Do I recommend this game? Sorta...but there are caveats. So I'll mark "no" and continue my review.

Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, part 2:

When this game actually functions, it's pretty fun to play. A decent solo campaign, the ability to create weapon loadouts in each of the multiplayer variants (PVP, Warzone, or Zombies) and a not-too difficult level progression system that is universal across all multiplayer variants.

It may say "Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3" at the title screen, but make no mistake: you're actually playing the equivalent of a Modern Warfare 2 DLC, complete with its own campaign and additional weapons that have been added to your already existing weapon collection from Modern Warfare 2.

The Worst Network Bug of All-Time:

This game requires you to be online, full stop. I mean honestly, what game these days doesn't require being online in some aspect? However, a common occurrence involves being midway through a gaming session until out of nowhere, you get kicked from the game, only to arrive at a black screen notifying you about how your profile is currently signed out of Steam. Two buttons appear on this screen as well: "Retry" and Quit to Desktop." I'll save you the trouble of deciding which to choose: QUIT TO DESKTOP.

It doesn't matter if you've hardwired your PC/Console or wirelessly connected your device to your router. It doesn't matter if you open Network Properties in Windows and the computer tells you that you're currently online. It doesn't matter if you have Steam opened and it shows you're online. It doesn't even matter that Speedtest.com can show you network results, confirming you're online and capable of sending/receiving packets of data at high speeds, if Call of Duty is saying that you're offline, that somehow completely supersedes everything else and the game will refuse to boot up, and this will continue to happen until you spend 10-12 minutes verifying your game files. Even after successfully verifying your files are intact, there's no guarantee that it will successfully load the game.

Since you've just been kicked from the game, the game will count this session as an automatic loss in your overall statistics. If playing Warzone or Zombies, getting kicked will result in you losing whatever weapons you had equipped, along with all of the items that were stowed in your backpack. This is literally the only issue this game has that I would consider game-breaking.

Pay 2 Win: The Return of the Illustrious Paypig

There's also an overabundance of microtransactions that distract the player. I'm not fully against microtransactions in games, but be aware that a lot of the games that make use of an in-game microtransaction market (take Fortnite or PUBG as examples) don't actually require you to pay for the game itself. Microtransactions assist free game developers generate revenue to further expand on their project. pay their employees, and purchase items related to the improvement of the game (such as the acquisition of new gaming servers).In the free-game model, items that are being sold via microtransactions are typically cosmetic in nature. These cosmetics don't make the game being played any easier. I can't say the same for Call of Duty, which has implemented microtransaction packs as high as $30 apiece that provide XP boosts in certain events, incorporated the free to play model's premium Battle Pass, while still charging $70 for the base game, or $100 for a deluxe version.

So let's math really quick:

Scenario 1: Regular version of the game and battle passes only (no additional microtransactions) for just the first year:
$70 + $120 = $190

Scenario 2: Deluxe edition, battle passes, and 3 cosmetic packs per season for the first year:
$100 + $120 + $360 = $580

$190 in year 1 is too much to spend for a game as unpolished as this. More so, the $580 pricetag for year is an unacceptable pricepoint as well. Yet people will still purchase the $580 worth of stuff, because included are cosmetics that make your character level up faster.

I look at this game similarly to how people look at the California real estate market. Until we, as customers, unanimously tell these companies "no I will not pay that much for this," they will never have a reason to lower their prices. But for as long as a person is willing to pay the rates these companies have established, the company will see the influx of sales revenue as justification for the overpricing this game. as well as future iterations of this title.

Now even as I say all of this, I already know a lot of people have bought into it. Hell...even I've bought this. Many more will buy it down the line. I'm just hoping that Activision decides at some point to lower their tracer packs to the price they were charging in MW2 or at least removes the P2W implementations that are buried within these $20 Tracer packs sold in the in-game store.

If Actrivision spent as much time patching out game-breaking issues as they've spend enticing its players to become paypigs, they wouldn't need to rely on a microtransaction marketplace as much as they do now..

Do I recommend this game? Sorta...but there are caveats. So I'll mark "no" and continue my review. Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, part 2: When this game actually functions, it's pretty fun to play. A decent solo campaign, the ability to create weapon loadouts in each of the multiplayer variants (PVP, Warzone, or Zombies) and a not-too difficult level progression system that is universal across all multiplayer variants. It may say "Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3" at the title screen, but make no mistake: you're actually playing the equivalent of a Modern Warfare 2 DLC, complete with its own campaign and additional weapons that have been added to your already existing weapon collection from Modern Warfare 2. The Worst Network Bug of All-Time: This game requires you to be online, full stop. I mean honestly, what game these days doesn't require being online in some aspect? However, a common occurrence involves being midway through a gaming session until out of nowhere, you get kicked from the game, only to arrive at a black screen notifying you about how your profile is currently signed out of Steam. Two buttons appear on this screen as well: "Retry" and Quit to Desktop." I'll save you the trouble of deciding which to choose: QUIT TO DESKTOP. It doesn't matter if you've hardwired your PC/Console or wirelessly connected your device to your router. It doesn't matter if you open Network Properties in Windows and the computer tells you that you're currently online. It doesn't matter if you have Steam opened and it shows you're online. It doesn't even matter that Speedtest.com can show you network results, confirming you're online and capable of sending/receiving packets of data at high speeds, if Call of Duty is saying that you're offline, that somehow completely supersedes everything else and the game will refuse to boot up, and this will continue to happen until you spend 10-12 minutes verifying your game files. Even after successfully verifying your files are intact, there's no guarantee that it will successfully load the game. Since you've just been kicked from the game, the game will count this session as an automatic loss in your overall statistics. If playing Warzone or Zombies, getting kicked will result in you losing whatever weapons you had equipped, along with all of the items that were stowed in your backpack. This is literally the only issue this game has that I would consider game-breaking. Pay 2 Win: The Return of the Illustrious Paypig There's also an overabundance of microtransactions that distract the player. I'm not fully against microtransactions in games, but be aware that a lot of the games that make use of an in-game microtransaction market (take Fortnite or PUBG as examples) don't actually require you to pay for the game itself. Microtransactions assist free game developers generate revenue to further expand on their project. pay their employees, and purchase items related to the improvement of the game (such as the acquisition of new gaming servers).In the free-game model, items that are being sold via microtransactions are typically cosmetic in nature. These cosmetics don't make the game being played any easier. I can't say the same for Call of Duty, which has implemented microtransaction packs as high as $30 apiece that provide XP boosts in certain events, incorporated the free to play model's premium Battle Pass, while still charging $70 for the base game, or $100 for a deluxe version. So let's math really quick: Scenario 1: Regular version of the game and battle passes only (no additional microtransactions) for just the first year: $70 + $120 = $190 Scenario 2: Deluxe edition, battle passes, and 3 cosmetic packs per season for the first year: $100 + $120 + $360 = $580 $190 in year 1 is too much to spend for a game as unpolished as this. More so, the $580 pricetag for year is an unacceptable pricepoint as well. Yet people will still purchase the $580 worth of stuff, because included are cosmetics that make your character level up faster. I look at this game similarly to how people look at the California real estate market. Until we, as customers, unanimously tell these companies "no I will not pay that much for this," they will never have a reason to lower their prices. But for as long as a person is willing to pay the rates these companies have established, the company will see the influx of sales revenue as justification for the overpricing this game. as well as future iterations of this title. Now even as I say all of this, I already know a lot of people have bought into it. Hell...even I've bought this. Many more will buy it down the line. I'm just hoping that Activision decides at some point to lower their tracer packs to the price they were charging in MW2 or at least removes the P2W implementations that are buried within these $20 Tracer packs sold in the in-game store. If Actrivision spent as much time patching out game-breaking issues as they've spend enticing its players to become paypigs, they wouldn't need to rely on a microtransaction marketplace as much as they do now..