Call of Duty 3 Reviews

• another nazi shoot em up....and yes, its very good.

  
  By A16NK4WD84MNK8 on 2006-11-12
  I am a huge fan of world war 2 first person shooters. I've been with the genre since the begining of medal of honor. since then, not too much has been more impresive to me than call of duty. It was a wonderfual game and still is. Call of Duty 2 was even better. Does this new game maintain the stellar streak the series is on? in a word, yes. Although, it is alot more of the same. But then again, why mess with a great formula? Call of Duty 3 works because it is exactly what the original game was built around, sheer intensity....and also alot of fun. But then you might say, well i've played COD2, are you saying its the same? Yes and No. The basic mechanics are the same and the few newly added gameplay elements do little to nothing for the overall game so in escense. Yea, its the same game. But this time around the levels are bigger and look o so much prettier. Honestly, these are some of the most amazing visuals on the xbox 360. I dare say it puts my beloved COD2 to near shame. The lighting and texturing is beautiful and the explosions are heart stopping to behold. The life like graphics are complimented by a brilliant musical score. Oh, and if anyone should wonder about the ingame soundeffects, just pop in a previous call of duty game and imagine it amped up even more. Seriously, the battlechatter has never been so nicely integrated. COD3 is yet another amazing world war 2 game that will certainly keep veterans of the genre happy and content, meaning on the edge of your seat. The newly implimented rag doll physics and destructable enviroments will make sure you stay there too. I reccomend this game to anyone and everyone who has played a world war two first person shooter and enjoyed it because what we have here ladies and gentelmen is the latest and greatest, the best that money can buy.
  
  

• EGADS, man! Where for art thou Infinity Ward????

  
  By A3EYOITBD7ZXOV on 2006-11-23
  Man! What's the f#$%ing deal with companies handing over their biggest game franchises to second and third party developers??? Haven't they ever heard the old saying, "Dance with the one that brought you???"
  
  This game is horrible, and if you say otherwise you're in bad need of therapy because you're so desperate for a video game that you've convinced yourself this is worthy of your time.
  
  Or maybe your time is truly that worthless...in which case you should contemplate drastic measures.
  
  First off, the game is VERY linear. "Call of Duty 2" truly felt like an open battlefield, whereas this one feels like a ride at Disneyland. Sure the scenery is beefed up and beautiful, but how about those character animations? The mouths aren't synched to the dialogue, and they do that mindless hand-waving thing when they talk...just like all cinematics did back on the PS1 and N64.
  
  The AI is horrible. In Call of Duty 2 you couldn't just hold your crosshairs in the same spot and wait for the idiot German to pop up in the same place so you could plug him. In this one you CAN---but you just don't care to.
  
  Also---"IT'S GLITCHERIFFIC!" I shot a German and he flew straight up into the air, completely off the top of the screen! I snuck up behind another German and hit him with a melee attack----the friggin' dude did two front flips and flew like twenty yards. Mind you, he was in the standing position the entire time. Not unlike tossing an action figure across the yard.
  
  This game left a stale taste in my mouth, and really just pissed me off. Call of Duty 2 was 360's only killer app. If nothing else these people need to realize that once you have a great game---all we really want as gamers is a great big expansion pack! They could've added 12 more hours of additional content to Call of Duty 2's campaign missions and I would've paid $60, cash on the barrelhead son.
  
  Way to go jacka@@es. ...
  
  

• More of the same with Major Enhancements

  
  By A1JUFEK4258SE3 on 2006-11-24
  Yes, the single player mode is pretty much more of the same Call of Duty with few additions. The graphics of the game overall are definitely amazing. The multiplayer mode is where the game really shines. You should buy this game just for multiplayer. It is a MAJOR change from COD2. It's definitely one of the deepest and most fun online games to come along in awhile.
  
  

• What the hell?

  
  By A1H7X31UH4AJSE on 2006-11-14
  Seriously....I was waiting quite awhile for this game to come out because its predecessor is freakin sweet. It was all I use to play online. After purchasing this game and playing it for all of 10 minutes I quietly put it back in the box and have not taken it out since. Online play was non existent. Everytime i clicked on a game it said it didnt exist. It was ridiculus. Letting someone else create this game instead of Infinity Ward was a giant mistake. This latest edition adds nothing to the series. Do not purchase this game....there are many better games out there.
  
  

• My socks will never be the same

  
  By AZY2GX6BWEB7V on 2006-11-08
  This game roxors my soxors. The graphics are so good you'll punch your mom right in the face.
  
  
• Fun for a while but buggy
  By ABP0CJDYPS9QX on 2006-11-29
  This is the last TreyArch game I'll buy without renting first.
  
  It's so buggy that it distracts from the fun you're able to glean from it. It's not something you'll want to play over-and-over-again.
  
  Things that will annoy you:
  
  Enemies can shoot you through walls. But don't worry: all you have to do is aim at the general area of the muzzle blast with a grenade, and you'll take care of them.
  You can be prone behind a brick wall, out of the line-of-sight, and they'll still kill you.
  You can get stuck in things, and can't get out. I had to drop a grenade once just to dislodge myself.
  If you're prone and get shot, the game might you out of the line of fire, automatically, but then again, maybe not.
  Machine gun action is different from CoD2. In CoD2, you aim and kill; shoot from the hip and you're likely to miss. In CoD3, you'd better learn to shoot from the hip to kill.
  Things like to hang in the air: shells, dirt, etc. But as bonus, you can move them around if you like.
  I've seen frying pans get stuck, quivering in a window.
  When you regenerate in CoD2, you're never exactly sure how you will be confronted. In CoD3, you don't have to worry about that: it's the same every time.
  
  Overall, there are enough amaturish bugs in this game that you'll think you're playing something from the early 1990's.
  
  
  
• A step back from CoD2
  By on 2006-11-12
  So after playing this game for a good while, I can genuinely say it's darn near completely unenjoyable. I've not played the multiplayer yet, so this is only for single player. First off, this game would be considered linear even on the N64. All too often, I find myself travelling through hallways with German soldiers in buildings lining them, and find none of these buildings accesible. I'll see an object to take cover behind, a wall, an area inside a building, and I'll head towards it and find myself blocked by an invisible wall, which obviously is a path to a quick death. This actually happens a lot, which is rather unfortunate. Those stupid command options still pop up directly in your view during fights: "switch *** for *** weapon," "Press X to ***." These are extremely annoying, and something I would've hoped they would change from the last game, at least move them down an inch or two on the screen. Cut-scenes cannot be skipped, which actually is exceptionally annoying when you load an old game, because it shows the cut-scene from the last level, then for the new level.
  
  All too often you'll find yourself looking over a rather expansive landscape, but instead of having you fight across it, the designers have you sit in a window and shoot German soldiers for x number of minutes until the air or armor support arrives. The makers also seem to have tried to hide the linear nature of the game by making it more dense and deep looking, but this definitely only hinders the gameplay. It's to such an extent that at points it's completely unclear as to where you're supposed to be headed in a level, simply because so many ways SEEM viable, but rather are protected by the aforementioned invisible wall.
  
  As these game designers stumble into next-gen gaming, I figured they would at least begin to build games of less a generic, Doom-ish style. But rather, they've levelled the graphics up several notches and then let the gameplay slip away. Personally, I don't care that leaks spring from wine barrels and grass is individually rendered now, because the game fails in being enjoyable in almost every way.
  
  As far as I can tell, this is the most beautifully rendered wave attack game I've played. Just that.
  
  
• Disappointing gameplay.
  By A2EMMCC0UMVF6W on 2006-12-23
  I caved and bought this for the 360 since it seems that the developers aren't willing to make a PC version.
  
  I'm finding the game to be buggy...
  
  I'm only on the 3rd mission and the game has locked up on me about two times per mission so far. Restarting the game is painful since you're forced to watch, in entirety, the long cutscene that precedes each mission before you can jump back to whatever checkpoint you last made it to. (My understanding is that cutscenes are covering up loading of the level in the background, but even after the level loads, it would be nice if they then let you then skip.)
  
  I also keep getting stuck on terrain. Keep away from hay bails next to barns. And don't try and walk between a blown up tank and a hedge hog. Dropping a grenade at your feet often helps dislodge you; if not, you need to restart.
  
  I'm unhappy with the gameplay as compared to COD2.
  
  As soon as they spot you, it seems enemies focus most of their firing on you seem and mostly ignore your squad mates. It's as if the Germans have put a contract out on your head or something. This differs from COD2 which made a successful attempt at making you feel like a small part of a huge epic battle, with the enemy shooting at everybody, not just you.
  
  Graphics are pretty good, except that metal surfaces are too shiny. All the soldiers, both friendly and especially enemy, look like their wearing white helmets because of the huge reflections on them. Germans are easy to spot and target because of that, though.
  
  You can't just sit back and pick off the enemies as they'll usually continually respawn. You need to advance. The only way for your squad mates to move forward and help you out is for you to advance forward enough to cross some invisible line. Doing so causes the enemy to stop spawning in that area, and triggers your squad mates to move forward. In fact, in many parts of the levels, you don't really need to shoot at anything. Just can run forward and use cover until you trigger the enemy spawning to stop and then your squad will move in a take out whatever Germans are still around.
  
  Also, don't try and vear off the rails this game has you on. In COD2, you could often separate from your squad and help them out by flanking on your own the enemy position they were approaching. COD3 will punish you for that, though. If you vear off, fixed MG emplacements focus on you and will usually shoot you right down. So if the game tells you to 'stay behind the tank for cover', then stay behind it for cover. Trying an do something just a bit different, and the game will slap you for it. Even if the game doesn't take you out, vearing off will usually cause you to miss crossing the invisible lines. i.e., there might be two acres of pasture for you move around, but if you try and move up through, say, the 20% to the far right or the 20% to the far left, then you'll miss the triggers that cause the enemy to stop spawning, even if you make it all the way foward where you need to go.
  
  
• Get it for the multiplayer!
  By AJYYQAJK2C8TX on 2006-11-24
  As many of the past reviews has stated, the single player campaign is somewhat of a mixed bag compared to it's predecessor, Call of Duty 2. However, if you are mainly interested in this game for it's multiplayer features, you will find Call of Duty 3 a very worthy purchase.
  
  I've played through the single player campaign and spent quite a few hours playing the multiplayer. I did have more fun with COD2's single player, but COD3 single player was still a blast. You still get that non stop action, with tons of soldiers around you that give you the feeling you are just another soldier among many, and not Rambo whos going to kill everyone yourself, but still makes you feel that you are making a big difference in the struggle.
  
  I did wish there were a couple more scenarios where you operate the tanks. There are quite a few scenarios where you drive a jeep. They are pretty ho hum. Feels like the jeep is on rails. I think COD2 had a better balance and quality of vehicle missions.
  
  Now for many FPS shooter fans, the single player is just an introduction to the main attraction, the multiplayer. And this is worth the price of admission. I've been playing online shooters for over a decade now, and COD3 online has been one of the most fun. With 24 people in a game, it really does feel like a war, not just 2 squads going against each other.
  
  The classes seem pretty balanced and each offer their own unique gameplay. It's rewarding to revive fallen players and have them thank you. It feels good to pop a cap in a players head from many yards away as he's rushing for your flag. It feels nice to blow up a tank with the bazooka, as well as seeing another player get blown up by a mine you placed around your base. Lot's of variety will bring longevity to the game.
  
  Even with many players, I have rarely experienced lag or disconnections. The maps are well designed and are just the right size, and so far the online community seems great. Definately far less immature gamers than you'll find in Halo 2.
  
  Bottom line is, if you're mainly interested in the multiplayer, you can't go wrong with this game.
  
  
• Bug hunt
  By A3IXMH39S9L3IG on 2007-02-19
  Would have been a lot more fun without the [...] bugs such as not being able to move over random bits of terrain, stupid allies who get in the way at the most innappropriate time, or leave you to take on the whole Wehrmacht yourself. CoD2 didn't have these problems, and this is supposed to be better? I've heard that a different team was involved in the production of this version, and it shows. I've completed this on veteran, but don't have the same sense of acheivement I had when I'd finished CoD2 - where defeating the enemy was more important than defeating the bugs. Hope CoD4 is better.
  
  
• Not as good as it's predecessor
  By on 2006-11-15
  First of all let me say that the call of duty franchise is great. But sometimes I disagree with their model of "nobody fights alone" but they hold up to their title in this game. However there some dissapointments I've encountered in this game. One of them are when I'm in the battlefield there are some cases when I think that the enemy is only concentrating at me and not at my teammates. In one level I was sniping some enemies off and tried to find a good place to hide. I hid in the bushes where nobody could find me. Well I thought wrong because after a couple of seconds the enemy shot at me as if he knew where I was hiding. I couldn't even see him. Then I relocated to another position in the bushes and he still knew where I was. But yet he wasnt shooting at my teammate who was a couple of feet away from him. At that point I started having my second thoughts about the game. I have played and even have call of duty 2 and I know what I'm talking about. Then secondly what happened to the pistols you could use in call of duty 2? What happened to the halftracks who came up and deployed the germans? Some of the weapons were improved like the springfield and the thompson and the M1 garand but the lee enfield doesnt even look like the real thing and trust me I have one. The mauser doesnt even look like the real thing either. When you have say 2 bullets left in the gun and go to reload, if you notice he only puts in 1 bullet and automatically have 5 bullets. Overall this game is okay.
  
  
• Why did they take away the Russians?
  By on 2006-11-25
  The newest COD is great, but my only regret is that they replaced the russians w/ canadians and polish people. What kind of idiot would think anyone would rather be a canadian then a russian. The russians were my fav because of their accent and the commisars threatening to shoot you if you ran away, plus the russian levels were cool, fighting in bombed out urban areas like moscow or stalingrad, hunting down tanks and sniping clueles nazis. It would be so much cooler if they left the Russians
  
  
• Similar to COD 2
  By A2UN5UY8Q6YMOF on 2006-11-30
  This is a solid game. It has good graphics, smooth framerates, and is fun to play. However, I don't see much if any improvement over COD 2 in single player mode. If you have not yet played COD 2 and are only interested in single player mode, I recommend getting it since it is cheaper and just as much fun. If you have already played COD 2 you may want to skip this one and instead get Gears of War, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, or Rainbow Six Vegas for something new.
  
  
• Get Call of Duty 2 Instead
  By A143GHD8W6J0HB on 2006-12-10
  This mainly deals with online but is also applicable to single player.
  
  In COD 2 you could tell when you're shooting someone cause you'd see blood and then they'd fall over and clutch at their neck while they're dieing. In 3 you have no way of knowing you're hitting them. And when they die they just lay down and then start blinking and disappear. You can't even pick up their weapons immediately. In 2 I hated how the flag would stick out through walls. In 3 players weapons and limbs can stick out through walls. That is rediculously lazy on the game designers part.
  
  That's just a sample of the sloppiness with which this game was put togther. COD 2 was moving towards realism. 3 reverted to old cheap arcade tricks. The only good thing about it is it's bigger. But it's also cheap and sloppy. The gameplay is nowhere near COD 2. Not well thought out at all.
  
  
• COD2 was better for many reasons...but this is still ok
  By A3D8TM1VBVNFOG on 2007-02-15
  Ive played through COD3 on normal and hard, and i must say..its a fun game, but it would be alot more fun if it didnt skip so much..im gonna have to PRO/CON this review
  
  PRO's
  
  -you cant lie, the game is fun(when working properly). You get hooked on it and you dont want to stop playing
  
  -the idea of having the enemy get right in your face and you got to get him off was pretty cool
  
  -my personal favorite, you are able to catch and throw back any grenades thrown at you (except smoke). I thought that was a great add in.
  
  CON's
  
  -another WWII game. The story has been heard many of times in these games..so why must we be forced to watch several minute long cut scenes..EVERYTIME WE START A NEW SCENE/LEVEL?! very frustrating, you cant skip them.
  
  -the game is VERY glitchy. You get stuck in ditches, stuck on objects, you will find yourself going back and forth trying to just walk threw a open door. if your being shot at alot, you wont be able to move sometimes, and, not being your fault, you will die because of it.
  
  -AI is not that good. Your team usually end up just shooting at a wall while a fleet of Nazi's charge towards you. Your team also gets in your way alot. i had to restart my checkpoint one time because they would literally circle around me and did not let me move. Thank God this is not how our real army acts
  
  Overall..i guess it could be worth a rent, but deffintly not worth $60. Call of Duty 4 is due this year though. And this time..no more WWII!!! it will be based on the war going on today.(i even heard that a new cool effect is that you can shoot of the enemies ear, pretty nifty huh?) so keep playing COD2 online, and lets wait and see how COD4 ends up.
  
  
• Call of Duty 3
  By A3EUJUDMML2X8X on 2006-11-12
  I had such high expectations for this game just to have them shot down. The single player game is fine with some dumb things with the enemy AI. The muliplayer is a joke! Well first you have to get online which is basically impossiable. The Multiplayer which was the best part of 2 is totally stupid and WORTHLESS in 3. One you can play by yourself. Sounds like fun right? two you have to drive the tank unless you are the second person to the tank but you cant just use the machine gun which u can in the other vehciles stupid. Three there are some stupid errors in a bunch of levels where you can get stuck and have to respawn yourself. i say rent it before you buy it.
  
  
• Buggy and Frustrating
  By A3L9EHMEM1UW9M on 2007-01-24
  Call of Duty 3 is a huge step down from 2 in lots of ways. You would think that, because this is a second generation game, it would be polished and free of annoying bugs, but just try to get through a doorway when you are getting riddled with bullets and not have a flood of friendly AI block the door (to result in your death) or get hung up, and subsequently killed in a hail of fire, by some invisible barrier (an "obstacle" that is probably under 6" can totally cripple you) in the middle of an open area. There are so many little things like this that smack of a rush job(resulting in an inferior game). Checkpoints don't consistently work causing some levels, particularly on Veteran difficulty, to become unreasonably frustrating and nearly impossible to get through. Enemies in the open can randomly become immune to gunfire and friendly AI randomly ceases to support you. There are much better games out there for the 360, so don't waste your time if you expect your purchase to work like it should. If you haven't played Call of Duty 2 yet, don't be fooled thinking that it must be worse because it is older... It's heads and tails above CoD3.
  
  
• Overrated
  By AMXE382DCAMQO on 2007-03-26
  I'm sure I'll get lots of haters for this review, but I'm a very experienced and objective reviewer of games, especially shooters, especially FPS, so in my opinion, I know what I'm talking about. I've played hundreds of `em. This one does not stack up and brings nothing innovative to the table. Button (trigger) mashing when you struggle with a Nazi for a gun a couple of times in the game is not a brilliant game innovation. It's a tiny little gimmick.
  
  PROS:
  - grenade catch and return is cool (although an exact grenade arc throwing system is not used). We've seen this happen in dozens of movies.
  - some minor ragdoll physics
  - no bad glitches or something that makes you consult the internet to see what the hell you are supposed to do
  - fairly good score
  - allows for subtitles
  - some decent mass firefights
  - some well-placed jeep/tank missions to break up the regular shooter monotony.
  
  CONS:
  - when I started playing, I thought I'd put in COD2. looks like many of the exact same bombed out farm houses. Just very derivative.
  - graphics are only mediocre despite what anyone else says. Colorless and lifeless. If you think this thing has the greatest graphics ever, you haven't played a lot of games. It simply doesn't. This game uses the rarely known, rarely used in-house developed NGL engine. Not an engine that is used in first or maybe even 2nd tier quality games.
  - character physics (movement) is a little jagged, not as fluid as in other FPS and other engines (Unreal3).
  - uses the INFINITE HEALTH system of COD2, Splinter Cell DA, GoW, R6Vegas, etc. Get shot a million times, move back, no problem.
  - annoying repetitious voice acting (JERRIES!!!) What is this Seinfeld?
  - cannot bypass cut-scenes. UNFORGIVABLE!
  - uses bad grenade throwing system that most next-gen games now use instead of an exact arc system.
  - AI = average to dumb, some guys stand there waiting to get shot.
  - game is so colorless it's hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys a lot of the time
  - vehicle driving is not the intuitive RTrigger = forward, LTrigger = reverse of all other games; it uses some moronic RTrigger = forward and then makes you press a button to go backward. NOT INTUITIVE!
  - no real upgrades or innovations from last title other than those previously mentioned
  - the WWII game genre is boring, overdone, oversaturated and tired so much to the point that it is one of the only genres that is routinely ridiculed (for example, by the folks at x-Play). It is done to death to capitalize and exploit the last good war the US fought in, which was so long ago (well over half a century) it has no bearing on the current political climate and dirty oil and strategic wars that the US currently fights in, nearly anyone that fought in it is dead, and none of the gen X'rs playing this game have any connection to it at all. The movie industry is no different; churning out 1 WWII film after another (Clint Eastwood even spewed out 2 in 1 year and people laud him for it). In other words, I'm saying it's an easy and convenient softball genre.
  
  My guess is that when EA's Medal of Honor: Airborne and more importantly, Ubi's squad-based FPS Brothers In Arms: Hell's Highway (both using Unreal3) are released, this title will be left in the dust.
  
  Give me the LAST-GEN Halo/Halo2, Doom3, Half-life2 any day of the week over this FPS. For military shooters, give me any Ubisoft title (GRAW, etc) over this. For historical shooters, I guess this is as good as it gets for now on the 360. You have to go into an alternate WWII/sci-fi genre and/or off this platform to get a good one (Resistance: Fall of Man for PS3).
  
  
  
• big letdown
  By AD8CNMZFHUN1D on 2007-08-16
  I love Call of Duty 2 and was excited to get this one. But it is not even comparable to 2. The scenes are dark, it's difficult to aim, and it's hard to find other players in deathmatch.
  
  
• VERY FUN MULTIPLAYER
  By A1Y3NFP9WDL57Z on 2006-11-09
  The graphics on this game are better than on COD 2.The multiplayer is way better than the previous version and lag rarely occurs. its also suports 24 peple online which is awesome.the single player is more intense that part 2. overall this games rules, oh and you can play as polish and canaddians on this single player campaign.
  
  
• They blew it
  By A169CJ2NJQYIM6 on 2006-11-10
  This game could have been--SHOULD have been perfect. COD 2 was so close and they only forgot one thing--cooperative play, specifically via split screen. Why any developer would not add a split screen co-op is beyond me, especially when these guys received some SERIOUS negative feedback for not including it on their last game. So did they listen? No, so very sadly, they ignored their customers. So Call of Duty 3 is a solid game that fell short because these guys didn't feel that customer feedback was important.
  
  
• Why can't thier be a WWI game for once?
  By on 2006-11-11
  The first thing anyone playing this game will notice are the graphics. I am dirt poor from saving for a ps3 so i can't afford an hdtv to say the least. But without one, COD3 (call of duty 3) still stands out considerably. One of my favorite details is that, unlike the last game, when you aim down the sights, your vision goes in and out of focus instead of you having to hold your breath every other shot. Things explode nicely and if an enemy is 3 feet in front of you, you can see the little beads of sweat.
  
  The sound is superb. The voice acting is well done and the enemies speak in thier own language which makes for a nice change. The music ties into whats happening. Its not patriotic music when your marching, and not silence when your in the heat of battle. Its not heavy metal which is nice, but rather a ballad of war that put me on my toes for when a grenade comes my way.
  
  The gameplay is fast and furious with stops in between to give you time to catch your breath. One of the noteworthy features is the ability to ''cook'' and toss back grenades. In COD2 holding a grenade had no negative after effects. This time around holding a grenade as i have learned first hand, can and will kill you. I also learned first hand that if you see a grenade land near you and you pick it up, you can't sit thier and say''hmmm. i wonder if this is a live grenade?'' it is, and now your dead.
  
  This game is pure fun. One of the best features is that the game stops during cutscenes, but will your watching, the game is loading, which is great. Along with the expected american and british campaigns(it is spelled wrong), you also can now play as the polish and Canadians. Who honestly hasn't woken up one day and said ''i want to have a video game that lets me be polish and fight in WWII?'' I unfortunately haven't had a chance to play multiplayer, but it does look promising.
  
  So if you have $60 laying around and are bored playing an average WWII game, ( without polish(: ) go buy COD3 it is well worth it.
  
  
• Really disappointing
  By A3B94MCEA73LVN on 2006-11-11
  My friends and I had high hopes for this game. We played COD2 multiplayer every week and were excited about a new shooter. After playing COD3 for a few rounds we decided to put 2 back in. The graphics are great, but we found a lot of bugs. There were some shading problems with the helmets that made them turn white at a certain distance. That's fine if you want to be a UN soldier, but not if you're trying to sneak up on somebody. Muzzle flashes were almost none existent. No blood splash like in COD2. The single player game isn't too bad so far, but if you plan on multiplayer I would recommend renting it first. We were of the opinion that the game was rushed, maybe they'll patch it.
  
  
• I Feel Sorry for PC Owners Who Can't Play Call of Duty 3
  By A1VCJKQUUDV6SL on 2006-11-13
  First of all, I am a big World War II fan. I love playing all the World War II games that are made for the PC. I decided last week I had to get a Xbox 360 just to play Call of Duty 3 and Gears of War. So I went to a local Gamestop and bought the Xbox 360 along with Call of Duty 3. Gamestop didn't have Gears of War in yet. I ended up getting Gears of War at Circuit City.
  
  Okay so I went home and I set up the Xbox 360 on my tv set and I put in Call of Duty 3 to play and I noticed the picture wasn't that good. So I disconnected the Xbox 360 and I hooked it up to my PC flat screen monitor. Boy, let me tell you something. There was a huge difference in the quality of the picture. I couldn't believe it. And the sound was 100 times better. What is so cool is I can turn on my PC and my Xbox 360 at the same time and switch back and forth playing games from my PC and games from my Xbox 360 on the same PC flat screen monitor. This is the best investment I ever made.
  
  Now my review just has to do with Single Player only. Call of Duty 3 looks even better than Call of Duty 2 on the PC flat screen monitor. Call of Duty 3 is a great game that should have been made for the PC too. The battles are very intense and very realistic. The AI is very good. Both Allies and German troops advance and retreat when they need to. They both use cover very well. It is so cool to fight in huge battles and have large number of troops from both sides fighting against each other. It is especially cool when you have artillery shells exploding all around you while you are right in the middle of fighting a large battle. The graphics are very good. Call of Duty 3 has some the best looking grass and best looking water I've ever seen in a game. I really like the storyline in the game. This game is based on actual battles fought in France during the summer of 1944. I can't wait for Call of Duty 4 to come out next year. I hope it is based on some more World War II campaigns.
  
  
• Generally good, with some flaws
  By A11FWRP29X2CXE on 2006-11-24
  So after finishing COD2 went out to get COD3. In general the game is fairly similar to its predecessor. Graphics have in general taken a nice step up, as has the sound. Explosions are more realistic, and there are more caustics, specular highlighting and environment mapping in the scenes. Rain is more rain-like (apparently it REALLY rains in France!). Reloading is a slightly slower process (as it was with some of these weapons, so that is more realistic). Grenades seem much less devastating versus COD2 (toss one into a contained room/bunker and most germans survive the blast??)
  
  However, some things really annoy me: The biggest is the cut scenes... Let me skip them, especially when returning to one I saved! If I've already seen the movie on why we're attacking St. Lo, then seeing the nazi's march under the Arc de Triomphe is boring and annoying after 1 take... Even worse, as you get farther along, it still loads that old cut scene despite having gotten much further along. The slow in game mission briefing from the sarge are equally annoying as it runs slowly. If I want to skip, please let me...
  
  There are more little bumps you can't climb over (little gullies and hedges that it will not let you walk up, but will in a space next to it which appears identical). This makes the game feel more linear. The game feels very linear (if it presents you with 3 buildings you are to take, it's pretty obvious which one the game wants you to take first, as all the other teammates run to one building only)
  
  I have found myself "stuck" on another member of my team. We both went to climb a stairwell and got caught on each other (stooge style) and can't free up to move. Eventually something happens and he starts moving and I can move again. Very annoying
  
  
• The heat of battle....is not so hot.
  By A892SS5FVL3DN on 2006-12-16
  I've returned two Xbox 360 copies of this game due to freezing...(about
  20 minutes into the game)...Bought a third copy for my first gen Xbox.
  I played it through once and probably will let it collect dust. I much
  prefer COD2 over COD3. No freezing, fun two player action, no long, boring
  video interrupts....my opinion is that COD2 is the better game experience.
  
  
• COD 2 was much better
  By A2B4BYXDYD63ZC on 2007-01-05
  I sold COD 2 and purchased this and wish I hadn't. This game seems more hurried together and lacks the cohesiveness in the story that COD 2 had. There are also more points where you seem to get stuck, i.e., the computer won't let you around a house so you have to reboot and then the next time it does.
  
  Not a horrible game but if you're going to spend the money COD 2 is far better...and cheaper.
  
  
• Fun game but too many glitches.
  By A1KSAGEJ6RJIO5 on 2007-01-12
  Multiplayer games on Xbox Live are fun until it freezes or disconnects for no reason. They should fix these things before releaesing the game. The single-player game is mediocre at best.
  
  
• A tired game from a spent genre.
  By AJX0Q5B0QEP57 on 2007-05-31
  You should definitely avoid paying retail for this title. It's really not that good compared to what else is available, and the improved graphics and audio are the very least one should expect from a next gen console game. The fact that there's nothing new here is particularly frustrating. I think the WWII experience peaked about 6 years ago, with certain of Steven Speilbergs productions. We can never repay the greatest generation, and making stale video games meant to approximate what those people saw and did is the very height of cynicism. The only thing that could trivialize the horror of WWII more than this game is probably some kind of sugar cereal.
  
  Things that suck:
  
  -Extremely linear gameplay
  -Worthless multiplayer
  -Annoying AI
  -Highly contrived hand to hand combat scenes that literally resort to button mashing
  -Unclear objectives
  -Very little control over what equipment you can use (basically you should steal the first German MP40 you can get your hands on for ammo purposes).
  -Unclear reasons for dying(often).
  -Little in the way of fun
  
  By the time I finished this game, naught 4 days after purchase and moderate play, I felt no other sense of achievement than I didn't have to play it anymore. Once you finish the game that's it, you don't get anything special when you start a new campaign , like the ability to select the one or two cool guns that exist in this game. You don't get any medals, no promotions, I mean, who cares? The only reason to play it again is to try to justify its unwarranted expense. DO NOT BUY IT.
  
  How about a Korean War game, or maybe Vietnam? Do those conflicts not deserve our respect, understanding, or attention? Isn't this supposed to be a variety of "edutainment"?
  
  
• A wasted Effort
  By A2GVVAO242EK1D on 2007-12-18
  It was a mistake for Activision to take the Call of Duty line away from its creators for the third installment. All the big hallmarks of the Call of Duty franchise seem to be here, linear story and cut scenes. But it doesn't seem to have the care and the excitement of the first two CoDs. And the third installment adds nothing to the game. For all intents it is just a poorly done expansion of the second game with no real improvements of polishing. It also seems that half of the game your character is being controlled by the computer or in a state of advanced shell shock. This seems to be a very heavy handed way of insuring the player appreciates all the scripted events throughout the game.
  
  As just another FPS WW2 shooter it might be an alright game. But since it carries the Call of Duty name people should, and do, expect it to be better than average. It is unfortunate that CoD3 isn't. I would recommend this game as a weekend rental maybe but this title left me very disappointed. It is good to see Call of Duty 4 returned to Infinity Ward.
  
  

• Call of Duty 3 Official Strategy Guide (Brady Games Official Strategy Guides) (Brady Games Official Strategy Guides)
• The Official Xbox Magazine [1-year]
• Electronic Gaming Monthly
• Play

• Gears Of War
• Xbox 360 Wireless Controller
• Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas
• Halo 3
• Xbox 360 Console Includes 20GB Hard Drive