Played all day multiplayer today. Here's what I think:

Positives:

• Connection to games seem to be much quicker than before and servers seem to be more stable.
• Modes are fun. I especially like kill confirmed.

Negatives:

• Maps are horrible. Like other people said, way too much cover; just plain bad design. Hopefully future maps are going to be a lot better or I'm going to be done with this game quick.
• Guns are stronger which makes you die way too fast.
• Nades are weak. I rarely kill anyone with them even when they are perfectly thrown. Dumb nerf.
• I don't know if it's just me but I can't seem to select a person's name from the score screen and check their COD gamer profile anymore to check their stats. Stupid if that is really the case.

I'll be dreadfully honest, I think Black Ops is superior to this. The maps were better and you didn't die in .005 seconds like you do in this.

[QUOTE="gamedude234"]

Death streaks and riot sheilds need to go. NOW.

WithoutGraceXII

You're doing something wrong then. Unless the person goes around you and shoots you on the side you're never gonna die from frontal bullets. Riot shields are dumb and really need to go.

Oh yes and I forgot. Shields are stupid. Why did they put them back in the game?

Multi is fun. Feels about the same as black ops to me though. Don't see what people find so different about them.

Only real negative is I find the maps suck. BIG time. I MUCH prefer the Black Ops maps.

Damn, didn't know cows were this upset. Can't acccept that Gears 3 >> UC3.

deathtarget04

Either you're good at selective reading or you must have missed the above posted chart.

People keep forgetting that even on 1 website (such as gamespot) reviews are not made by the same person. Another reviewer from Gamespot could have reviewed the game a 9.5 or a 10.

[QUOTE="Eggimannd"]

[QUOTE="Cloud567kar"]

Damage control. Its ok, in your world UC3 can still be better.

Cloud567kar

In the real world UC3 has a higher average on both Gamerankings and Metacritic. And those sites use averages instead of 1 score.

Sorry UC3 > Gears of War 3 in the real world.

UC3 got a 9, gears 3 got 9.5 deal with it. This is the real world.

Sorry I don't follow that "Gamespot scores are the law" thing on these forums. You know why? Because I use something called logic and I realize that Gamerankings and Metacritic are a lot more reliable/valid to judge how good a game is compared to IGN/Gamespot/or any 1 site.

[QUOTE="tormentos"]

[QUOTE="Gue1"]

OMG, cows are like little kids... Lemmings are saying that GeoW is better than UC because of the ".5" more that it got here on GS but is just to troll. So can you cows calm down now and stop posting MC stuff? We are on GS and if you like IGN more then what are you doing here? Beside, UC3 met the hype so move along. :lol:

Cloud567kar

Considering they were review by different persons that say nothing,Tom actually see flaws,the dude who rated Gears 3 apparently can't see them,because they are there,so i prefer Tom stay and that the dude who review Gears 3 go away.

Is not the fact that the game got 9.0 which is a great score,is the fact that some reviewers actually see flaws in games,and are able to rate lower based on those flaws,other reviewers can't,the fact that one reviewer rate Gears 3 9.5 and ignore its flaws,doesn't mean Gears 3 is better after all the flaws are there and will still be there,even if you ignore them.

Damage control. Its ok, in your world UC3 can still be better.

In the real world UC3 has a higher average on both Gamerankings and Metacritic. And those sites use averages instead of 1 score.

Sorry UC3 > Gears of War 3 in the real world.

Don't listen to anyone saying this game is not worth playing. I beat it again last year and it still holds up very well and is a great game. DEFINITELY worth playing (and i'm definitely not an uncharted fanboy or sony fanboy).