Me too. While it didn't live up to MW2, I certainly liked it more than MW4, which I did not like, and trying to reply now is actually quite painful in comparison to MW3.

I believe this game is enjoyable but doesn't deserve the praise of "best game". It has problems that are extremely annoying, however, when these problems are not occuring the game can actually be fun. Though it's probably pointless to respond, I had fun doing it anyways. Here's a list:

1. Hackers can easily create a new account and test out hax with no consequences.
2. This may be true... I have not witnessed a player getting banned myself, mainly because I report and move on. My first thought after reporting a player was exactly the same as you. It doesn't make sense to report a hacker when steam is getting the report and not the MW3 devs.
3. I have no say in this. I was doing really good with the g36c when I first played the game.
4. This might be due to the hosts bad connection or the host quitting the game. I barely get this problem :\.
5. This is a man's game! What man leans past a wall? ;P. In all seriousness, I have no idea why this was never used. I think this is because they don't want that style of play in their game. Also, they can't put leaning on the console.
I used to play those old games where you can't lean over walls and running\gunning is practically a must. I didn't really mind not having a leaning function, but I completely understand if one would want it.
6. There is assassin and silencers. Also, believe it or not, UAV can be a curse and a blessing. If someone is staring at their top left corner of the screen all the time, you get an easy kill. When UAV is on, try to not be too campy. When their map blinks, you have enough time to sprint and take the other player off guard. I've been stealthy even without assassin and silencers.
7. I hate invisible walls too. :(.
8. This would be really nice to have in dedicated servers but not matchmaking. If someone is doing REALLY good you can simply vote kick that player off.
9. Playing tactically is not this game's strong side. The furthest you can go is remember to have your body in ATLEAST 50 percent cover as much as possible. I have never flanked an enemy, purposely, like in Battlefield 3.

One problem with this game is balance. Some of the game's overpowered weapons include: PP19, P90, MP7, Type 95, acr, and more. I'm not 100% sure if all these weapons (except type 95) are overpowered but I do know they are usually stronger than most other weapons to choose from.
Another balance problem is that the pistols are not as great as the machine pistols. USP sucks in comparison with MP9... and possibly all other guns! Not only that, akimbo FMG9s have been slightly fixed but they are still the most powerful secondary!
As for LMGs you can do pretty good with them as long as you don't "RUN" and gun.

This game can be SHITTY but I usually get the good parts out of it.

I took turns playing it with this one guy one weekend. I think the multiplayer is fun if you mess around, like I refused to use anything other than a revolver (and it was hilarious when I was doing well). The guy I was playing with is kind of great at the game, and spent most of his time running around with a pistol (USP) and a knife (because "they made shotguns useless in this game") and had terrifying kill streaks just by stabbing people. It was really fun to watch. He had some "skills" or whatever that made him immune to radar and/or helicopter sensors, so he managed to be seriously sneaky too.

I'd say it was enjoyable, but I had just as much fun, if not more, playing and watching Counter Strike (though the last time I tried it, I got banned for wallhacking after shooting a guy who camped in the exact same spot every round, and so I decided that CS is stupid).

Anyway, my "review" conclusion: It seemed like a great ($)15(€) game, but ($)60(€) or whatever they're asking for it seems way, way too much.
The other guy, a fan of the series' multiplayer, said that 60€ is acceptable (but I guess he's loaded or something, I'm not). Though he did say that Black Ops is better and most of his buddies have gone back to playing it.

I only saw the multiplayer.

i'm not a 'CoD 1337 pro' by any standard, but i have played all the CoDs online since MW1. IMO they are all enjoyable, some more, some less. MW3 is in the middle somewhere. it's not as good as MW1 was back in the day, and not quite as frustrating as MW2.

one thing is for dang sure: none of the CoDs actually deserve all the hate they've been getting. my main online game is BF3 but i like playing some MW3 every now and then. they are enjoyable for what they are.

i also enjoyed the SP campaign in MW3 tremendously, but then again, i've always been a sucker for the CoD SP experience. it's simply amazing how much stuff and mayhem happens throughout every single mission, and how smoothly everything is presented, and voiced.

Sad how far a series has one done hill. CoD was a great fun game which had a good length of playtime single player now with COD MW3 it feels like you are getting less and less of a game. I am just going by the singleplayer side as i dont play multiplayer but the game disapoints hell MW2 dispaointed me for the length of game time it was fun for a while but at times felt repetitive.

I wish they would call it a day for the franchise but as long as it makes a stack of money that will not happen.

I haven't played either game, and heard infinitely more about Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, yet MechWarrior is still the first game to spring to mind when reading "MW".

It was my lame attempt to make a joke about abbreviated game titles. I get so lost when seeing abbreviated names for newer games. I started reading the gripes and thought to myself, "THAT wasn't in MechWarrior 3. Neither was that. And that. Oh, wait." d'oh!

wut? MW1 was just as short, maybe an hour longer, but that's not saying much. i regularly replay MW1 in an afternoon or so. the difference between MW1 and its sequels is the fact that the intensitiy of scripted events has been increased. there's always something happening around you.

people say that shooters have only gotten shorter, and that's true. but why were older shooters longer? because of the ridiculous backtracking, repetitive locations and the hub structure of the level design. Quake 2 is a 5 hour game stretched to 10 or 12 hours. most of the locales look identical, and you have to visit many of them several times.

The hub structure of the level design is precisely what I liked about old shooters, it led to far more open levels. Duke Nukem 3D, Blood and Unreal are excellent for this.

Any ideas why I can not connect online at all? :-/

I thought it was because of the swarms of people yesterday evening, but I still can't connect today.

Try restarting Steam, it worked for me.

Quake 2 is a bad example. Go play some Doom 2, and THEN try telling me that old FPSs don't have level variety. Backtracking? Yeah, that was a problem in the early to mid 90s... but once Quake I was released it really stopped being an issue, and that was over a decade ago. As for the "hub" style of levels...I suppose that's a matter of personal opinion, but I personally cannot fathom how someone would prefer being dragged along a constricted linear path.