Talk:Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

Invasion of England?

I don't think England is invaded in the game, but rather an attempted terrorist attack occurs there. Just thought I ought to clarify that. Grieferhate (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Also, should this not be the United Kingdom??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.41.6 (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

well it depends whether you play in England or the whole of the united kingdom. i doubt any missions will occur in scotland, wales or NI so England is probably correct.

Well France, Germany and the U.S are invaded i doubt England wouldn't be invaded to 50.98.122.61 (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

System requirements?

CPU: Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz / Athlon 64 X2 4400+ Grahpic: Geforece 8800+ / Radeon X1800 Series RAM: 2GB+ (4GB rec.) DirectX: 9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balamba 500 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You have to provide a source (URL). —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 10:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

60 FPS!?

I'd like to request that the second sentence be removed from the Gameplay section, as it's out of context. ("It will run at 60 frames per second, minimum."). It refers to the PS3 version, and in the context of a videogame the statement makes no sense. 98.14.81.78 (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It should still be included, be reworded. It's not exactly surprising it'll run at 60 fps, considering Mw2 did the same (back on the PS3 anyway) It should say something like "the Playstatoin 3 version will be capable of 60 frames per second". Oh, and what's with the "minimum" part at the end of it? Pretty sure it can't get much more powerful than 60 fps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.105.15 (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It will only run @60fps in Consoles because the settings are preset and rendered at lowered resolutions than PCs (720p to be exact) using the same hardware, but rendered @1080p, it will not be able to achieve the same 60fps. Given a much weaker hardware or older hardware on PCs, it will not run @ 60fps as well. not to mention PC versions are able to be rendered at resolutions higher than 720p, (eg. 1080p and 1600p) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greghome (talk • contribs) 15:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 14 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In the Call of Duty: Modern Warefare 3 Wiki page, a Delta soldier should not be described as an "operative". The term operative is reserved for agents of the CIA or paramilitary forces. A man who was in Delta Force, and wrote a book on it(Eric Haney) specifically says that Delta men can't be called operatives or agents, because those have to do with the federal or clandestine parts of the government. "Operator" is the correct term for Teir 1 personnel and certain Teir 2. So Navy SEALs, DEVGRU members, and Delta soldiers should be, and are referred to in actuality as "Operators", not operatives.

Operator Spook (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Surely, a fictional game can call things anything they want? I just played an online game where 100 feet-high mushrooms destroyed a city. If you want to make a change to this article, you'll need to show reliable sources that support whatever facts you intend to add.  Chzz  ►  06:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

 Not done

3 not 2

Online somewhere I saw that MW3 has a 3 player Co-Op....Dose it really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.64.216 (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about, sir/mam? If you want to discuss a general topic of Modern Warfare 3, that has nothing to do with improving the article, then remember that Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM. If that is not the case, can you be a little specific on your question and its relevance to the article? Thanks. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ratings?

Do we have any sources for the ratings? The rating for Modern Warfare 3 is not even on the PEGI website. 92.13.247.49 (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

all ratings are now up other than the BBFC, but they have announced it as an 18, containing strong bloody battle violence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.126.70 (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

BF3 Trade in?

Should you include the thing where if you trade in BF3 to Gamestop, you can buy MW3 for a dollar (only in UK I believe) under marketing?

http://www.qj.net/pc-gaming/genre/trade-in-battlefield-3-get-modern-warfare-3-for-1.html I found this article on it but IDK if it constitutes a valid source etc. Someone else do it plox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.93.25 (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

the decisions of one retailer should not be included, especially as it isnt a major retailer it is not really relevant (game, gamestation, asda, tesco, sainsburys are the main UK retailers for games). also i doubt this source is valid, this is not the retailers website, its just like a forum or something. also i think adding this in would not add anything to the article, apart from advertising gamestop UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.201.105 (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sandman actor

Edits were made today to a Wikia for MW3, as well as this article, and the William Fichtner article, stating that he is voicing Sandman. This conflicts with the IDBM list of voice actors, and does not appear on Fichtner's IDBM. The reference being used it a youtube video where Fichtner is revealed to be voicing a character, however the video apparently does not state which character and Fichtner's article simply stated "Unknown". An interview WITH Fichtner described him as voicing Sandman, however. IGN posted the article, but as it was an interview with the actor would it count as reliable?

I don't know if the video and interview trump IDBM, but having looked into it some, I think it needs resolved. Every source I found for Meloni seems to be referencing IDBM, with no interviews or announcements. ferret (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

IMDB is not a qualified source for the material, so with that I would say the video and interview have the trump card and should be used as a source untill a better one can be found. Is it not in the credits for the gameBeefcake6412 (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find an actual list of credits, since the game won't be released for a few more days. ferret (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 8 November 2011

Ign gave MW3 a leaked review of 9/10

24.26.215.169 (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.--Hallows AG (talk) 07:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 8 November 2011

Joystiq rated it a 4.5/5.

75.108.232.117 (talk) 09:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Provide a source, and request the edit again. CTJF83 17:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

IGN review

how can this even be included? it was done before the game had been released, so how can they praise the multiplayer when no one is online to play it? it is clearly a fake review by IGN from pressure/bribes from activision. i dont think it should be included in the article as it is so clearly biased. take it out and replace it with real reviews please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.201.105 (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It's common for reviewers to have early copies, and they're often allowed to play together or with the developers. In short, no to your request. IGN is a reliable source, and it wouldn't be removed because your opinion is they were bought off. ferret (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The professional reviewers getting it earlier is no surprise, but the problem seems to be that the professional reviewers seem to have been paid to write what they have written. They have been complaining about all the endless lack of innovation in other games and given them poor ratings because of this, and yet this game that lacks so little change in graphics and gameplay, gets such a perfect review ? im puzzled. not to mention the average user rating of only 1.4/10 on sites like metacritic, with only 6 out of 48 users giving it a positive rating, and 4 having mixed thoughts about it, plus 38 people that has rated it below 4/10.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3 --Greghome (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Greg

Do you have a source that backs up a claim that the reviewers have been paid? It "seems like" is not something we can include in the article. Keep in mind as well that the IGN review was for an XBOX 360 copy, not a PC copy. User reviews also do not reflect truthfulness and cannot be verified that the user leaving the review even played the game. For example, large numbers of PC gamers left negative feedback for MW2, over the removal of dedicated servers, as a form of boycott without playing or buying the game. As a reliable source, unless discovered and published by another source, we trust that IGN has actually played the game. Until such time that there's evidence that IGN is faking reviews, it is a valid review. ferret (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Leaked copies

I know it says that some early copies were put up on ebay and some cost $1,500, but I'd like to add that one copy *sold* for $1,725 on ebay. Source: IGN and several other websites, http://ps3.ign.com/articles/121/1211626p1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.84.91.6 (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

User & Critic Reviews

I'll just leave these here, as per the reception of the game from the eyes of the gamers and critics

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3

http://www.metacritic.com/game/wii/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3

http://www.metacritic.com/game/ds/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3-defiance

78.160.10.147 (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It never ceases to amuse me that Wikipedia's standard for a game's "Reception" entry is several paragraphs reflecting critic reviews and at most a single sentence about user response.

Not like this is an industry notorious for having paid-off critics, or anything.

probably important to note; user score on metacritic is 1.4/10 for PC, while XBOX is at about 2.5/10. large criticism about un-originality from a few sources, mostly independent reviews rather than paid writers. also kinda agree with IGN effectively being ignored. tend to be uninformed/biased in most things i've seen em do.... i'd simply suggest looking on say user reviews on gamespot or metacritic, also important to state the difference between PC and console scores (console scores tend to be higher *cough low standards cough*) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.12.14 (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

So Yeah... I somebody going to write a sentence or two about user reception? 178.191.249.132 (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Pretty sure the 500 0's given by users are just as biased as the high scores of the critics. Superman hardly deserves a 0 much less Call of Duty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.10.173 (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Even if this game completely rocked the hell out of gaming, I doubt the score would have gone above four in the user ratings. Seriously, the ratings are so skewered with both critics and the fans that neither are reasonable...but I tend to agree with critics more so than I agree with users, especially since I know personally several of those full blown zeroes and not one has even *played* the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.167.250 (talk) 08:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

japanese release

I've modified the Japanese release part some days ago but somebody didn't allow any single change. Please make sentences from "In Japan, Square Enix will handle..." more formal and compact, and add reference like I did in this diff[1](The moving was wrong so it don't have to be moved) I can't edit it myself because I'm afraid it will be reverted again. red_romanov (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 9 November 2011

I think a couple of changes might be required to the voice casting bit of this article. The article claims that the character 'Truck' is voiced by Troy Baker but this is incorrect - Troy Baker actually voices the character of 'Grunt' (which is on Troy Bakers personal Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_Baker)). The character of 'Truck' is voiced by Idris Elba although I am having trouble finding a source to confirm this. I can confirm, however, that Idris Elba is in the credits at the end of the game under voice artists. 90.218.204.99 (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Iris Elba is Truck's voice actor

Please change this as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.169.195 (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

eBay

"Copies for more than US$1,500 have appeared for bid on eBay." This does not sound dramatic enough. If I put one on eBay for $1,000,000 can I update this or or would that count as OR? Kwenchin (talk) 05:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's notable, to be honest. Undue weight. ferret (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 9 November 2011

The reference to the site Metacritic is misleading. The reference claims a score of 9.0 but on the site it is clearly visible that the game is not received well by the community (a score of 2.6).

It should in my opinion not link to: http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3/critic-reviews but to: http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3 and reflect the user score or at least a remark in the review commentary.

This to maintain objectivity for this subject. No personal motivation apart from misleading information on Wikipedia.

Propereditor (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The user reviews have no use for Wikipedia's standards. Unless a reliable source comments on the fact that the user reviews are so low. Plus, none of those people know what they are talking about. It happens all the time with sequels. Silly fanboys wanted more, and didn't get it, so they rage. It has only been a day an a half(not counting the few people who got it early somehow). Let more reviews come in and balance it out. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Reviews template

Reception

Aggregate scores

Aggregator	Score
GameRankings	(PS3) 88.29% (X360) 90.10%
Metacritic	90/100 (X360) 88/100 (PS3)

I pulled this back up out of the history of the article. I understand why Gary is removing it, as the template states to only fill in scores that are used within the prose of the Reception section. However, someone took the effort to source all of the scores, so I wanted to throw the full template back up on the talk page so people would have the sources to work with and build into the Reception, which currently is tagged for expansion. I set it to collapsed to avoid messing with the talk page too much. ferret (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. We have to be particularly aggressive with the reviews section here because it'll quickly become a bloated mess like a lot of other articles that people don't pay any attention to anymore; we should be focused on the section's content, not its infoboxes. Once you reach past a certain number of reviews, then any more and it really becomes unnecessary. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That was me who filled in the template. My apologies if I put too many scores on there. I figured that's what was going to be put up anyway, seeing as how every major video game has a lot of scores in the template. Look at Modern Warfare 2. But you're right, we should focus on the section text. Just thought I'd help. Legend6 (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2011 (EST)

No problem, your work is appreciated, which is why we've still saved it here for future reference. Looking at MW2, yeah that Reception section and the box is hideous. Gary King (talk · scripts) 21:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

reception

I looked at metacritic. While I am aware this is not a standard procedure, but I think we should at least mention that the average review from the users was 2.5/10 with 1148 rating heavily criticizing the lack of innovation in the new game. I mean, Wikipedia is supposed to be informative. If so many people feel innovation is missing, at least we should inform them of that. It is no secret, after all, that mainstream critics "protect" big franchises because it brings much work for them too... 77.49.91.47 (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It is rated 2.5 because the people who reviewed it are idiots. No person seriously rating the game would give it a score under 5. It seriously does not deserve a score that low in any way you look at it. A game with a score of 3/10 would be like a movie-game adaption which was seriously poorly done, and has horrible gameplay, graphics, and everything(Alvin and the Chipmunks). You can't say that Modern Warfare 3 is worse then a game like that. That is why user reviews are of no importance when writing a serious article like we are trying to do here on Wikipedia. You also have to think that many people may buy this as their first Call of Duty game ever. They need something to say whether this is worth buying over the other games in the series. They don't care that there is a "lack of innovation", because they have nothing to compare it to. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually the user score was decided to be included in another article as per talk page consensus for a game that suffered a similar fate on Metacrtiic (Portal 2). As editors it's not up to us to decide whether a game is good or not, we can simply objectively report on citable reactions. And seeing as the metacritic fan reaction has been noted by the gaming media (http://www.pcworld.com/article/243378/why_do_metacritic_users_hate_modern_warfare_3.html), it certainly warrants a mention just as much as it did for Portal 2. --77.215.75.103 (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok then. I have nothing more to say. The source seems adequate, but I still advise waiting until more people get the game, and more sensible people put in a vote. 2 days later is not a good time to start writing about average reviews. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 9 November 2011 (Metacritic)

While review scores from critics have been positive, over 400 metacritic user reviews have been negative, with a 2.5 user score. Most user reviews constantly saying the game "is overrated", "just Modern Warfare 2 with extra's", and even claiming that "Activision payed all the critics to give the game a high score". [76]

38.125.36.194 (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

400 is a small number considering how many have been sold, how many reviews have been positive? Kwenchin (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I added the info, with a ref. I agree that it needs to be mentioned somehow, because it reflects a segment of hardcore gamers voicing their frustration. Also, do note that the score for MW3 went down by a fairly significant amount since MW2. Yes, both games are considered "really good" by critics, but still, clearly critics see that there are things lacking from the last iteration, which the users simply magnify and focus on. Yes, the game will still sell millions; I already predicted that'd it'd easily outsell Black Ops. And yes, the Metacritic score will go up, but judging by previous games in the series, not by too much; it'll probably settle at about 3.5 or so. As someone mentioned above, mentioning user reviews on Metacritic has been done before, such as in Portal 2. The biggest problem really is that, at the moment the paragraph I added is pretty big in the Reception section; someone needs to step up and expand the Reception section as it's woefully inadequate at the moment. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

In Gamespot, avarage user score is 5.8 with 959 people voting. It is interesting, since the user scores in Gamespot is almost always around +-0.5 from the official review. Here's the link : http://www.gamespot.com/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3/user-reviews/platform/xbox360 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.175.13.151 (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, although there isn't much reason to include yet another review site unless there is additional information added explaining any specific grievances that the users there voice that isn't also mentioned on Metacritic. Also, a reliable, third-party ref would be better, such as the PC World one used to explain the whole Metacritic user review thing. Gary King (talk · scripts) 19:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the metacritic thing is note worthy. There is a large collective hatedom of Call of Duty on the internet. By giving the game 1/10 and such I think it's safe to say they are more interested in taking Call of Duty down a peg than actual interest in the quality of the series. Haters gonna hate. They've been copying and pasting the same complaints anywhere the words "Call of Duty" is uttered like it's some sort of demon that needs to be warded off. (I know this is dramatic but this is how I see it). We can mention the downvoting on metacritic but I think putting so much detail in their complaints is giving undeserved attention to trolls. I swear some people think Kotick is some kind of boogeyman hiding in their closet ready to jump out and remind them Call of Duty exists. 174.1.136.145 (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt that the criticism is a little excessive; surely the game is at least a 8/10, especially if you let it stand on its own rather than merely compare it to previous games in the series. A little mention should be fine, though. What's in the article now should really be all that is ever needed to mention on this topic, while Reception should eventually expand over time to several paragraphs long talking about what professional reviews think of the game. Gary King (talk · scripts) 21:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that the Metacritic user reviews for this game are not at all an auspicious representation of unbiased reasoning, especially since it seems evident to me that many of the low scores given to the game are from users who have not even played the game and write upon baseless assumptions (e.g. some mention a "2 hour" campaign even though this is false). This is aside from the fact that, if you look at the users who gave this game a low score, many of them also rated Battlefield 3 very highly and do not hesitate to reference that game in their reviews. While some of these reviews may be legitimate and cite reasonable concerns (such as the lack of innovation between Modern Warfare titles, even though the Call of Duty series has always been about evolution rather than revolution), a large number of them are simply hate-messages from, more-often-than-not, angry Battlefield 3 players who refuse to acknowledge the fact that most reputable critic reviewers rate Modern Warfare 3 higher than Battlefield 3.

Since it seems that Metacritic user reviews are actually mentioned in the Reception section, then all I can suggest is that the paragraph should be written with less subjective material. For example, take a look at this excerpt. "Players also criticized the apparent lack of skill required to succeed in the multiplayer mode, pointing to the fact that the series has now instead shifted to focusing on other things, such as the number of kill streak rewards and perks that a player can amass.[72]" If you actually visit the cited link, you'll notice that this criticism of "lack of skill" comes from *one* quoted user review, and only three are even mentioned in the PC World article. This is hardly what I would call a consensus among gamers.

Just my opinion. I own both games and am enjoying them both.

Edit: It seems that another editor has already edited out the Metacritic paragraph in the Reception section.

Kilkia123 (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me, if we are to include such stuff, we should also include every opinion out there. So far I am enjoying the game, so umm, let's add 'wikipedia editor Dbrodbeck likes it so far'. I hope we can all see the problem here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be more encyclopedic to reference notable critics statements regarding the reuse of the engine / style of gameplay. Whether or not they felt it had aged well and how the felt the gameplay held up amongst it's peers / the test of time. This metacritic thing just seems like another case of internet mob mentality. They're angry that something they don't like is being critically acclaimed. 174.1.136.145 (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It isn't illogical at all in my opinion to leave out the Metacritic user reviews. Most of them are, as you say, a result a "internet mob mentality." You can't deny that when you look at the types of reviews that are being posted there. I believe this same incidence occurred with Modern Warfare 2, or at least with the PC version, which actually is not as bad as some say. I think the Reception paragraph definitely needs expanding to cover more critic reviews, but so far I've tried to edit it so that the game is qualified instead of just praised or criticized. For example, I noted how GameSpot thought more innovation couldn't hurt but also thought the game was satisfying as is. I'll see if I can't put in some time to further edit the article later on.

Kilkia123 (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Like I wrote above; actually the user score was decided to be included in another article as per talk page consensus for a game that suffered a similar fate on Metacrtiic (Portal 2). As editors it's not up to us to decide whether a game is good or not, we can simply objectively report on citable reactions. And seeing as the metacritic fan reaction has been noted by the gaming media (http://www.pcworld.com/article/243378/why_do_metacritic_users_hate_modern_warfare_3.html), it certainly warrants a mention just as much as it did for Portal 2. While we can't say "fans think it sucks", we can report on the media take on the phenomenon. --77.215.75.103 (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Administrative Proceeding, Not Lawsuit

There's a portion that might need correcting. Namely:

"Activision had planned to set-up an official website to promote the game, however the domain name "ModernWarfare3.com" had already been taken and was used for an anti-Call of Duty website and redirecting users to Electronic Arts's upcoming game Battlefield 3. Activision filed a lawsuitItalic text against the site with the National Arbitration Forum costing US$2,600.[53] On September 8th, 2011, Activision had won the lawsuitItalic text and had acquired the rights to the domain name."

It's not actually a lawsuit like that filed in court, but an administrative proceeding by an arbitration panel:

http://www.adrforum.com/main.aspx?itemID=324&hideBar=False&navID=178&news=3

"Arbitration is a faster, simpler, and less expensive alternative to litigation. Disputes are brought before a neutral third party (the arbitrator) who, after carefully reviewing all of the relevant information, issues a final decision in favor of one of the parties."

http://domains.adrforum.com/

"In 1999, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) selected the National Arbitration Forum (FORUM) as an international dispute resolution provider for domain name disputes. Since then, the FORUM's Domain Name Dispute Program has handled over 17,000 disputes worldwide."

The actual decision:

http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1398954.htm

Just so people would know that's not a lawsuit, but an administrative proceeding. There's a slight difference, but it helps people to know something's accurate. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave Zan (talk • contribs) 02:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)