Talk:Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3/Archive 2

Biased article
The reception is clearly biased. The game is remarked by users as reusing the same mechanics as the previous 4-5 games in the series. There's barley any originality in it. The critic score may be a B, but the user score is almost always a 1-2. The only people that buy the same damn game over and over are the people that have no idea what they're playing other than "kill kill kill"; the very same people that think that's what wars are really like, which they aren't. A proper article includes both the positives and the negatives. I'm requesting an edit for this before I have to report the article for not fitting Wikipedia's qualifications, thanks (I can provided citations for my claims if I have to). PerfectCell2 (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, you DO have to provide citations. Your opinion, and the user reviews on Metacritic, are not considered to be reliable sources. This issue has also been rehashed in multiple sections of the talk page, please read before making new sections about an ongoing discussion. Also, please do NOT remove sections and comments created by other users, as you did to the Sales section below, created by 87.112.171.80. ferret (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sales
Sold 9.3 Million not 6.5 Million Credit VGchartz. Forgot to link -> http://www.vgchartz.com/article/88431/modern-warfare-3-tops-93m-first-day-biggest-industry-launch-ever/87.112.171.80 (talk) 10:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

A rotten country like Russia could never do that. They even fail to stand their ground in their own turf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.15.56.17 (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually Russia dosn't do it it's Makarov who formed a terrorist group of Russians but the Russians are not to blame 4 this invasion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkened wiki (talk • contribs) 16:52, 6 January 2012 (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
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)

It is correct language to call them 'operators' rather than 'operatives.' But this articles about a video game (set in a WWIII scenario), ergo it is not that important. Legalways (talk) 08:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

Plus, there's no way you can buy MW3 for a dollar in the UK. For a pound, maybe. 78.144.134.91 (talk) 04:24, 12 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)

It also says on the Wikipedia Page for Tobey Maguire that he is Grinch in the game, but it clearly says that Timothy Olyphant plays Grinch.... Is Macguire even in the game? he was "confirmed" to play a role later on the MW3 page.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizardoflolz (talk • contribs) 04:40, 11 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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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)
 * Provide a source, and request the edit again. C T J F 8 3  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(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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. C T J F 8 3  18:31, 14 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
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; because even they knew the game was udder crap". [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)
 * I see no consensus for adding it Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The page should be informative, there is a phenomenon with very low metacritic scores. Some seems is the result of mob action but some reviews and scores by the users seems logical and genuine. These type of avarage user score sites is a sample group after all, and I think the results of a sample group could be mentioned, especially there is a third party ref. (pcworld). Besides, there is a past example with Portal 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.179.138.104 (talk) 12:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is, of course, a biased sample by definition. Why don't we wait a while, what the heck is the rush?  Let's re visit this in a month or more to see if it really matters in secondary sources.  If it does rate inclusion then I think we need to include every blog comment ever made in every wikipedia article.....  Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not even the point. Saying these user scores and opinions are not credible and sweeping them under rug by saying they are mob actions is not right, since there is a credible article about it. And in another articles, the disappointment that the game caused is again pointed. From a professional review from Gamespy where game is rated 3.5 stars out of 5: "...Count me among the minority that's thoroughly disappointed Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is, like MW2 and Black Ops before it, a carbon copy of CoD 4." Link: http://uk.pc.gamespy.com/pc/call-of-duty-2011-project/1212006p1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.179.138.104 (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

An enormous amount of the principles in this discussion violate wikipedia's standards. It doesn't matter what we personally think of the game, the ratings or what and or how users came to their decisions. As the person above stated what matters is that credible sources have reported on the unusually low user scores that hit the game immediately after release. That FACT is the only thing that matters what so ever. I believe it is relevant to make a reference to user reviews along with a mention (because it's in the article) of the possibility that this could be a deliberate attempt to sabotage the score. Just check google news, even the developer has come out and asked its fans to rectify the low user reviews! Link: http://www.gamefront.com%2Fglen-schofield-wants-your-help-boosting-modern-warfare-3s-low-metacritic-user-score%2F&ei=P_u7TrbKE4Hn0QHbjIXfCQ&usg=AFQjCNHcqMqvLozh-uft5XhfKhEHp4vrigCrockd (talk)


 * Then in the case of the Gamespy review, we can incorporate the review into the Reception section and note the disappointment that Gamespy felt. The difference between a Metacritic user review and the Gamespy review, however, is that the latter is more credible whereas the former could very possibly have been written by somebody who has not even played the game or is extremely biased. I'm not disagreeing that some of the reviews are legitimate, but the fact is that most of them seem like they aren't. Even if I hated the Call of Duty series, I wouldn't believe that such a game warrants scores close to 0 on a scale of 10.


 * While PC World itself may be a credible website, the article the author wrote is hardly an objective overview of gamer reactions. The article offers only three user reviews out of over 600 and only points out negative reviews. Not only that, the author at one point states, "Assuming these are serious reactions from actual players, not trolls..." By this statement, it is suggested that even the author is unsure of whether or not the reviews are written by "trolls." In this case, the content within the article becomes subjective and does not represent a consensus.
 * Kilkia123 (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.93.254 (talk) 08:54, 22 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)

Edit request from, 10 November 2011
Can someone please edit this page to reflect WILL STAPLES's writing credit on Modern Warfare 3? He, along with Paul Haggis, are both credited writers on the game.

208.15.232.135 (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a source for the credit? --   Luke      (Talk)   21:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Cancelled out the for now; please use another if/when you give a reliable source, thanks,  Chzz  ►  06:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Elite service failures
Are the Elite service failures of the initial release worthy of at least mention? They're a testament to the overwhelming response of fans, and certainly notable in that as of three days of downtime, it is still projected to take "several days" more to have fully operational. As a result, premium "Founders" users are to have a month added to their accounts. (See "When do you expect the service to be working?" in the official FAQ posted here

PC Metacritic Score
The PC metacritic score of 81 is not mentioned in reception. Fix this please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.203.216.94 (talk) 08:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Might also want to mention that the PC metacritic user score is 1.6. Don't think I've seen a rating this low ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.8.37 (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Roger that. Anyone who spends 10 minutes reading up user reviews will notice an unusual gap between critic's scores and user scores. The common theme: The added value of MW3 over MW2 and other recent CoD titles does not justify the price of a new game. Whether or not this is a case of "fanboyism" or has more to do with sales than critical praise is debatable. But it should be mentioned sooner or later. Either under critical reception, sales, or criticism. We will see how the market sentiment develops over the coming days...DMZ (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This has been rehashed multiple times across multiple edit sections about in the talk page. The general consensus at the moment appears to be that we need an RS to actually cover the user review gap. The user reviews themselves are unverifiable and unreliable and cannot be used. There was a paragraph for a bit that used a pcworld article, but it was removed multiple times by various editors (One editor was undoing the other editors repeatedly) ferret (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I just read over the Reception section and believe that the mention of the user reviews is fine as written. I think whoever added in the paragraph did a fine job of not going into too much detail over the user reviews. All we need to do is mention the disparity between critic and user reviews and provide a general (and reasonable) reason explaining the user response. Going into any more detail than that would only lead to subjective writing based off of potentially biased opinions. The article used in the citation seems to be more credible than the one from PC World (i.e. it provides more than just three user reviews as examples).
 * Kilkia123 (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Sandman, Truck and Gritch killed by mine caving in on them
I don't think this is entirely accurate. The last you see of the three americans from Metal Team are them being hopelessly outnumbered by the Russians as the helicoptor flys up and away to safety. They may have been captured to set up another installment with 'Frost' coming in to rescue them! (Or is this just wishful thinking??) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.87.70.232 (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with you that the game seems to leave the possibility of them being alive, but I also think that they could have been killed because as players, we couldn't form a strong an attachment with them as we did with Soap because we only played with Metal Team for this one game. If it's decided to reword it, though, my recommended wording would be: "However, Sandman, Grinch, and Truck are left behind, and then the mine suddenly collapses on them." Gary King  ( talk  ·  scripts )  06:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this part should be removed from discussions as it contains a Spoiler or should be marked as such for people who haven't played through the game yet. 91.125.43.67 (talk) 10:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not spoiler details. It is expected that the article and discussion page will contain potential spoilers, and will not be censured. ferret (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This is the start of MW4 if you think about it, if they dont tell u what happened to them.....didn't they do that with MW2 & Makarov? looking forward 2 it Darkened wiki (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Metacritic user scores
I'm really confused here. Why should you mention the 'user scores' in the Reception section? The most common score the game received was 0/10. Anyone can understand those scores are not given by people who played this game. More than 90% of 0/10s are given by Battlefield fans. And I don't say if it received, say 3000 0/10s, 2700 of them were given by BF fans, because I've seen these BF people saying to each other that they've created multiple Metacritic accounts and were ready to give this game the lowest score possible at the eve of it's release. You can clearly see that most of the 'users' who gave this game 0/10s and bad reviews, either just rated only this game on the site or also rated Battlefield 3 10/10. If someone is saying this game is bad and deserve a score of 0/10 just because it doesn't differ much from Modern Warfare 2, it's really hard to believe. If so, Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood must also be bad because it is not much different from Assassin's Creed II in terms of graphics and gameplay. This user ratings are parallel to the IMDb user score received by Justin Bieber's film Never Say Never. So just please remove the paragraph about Metacritic user ratings, and don't put it there again. Composemi (talk) 07:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've removed the section this time. The user reviews are completely unreliable as sources and should not be included. There is no significant coverage by reliable sources of the "metacritic user scores", and therefore it should not be included. I appreciate the dozens of people who feel that they need to make sure this is put up, but without reliable sources, it can't be included. Two sources have been used so far, PCWorld (Reliable, but contained speculation on the reasons) and a non-RS site. This is not enough coverage to warrant inclusion, and it seems to be getting included instead due to undue weight due to talk page edit requests. ferret (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it does not belong without significant coverage. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Define "Significant coverage" Cause here's an article http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2011/11/what-are-your-first-impressions-of-call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3.html Masterofthenoobs (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's another http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2011/nov/10/modern-warfare-3-internet-hatred

This one's interesting considering what the Guardian's review was. (now, actually read the articles. I know it's hard for you all to face the facts, but that doesn't mean you can pretend this didn't happen.  There should be a mention.  You can try to paint the mention as biased as you want.  But know what is really happening.) Masterofthenoobs (talk) 11:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Please understand, I know you wish to be uncivil and attempt to troll, but a range of reliable sources have NOT been posted. The issue has never been "users don't like it, oh no! We must not include that!" The issue has been, "Has a reliable source covered this issue?" Wikipedia requires reliable sources, and the user reviews themselves are not. Guardian, CBC, PCWorld, are reliable sources. Feel free to add a section that actually uses all the sources. With actual sources rather than just Metacritic itself, it should stay. I'll even help keep it there myself, as long as you use sources. ferret (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like us to wait a while and see if this is not just a tempest in a teapot or a serious issue. I am curious what the rush is? Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh and Master, please read WP:CIVIL. You are new here, and there are quite a few policies that you will have to get used to.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I never saw anything remotely uncivil about Masterofthenoobs's messages at all, and as it is, at least five separate credible gaming sites have covered it.Dibol (talk) 05:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 15 November 2011
Please add "Will Staples" as a writer on the game, as the official game credits say "Written by Paul Haggis and Will Staples"

This can be verified by watching this video clip of Modern Warfare 3's credits from the game at the 13:43 mark: http://www.youtube.com/user/RydarGames#p/c/14/fttHQ5PBl84

CoDFan13 (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Improving NPOV
This line; "Activision has said Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 day-one shipments are the largest for any game ever." read "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 day-one shipments are the largest for any game ever, Activision has said." which gave me a stronger view then my edit that this was not a claim by the company, but a fact. It turns out that EA is claiming some 10 million in the first week for Battlefield 3, although not going so far as to say how many on the first day. With 1.5 million vs. 3 million pre-orders though you could argue Battlefield 3 was more likely to have sold more, but that would be conjecture that doesn't belong on wikipedia. Unless someone has a third party source confirming Activision's claim I think it should be taken with a grain of salt / treated just as a claim.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Made a further edit as Activision only stated that they believe their sales were the highest.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality of "Reception" section
Following this article and reading the Discussion section, I have to say that I am somewhat disappointed by the way the "Reception" section has been handled. While there have been topics in the discussion page stating requests to add the "Metacritic backlash" (showcasing both articles written by the gaming media and citing different cases where the Metacritic user scores were referenced in other Wikipedia articles), for some odd reason, this specific topic has continually been "swept under the rug" by moderators of this article; citing that the users' reviews are "unreliable" and/or "unverifiable", and often claiming that the majority reason for the low rating is because of "upset [Battlefield] fanboys trolling." (Yeah, because some from the Call of Duty community would NEVER do something like that to a rivaling game also... http://www.metacritic.com/user/smelvis http://www.metacritic.com/user/triweeklyllama http://www.metacritic.com/user/burnt_popsicle http://www.metacritic.com/user/metalgear85)

Also, while checking one of the example games cited (Portal 2), its talk section has no mention of Metacritic user scores being "unreliable", yet for some reason this seems to be a persistent issue on this article, even when some "Wikipedians" suggest a mention of any articles describing the situation, and not necessarily the user scores themselves (as done in the Portal 2 article).

Long of the short: If Wikipedia purports itself as some kind of bastion of information neutrality, I would hope that either A) snippets of articles describing the Metacritic backlash are included in this article, lest this article (or at least the section in question) continually gets accused of having a "biased viewpoint", or B) remove all mentions of Metacritic user ratings from other articles citing them, as to show some kind of uniformity between articles.

Kl39 (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm curious why everyone insists on making new sections for this instead of using the active sections that already exist. As I've stated multiple times, if someone wants to add a reliably sourced section to reception about the user reviews on metacritic, feel free to do so. Earlier mentions of this have been sourced with metacritic itself, which isn't reliable in this case, and a a couple of non-RS. Once, it was sourced by a single RS, PCWorld. Several reliable sources have now been posted in the multiple discussion sections. Be bold, feel free to add a section that uses those sources. ferret (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Engine
Engine information should be changed to "IW 5.0" as there is no such thing as the MW3 Engine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.163.178 (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The source used for this name has an IW employee stating that the name would have been "IW 5.0" but was being called "MW3" due to the codevelopement with Sledgehammer. ferret (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 15 November 2011
Please add "Will Staples" as a writer on the game along with Paul Haggis. This can be verified at IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1937113/fullcredits#writers) or by viewing a video of the actual credits of the game (http://www.youtube.com/user/RydarGames#p/c/14/fttHQ5PBl84 at the 13:43 mark)

CoDFan13 (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * IMDB is not a reliable source, neither is youtube.  Chzz  ► 23:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

{{notdone}

Wii Version Reviews
You can't base the Wii version on one review. If anything it has been mixed. 9/10 http://www.destructoid.com/review-call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3-215404.phtml

8/10 http://n4g.com/news/885677/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3-wii-review-inintendo-net

8.5/10 http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com/review/51881/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3/

4.5/10 http://m.ign.com/articles/1212482 Skuzbucket (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The first link does not apply to the Wii version. The second is just a link to a fansite's review. The third is the only good link. The fourth is already in the article. Thanks for the one good review. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Plot: killing a young family
In the plot it states "one of the weapons are detonated on a London street, killing a young family as it releases its chemical payload near Big Ben.", I think the way it is written it narrows the scope of the chemical attack to just the immediate area while in the game it is big part of London.

Plus the family is only a shock part of the game, it has no impact on the plot whatsoever. I opt for changing it to something the news cast in the game mentions (can't check it right now). LOTG (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * ...Really? -017Bluefield (talk) 05:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

User reviews
The user reviews section from the reception should be removed as it's very unnecessary. And we all know that more than half of those users are from Battlefield fans who deliberately bash on COD everywhere. Oh and the game's sales figure speaks everything: if's its good or bad in gamers' opinion. Penpaperpencil (Talk) 16:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You have no proof that "more than half of those users are from Battlefield fans." Besides, making such rash assumptions calls into serious question your neutrality in this matter. Also, sales is in no way an accurate representation of the quality of something. There have been well-received films that were box office bombs and poorly-received films that were box office successes.--68.34.228.147 (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well yeah I have no proof. But most of those reviews says things like "Battlefield 3 is better" etc. So it's just fair for me to think they are BF3 fans. Though I agree with sales is in no way an accurate representation, but MW3 is still at the top selling game in it's second week despite the "so-called user reviews". Oh and if you are not forgetting we are talking about user reviews. If a game's verdict by gamers is "mediocre" (like those reviews claim), then I don't think it's likely that it'd would sell more than any other game in it's second week. Penpaperpencil (Talk) 08:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, you presented (and admitted that you have) no proof that any of those reviews are from Battlefield 3 fans. What you "think" is merely your opinion and in no way belongs in an encyclopedia. Also, since we have both agreed that sales is not an accurate representation of a game's quality, why are you still trying to pass Modern Warfare 3's sales number off as some sort of valid evidence?--65.216.255.154 (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not. Did you even read what I wrote? I said that if the user reviews from COD fans were that bad then how did it manage to sell more than any other games in it's second week? User reviews are really not important in a wiki because as you said they are opinions and it should be removed. Penpaperpencil (Talk) 14:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've said this twice before and I'll say this one more time. The game's sales number is irrelevant to its reviews. It's irrelevant, as in "does not matter at all," in this issue. So stop trying to use Modern Warfare 3's sales to disprove its users ratings. Just because the game sold well does not, in any way whatsoever, suggest that the negative reviews did not come from CoD fans. By the way, all reviews, professional or user, are essentially opinions. These opinions in the form of reviews are acceptable in an encyclopedia. Your opinions, which come in the form of rash assumptions, do not belong here.--69.137.156.39 (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You are right I cannot make assumptions here, but let's be honest. If the user reviews for this game is listed here then we should include the user reviews for every game articles. And the gameplay being similar is just made by users not critics if you are not forgetting. Let's look at Assassin's Creed series here, a user above noted that similar to this situation a "minor" amount of gamers noted the extreme similarities between all it's game. As I said it's just "minor" amount of people who reviewed it negatively in consideration with how much it sold. So I think you might also agree that such reviews from "minor" amount of gamers should not be considered while writing a wiki article. Reviews by critics should be added to the reception section but reviews from "minor" amount of gamers shouldn't. Penpaperpencil (Talk) 10:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You seem to be straying away from out original topic here. We were discussing whether the user review section in this particular article should be removed, and we have agreed that the section should not be removed when you admitted that you "cannot make assumptions here." However, I will reply one more time and hopefully bring this discussion to a conclusion. No, we should not include the user reviews for every article. The user reviews were mentioned in this article because they were very significantly different from those of the critics. While the critics are giving the X360 version of the game a score of around 90%, the users are giving it a score of around 30%, and even lower on other platforms. That is significant enough to be included in the article. If you check the Metacritic scores for other games, however, you will find that their user scores are pretty much on par with their respective critic scores. For example, Assassin'c Creed: Revelations has a critic score of about 79% and user score of about 74% the last time I checked. Those user scores, which do not differ significantly from the critic scores, are not notable enough to be included in a Wikipedia article.--68.34.228.147 (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No actually my original comment was about BF fan making bad reviews. I don't have a definite prove but if you click on every user on metacritic who reviewed this game (trust me, I spend my time doing it) negatively you'll see that almost all of them has reviewed BF3 positively. And I've been in this fandom business to tell that these are BF fans not a COD fan. If you go to forums you'll see that BF and COD fans aren't really on a positive term. They generally bash each other's game. Anyway this has been a complete waste of time and I'd rather not argue anymore. But if you look at the reception section, the neutrality is not there and I don't mean the style of writing. Penpaperpencil (Talk) 04:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Once more, your assumptions are not relevant, and neither is your original research.--65.216.255.154 (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Manual_of_Style_(film). User reviews do not belong. I especially liked the attempt to make it look like the game was universally condemned; "reactions from the audience?" So we're implying metacritic has, what, 10 million MW3 reviews up? In fact, let's cite the Guardian, which was being used as "proof" of this condemnation: "The first point, of course, is that it's dangerous to think of these outbursts as being in anyway representative of the majority opinion (...) Most of the millions of people who bought the game are actually playing it and enjoying it." Hardly proof that "the audience" has reacted negatively, is it? The other sources are Metacritic (not allowed), another site listing user responses (ditto), a blog-like post not giving the writer's professional opinion, and what appears to be an actual blog. If you can find more from reputable sources regarding the metacritic reviews then it can be included, but it would need to be framed as something that is happening on Metacritic, not something "the audience" is doing. Herr Gruber (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I already cited Gamepro among some other sites. Check through the links in the Edit history.Dibol (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * ^Nice try but Gamepro cites Metacritic's users as its source. Penpaperpencil (Talk) 14:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is three citations are completely invalid, the Gamepro on is dubious (it presents the issue as a topic for discussion; "what do you think?" is hardly how a scholarly article ends) and the Guardian article actively disagrees with the claim it's being cited in support of. This could potentially be worth covering, but as an example of online activism like the SecureROM-related Amazon score bombings of a few years back (eg Spore), not as what the general audience thinks of the game. Herr Gruber (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from CoD Fan 13, 21 November 2011
I saw the edit request to add Will Staples as a writer was rejected by Chzz in spite of the fact that Staples is listed as a writer on IMDB and I provided a link to video of the actual credits of the game. Staples is also referenced in an interview with the military advisor, Dalton Fury (http://www.commandposts.com/2011/11/dalton-fury-on-call-of-duty-and-black-site/). The request was rejected because these were not "reliable sources". Short of actually sending a physical copy of the game to someone who can play it and then edit this article, what would qualify as a reliable source? This process seems unreasonable. Please advise.

CoDFan13 (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ because I consider the source acceptable for this statement, however this may or may not be subject to further dispute... but we'll see about that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Demiurge1000. CodFan13, I believe you - totally. I am convinced it is true. That was not my concern; the problem was, how can the person reading it check? It isn't reasonable to expect them to play through the game, just to verify the claim. But, the source you have now given seems "OK", just about, for that specific claim. I did look on the net for a better source, but all I could find was mentions of Staples with regard to "Call of Duty" games in general, and nothing specifically about MW3. Possibly, there will be better sources after some time.
 * I have not played it yet, by the way; I'm hoping Santa will bring me a copy. Best,  Chzz  ► 08:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Page Vandalism / Improper Editing?
I've found this passage at the end of the "Reception" section.

"The game also recieved positive reviews from real fans the main point being the advances made. Nearly all reviews were poditive but some such as that of the wii were negative"

This is clearly either vandalism or improper editing by someone who can neither spell nor understand the requirements for an encyclopedic article. Please edit / delete it.

Price's cigar
Would it be worth mentioning the cigar Price smoked in the beginning of MW and then in the end of MW3 - like its tying a knot to the franchise? Mare Tranquillitatis (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless it is explicitly sourced by a reliable source, it would be counted as a rumor, which Wikipedia is not a collection of rumors or unsourced speculation. (as per WP:CRYSTAL) --   Luke      (Talk)   06:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it clearly happens, so it would be worth adding as long as it only says that it occurs and nothing more. Anonyma Mädel (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Any new information that is needed?
I can provide it, since I have knowedge of the topic and know a few people who do. Anonyma Mädel (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good enough for me. -017Bluefield (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Plot Section - Campaign/Acts/Etc
I'm taking this to the talk page to get consensus. A single editor has introduced a nonstandard format to this article for the plot section, dividing it into the in-game Acts and providing an excessive number of in-game quotations as citations. This format of "acts" has been removed by two editors in the past including myself, and possibly a third time I've forgotten. Player017 has reintroduced it each time it was removed. As I've already removed this myself once and tried to restore the article to a format more standard to other video games, I don't wish to be viewed as edit warring over this, so I'd like to get a consensus here if we're going to keep this format or go back to the more traditional form. I'm also somewhat worried how the sheer number of quotes introduced as citations floats in the face of copyright, whether it's excessive use or not. As his recent edits tonight were fairly substantial (At least in adding the quotations), I did not wish to revert them outright and came here instead. ferret (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I too oppose the new layout. The plot looks bloated and makes the article read like a narrative essay. The citations are not needed per WP:PLOT. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  00:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Saru reverted the earlier edits so I'm taking that as consensus. Player017 added the Acts back a fourth time. I just reverted them again. ferret (talk) 05:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The additions add unneeded detail and bloat, I agree. 05:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's bloating your worried about, why don't you help shorten it? The article looks "bloated" even without the subsections. -017Bluefield (talk) 05:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The "acts" aren't even featured promenently, as far as I'm aware the only place they even appear is on the mission select menu. Quotes would only be needed if there were some kinda of issue where editors disagreed on a point and it required a quotation to settle the issue. In addition, the stage directions added, unless they're lifted straight from the game's actual script, are a fabrication of the editor and not the production of the person actually being quoted, so the quotes make the article less accurate. Herr Gruber (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh. I didn't really think of that. But still, now I can't edit those quotes, since I'm using a Nintendo 3DS for this. -017Bluefield (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Also against the new layout, as per the Wiki Penguin above. Sergecross73  msg me   00:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Treyarch
In the credits of the game it mentioned employees from Treyarch. Should we put that anywhere in the article? 66.222.140.88 (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good question. I guess we could, but I dunno if anyone else will want that. -017Bluefield (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless the company is explicitly credited, the fact that employees who have or do work for Treyarch is irrelevant. Both studios are owned by Activision, and they may have moved personel between the companies after IW lost employees after the MW2 exodus. That is to say, you don't know that they don't now work at IW, instead of Treyarch. ferret (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is because they worked on the Wii port. This information is in the "developer" field when "Additional work by" is expanded. Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Vanishing "Disavowal".
Should we mention that the TaskForce 141's "Disavowed" bannerwas removed after President Vorshevsky was rescued? -017Bluefield (talk) 04:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 December 2011
Grammar mistake: The "Prestige Shop" allows Prestige players to use tokens they gain from using the Prestige option to buy exclusive features such as double XP and a extra custom weapon class.

140.103.37.140 (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC) The "Prestige Shop" allows Prestige players to use tokens they gain from using the Prestige option to buy exclusive features such as double XP and an extra custom weapon class.
 * Yes check.svg Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yuri, the "other protege"
When does Yuri ever say he "escorted Makarov and Zakhaev"? He said:

"Zakhaev never forgot what we did for him that day. Our reward was power."

- Yuri, about the arms deal

Now you see why citations are needed?

-017Bluefield (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that not shown in a cutscene? It has been a while since I played through but I think it was.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently, someone forgot. (And yes, it was.) -017Bluefield (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * A citation won't fix anything here, especially if it's just quotes from the subtitles. The only way to assess this is ultimately to play the game yourself and watch the cutscenes themselves. If you feel this statement is wrong, then remove or change it in the plot, as you often do. No amount of quoting the game will ultimately resolve issues like these, as the quotes themselves are unverifiable without playing the game. Only in rare cases where reliable secondary sources have covered small sections of the story should there be citations in the plot. The only other citation available is to cite the entire section of plot to primary source, and those aren't really citations at all. ferret (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There's one small problem to editing the Plot section: right now I'm using the Nintendo 3DS's Internet Browser for this stuff. If I use this to try to edit the plot, it'll cut off some text near the end—like, halfway through the second-to-last paragraph. Anything below that'll get cut off and removed -017Bluefield (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Separate articles for lead characters
Anyone think its worth adding separate articles for different characters in the story? For example, Captain Price and Soap are more than noteable enough in the game industry to have their own articles. Anyone agree?--UpaNotch36 (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd support that. --Boycool (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait a sec—they've already done that for Price and Soap. You're wasting time. -017Bluefield (talk) 01:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please be civil, [P]layer017. ferret (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm only saying... -017Bluefield (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I object. What makes them any notable compared to Price and Soap? The two have established themselves as notable characters in the Call of Duty franchise. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  03:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (Oh.) Well, that's true. Count me out. More articles are just gonna take up space. -017Bluefield (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's just a waste of space and time. Soap and Price are notable enough to be given their own page but the other characters aren't that notable. Penpaperpencil (Talk) 12:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, if Soap and Price all ready have articles then no. Maybe Reznov, but that's irrelevant. --Boycool (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)