eat-sleep-game.com review

Many of you might have purchased Call of Duty 3 (COD3) but I wonder how many of you actually have completed it. If, like me, you were too busy playing Gears of War than you still might not have played more than a few moments of it. Or perhaps you purchased Gears instead of COD3? Well I have completed it and am here to give you the skinny. Come along with me, won’t you?

COD3 follows the story of an American infantry squad, a British commando unit, Canadian forces, and a Polish tank group as they fight in the Normandy Breakout, the campaign that led to the eventual liberation of Paris. The game bounces back and forth between different casts of characters, showing how battles fought by the Americans, for instance, affect the British campaign. Although the narrative tries to show the contributions made by non-American countries to the war, it definitely favors the American storyline, who are given the most character development and feel like they take up an unequal portion of the game. I applaud the designer’s efforts in trying to show the sacrifices of smaller nations like Poland, but the game could have been more unique if it had focused completely on non-American forces. I guess maybe the designers feared all you hard-core nationalists would not buy a game where you had to play as a Pole or a Frenchman. (eds. note: he’s kidding folks, I don’t want to see any angry emails)

Though COD3 fails to reinvent itself in a fashion that reinvigorates the franchise, it does include small innovations in game-play that help interrupt the repetitive combat sequences. In COD2 when you planted charges on guns and buildings it just required the player to hold X. In COD3 planting explosives actually follows a small interactive sequence where they player has to plant the charge, wind in the fuse, and then pull the pin. Each of these actions requires a different use of the controller and helps to make the game slightly more interactive. The only complaint that comes as a result of this innovation is that the designers use it too often and it eventually loses its novelty and becomes so repetitive you wish you could just hit X to plant the bomb.

Other welcome additions to the game include the ability to finally pick up and throw back enemy grenades (for which there is even an achievement) and melee combat sequences. Running away from grenades in COD2 quickly got annoying, especially considering how often the enemy would throw them; In COD3 you can be the hero and save your squad by returning those damned potato mashers. As for the melee sequences are a nice addition, where the player has to press certain buttons in sequence in order to complete different scenarios. Basically interactive cinemas, they aren’t overemphasized, and instead are used to break up the constant firefights.

The greatest incentive to buy this game for the 360 rather than the Wii (aside from the obvious graphical differences) is the online multiplayer. Like the single player campaign, the multiplayer component is competent with interesting additions for the franchise. While the ability to engage in 24 player large scale battles in multiplayer is fun, the game just does not have the same intrigue and reward that getting a kill in other shooters brings. Sometimes battles can feel a bit too chaotic, making you appreciate smaller firefights where skill feels like it comes more into play.

There are now vehicles in multiplayer, a new addition to the franchise. Taking a cue from Battlefield 1942, the vehicles available include tanks, motorcycles, jeeps, and trucks. These vehicles would be a great addition if players would actually try and work together in multiplayer (if you could get together a team of twelve of your friends, for example), but too often in large scale battles players just use vehicles as a way to get themselves into the combat faster rather than to try to get flanks and support the other troops. Unfortunately, these vehicles are essentially useless unless you are playing a large-scale battle where you can get players to work together strategically to use them.

In another first for the franchise, you no longer pick the weapon you wish to start with. Instead, in a quasi-Battlefield/Enemy Territory manner, you will choose your class (such as a “medic” or “anti-armor”). Just as in Battlefield these unit types vary in their weaponry and secondary abilities: players who are the medics can actually revive players who have been killed; although the chance of actually having a medic revive you is almost non-existent. Players who choose the light assault trooper class get “anti-personnel mines” that allow them to booby-trap key entryways on maps. The idea behind these classes is an interesting evolution for the franchise but are used disappointingly little by players in our experience. Rather than working together in a cohesive fashion where each player does the job their class is suited for, most playes instead run and gun, competing for kills even in team games. Although this is certainly not the developer’s fault, and I applaud Treyarch here for their efforts, it definitely makes the multiplayer a bit of a let down. In COD2 running and gunning was just the norm since there was nothing any one class could really specialize in. In COD3, we were hoping for more cohesive and in depth team play, but you’re unlikely to see it unless you can muster enough friends for a private game.

While COD3 is a fun game for genre fans, it is not a great game. Though it follows a lot of the traditional COD formula, it fails to measure up to its Infinity Ward developed predecessors. As in previous COD games, you’ll find constant action, large-scale battles, vehicle levels, and a story that follows multiple groups of characters. However, while it represents a valiant effort by a new design team to both stay true to the franchise and simultaneously push it forward, COD3 lacks the ability to engage its players as effectively as previous installments. Perhaps the series is just getting tired (how many times can you really kill all of Nazi Germany with just a rifle?) or perhaps COD3 failed because a different design team didn’t grasp the nuances that made the previous installments great. Infinity Ward made COD2 into a great enough game that I was able to tolerate playing it through again on the Veteran difficulty setting. After completing COD3 on normal, I find myself feeling more or less “done” with the game. Treyarch made a game that certainly looked great but does little to make the player feel like its going through little more than a really expensive and inferior expansion to COD2. Overall, this game is not something one should avoid but might want to consider waiting on until it drops in price.

7 out of 10

Call of Duty 2 gameplay

Call of Duty 3 gameplay