and threw you into a match...after numerous stutters and hiccups. A bogged down or lagging host could also ruin the game...and if that host quit, everything came to a screeching halt while the server attempted to migrate the host...or not. The bigger issue, however, was that no one in the game had administrative (rcon) access...so hackers ruled. Fans of previous COD multiplayer titles know that Punkbuster and VAC do very little to stop hacking. With dedicated servers, the server admins in game would deal with such obvious hackers...but in MW2, those hackers raged with impunity. Even if you were the host, there was little that you could do. I cannot count the number of times that I was forced out of a game because a hacking player was raging with an obvious aimbot...while the anti-cheat software was oblivious. The sad thing is that MW2 was fairly fun...even if it was mostly just a minor evolution of COD4:MW...but lack of dedicated servers killed it. - >>> (Re)enter Treyarch...and Black Ops Treyarch stepped back up to the plate with COD:BO...and while it was once again a minor evolution of the franchise, dedicated servers were back. Well, sort of. You had to rent them from one provider and they were not very mod-able, but at least you could set game type, map rotation, and HAVE ADMIN ACCESS (i.e., rcon). Once again, hackers needed to run and hide...because they didn't last long on well-monitored servers. Yes, a minor evolution, but still a very good time. BO also supported "unranked" servers that supposedly supported... Read more 22 of 23 people found the following review helpful Nothing new, By = Fun: This review is from: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 (Video Game) They should have called it MW2.1. The campaign is basically gunning down one alley after another. The helicopter always gets blown up. The enemy troops are scripted. Multiplayer is basically the same as MW2 with some major revamps of the kill streaks, ect. Lucky for them, I liked MW2 so I like this game, but quite frankly, I am going to bed now rather than playing because it just doesn't draw me in like it MW2 used to. 62 of 74 people found the following review helpful  An embarassment even for the Call of Duty franchise., = Fun:  This review is from: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 (Video Game) In order to understand how pointless the COD experience feels, it's important to note the lack of effort on the part of the sound department. Many times you will turn around and end up shooting a friendly in the back because you just can't hear what's going on. Even in the sneakiest parts you will hear nothing but a cacophany of enemy chatter and weapons sounds and those overpowered by a lumbering and anticlimactic musical score. Good luck hearing a footstep or even determining the direction of enemy fire. It's as if the mix team just mashed the sliders all the way up and let it be. The sounds that one would expect to drown out all others, such as your own weapon or a tank firing directly beside your ears, are barely perceptible in the mush of everything else.Because it's basically impossible to hear enemies, the simplest way to locate them is stand up in the open and wait until you start to get hit. Don't worry, apparently in COD world, bullets aren't lethal projectiles but merely wads of goo which slap you in the face, blurring your vision until you expire from blindness, so don't do this for too long. If you're waiting for a pickup, keep your head on a swivel, because that SF little bird will just ninja on down behind you without a sound, and you'll be waiting for something to happen only to turn around and find a silent helicopter just chilling there a meter away. Maybe it's unnecessary to expound upon, but graphically nothing has been done to this game for about four or five generations, so expect the same old same old as far as scenery. It may be that gamers feel a few 4 hour campaigns and some multiplayer kicks are well worth their 0 without any sort of development in terms of the actual game engine. Now I know the vast majority of gamers couldn't care less about inaccuracies so I won't begin a tirade expounding on COD's "unrealism" but as a former Recon operator I can tell you there are thousands of them. In addition to the lack of anything resembling realistic details, I found that with regards to scenario "preposterosity", COD takes the cake. As the Russian fleet attempts to displace the water of New York harbor by cramming as many boats as possible into the smallest area, your team takes a DPV ride down to an enemy submarine which is trying to fit into the Hudson to get its cruise missiles within range of California. After planting charges on the hull you detonate at a good safe distance of 5 meters, disabling the vessel. Fortunately for you, Navy SEALs are trained to absorb shock waves and turn them into large doses of awesome. As your team egresses via Zodiac, you weave in and out of the exploding Russian ships directly into the open hatch of a Chinook helicopter which is just hanging out in a few feet of water. No worries, we've got twin rotors---plenty of lift to handle a few tons of extra weight. Now, maybe some gamers will get a thrill out of performing such things, but I just couldn't stop laughing. ...and Operation One Man National Asset doesn't end there. The preposterous and impossible exploits just keep coming. One moment you jump from the 8th story onto the pavement and hop up to carry Soap away to safety... apparently he's just a weakling and is unable to shrug off such minor injuries. Another you fight your way through a large castle, placing three satchels from your bottomless rucksack, then end up driving over a cliff---but what's this? you just happen to have another full sized parachute on you---I wonder what pocket that one was hiding in... At this point most gamers no longer expect to be handed a spoonful of sugar with their daily Commercialized Electronic Babysitting Session, but as an old time PC gamer I'll have to wait my turn for the next Portal or Company of Heroes. As the average gamer progressively drops in intelligence and creativity, the battlefield hand-holding seemingly increases. While playing COD one feels simultaneously god-like and completely unnecessary. There are no choices whatsoever to make, and no tactical ability required to succeed. If this is your cup of tea, go rent "Commando" and you'll have both hands free to handle the doritos and beer. If not, and you are interested in an experience with a shred of mental stimulation, look to Valve or Relic for something worth your cash. Edit: I originally had written 6 hour campaign but looked at the menu and it said I had actually only spent 4 hours---and I'm the type who doesn't just sprint through games, I like to check out the scenery a bit too. |
Share your thoughts with other customers: 
› See all 219 customer reviews... Logitech PlayStation 3 Cordless Precision Controller
- Model -- 940-000018
- Type -- Precision Controller
- Compatibility -- For PS3
- Feature -- Cordless
- Color -- Black
Customer Reviews
| 45 of 45 people found the following review helpful  Decent controller, not as awful as everyone says, By = Fun: This review is from: Logitech PlayStation 3 Cordless Precision Controller (Video Game) I don't normally give reviews, but I thought this one needed some positive feedback.The controller is (as someone else said) basically a PS2 controller. Although it does have PS button to use for the XMB menu. As stated, it does not have tilt sensors and requires a USB port. However, the controller works very well and since I have 1 game that uses tilt controls optionally (Warhawk), I didn't see this as a drawback. However, one should keep this in mind when they make the purchase. It is a great controller to pick up if you won't require tilt, as it is less than the OEM Sony controller. The lack of bluetooth means 2 things: 1) You cannot turn the PS3 on with this controller, and 2) it requires a USB port to operate. No big deal. Another plus of this controller is that it works with the PC. I plugged it right in to my PC using WinXP and Ubuntu and both picked it up fine. Nice bonus. So, if you don't need tilt and don't have issues with using a USB dongle, this is a great buy. 21 of 21 people found the following review helpful Almost perfect, By olajoe (Aurora, CO) - See all my reviews = Fun: This review is from: Logitech PlayStation 3 Cordless Precision Controller (Video Game) Obviously it doesn't have six axis and you can't turn on the system but you can turn it off. But the controller is a little bit heavier and it feels a little wider because the outer grips are more narrow shaped. I laid one on top the other (Sony) and it's very noticeable. This controller is also taller because of the battery housing which for me it feels like there is more reach or space in between when using the L/R buttons on top and triggers on the bottom. Compared to the Sony controller this one also has a bit more plastic and that added with the weight of the batteries makes it feel more durable. So if you got bigger hands or you like to have a firm grip for me this controller felt a little bit more comfortable and definitely worth the reduced cost. By the way, I have used this to play through more than a handful of PS3 games and it works great. 23 of 25 people found the following review helpful  This product is better than the PS3 Syaxis, By Tg2 "eat_sleep_golf" (Los Angeles, CA USA) - See all my reviews = Fun: This review is from: Logitech PlayStation 3 Cordless Precision Controller (Video Game) Well I'm not quite sure why everyone says this controller doesn't let them get to the PS3 menu's with a "PS3" button because it sure works for me.Here's why I like it : 1. It feels bigger and more solid than the PS3 wireless controller. (To me the original Syaxis is too small and feels cheap). 2. It seems to move smoother in shooters, more accurate as well. 3. It's a piece of cake to plug-in and get working. And it stays working - you don't have to relink it every time. 4. So far the battery life seems very good. Much better solution for me... Good Luck! |
Share your thoughts with other customers:
› See all 65 customer reviews... Brin Andrews PS3 Games On Sale PS4 Games price comparison PS3 Updates and News http://ps3updates.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment