Page 1 of 2 12 Last
Results 1 to 25 of 40

  1. Post

    Posts in this thread appear as comments on the following Gameplanet article:

    Read article...

  2. Post
    #2
    solid review

  3. Post
    #3
    Hilarious

  4. Post
    #4
    A true honest reveiew I like this game alot but you cant denie its not getting old.

  5. Post
    #5
    If it's hard to choose between the two, simply play whatever your friends play, and leave the bickering to others.

  6. Post
    #6
    Ams wrote:
    Hilarious
    And what's so funny about that

  7. Post
    #7
    Rungus wrote:
    And what's so funny about that

    I think hes saying that an error message he is getting from MW3.

  8. Post
    #8
    Lol, poor Rungus, never gets the jokes.

  9. Post
    #9
    I like how all these reviews are saying stuff like "Better than MW2" yet still giving it a lesser score than MW2.

    So basically, it really is MW 2.5

  10. Post
    #10
    Volkan wrote:
    I like how all these reviews are saying stuff like "Better than MW2" yet still giving it a lesser score than MW2.

    So basically, it really is MW 2.5
    +1 this its pretty lol and makes reviewers seem inconsistent with how they rank games

  11. Post
    #11
    cencsor wrote:
    Lol, poor Rungus, never gets the jokes.
    Hahaha crack up bro

  12. Post
    #12
    $130 for DLC... not worth it...

  13. Post
    #13
    Pretty sure gp rated mw2 way less than this review

  14. Post
    #14
    is 80% really an accurate score for a rehash+map pack?

  15. Post
    #15
    Volkan wrote:
    I like how all these reviews are saying stuff like "Better than MW2" yet still giving it a lesser score than MW2.

    So basically, it really is MW 2.5
    http://www.gameplanet.co.nz/pc/games...eviews/134131/

  16. Post
    #16
    Great review man. Very tidy, pretty much on par with various other 'honest' outlets.

  17. Post
    #17

  18. Post
    #18
    quick

    to the hurt tardis

  19. Post
    #19
    I enjoyed the single player, its was better than I thought it would be and much better than BF3. Spec ops is awesome too. Same old MP but fun. I prefer BF3's MP but enjoy MW3s MP for a change in pace. 8.5 from me.

  20. Post
    #20
    exis wrote:
    quick

    to the hurt tardis

  21. Post
    #21
    Yep 8.0 is the perfect score...and it IS the MW2 engine with very FEW tweaks here and there despite what this new fake IW says. If it was the REAL IW....then would've been a much better game in every way.

  22. Post
    #22
    gpig wrote:
    +1 this its pretty lol and makes reviewers seem inconsistent with how they rank games
    Even if GP had rated MW2 higher, this is still a stupid statement. Different games enter the market, new technologies come along, and so we have to rate it in the current market which is very different to what it was 2 years ago.

  23. Post
    #23
    Never saw the GP review for MW2.

    But most websites rated MW2 around a 9.5 (like every other CoD) and now MW3 is getting around 8.5s from those same websites, yet they're all saying it's an improvement from MW2.

  24. Post
    #24
    Volkan wrote:
    But most websites rated MW2 around a 9.5 (like every other CoD) and now MW3 is getting around 8.5s from those same websites, yet they're all saying it's an improvement from MW2.
    s0cks wrote:
    Even if GP had rated MW2 higher, this is still a stupid statement. Different games enter the market, new technologies come along, and so we have to rate it in the current market which is very different to what it was 2 years ago.

  25. Post
    #25
    Volkan wrote:
    Never saw the GP review for MW2.

    But most websites rated MW2 around a 9.5 (like every other CoD) and now MW3 is getting around 8.5s from those same websites, yet they're all saying it's an improvement from MW2.
    the point is yes, MW3 improves on MW2, but those improvements are very minimal. that's why it has low scores. I mean it's not like MW3's graphics are gonna get WORSE than mw2 right?