Metareview - Call of Duty 3
by James Ransom-Wiley 
{ Nov 9th 2006 at 5:50PM }
Three. Three's an important number for a franchise. It's a crossroads. Does your game continue to mimic its predecessors? Or does it dare to venture beyond their scope? Call of Duty 3 follows the former path, with few surprises, still no co-op, and an apparently wonky multiplayer experience. But no series does WWII better -- and that counts for something.Peep the word:
- Game Chronicles (98/100) - "The action is unbelievably intense and the historical material is researched and presented in a way that borders on being educational ... Signing up and going off to war might not be for everybody, but playing this game will certainly make you respect those who did and those who still do."
- Game Informer (85/100) - "There's little to complain about outside of the lack of innovation. However, it pains me deeply to see this franchise, which has done so much to push the first-person shooter genre forward, moving down the dark path of mediocrity that Medal of Honor has been walking for the last several years."
- 1UP (65/100) - "Strengthened with vehicles and support for up to 24 players, the online multiplayer comes in strong enough to save face for the series, but that pales as compensation for the disappointing single-player game ... Even for those who wind up enjoying the online component, Call of Duty 3 will long since have been forgotten a year from now."
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
jojo29 @ Nov 9th 2006 6:04PM
" but that pales as compensation for the disappointing single-player game ... Even for those who wind up enjoying the online component, Call of Duty 3 will long since have been forgotten a year from now."
Ah the irony. Ok first off how did Gears of War score so high even tho its single player is only 6-8 hours long??? But the multiplayer is where the meat of the game is at!? ( and yes i have played it ) yet CoD's single player is equally as engaging intense, although in a historically speaking type of way.
Yet, IGN rated GOW very high. Now lets take CoD3. Its multiplayer is awesome too, yet the multiplayer score in this game DIDNT affect its single player.hmmmm..
Petrie @ Nov 9th 2006 6:05PM
They really shouldn't have released this right alongside Gears. Had it been 2 weeks earlier or a month later, I definitely would have picked it up.
ACE @ Nov 9th 2006 6:07PM
Amazing game. Just picked it up today. Any fan of the first will love it. Online is the best experience in a while! Id say about 9.6...
jojo29 @ Nov 9th 2006 6:10PM
oops my bad, i meant 1up not ign:( DUH!!!
nea @ Nov 9th 2006 6:15PM
"Call of Duty 3 will long since have been forgotten a year from now."
when call of duty 4 comes out?
Nate @ Nov 9th 2006 6:18PM
@1: "Ok first off how did Gears of War score so high even tho its single player is only 6-8 hours long???"
Ummmm....maybe because the campaign is amazing. Since when is it considered bad to have tighter gameplay with a slightly shorter campaign? The campaign in Gears will probably be played through multiple times by most....it's that good. Length has nothing to do with how good something is....I wish people would understand that.
A lot of people can beat Contra in about 10 minutes....does that make it the worst game ever? Nope. The beauty of the gameplay lies in the ability to play it at higher difficulties and co-op....along with taking slightly different paths.
Gears is an amazing game....regardles what anyone says. Call of Duty 3 is good....but they really should have held off a couple weeks....Gears owns this week.
DeezNuts420 @ Nov 9th 2006 6:18PM
Damn. I love COD, but it is being shadowed by Gears right now. I hate having to decide between 2 games I am equally pumped for, but Gears is getting my money this round. Hopefully Santa will come through on COD for me!!
Joe smith @ Nov 9th 2006 6:30PM
I love it, but I am a WWII game nut. Weird to see such a wide range in the reviews.
jojo29 @ Nov 9th 2006 6:30PM
"A lot of people can beat Contra in about 10 minutes....does that make it the worst game ever? Nope. The beauty of the gameplay lies in the ability to play it at higher difficulties and co-op....along with taking slightly different paths."
Good point about games not having to be long in order to be good. BUT your contra thing is a bit off. Contra can be beat in 10minutes NOW, back then it was tough, and took maybe 15minutes lol
Ok i agree with you on "longer isnt neccessarily better" but although i have played the game WITH my bro on co-op even he said that 'it kinda sucks that he already beat it" I mean i know that its a good game that makes you want more, but thats the exact reason why it shouldnt have gotten a 10.
killploki @ Nov 9th 2006 6:34PM
#6 "Length has nothing to do with how good something is....I wish people would understand that."
lol, yeah its not the size that counts its how you use it. (i so badly wanted to insert a wii joke in here somewhere)
Bangarang @ Nov 9th 2006 6:51PM
i bought both. I havent tried COD3 yet, as im stuck at work until late tonight. GOW was good, but i loved COD2 online, so hopefully, this surpasses it. It better...I traded COD2 in for COD3:P
Nate @ Nov 9th 2006 6:47PM
That's impressive that you have already beaten Gears.
Unfortunately I don't have that kind of time on my hands, and have to play through things a little more slowly (I just passed Act 1). I played mostly on Live though....and the multiplayer is great.
I guess it's different for people in different situations....for me, it may be the perfect length for multiple playthroughs....but for someone else who has a lot of time to game, it might not suit their needs.
It's a great game either way....just slightly better for someone like myself (a shooter fan who doesn't have a lot of time everyday to sit down and chug through it). It's definitely worthy of the hype though.
jojo29 @ Nov 9th 2006 6:54PM
@Nate
I dont have as much time as you think i do( I work frm 3am -6pm). Its just like i said, either me and my bro are good, or the game was too damn short. Remember, Final Fantasy games state that their games are "over 80 hours long" when in actuality, its more like 30-35 with a good chunk of that dedicated to cutscenes,cgi scenes, etc.. so when GoW touts what was it 8-12 hours worth of gameplay i was like shit, gamers are gonna breeze through that.
Also i dont count the hours in terms of days. It took me and my bro let me see 2 "days" to beat it, but in actual 'sit down time' that is the equivalent of like 4-6 hours, which is roughly about 2-3 hours a day, not much by my standards, that gives me more than enough time to eat shit and sleep:)
Zoot Suit Jedi Dont Know Math @ Nov 9th 2006 7:14PM
Why does 1UP bother to review games??? Their reviews are so inconsistent with other reviewers that their reviews are just pointless.
Sam @ Nov 9th 2006 7:17PM
One thing that people should take into consideration before buying the game, a lot people are having insane problems playing it. No joinable xbox live games, and after attempting to play live now the single player will freeze within 30 seconds of playing. Everything else plays fine, I don't have the rings of death.
Use with caution.
Negativecool @ Nov 9th 2006 7:17PM
Sounds like GameChronicles is just now getting acquainted with the WWII first person genre. Also, given the high rating it would seem they have never played a Call of Duty game before...like they missed the first two and went righ to the 3rd.
Although I must say it has to be hard to innovate when you are dealing with a WWII FPS...I mean what else is there to do in it?....Throw in time travel? Laser guns?...not much to work with in the 40's.
fahmi @ Nov 9th 2006 7:19PM
people like jojo always love to brag how they can complete the game quicker than everyone else. then complaint how the game is too short. you can beat anything if you rush through it, but that is not the way games are developed.
developers create side-missions, beautiful landscapes, easter eggs, bonuses so people can enjoy the game, play it slowly and get the most out of it. i can beat final fantasy in less than 12 hours. but i do want to? no, i want to enjoy all the side missions, like trading card games, sports, get all the bonus abilities as much as I can, and do what the game intended to do. to provide me satisfaction and fun. not rushing the game and brag it how the game is easy.
Anthony D @ Nov 9th 2006 7:44PM
The guys at 1UP are assholes in plain English.
COD 3 is a masterpiece plain and simple!! The graphics and gameplay are through the roof. In some ways it's better than Gears in my opinion. GEARS IS AMAZING DON'T GET ME WRONG.......I LOVE COD 3, for the historical factor and the sweaty hands and pumping heart feeling that I haven't got from GEARS.....YET....Gears is beautiful, a technological dream come true.....but why is it so short??
Larb @ Nov 9th 2006 8:02PM
1UP is the sorriest excuse for a credible game review website. The guys sound like stuck up nerds.
jojo29 @ Nov 10th 2006 2:27PM
@ Fahmi
I didnt "rush" through the game, dont be mad because you have no skills, and im sorry if i enjoyed the game enough to KEEP playing it, im sorry i thought i was supposed to you know actually PLAY the damn game. If you bothered reading through what i said, i was playing Co-op with my bro, which you cant really blaze through. Dont get mad at me because the game is short. They should have made it longer, not try a difficulty gimmick to try and lengthen it. Also how far back have yoiu played games?? you sound like you started gaming when the xbox came out? Ive been gaming since Nintendo ( cant help it i was born in that era not the atari and yes im sorry i missed it) and have ENJOYED EVERY LAST minute of my gaming experiences. Yes some games i can as you say "rush" through, but i enjoy EVERY minute of it. Im not bashing you because you havent 'beat the game' so please dont hate bitch.
??? @ Nov 9th 2006 8:16PM
I can duplicate what #3 ACE says except I will add that to single player-9.6. Oh, and 1UP; blow it up your arse!
A @ Nov 9th 2006 8:35PM
"But no series does WWII better"
sorry- but I need to go with the Brothers in Arms series here. can't wait to see hell's highway- though i guess i'll have to (stoopid delays)
moclippa @ Nov 9th 2006 9:04PM
I think the Single Player in the game is a big Yawn myself... actually, the only thing that keeps me playing it is just the fact that I want to get it over with, I want the achievment points, and I don't mind practicing my aim on bots once in a while.
The online componant has bugs.. I haven't been able to get in a ranked match yet, occasionally if I get killed in a multiplayer match the whole game throws me into a black loading screen that I can't get out of unless I exit to dashboard... and the way its setup (people can enter and exit any time they please) often leads to teams quickly becoming dispraportionate over the course of 2-3 matchs. Which means you either have to try to get everyone to self regulate and play fair, or just leave the server all together and look for an almost full server.
But aside from those annoying quirks, I find it to be completly engrossing when I'm playing... in fact, the only real reason I'd give Call of Duty an 8/10 is just because the multiplayer is damn fun.... sort of a mix of battlefield 1942 and call of duty. The game is fast paced, it requires some level of cooperation, and if one team is a bit better organized then the other, it can turn ugly quite quickly.
I play a medic normally, and there is nothing more satisfying then rushing around in the aftermath of a heavy artillery strike, in the middle of smog spewing out of smoke canisters, under sniper and machine gun fire, with three other medics running around trying to revive people who are hollering over the mic trying to explain exactly where they are. The multiplayer is a rush... the good kind. So though I'm going to be enjoying gears of war pretty much all day tomorrow, I know I'm going to pop back on this game at some point this weekend just to rampage online.
Jason W @ Nov 10th 2006 12:40PM
I bought both GOW and Call Of Duty 3 lastnight. I played GOW for a few hours and was amazed. I then put Call in for a spin and was AMAZED again. The graphics are so much better than last years. The battles are larger and the enemies are crazy hard to kill. Its a GREAT GREAT game and should be on the shelf beside every 360 owners GOW disc. People it is alot better than last years and it was great!
Bill @ Nov 9th 2006 9:57PM
Hey jojo29 - regarding comment 13:
I'm not a grammar nazi, I'm really not, but you should really learn to appreciate the value of a well-placed comma.
For example: note the difference between "eat shit and sleep" and "eat, shit, and sleep."
Maybe you know what you were doing though, who am I to judge? :)
troc 59 @ Nov 9th 2006 11:02PM
hahahahahaha! Good one,Bill! Eat shit,jojo,enjoy! hahahahaha!
Malfoy Roark @ Nov 9th 2006 11:33PM
Well I'm loving COD3. I'd give the single player a 8/10. I might be enjoying the single player more than I am GoW right now(I'm switching between the two.)
My only complaint about COD is that I'm playing on hard and I think they take hard to mean borderline impossible! For the most part things go smoothly but I'm on one part where I've spent hours on and am still failing. Gears on hard is nowhere near as hard as COD. thanks god. :) And since everyone is talking about both games I'll ask this about GoW, I'm moving through act 4 right now and still feel like they haven't really told me anything about WHY or HOw things became this way. That bothers me.
But yea. COD3= 9/10, thats right I said 8 up there but I'm saying 9 now. It does what it does great, but its not perfect.
J @ Nov 10th 2006 3:26AM
I completely agree with 1UP. Got CoD3 home the other night and I couldn't tell if I'd taken the 2nd one by mistake. Granted, there's only so much you can change from one WWII sequel to another, but if it weren't for the (slightly) improved graphics and 1 on 1 Nazi fights, I'd have no idea if this was CoD2 or 3. The gameplay is exactly the same.
Michael Melazzo @ Nov 10th 2006 4:05AM
I must say, after playing both Gears of War and Call of Duty 3, I have to give the vote to Gears...
But the thing is, they are completely different games... with somewhat varying audiences. There are alot of guys who only go for the old-school real world shooters... quaisi history buffs who get real pumped for a Call of Duty Warfighter, but wouldn't look twice at the Gears of War demo video.
Has anyone else noticed the huge differences in the feel between Call of Duty 2 and 3? The multiplayer has changes significantly, making them feel like very different games. Alot of that is probably due to the new developer... although COD 3 has its ups... it has changes way more than I had wanted.
but like I said, these games are way to different to stack up to one another... like apples and oranges... Apples and PC's...
is anyone else scared that the 360 may become the next dreamcast... I know its bad to think this... but I hope resistance sucks... and the PS3 fails...
Amos @ Nov 10th 2006 4:07AM
Does anyone even listen to 1up anymore? I have *yet* to see them give a good review to a good game in, like, the past 6 months or so...it's almost a running joke. "Hey, there's a new game released today," - "If it's not Final Fantasy, Halo, or Metal Gear, 1up will give it 4-7, if it's lucky."
GhostDoggy @ Nov 10th 2006 5:08AM
Has Activision still not introduced the option for Co-Op play (Live based MP vs. AI in private gaming)?
Stujiro @ Nov 10th 2006 11:14AM
Those of you bitching about 1up. Please read this blog entry from Andrew Pfister, 1up's chief editor.
http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=7604236&publicUserId=4549029
They are trying to get away from the 7-9 scale that we've all been use to from IGN and the like forever. Basically on that old scale anything below a 7 was unplayable and anything above a 9 was perfect. However 1up decided it was silly to do it that way and are going to use the full scale. At 1up 6.5 (they just made this change a month or two ago so don't dig up old reviews please) is probably more like an 8.5 on the IGN scale. It's still a good score. The problem is that it looks stupid on metacritic.
Amos @ Nov 11th 2006 4:13AM
@ Stujiro,
Don't be a dumbass, everyone knows all about that shit. 6.5, however, is just above average. *A little bit* 1up reviews have been a joke for a long time now, even before their "new" system. It's either ridiculously low (CoD3) or ridiculously high (Gears and Halo 2), and I like Gears and Halo 2, but 10's? Hmmm...
9mmPreacher @ Nov 20th 2006 9:09PM
I love this game! I have a review up if you are interested.
http://reviewsblog.sonsofgodclan.net/2006/11/20/call-of-duty-3-first-impressions.aspx
Conbus @ Nov 21st 2006 1:24AM
Gears has a great campaign mode, and an awesome multiplayer versus- but for me what makes it amazing for me is the co-op. Playing hardcore or Insane with a friend on Live is ridiculously fun. Not only that, but CoD is a WWII FPS, a type of game that's been done to death (still fun tho.) In comparison, Gears tries something few games have attempted, and makes it significantly better. Until CoD gets co-op, and tries to be a little more original, it doesn't compare to Gears.