Modern Warfare 3 does its job making some profit, but at the expense of gameplay eerily similar to Modern Warfare 2.
I haven't played the campaign yet, so I'm not going to critique it since I haven't played it. So that leaves the multiplayer. So tell me; did I spend $60 on a brand new game, or a system update? There's something to be said for keeping things the same (if it ain't broke, don't fix it), but this is a video game. You don't have to drastically overhaul the gameplay, but why not add some things to it, like destructible environments, larger maps, vehicles, the like? Oh wait, Battlefield 3 has done all of that, so Modern Warfare 3 keeps just about everything the same from Modern Warfare 2, save for adding in some new modes and some new guns and some other small, unnoticable things. But I'm telling ya, the first time I played the game, I said out loud "is this modern warfare 2?" because the multiplayer gameplay, the graphics, the sound, all sound like Modern Warfare 2. Those who say this game has great graphcs obviously hasn't seen Battlefield 3's amazing graphics. They look so dated, like, perhaps, 2009 dated? Its quite dissapointing that more people will buy this game just because its Call of Duty, rather than because of the quality of the game. if you look at popularity, this game has that in spades. But as far as gameplay quality, its about as dissapointing as Duke Nukem Forever, simply because its like the developers were lazy and just wanted to make money, rather than make money and a good game. You can have both, its not that hard, guys. Modern Warfare 3 does its job making some profit, but at the expense of gameplay eerily similar to Modern Warfare 2.