| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (88)

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 3:33PM Kinetic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You said the graphics on the 360 and PS3 were different but never explain how or which looks better. Nor did u mention trying to play COD without rumble.

If the single player plays like COD2 on the 360 im sold, if the multiplayer is even better im gonna have to buy at launch. If the other consoles arnt going to be availble here i guess im going to have to buy the 360 version, but then again i wouldn't buy a ps3 if someone held a gun to my head so the choice is kinda made for me.
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 3:36PM listentothis said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I was really trying not to do it, but I think I might have to get the 360 and Wii versions. Gotta have the multiplayer...but the controls for the Wii are pretty nice.
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 5:03PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm thinking both 360 and Wii. Sounds like a Blast!
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 3:41PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Awesome!
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 3:39PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Good coverage, very informative.

I still have a question about the Wii version though:

How do the controls compare to other FPS games on the system? e.g. Metroid and Red Steel. Are they tight and responsive? I could forego 24 player xbox live play if the single player experience on the Wii is twice as much fun to play.
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 3:39PM Lekko said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well, let me first say that I probably won't be picking up this game at all because I'm not a huge CoD fan. The thing I wonder about though is this line, "Summing up our day at war: the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions of the game are graphically different from each other, but they both look and feel extremely similar to CoD2."

Graphically different, how? Which one looked better?
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 4:09PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So did the PS3 version use the same mechanics as the Wii when it came to the "struggle" with another character? If they both have motion should this not work similar?!? I know in the article they say how it was tacked on too late, but what does this mean?
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2006 11:39AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
lol wii version looks like ghost recon...as in the, the first ghost recon for Xbox 1
PS3 version has disgusting textures and just as bad overall graphics.

360 version looks way too shiny and soft to be the least bit believable, decent particle effects, but the glossy look just kills it all

all versions however, look like they're gonna offer really intense fighting and the new action cutscenes look fun

-my non fanboy-ish take

P.S:
"The PS3 has tossed in an "Oh crap! The Wii might steamroll us! Invent something!" motion senstive melee attack"

thats just bad form, Joystiq. Just say the motion sensitivity was tacked on (because it was) and be done with it. No need to try and implant your agenda on us, just tell the news like it is.

Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 3:43PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report

I just checked out the site Hector was talking about and to be honest, I think the 360 looks better. The only next logical step up in graphics to be noticeable I think would be to actually appear 'cinemarealistic'. We're at the 'photorealistic' now...
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 3:44PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I cant imagine CoD without online, seems a bit pointless. Added to the fact that it will be the first CoD to ever take a backwards step in terms of graphics theres no way I would even consider getting the Wii version. If I want crappy graphics and a crosshair that moves depending on where I point I will go play CoD1 on the PC.
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 3:44PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
resistance will be my big shooter for ps3, i will buy cod3 for 360 though no doubt, just cause i want a killer fps this holiday for it,

as for the wii ill definately rent and maybe buy if worthy cod3 for it, i just see issues like holding onto a grenade or how fast and accurate the shots and moves will be using your body to do them instead of just with quick buttons...

melee sounds cool on ps3 and makes good sense on how you would do it, but resistance will have that so im covered...

would be nice is wii would do HD, cause there is a BIG difference

either way, no matter what version buy, you will get a great game to play and enjoy.
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 3:46PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
and no online for cod3 is a step backwards
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 3:49PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I played Call of Duty 3 for Xbox 360 and let me tell you, in 100% honesty, you WILL BE AMAZED when you play it. If you like COD2, you won't believe COD3!
Reply

Posted: Apr 1st 2007 11:42AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
No multiplayer at all on the Wii? I knew thered be no-online, and thats when I changed my mind about getting this game, but while reading that, my mind was changed again. But if there is absolutely no multiplayer on the Wii, then there's no chance I'm getting that game.

I hope the Wii turns out to be more than just toned down ports of popular games.
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 3:49PM Sloar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
for all of you who scream "joystiq hates sony! quit being such a M$ fanboy!" let's just take a step back and look at this article.

they recommend buying the ps3 version for multiplayer. did anyone else notice that there was NO multiplayer? but they sure couldn't say, "don't get the ps3 version because there is currently no multiplayer" because there would undoubtedly be some moron who chides in, "sony said there will be multiplayer so quit spreading lies joystiq!" yeah, well, sony has said a lot of things and I'm now a believer that you frankly CAN'T believe anything those crooks say.

quit attacking joystiq for reporting the truth and try waiting for the ps3 to be released before we start arguing which system is better. sure, I could say that my kid could beat up your kid, but it makes no sense to argue about it until you have kids old enough to get beat up by my kids anyway.
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 3:51PM aforty said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yea so wht are the graphical differences between 360 and PS3?
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 3:52PM adg1034 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2006 4:43AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
no online on Wii!, big mistake.
Then again big mistake there being no PC version either. I wonder if they'll be able to update the Wii version and add multiplayer.
I'll still get the Wii version as its the only console I'm getting (also the only one I can afford!), might have got the PC version, IF THEY DID IT.
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 3:55PM Keithustus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
No multiplayer on Wii?

[Kicks self in head for supporting Nintendo without question!]
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2006 6:23AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Its great to know that Nintendo are delivering on their promise and that the gameplay really is something special.

Also thanks hector for that site. It looks like the screenshots for marvel there are the same resolution for the 360 and wii as well which is nice. All to often I find myself watching hd videos and looking at hd screenshots for the ps3 and 360 and thinking the graphics are so much better than the wii. Yet I don't have a HDTV and probably won't for 5years or so. When you see the pictures of wii and 360 both at 480p (i presume) they really don't look hugely different. I mean theres definetly differences (lighting and textures mainly) but without a hdtv I don't think its going to be massive.
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 4:03PM icantdrawanime said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
While I agree with the graphics over gameplay idea, terrible graphics definitely make a game unplayable. I remember trying to play call of duty: big red one on the gamecube and I just couldnt get through it... Maybe I've been spoiled by PC graphics where I could actually distinguish my enemies from the mess of textures that makes up the background, but if the graphics of call of duty 3 on the wii makes enemies indistinguishable from the folliage then its just disappointing as hell
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 4:03PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
He doesn't say because the PS3 is superior to the 360, if it looked better on the 360 the name of this post would be different and they would be saying it every other sentence.

If you want us to take your reviews seriously you might want to have an objective look at all the versions and stop being ignorant fanboys. We know you're wii and 360 fanboys but if the PS3 looked better, which I'm pretty sure it did, then say so and stop saying bad things about the motion sensing in the game. You're just looking for a way to bad mouth the PS3.
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 7:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
please just tell me the 360 version ran at a silky 60fps. COD2 was the only game at launch that blew me away in it's presentation (Condemned too, but I didn't get that until a week later) and part of that was the smooth frame rate. I was hoping that would be a standard in the next-gen, but oh well.

Just please please tell me they're not going to skimp on this in COD3
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 4:06PM Sloar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@16 BMWM3P

I just wanted to say thank you for validating my previous post.
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 4:12PM Spiza said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
No multi, no spiza.
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 4:11PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@sloar:

i'm pretty sure no one said anything about joystiq favoring sony. your post screams fanboy moreso than anything else on this page.

@saint:

i think you're dead on with the 'cinemarealism' comment. screenshots can be eerily realistic, but it seems that that all too often drops away when it's actual video/motion. i'm sure that COD3 will look amazing on both ps3 and 360, but i think the NEXT generation is going to be where the line between film and computer generated is severely blurred. not that i won't be playing this in the next few months :)
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 4:18PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Thankyou, thankyou, and good night.

The Wii version is the most fun version to play. 'Nuff said. If you want graphics, buy yourself a PC or go run around in a field.
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 4:18PM deedubbadoo said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ 16 How is hell could you be "pretty sure" the PS3 version looked better? Have you played it? Geez just cause they reported that the motion sensing melee felt tacked on has nothing to do with them be pro 360. Its called a review, they played it and then they give you the reader their thoughts. Just because their thoughts aren't along the same lines as yours doesn't mean they are fanboys.
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 4:19PM Bobbo said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
He did mention that online was only ready for the 360. ??? This late in the game...I would think that if Online was not playable on the PS3 by now...it can probably be added to the list of games loosing online support for the PS3 this fall.

More bad news for Sony.
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 4:22PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
360 looked the best. Its been out for a year. PS3 idiots are in denial. PS3 won't ever look better than 360 but it could look identical in a couple of years. Not worth $600. Wake up! No way possible it looked better than the 360...no way...the ps3 has not been worked on long enough.
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 4:24PM Sloar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@astareus

did you even read post 16 or any posts regarding the "europeans don't care" story? my point was that everyone seems to think joystiq has an anti-sony agenda. joystiq is reporting what's in the news. is it their fault that sony has had nothing but bad press for the last few months? and it's not simply joystiq's agenda--sony's stock has been dropping as well. it's just remarkable to me that people are arguing so much about a product they haven't seen. instead of yelling "sony's better" or "microsoft's better" or "the wii will rule all", let's just wait until we can actually compare the finished product rather than comparing what sony says to everything else. because heaven knows that you can't believe everything sony (or microsoft or nintendo) says as gospel.
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 4:27PM dantebk said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Are we positively sure the Wii won't have multiplayer? That's the only thing making me iffy on the Wii vs. 360 debate for this game. The graphics in the Wii picture look good enough, I don't know if I'd place graphics above gameplay on the importance scale.

But multiplayer... that's tempting. Why with the Wii having online support and the DS already on the network would a big launch game like this NOT have a multiplayer option?
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 4:29PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
BMWM3P

The preview doesnt mention a real difference between the two graphically just saying that they look different. But the Preview does glow about the graphics on the 360 version. Frankly that would lead me to believe that the 360 version, if even slightly, looks a bit better. Why does that upset you man? You're another person that frequents this site that is a slobbering PS fanboy. But if these guys give a fair and seemingly objective preview that may indicate that your console of choice doesnt look like the end all be all version of the game, why get mad? Hell wii fanboys now that its gonna look like shit on the wii when compared to the other two systems but you dont see them crying.
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 4:31PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
dantebk

It's already been reported that beyond 1st party titles, pretty much no 3rd party titles at launch or until early 2007 will have "online" multiplayer. You may get some split screen or something, but beyond that SOL.

Sorry bro.
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 4:33PM redspear said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
#26

Right now honestly Sony is giving its own bad news with regard to that. However this is not that article and this seems fairly even handed. It is entirely possible that the 360 and PS3 have different graphics but look the same. Which would be a reason for them not saying system X has the best graphics.

Also with regard to calling the shake thing takes on it very well could have that feeling since they only had since E3 to put that feature in.

And as for everyone seeming to think that Joystiq has an anti-sony agenda please keep in mind that is not the case. It seems tome that fanboys like Azn1080P, BMWM3P, Jeff, Darryl, and so on are very vocal about any negative news towards the PS3 and extremely defensive.

The PS3 has not really shown anything that is out of this world in actual gameplay. Motorstorm looks good but not like the "gameplay" trailer they released. and Joystiq did report the good news of HDMI on the core system...

Wait until the PS3 comes out. After the immenent HW failures at launch you will see plenty of good news for the PS3.
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 6:34PM redspear said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
BTW I was curious how did the Wii-mote compare to the PC Moudse combo or Dual Analog? I like FPS's but I despise them on concole mostly because of the slow turning clunky aiming large hit boxes and delayed reaction from AI. I am hoping the wii brings a more responsive system to consoles even if there is a smaller learning curve.
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 5:31PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I thought it was already established that the PS3 would, in general, be the prettier visually on multi-platform titles - moot.



Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2006 4:24PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Why the hell the character models (my eyes my f*cking eyes… look at the hands…geez can u say N64) so terrible. There is no excuse for that. Activision why do you feel Wii fans will not care if the graphics looks like crap. GET THE SH*T RIGHT!!!

Other than the terrible character models (the hands look like big foot feet) the rest of the games looks ok…just ok :(

If this doesn’t improve will be mark this game of my list.
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 4:55PM PixelPerfect said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wow so they are working on 3 different versions of CoD 3? I was expecting the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions to be 95% identical, especially in the graphics/sound department.

You guys didnt mention how aiming works in the Wii version. Is it similar to Red Steel or Metroid? Is the reticule fixed like PC FPS? I remember seeing a video a few weeks ago and it looked like it controlled well.
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 4:56PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
gametrailers has some hi def gameplay footage of the 360 version, if anyone's interested.
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 5:02PM MysticX said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
For gods sake people. It´s been said before that games which have no multiplayer at the moment may get multiplayer through the WiiConnect in 2007, otherwise no biggy. I´ll just play CoD online on my PC since I would more like to play Mario Kart Wii online, but where on earth is that game?!?
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 5:16PM munn75 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wii people please realize that you have to be the most hypocritical people on the planet. Gameplay over graphics seems to be the mantra. Except when it comes to the lack of online gameplay. All of a sudden that doesn't matter.

To be honest, the Wii version looks like shite. I would expect that where the Wii is really going to shine will be in the first party department as always. In this area, they won't be competing against 360 and PS3 versions of the same game.

Of course this brings up my biggest complaint. The Wii should have been more powerful. I hate that I have to choose between the graphics of the 360 or the gameplay of the Wii. If Nintendo would have put out a system similar to the 360 in processing power, they could have had the best of both worlds. Instead they chose to build highly profitable system that is not up to par with their main competition. To say that they aren't competing with Sony and Microsoft is ridiculous. Of course they are. This game is a perfect example.

Again, as great as the Wii gameplay may be (and the jury is still out on that one for me until I play it), you can't tell me that you wouldn't want graphics and online capabilities to go along with that gameplay.
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 5:21PM keyrat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Will any of them support more than 16 players online (preferrably 32+)? How about 4 players online from one console? The 360 CoD2 suffered on both of these.
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 5:23PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
A good article that should please everyone:

PS3 version - looks great, motion-sensing capabilities of sixaxis are integrated into the game.
360 version - looks great, great support for online multiplayer gaming.
Wii version - looks ok, is tons of fun.

My personal choice: the Wii version, because fun > everything else.

If someone is complaining at this article, there's just no helping them I guess.
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 5:23PM Bentzero said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Dang it. I knew this would happen. Now I'm torn between getting the 360 version for graphics or the Wii version for the control.
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 5:28PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ben:

I'm looking forward to getting the Wii myself, but i am a bit more realistic. My main purpose is for 1st party games and as a way to bring my girlfriend into gamin. I've already moved in that direction slightly by picking her up a pink ds lite, which she now takes with her everywhere. I can pretty much guarantee that any cross platform game that comes out will be housed on my 360 and maybe a PS3 in the future. Call me a graphics snob if you will, but Live and the graphics are enough to sway me to the Xbox.

But the wii will definitely have a home under my television, and 4 million for the holiday season almost guarantees it a spot.

Oh and as for online....even the most devout Wii snod has got to realize that the friend code system is pretty primitive, and that if you really want online play you get an Xbox. It's not really something you can argue against.
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 5:25PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm a happy 360 owner and COD2 player, eagerly looking forward to this game, but I wonder if there might be a typo in the opening paragraph, where I've inserted a phrase in brackets:

"Looking across the field of battle through the field glasses on the 360 looked crisp and sharp. Running through a forest full of hidden Germans [on the PS3?] looked photorealistic, even with falling leaves that you could zoom in on and see every close-up detail. Running through burned out buildings on the Wii looked ... GameCubish."

He's talking about 3 systems, has 3 sentences, but doesn't specifically mention the PS3, so maybe he meant the second of the 3 sentences to be referring to the PS3. I'm sure Sony fans hope so.
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2006 1:03AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@36 rafa. Read the article! 360 supports 24 online.
Reply

Posted: Oct 6th 2006 5:27PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"We were rounded up in short order and taken into the Xbox 360 room, since multiplayer wasn't working on the PS3 yet, although the single player version did look very attractive."

For everyone not sure whether the PS3 or Xbox360 version looked better, this says it all... Clearly the PS3 version was NOT the better looking or complete.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Rhythm Heaven Fever review: Crazy into you

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 12:00PM

Remedy not done with Alan Wake

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 10:30AM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW