Talk:Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Kim Dotcom[edit]

Various sources have insisted that Kim Dotcom of Megaupload fame got a high score as Megaracer. The sourcing usually refers back to a YouTube video, eg here. How plausible/verifiable is this, as I am not an expert on the game?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

A better question is how notable is this. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that it has been added and reverted repeatedly at Kim Dotcom (see Talk:Kim_Dotcom#Modern_Warfare_3). Since people keep on adding it, it would be useful to know if it passes WP:V.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
If the source is a Youtube video, I would doubt it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
The article above from Yahoo may serve as reliable enough for WP:V, but I don't know if it's enough to cover WP:N. I'd say not to include it, especially with Youtube acting as a component of the Yahoo article. -- ferret (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Sales figure[edit]

The sales figure of this game should be update now. Does anyone has a valid link suggesting sales? Penpaperpencil (Talk) 04:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


On the same day, World War III continues. This is wrong because WWIII began with the invasion of Europe by the Russians (or Inner Circle). The war before it was the Russo-American War (or better: On the same day, the war between Russia and America/ the US continues.) (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

WW3 began in Modern Warfare 2. When the nuclear exploded causing the power outage around the world. Then their is a quote by captain price: "Strange, thought we ended this war yesterday?". That means the war began when he thought it was finished — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

is it just me or is anyone else disapointed that there is no reward for completing the campaign all you get is a button to the special opps section — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Downloadable_Content_in_Call_of_Duty:_Modern_Warfare_3 Article[edit]

I have started an article strictly for DLC. Anyone can edit it: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajcadoo (talkcontribs) 01:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I actually believe we need less information about the DLC, not more. Other than a basic summary of the existance of DLC, we don't need to market every release, especially without some form of notability for a particular DLC being established. -- ferret (talk) 11:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The controversy in mw3[edit]

Has anyone noted the offensive images with the shooting of civilians in this game? I have some sources of some news networks criticizing the violence in the game, much like the article of controversy in modern warfare (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Relevancy of MW3's rating being less than MW2[edit]

Simply put, there is no relevancy, and no reliable sources have been given that critics have especially noted that "Despite us rating this game lower than MW2, it was really good." In short, you're adding original research and potentially bias. If you have reliable sources that specificly note something like that, feel free to post them here so other editors can comment. -- ferret (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Eventhough your edits are very welcome, The Shadow-Fighter, I'm afraid ferret is correct. It goes against Wikipedia's guidelines on original research. You see, you are the one making the decision to add the information here. But if an outside source, say Kotaku or GameSpot, has an article on it then we can add it.
Right now there is no real reason to add a comparison with its predecessor. It might be a fact that it was received less favourably, but that doesn't mean you should add it in though. Why stop there? Why not compare it to Black Ops, or MW1? Or the very first Call of Duty game? Or to Pac-Man? Please see the article Call of Duty for an overview of the games. There, a reception comparison infobox would be very welcome actually! The game stands on its own, just like the article :) --Soetermans. T / C 13:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


"Some of these objectives can be failed, and may or may not hinder progression of the story." That is completely not true, and has no valid source. AlexXD94 (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Just an idea…[edit]

But would it be worth making separate articles for other major characters in the series. I know one exists for Captain Price but what about Soap, or even Makarov? There's sources out there on Google which will back them up, so I would happily start one soon if it were ok with any other editors.--RedBullWarrior (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Some of those have been created in the past, and then later deleted or merged as lacking enough notability. -- ferret (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The article for Captain Price is really only notable because a Captain Price appears in basically every Call of Duty game. It is not an article for the Modern Warfare reindition of him. TJD2 (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'll just leave it here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon "Ghost" Riley --Niemti (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

JD2, it isn't the same Captain Price though. Also the character 'Soap' is fairly notable considering his prominent roles in Call of Duty 4:Modern Warfare, Call of Duty:Modern Warfare 2, and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. And Makarov appears in two of these games and is a key antagonist. I agree the character of Ghost lacks notability, but the others have earned notability themselves. Cheers for the opinions on the subject.--RedBullWarrior (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:INHERIT, Redbull. Essentially though, the fact that a character or person is featured in a notable event, company, game, book, etc, etc, does not mean the character itself is notable. Yes, Soap has been in three notable games. That doesn't make Soap notable by default though. Specific reliable sources that are discussing Soap specifically as a character, rather than as simply a component of the MW story lines, are necessary to establish notability. -- ferret (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, ferret. Quite new to this stuff but I am gaining an understanding of it, and I respect your point that just because Soap appears in 3 games it doesn't make him a significant character. Will look out for that in future.--RedBullWarrior (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

User Review controversy[edit]

Stuff about Metacritic user ratings violates WP:RS and WP:VG. Please stop adding this material, and read the links provided. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you on adding them as sourced reviews, and I was wrong to add them as such in the reception section. However as a controversial event that occurred when the game was released I still find it to be noteworthy as many credible websites published articles about it. Maybe it's own section NOT under reception? AmongTheliving66 (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I think it is a case of WP:UNDUE. Such things have been brought up a number of times at the Video Game Project and the consensus there is to keep user reviews out, as they are not RSs. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
" fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." The user reviews aren't reliable sources for reception, but a game being bombarded with them overnight isn't something you see every day. Especially if someone tweets about it and tells people to "up" the score. is a news based website and is an RS, as is As I stated maybe it doesn't belong in the reception section but could it possibly fit somewhere else given the number of reliable sources I have to support it? Also for fair representation of ALL significant viewpoints published by RSs.AmongTheliving66 (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually, of late, almost every triple-A game gets bombarded with low metacritic user reviews, sometimes organized on purpose by 4chan and the like. This is why the reviews and scores aren't included, because it's become a common issue with a number of games. If a legitment issue is covered by a source, certainly add it to the reception. One example used in the VG guidelines is the ending of ME3. It was the cause of some of the low ratings, and that specific caused received significant reliable coverage. If you have a similar issue for MW3 that has significant reliable coverage, by all means, include that issue. But it should be about the issue itself, not the Metacritic score. As for a separate "Controversy" section, these along with "Criticism" sections are generally frowned on as they create a non-neutral bias simply by their name. Any notable criticism or controversy should be made a part of the Reception section as a whole. -- ferret (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
While it might be worth noting as an example of score bombing, it's clearly POV-pushing to claim this shows reaction from "the audience" unless someone can demonstrate Metacritic has approximately fifteen million negative reviews of the game. The Guardian source specifically notes that the score bombing was not representative of the average user's experience with the game. Herr Gruber (talk) 08:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Revision Requests from Activision Publishing, Inc[edit]

Hello, my name is Christy Buena from Activision Publishing, Inc. I noticed innacuracies in the first two sentences of the "Development" section of the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 Wiki entry and wanted to make sure I addressed it in the appropriate manner.

The current, inaccurate text says, "A 2010 Q3 earnings call from Activision confirmed that the eighth installment of the franchise was currently in development by Sledgehammer Games and Raven Software and due for release 'during the back half of 2011'. This was revealed to be Infinity Ward's Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, with the latter developers co-developing multiplayer."

Suggested, accurate text is as follows, “A 2010 Q3 earnings call from Activision confirmed that the eighth installment of the franchise was currently in development by Infinity Ward, Sledgehammer Games and Raven Software and due for release 'during the back half of 2011." This was revealed to be Infinity Ward's Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, with the studio co-developing the entire game.

For support, please see the following source:

Let me know if there are any questions. I will continue to watch this space. Cbuena (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're really from Activision you should be more worried about the fact that the numerous amount of hackers and cheaters are ruining the game and not about some irrelevant facts on wikipedia. Never buying another one of your games. Cornelius (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

devlepoment cost[edit]

anyone have idea how much money development of this game costed ? (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Reworking of Plot Section[edit]

Well, it was good to work on revamping this, and clearing it up. Doing so was for the best, but I do hope someone will include a screenshot of the single player game at some point. Also, I'd like to thank the guy who went in and further did the work on what I did (which I did while not signed in though). I always though it wrong that in one section, Yuri was astonished by the explosion in the Middle East, when in the game, he was more sickened. That part now sounds right. I hope the general layout will stick, but I know also others might want to update as well. GUtt01 (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)