TechSpot: Modern Warfare 3 Tested, Benchmarked

As you've undoubtedly heard, Modern Warfare 3 launched this week and, well, what can we say? The game has reportedly sold a record 9.3 million copies in a single day. It should be noted though that over 50% of those are Xbox copies and less than 4% comprise PC sales, according to VGChartz.

As usual we'll refrain from pretending we've played the game enough to form a comprehensive opinion about it, but external reviews suggest the game is a valid sequel that doesn't bring new elements but instead relies on the same old formula with a few tweaks to deliver an overall fun game to play. PC Gamer concluded about the PC version: "Modern Warfare 3 is linear, badly written and one note. It’s still, from a certain angle, regressive. It’s also fun."

In terms of graphical fidelity, Infinity Ward's latest effort is about as visually appealing as its predecessor, which was about as visually appealing as its predecessor. No, I don't stutter. Unfortunately, the company has focused on optimizing the game for consoles while ignoring PC development for the last five years. If you're itching to see how your DirectX 10 or 11 GPU handles a DX9 engine, then maybe MW3 has something to offer you.

Read: CoD: Modern Warfare 3 Tested, Benchmarked

These articles are brought to you in partnership with TechSpot.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Droid RAZR launches; Amazon offering phone for $111.11

Next Story

Xbox Skyrim owners see texture issues with hard drive install

37 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Eberton Sobreira said,
I really didn't like CAMPERFIELD. Big maps sucks. I don't like realism, I like to have fun and see how many I killed.

BF3 is camper prone? You obviously never played Call of Duty. It's more camping there.

Problem i have with this game it's, it's the same as the old one, not even 1 amelioration, they just balanced it out. Superman Perk makes it extremely crappy too. I mean there's something wrong when a game gets release and half the people are at LV32, 4 hours after the release..

Started playing MW3 last night and Im sorry but BF3 has it this year. The game looks very dated now on PC, with things like trees and textures looking low res and naff. Thats at max settings aswell.

Gameplay wise its a lot of fun, but only because its got the MW2 story continuing through it. Black ops didnt have as strong a story and deff within my circle of friends it was felt that it didnt quiet hit the target.

COD needs a drastic re-think in terms of engine and even if the MW story keeps the series above water, its deff lost a lot of its magic and feels like its holding on for dear life.

Not to mention they,ll need a new story next year or is it Black Ops : 2?

Personally I,ll be doing this, COD Mw3 for some SP training, BF3 for the main event

Gabe3 said,
now that BF3 is out I don't know anyone who will be buying MW3.

BF3 will be deserted in no time. COD will not. You know it and so does everyone else;) You don't know anyone who will be buying it? They sold 6.5 million copies in 24 hours. Shut down your computer and go to bed.. please.

puma1 said,

BF3 will be deserted in no time. COD will not. You know it and so does everyone else;) You don't know anyone who will be buying it? They sold 6.5 million copies in 24 hours. Shut down your computer and go to bed.. please.

I disagree. But you can say what you wish

puma1 said,

BF3 will be deserted in no time. COD will not. You know it and so does everyone else;) You don't know anyone who will be buying it? They sold 6.5 million copies in 24 hours. Shut down your computer and go to bed.. please.


console kiddies can have their same 6 year old reskinned engine . in fact i urge them to get it instead of BF3, before we know it dice will dub down the game to 32 player servers like the console version is limited to and ass ugly graphics. play your COD and tell your buddies not to get BF3 please.

Gabe3 said,

console kiddies can have their same 6 year old reskinned engine . in fact i urge them to get it instead of BF3, before we know it dice will dub down the game to 32 player servers like the console version is limited to and ass ugly graphics. play your COD and tell your buddies not to get BF3 please.

Yep! and there should be a minimum age requirement to be able to purchase the pc version of BF3, that way all the kids can stay in cod land without bothering the grown-ups.

Order_66 said,

Yeah, just like BC2 and BF2 was deserted in no time /s

Still a busy/plenty of BF22 ranked servers and mod servers even today almost 6 years after release, so no sire your ill-informed on the BF2 front

Gabe3 said,

console kiddies can have their same 6 year old reskinned engine . in fact i urge them to get it instead of BF3, before we know it dice will dub down the game to 32 player servers like the console version is limited to and ass ugly graphics. play your COD and tell your buddies not to get BF3 please.

Actually the Engine is a modified version of the 12 year old idTech 3 engine, the same one used by Quake 3 and even the original Call of Duty.

Mando said,

Still a busy/plenty of BF22 ranked servers and mod servers even today almost 6 years after release, so no sire your ill-informed on the BF2 front


I think Order 66 was being sarcastic that BF2 and BC2 were dead but I could be wrong, lol

The "console-ization" of the FPS genre is a shame. The genre has become so diluted and dumbed down to appease the casual console crowd (where the money is) that all these titles seem to blur together.

Cash Money Billionaire said,
The "console-ization" of the FPS genre is a shame. The genre has become so diluted and dumbed down to appease the casual console crowd (where the money is) that all these titles seem to blur together.

More like, developers/publishers have. Halo 1 was a good FPS, Halo 2 was a good FPS. After 2006-7 console FPS's got bad.

Cash Money Billionaire said,
The "console-ization" of the FPS genre is a shame. The genre has become so diluted and dumbed down to appease the casual console crowd (where the money is) that all these titles seem to blur together.

If you have a PS3, give the Killzone series a shot. Skip Killzone 1 though (PS2), it blows, but Killzone 2 and 3 have awesome campaigns in my opinion.

Xerax said,

More like, developers/publishers have. Halo 1 was a good FPS, Halo 2 was a good FPS. After 2006-7 console FPS's got bad.
You do realize that the halo series is actually a perfect example of "dumbing-down" of fps games right? (not to mention it was never better than an "average" game at best)

Blackhearted said,
You do realize that the halo series is actually a perfect example of "dumbing-down" of fps games right? (not to mention it was never better than an "average" game at best)
I would have to disagree, I found the story/gameplay one of the best I've ever played. I still find it on par with CSS.

Blackhearted said,
You do realize that the halo series is actually a perfect example of "dumbing-down" of fps games right? (not to mention it was never better than an "average" game at best)

+1

Halo was the beginning of the end imo. Terrible FPS that prompted the whole consolitis of the FPS genre.

Samir Sam said,
The game is awesome, fantastic graphics plus the maps rock

Indeed, the multiplayer maps have been REALLY well designed so far. I've never enjoyed Team Deathmatch as much as I am right now and I've only been playing this for a day or two.

Don't see why they even bothered to benchmark the game. It uses the same outdated modified idtech3 that it's used for many many years. So it's obvious it'll run on almost anything.

At least they focused on making it fun, watch a demo video of BF3, all they talk about are the animations and how good the engine is, I think Battlefield 3 forgot they were making a game.

McKay said,
At least they focused on making it fun, watch a demo video of BF3, all they talk about are the animations and how good the engine is, I think Battlefield 3 forgot they were making a game.

It's actually very fun to play, the realism makes you feel more like you're really in combat, and less like you're playing a game. At least in my opinion.

Gerowen said,

It's actually very fun to play, the realism makes you feel more like you're really in combat, and less like you're playing a game. At least in my opinion.

their is nothing realistic about battlefield...

rajputwarrior said,

their is nothing realistic about battlefield...

I disagree but that's because everyone's entitled to their own opinion.

rajputwarrior said,

their is nothing realistic about battlefield...

+1 Unless someone thinks that shooting a person 4 times with a sniper rifle before they are dead is realistic.

McKay said,
At least they focused on making it fun, watch a demo video of BF3, all they talk about are the animations and how good the engine is, I think Battlefield 3 forgot they were making a game.

It's better than CoD. Better graphics, realistic sniper bullet drop, aeroplanes, tanks., knifing, guns, etc. I see CoD 2.5 as nothing like that. Hell CoD's graphics suck more than anything out there.

KomaWeiss said,

It's better than CoD. Better graphics, realistic sniper bullet drop, aeroplanes, tanks., knifing, guns, etc. I see CoD 2.5 as nothing like that. Hell CoD's graphics suck more than anything out there.

I enjoyed the hell out of CoD's single player campaign, but I really bought it for multiplayer and there is no comparison. This is like Quake 3 Arena level fun. And so I am a very satisfied customer.

I look forward to a BF3 demo, because playing a game isn't all about the eye-candy.

excalpius said,

I enjoyed the hell out of CoD's single player campaign, but I really bought it for multiplayer and there is no comparison. This is like Quake 3 Arena level fun. And so I am a very satisfied customer.

I look forward to a BF3 demo, because playing a game isn't all about the eye-candy.

Quake is old school. BF3 requires teamwork. Something CoD people don't understand. BF3 isn't running in like Rambo. You will never last, if you do that. In CoD, that is normal. Hence the difference.

Graphics it is all about it. Would you still buy CoD, if it looked like a game on Atari? No you wouldn't.

CoD doesn't change anything, unlike other games.

KomaWeiss said,

Quake is old school. BF3 requires teamwork. Something CoD people don't understand. BF3 isn't running in like Rambo. You will never last, if you do that. In CoD, that is normal. Hence the difference.

Graphics it is all about it. Would you still buy CoD, if it looked like a game on Atari? No you wouldn't.

CoD doesn't change anything, unlike other games.

I dont get the BF3 OR COD arguments I see online, why cant they both be good games in theiir oown right, why do people have to be a COD player or a BF3 player? I own both on PC and play them both online, I prefered the COD single player and enjoy the online experience, but I mainly play COD for quick games, one off etc when I dont have much time - When I do have some time free and want a proper game I play BF3 as its just more involving - as you said teamwork is key and I love the sense of being part of a bigger thing, in COD you dont get this, but what you do get is the thrill of feeling invicible, getting on mad killstreaks and calling in airstrikes etc, its like a super rambo feeling.

Compairing them is daft and pointless, they are 2 different games that focus on different game play and can both be enjoyed by people.

Graphically BF3 is the best looking game I've played, the new engine is awsome and will only get better, but that doesnt mean COD looks like crap, what they've done with that old Quake 3 engine is amazing - but it is showing its age a little now.