Call of Duty 3 (Xbox 360) Review

Good Points
Brilliant graphics and sound create a great atmosphere
Now you can drive Jeeps and Bikes as well as Tanks

Bad Points
Nowhere near as good as Call of Duty 2
Controls are more refined, but lack the immediacy of CoD2
Multiplayer is again, worse than CoD2

General Comments
There wasn't any other game on the XBox 360 I was looking forward to as much as Call of Duty 3. It was a solid launch title for the 360, and a firm multiplayer favourite still even now, so surely Call of Duty 3 should have stormed in and taken the crown as the 360's best first person shooter, but it hasn't.



I should point out that CoD3 is actually by a different developer, Treyarch. They made the PS2 and Gamecube versions of Call of Duty (Finest Hour and Big Red One), and while they were good, they weren't anything near as good as the PC games by Infinity Ward (who also made CoD2 on 360). I'm not sure why, but apparently both developers are going to 'take turns' at developing the Call of Duty games from now, with Infinity Ward making all the even numbered games and Treyarch making all the odd numbered ones. I haven't a clue why Activision (who publish all of them) are having them do it like this, but at least that means Call of Duty 4 should be brilliant.



But even so, Call of Duty 3 isn't a bad game, far from it; it's just trying to play catch up with Call of Duty 2, and despite everything it does well, it doesn't quite match it. However, the part that is significantly better is the visuals. The character models look much better, and overall it is more distinctively next-gen. The weather effects aren't dynamic (ie. it's all pre-rendered, so rain does fall through buildings, and mysteriously vanishes when you enter any etc.), but it does look fantastic. The smoke effects are even better than before, but the most impressive thing is the sheer amount of things happening at once. Although they're all pre-rendered again, there are some brilliant set-pieces, with buildings been blown to pieces and groups of soldiers fighting everywhere. It really creates a believable atmosphere that's miles ahead of any other WWII game. Your troops are actually helpful, and they do actually kill enemies. They'll warn you of incoming fire or grenades, but they usually don't advance unless they're following you, which is the only spoiler. But it means that the game doesn't feel like you're a one-man army out to save the world (much like Medal of Honor games for instance). You need to rely on your squad to pull their weight too, and usually they do.



The gameplay is almost unchanged from last time, and pretty much everything is exactly the same. However, they have tightened the controls, but at the expense of speed, which becomes more noticeable in multiplayer. And there are some unusual live-action video sequences which require you to press buttons to progress (or stay alive). I really like how it's done in say setting a C4 charge, as you actually feel like you are setting a charge, and it's a nice touch, but the surprise close-combat parts aren't as good. Basically, it's a reaction test followed by button mashing. It completely ruins the atmosphere, and it's totally unnecessary.



On a more positive note, the new vehicles are a welcome addition, and really quite good. The tank sections are also more fun, and help break the relentless action up a bit.



But the major reason I don't like this as much as CoD2 is because of the multiplayer. Granted, there are new and more focused game modes. You can use vehicles, and they even included bazookas, so how did they get it so wrong? Online it's everything they promised, but the offline mode is just ruined. Most of the vehicles are gone. You can still use bikes, but so much else is also cut down. You can't use smoke grenades for instance, which was always fun in CoD2. The stages are designed for full-scale 24-player death matches, so even playing 4-player split screen it becomes hard to find each other, and some stages you're lucky to even spot anyone at all. And the radar/compass is pointless - on CoD2 it showed where gunshots were coming from, and in CoD3 it still does; however, it is near impossible to spot, and most of the time it never shows up anyway, so finding each other is made even harder. Basically, they ruined what was our favourite part of the game, and as such, it is probably why I sound so negative about it. However, it is still undoubtedly better than the Medal of Honor series, and it is one of the 360's best first person shooters. It's just that the older Call of Duty 2 is much better.



I'm still unsure if I like the single player campaign better than Call of Duty 2's however. It is more visually stunning and has more brilliant set-pieces, but Call of Duty 2 is more varied and has some simply massive-scale assaults, which CoD3 lacks. I suppose which one you prefer is simply a matter of what you want from an FPS. Call of Duty 2 is more action packed and faster, Call of Duty 3 is more tactical and has a much better atmosphere. And although Call of Duty 3 has better online modes, Call of Duty 2 simply blows it away with offline multiplayer, and it is still our multiplayer game of choice on the 360.



So overall, it's still a great game, beaten only by its predecessor, Call of Duty 2.