Call of Duty 3

"It's not awful, but there are a lot better WWII shooters out there."

One of the worst things that can be done to a series of games is to make sequel after sequel, year after year. It runs the risk of making each succeeding game shallower than the one that preceded it, and it can ruin what made the series stand out. Then there's the fact that if you churn out game after mediocre game the fans can start to feel that the series has entered the dying days of the franchise. Look at the Mega Man X series, it hit its apex at X3, after that the sequels gradually got worse. Capcom basically started releasing multiple sequels year after year of their series and it's become terrible. The Call of Duty series seems to be following a similar path. When it went from Call of Duty 1 to number 2 it improved the series, and that was because they took the time to develop the game into something that would be grander than the first game, they focused on other conflicts in World War II, and the game still stands out as one of the best WWII games made. Sure there was an expansion to the game, it was actually quite good, but it only set to build up CoD 2 as a better game than it's predecessors. One thing that also can kill a franchise is when the next installments are developed by anyone other than the original team. Splinter Cell is a perfect example, the original and Chaos Theory are the best because it's done by the original team, they know what made them great. Sure Pandora Tomorrow and Double Agent are no slouches, they are clearly the weaker games. The same thing happened with the Call of Duty series, Finest Hour was developed by Spark Unlimited, and it was a mediocre game. It only barely captured the same greatness that was the original Call of Duty. Then came Big Red One, and it was quite bad. It was fundamentally the Medal of Honor: Rising Sun of the Call of Duty franchise, in short, it was the worst one, it was terribly boring, and not worth playing. Perhaps it was because of its unfortunate luck of being released just after the vastly superior Call of Duty 2, hell it even tried to sell itself as the legitimate sequel with the full name of Call of Duty 2: Big Red One. However with the next Call of Duty, the original developers decided to go for a modern setting, and apparently the folks at Activision didn't want to wait two years for the next proper sequel. So they hired the makers of the Big Red One to make the sequel. And this time there'd be no proper Call of Duty 3 to stop them from raking in cash from the CoD fans. Fortunately Call of Duty 3 is better than BRO, but that's not saying much (I'd rather play the original four year old CoD 1 than BRO any day). My feelings toward Call of Duty 3 (no zippy subtitle here, that's all it is) still pretty much reflect what I feel toward BRO, I would still much rather play Call of Duty 1 than it.

By now it should be readily apparent what a World War II game contains by way of story. However this game focuses on just on particular mission from the war, Normandy Breakout. Also instead of the usual Russian, British, and American story that all previous CoDs have had this one instead focuses on the American, British, Canadian and Polish armies involvement in Normandy Breakout. Which I found to be a refreshing change of pace, sure you're just blasting away at ze Germans, but you're doing it as someone different from the usual Russian British and American POVs. Honestly, when was the last time you played a WWII game from the Canadian or Polish perspectives? That being said, if the developers feel it necessary to churn out another World War II game, can it please be a good Pacific Theater game? It also tries to continue the Call of Duty tradition of being cinematic. I, for one, don't care about the storyline and character development in a World War II game. I know what happened in the war, I've also seen Band of Brothers and most of the World War II movies that have come out. However the game forces you to watch these cinematics, the geniuses at Treyarch have decided to put the cut scenes in place of the load times, which I suppose is all well and good, because instead of staring at a blank screen whilst waiting for the level to load, you instead stare at a boring cinematic. It wouldn't be so bad if the cinematics were entertaining, I suppose they are the first time, but if you decide to quit and pick up the game an hour or so later, you will watch the SAME cinematic regardless of where you were in the stage. I think I got off the point just a bit, but suffice to say that the story is really just the usual: Germans bad und evil so go perforate them soldier, malarkey that fills every World War II game.

Graphically the game is quite appealing. The environments are nice and lush, it looks good and it's a step up from Call of Duty 2 (which was no slouch). Aside from Medal of Honor: Airborne this game has to be the best looking World War II game on the console. The character models are good, the vehicles look nice and realistic, the weapons look like their real-life counterparts to a tee, and the environments are nice lush and gorgeous. Granted the game does have a number of graphical glitches. One more than one occasion I've seen some German and other troops pass through solid objects like trucks, crates, and hedges. Also multiple times when I was moving through a corridor the characters arms just vanished into the wall. Minor graphical quibbles aside the game is quite the looker. The explosions are nice, and it's still got that cool little slow-mo effect if you're too close to an explosion.

Audiowise the game is phenomenal. The orchestral score is really well-done, and the sound effects are great. Voice acting is also surprisingly solid, I don't know why but it seems like the actors are realistically under duress and they just sell it. Also realistically ze Germans speak German. Which is surprising not at all. But at the end of the day it's the explosions that steal the audio show. Which is odd because outside of the usual BWAM, FWOOSH and KRA-KOW of explosions there's really not anything special about explosions. I suppose it's because I played it on a surround system, and it just really served to immerse me in the experience (apart from the times when my neighbors were yelling at me to turn it down). The guns also sound as realistic as their real-world counterparts (I watched Saving Private Ryan, so I am an undisputed expert in this field damn it!), which I've come to expect from the series. So all around the audio is quite fantastic and it steals the show.

So with the graphics being good (if not a little bland), and the audio being the undeniable star of the show, where does that put the gameplay? Well… it's a console Call of Duty. Aside from the port of Call of Duty 2, and the bits of the Modern Warfare multiplayer beta I've played I've never really been a fan of the console iterations of the franchise. The single player campaign while moderately entertaining pales in comparison of other, better WWII games. Like Call of Duty 2 and Medal of Honor: Airborne (which is, believe it or not, a good MoH game.), but it is still better than that undeniable piece of dreck Hour of Victory. The game controls rather well, and it plays much like (I know I'll get murder for the constant comparison) Call of Duty 2, and that's not a bad thing. Because Call of Duty 2 actually rocked, it was THE good Call of Duty console game, it did everything right. It really showcased what the 360 was capable of. However, the problem stems from the fact that the game plays almost exactly like Call of Duty 2. It wouldn't be a complaint but the gameplay should change more than just a little bit. Sure there's some change, but it's more or less just a carbon copy of the vastly superior CoD 2. Not everything is as it was in the last game. The game brings a couple of new ideas to the tired old genre. For instance, now you can grapple with ze Germans and pry the mausers, MP-40s, or whatever weapons ze German has on hand, and it's a pretty neat idea. It adds to the realism and the grit of warfare, it's quite nice. Also the game adds a new function to toss any grenades ze Germans throw at you back to their unambiguously evil kraut asses. It doesn't work all the time, but I find it to be quite nifty. However it must be said that the single player campaign is really quite dull. It sticks to the previous series traditions to a tee, it even includes a damn training mission that you cannot skip. Fortunately you're not lobbing potatoes this time around, but it's still useless and stupid. If you've played any FPS on the 360, you know how to play the game. It also sticks to the run from one scripted event to another that was prevalent in the earlier games, but whatever, I'm used to them. However it needs to change, gaming should really move on past these basic events. It's also got the vehicle segments, which control terribly this time around. So the single player is pretty much painfully average, and mediocre. But the multiplayer has to be good right?

Well fortunately the multiplayer in the game shines. It raised the amount of players that could be in a match, and it kept to a pretty good and very stable framerate during the times I played. It must be said that the multiplayer is not without it's faults, it doesn't really change anything in, well, any multiplayer games you've played. It's all fundamentally just either straight deathmatch, team deathmatch, capture the flag, and territories. Despite the fact it changes nothing about multiplayer gaming, it's still incredibly fun to play. It's also tried to go the route of Battlefield with the inclusion of multiple character classes. It's the usual Medic, Soldier, Heavy weapons, sniper, etc and so forth. I for one like the inclusion of multiple classes in multiplayer games, it adds a bit of depth to a games multiplayer than if it were just “oh you're this one soldier, that's all your getting.” Perhaps it dates back to my days of Battlefield 1942, I don't know, but I like the class systems that a lot of games are including these days. Another gripe I have with the game's multiplayer is the lobby system, or the lack thereof. Trying to join a match is quite frustrating, after choosing you're mode you're forced to sit at a screen that says it's searching for a match. And this game isn't exactly popular, so this could take upwards of FIVE MINUTES to join a match. What was so wrong with a menu that has available games that you could, you know, choose a match to join depending on the size of the room? It worked in Rainbow Six Vegas, and Gears of War and countless other games, hell even that atrocious Lost Planet had a system like that! Did Treyarch think that they were above such a commonplace and perfectly functional feature? So you get to the lobby menu and you sit around some more and wait for more than six people to join. Also the game won't let an odd number of people join the match, it has to be even, and no one else can join. I can understand that, but not when people decide to leave the match and leave the sides uneven and far less entertaining than when they were before. But still, the multiplayer is quite satisfying. It is really the only thing that saves the game from being condemned to the dismal pits of other terrible first person shooters (like Hexen).

So at the end of the day is Call of Duty 3 worth it? Yes, I suppose it is. Especially since the game currently runs about twenty dollars. Although if you have the choice I'd suggest going for Call of Duty 2 instead of this. The single player is quite dull, the graphics are good, not great but incredibly fun multiplayer and a wonderful soundtrack. However, like I said I would much rather play the original Call of Duty to this any day. Also it is really weak in comparison to Medal of Honor: Airborne. All that said though, it's a hell of a lot better than Hour of Victory, Medal of Honor Rising Sun, and Big Red One. I don't mean to sound like a negative but isn't it about time that video game developers quit beating the dead horse that is the WWII games market? There are plenty of other conflicts that they could focus their time on. Perhaps someone can make a good Vietnam game, that's untapped potential there.

Graphics: 8/10
Sound: 9/10
Singleplayer: 4/10
Multiplayer: 7/10

Overall score: 6/10

Reviewer's Score: 6/10, Originally Posted: 12/29/07

Game Release: Call of Duty 3 (US, 11/07/06)