Modern Warfare 3 isn't exactly bad, but the series is in desperate need of even the tiniest bit of evolution.
It isn't that Modern Warfare 3 is bad. In fact, if you absolutely loved the previous installments of the series and you're completely ok with little being changed, then stop reading and know that the game is fine from a technical/performance stand point.
However, for players on the fence and for this holiday season packed with new titles, Modern Warfare 3 does very little to change views and stand out of the crowd. Sure, the campaign is jam packed with huge set pieces and this does conclude the over arching story of the Modern Warfare series, it's just that it fails to bring anything new to the table.
Practically nothing has changed from the first Modern Warfare title to this one, and considering it's absolutely packed with potential that's just a shame that it hasn't been tweaked. The only difference here is that you visit new locations and occasionally have a new gun. Some of the attachments that are added, such as two separate sights attached to the same weapon, are pretty cool. However, the game just plays the same and ends up giving a feeling of déjà vu because of it. Yeah, you're fighting Russians in New York City, but it doesn't feel any different than when you fought the terrorist organization in the Middle East.
Enemies and their tactics haven't changed. At all. It's this complete lack of evolution that has been plaguing the Call of Duty series for years now. Most firefights are fought simply by pushing forward, and while it can deliver this rush of adrenaline from time to time it's just recycling the same old tricks. Enemies don't flank, they'll just stick to their designated spot and fire. Enemies never go prone, they just stand there and occasionally duck under cover. Enemies also don't reload, and they'll just continue to fire until they're dead. If there were some more personal fights, it would be better. Maybe you fight swarms of enemies in typical Call of Duty fashion, and then you have an intense fight with well trained Spetsnaz soldiers who are fewer in numbers but hide, used silenced weapons, and try to flank the player and catch him off guard. Nope, it's the same here as it was in Black Ops, and as it was in Modern Warfare 2, and as it was in World at War, and so on.
Now, for the campaign alone Modern Warfare 3 simply isn't worth the price of admission. The game itself isn't bad, and has some pretty grand moments that are worth seeing for anyone that wants to see the conclusion to the story, but it's just not worth $60. The game is over in 4-5 hours, which is less than some downloadable only titles released in recent memory. Plus there isn't a lot of replayability given the game's linear design. You'll have to watch everything again, fight the battles in the same way again, and so on. The campaign can be a lot of fun, regardless but there isn't a lot of incentive to do it again.
Of course Call of Duty is famous for its multiplayer, and that's all here as well. Unfortunately, aside from a new mode or two and a few new gadgets to use, it's basically the same as past Call of Duty titles. Very little has changed. Honestly, the formula itself doesn't need a whole lot of tweaking (well, shotguns here can use a buff) but the game, or series as a whole, does. Modern Warfare 3 runs on the same graphics engine as Black Ops, and the titles before it. It has all the same animations, a lot of the weapons return, and it really presents this overwhelming "been there-done that" in a new title. A few new animations, an overhaul on the sound design, and a boost in graphic power would do the series nicely. Unfortunately, it just feels dated. The developers at Sledgehammer Games have claimed they don't care about graphics so long as they nail the 60 frames per second, which is a fine notion that they don't want to sacrifice performance simply to make the game look prettier. Unfortunately, Rage just proved you can have state of the art graphics with the 60 frames, so it's a bit sad Call of Duty is using such a dated engine. Especially considering how much these games make in sales, you'd think Activision would shell out some extra cash to put the graphics back on the map.
The only major difference here is the inclusion of Survival mode, which itself is basically Infinity Ward's take on what Treyarch accomplished with Nazi Zombies. Here, however, you're fighting soldiers wave after wave instead of zombies. The mode functions extremely well and can be a blast, especially with friends. It also has this ridiculous attitude about it (such as exploding dogs) that make it a lot of fun since it doesn't take itself too seriously. The Survival mode is a good addition and deserves mention alongside of the returning Spec Ops, which is also good co op fun. However, even as fun as these modes it isn't going to convince anyone that's just tired of the Call of Duty formula which ends up plaguing the entire package.
There's just something to be said about a title that's recycling the same animations and physics time and time again. Plus in comparison with other titles on the market, it simply put looks, plays, sounds, and feels dated. It isn't a bad game, but for gamers looking for something new and exciting this isn't it.
Although despite the overall lack of evolution it's hard to argue with Call of Duty's success. Millions of people love this series and it performs well and continues to deliver what fans cry for. If only they'd dish out the extra man power and push the game forward. It would be amazing to mix the intensity of Call of Duty with more fluid, lifelike animations and improve the overall look and feel of the game.