WhitneyCall of Duty 3 Review (Xbox 360)
December 19th 2006 06:57
Infinity Ward’s World War II shooter Call of Duty 2 was one of the biggest selling launch titles for Microsoft way back when the Xbox 360 launched. It showed off the technical capabilities of the console whilst proving a remarkably entertaining experience, both online and off. When the reins were handed over to Treyarch to develop the next installment in the popular franchise, Call of Duty 3, there was a collective breath taken by COD veterans. Treyarch are no slouches, but Infinity Ward constantly produces grade A, quality action. Whilst I wish I could say the team at Treyarch did a sparkling job now that all is said and done, unfortunately COD 3 doesn’t reach the heights that its predecessor did. Whilst the single player offering is solid, and certainly entertaining, and the multiplayer gameplay is more robust than COD 2’s, the final code does fall short in a number of very important areas.
Treyarch haven’t strayed too much from the core single player gameplay found in COD 2. This time around, however, you control the British, American, Polish and Canadian forces as they attempt to gain a stranglehold on the Normandy region during the 2nd World War. As each of the missions is part of a larger, united offensive, the story is a lot more cohesive than Infinity Ward’s product, and there is some surprisingly strong character development offered in amongst all the shooting. Cutscenes are plentiful, there is plenty of chatter on the battlefield, and each nation has a few characters who are fleshed out quite nicely through smart use of dialogue. At it’s core, the game still revolves around getting from checkpoint to checkpoint, accomplishing a variety of objectives along the way. Storming Nazi bunkers, holding off counter-attacks, blowing stuff up. However, the process is not as hellishly fun as it was in the previous game. There are still some wonderfully exciting scenarios thrown at you, and the locations are very well designed, but it just doesn’t come together like it should and really nail you.
The main reason for this is the poor AI scripting. Due to the fact that they’re an expendable commodity (they are replaced when they’re killed off), your comrades in battle are next to useless. Sure they’ll get off a few shots here and there, but their scripting is such that they effectively rely on you triggering them to advance, which can get very annoying when you’re alone on the frontline with a tree stump for cover. Germans pounding you left right and center, and your buddies are hanging out fifty metres away huddling behind a truck while they wait for you to cross an invisible line. Sure you can try a different route and sometimes they’ll behave differently, but this game on veteran (which is the only difficulty to play, if you want a challenge) requires enough trial and error as it is.
The enemy AI is even more frustrating. On veteran, they will headshot you from a kilometer away with a sub-machine gun, but miss you from point blank. They will stay in cover often, and react to situations realistically on occasions, but they will also run around like headless chooks during some sequences, stacking up at doorways clipping each other and being strangely unable to shoot whilst moving.
You see the AI is programmed to come at you in waves. You kill an enemy, and whilst inching forward, another takes his place. You kill him, and then another arrives. The only way to halt this progression is to advance forward hurriedly and block the AI’s target area. With the complete lack of brains of some of your brothers in arms, this can be an extremely dangerous endeavour though, and at times you’ll have to settle for kicking back and picking off every single one of the buggers once they’ve spawned. This can, and often does, become very tedious, especially as the checkpoints are few and far between, and you might kill thirty or forty enemies, only to eventually die and have to do it all over again before advancing. It just feels cheap, cheap, cheap, especially compared to the much more realistic AI routines of the enemies in COD 2.
Tryarch has implemented a number of new gameplay ideas, the most obvious of which are the interactive cutscenes. These entail the player being prompted to hit a combination of keys in order to successfully navigate a certain task during a little mini cutscene. Setting up bombs, turning valves and even hand to hand combat are accomplished using this mechanic, but it ends up breaking up the experience, especially as you are effectively invincible to anything that is happening outside of the current script. Tapping a, then b, then a again to drop a slab of concrete on a bunch of Germans who are ripping through you with automatic fire just feels wrong. You should be dead.
The weapons are pretty similar to what we’ve had before, and they feel pretty much the same too. The physics are a real highlight, however. There will be explosions, there will be bodies flying everywhere, and you will get a kick out of it, no doubt. The sound is fantastic too. If you are excited about this game, and you don’t have a 5.1 setup yet, go get one before playing it. The audio is just that good.
COD 3 is definitely one of the biggest challenges on the Xbox 360 when set to veteran, and some of the locales are absolutely stunning. The campaign is sizable, and the firefights are just as hectic as in the previous game. It doesn’t feel as climatic, real or daunting, but there’s some awesome battles packed in, no less. The level design for the most part is excellent too. You’ll never feel dwarfed by the size of the levels, but you’ll hardly feel constricted. You’ll definitely feel like you’re being herded though. The checkpoint system is back, and it’s as poorly implemented as ever. Hopefully Call of Duty 4 sees the checkpoint system discarded, or at least tweaked.
Call of Duty 3 is a very pretty game. The character models, the environments, the explosions. They all look great, and taken individually, each of them almost looks better than those in COD 2. As a whole, however, the visuals seem a little too fake for my liking. Similar to early special effects techniques in film, things often seem out of place, due mainly to inconsistent textures and a vibrant sheen which infects what is happening on screen. It’s almost like all of the characters are drenched. Well at least it works in the rainy missions. Overall, this game has nothing on COD 2 visually, but this is primarily due to the style of the graphical effects, and you may find them to your liking despite my concerns.
The multiplayer gameplay has been beefed up from it’s predecessor, allowing a maximum of 24 players per room, and boy does it make a difference to the experience. COD2 felt more like squad battle, where as now you will truly feel in the middle of a full blown war, just like in single player. The maps are huge and smartly designed, there are a number of different game modes to keep you entertained, and the inclusion of a large splattering of vehicles adds a very welcome element to the gameplay.
Unfortunately, at release, the ranked matchmaking is effectively broken in multiplayer, somewhat annoying considering it’s the only way to earn achievements. Although you can sometimes get games if you’re prepared to sit in a connecting screen, all too often the connection just breaks down trying to match you with other players, and despite Treyarch’s assurances that this will be fixed pronto, it’s unacceptable for this to be present in the final version of a game these days. Treyarch obviously decided that they would have to release the game on time and start prepping a patch straight away, which is an ominous choice.
Overall, Call of Duty 3 is a mixed bag. There’s a lot of fun to be had alone, but frustrating AI and some questionable gameplay implementations limit its potential. Whilst the multiplayer game is big and bold and engrossing in the way the single player isn’t, the broken matchmaking is a terrible shame. If you are looking for a shooter to tear you away from the big guns, Gears of War and Rainbow Six Vegas, this Christmas, you might have to think again. But if you love your World War 2 shooters and just can’t get enough COD 2, this one’s still worth a try. It does pack quite a punch, despite its shortcomings, and who can ever say no to killing Nazis?
Score: 8.1/10
Treyarch haven’t strayed too much from the core single player gameplay found in COD 2. This time around, however, you control the British, American, Polish and Canadian forces as they attempt to gain a stranglehold on the Normandy region during the 2nd World War. As each of the missions is part of a larger, united offensive, the story is a lot more cohesive than Infinity Ward’s product, and there is some surprisingly strong character development offered in amongst all the shooting. Cutscenes are plentiful, there is plenty of chatter on the battlefield, and each nation has a few characters who are fleshed out quite nicely through smart use of dialogue. At it’s core, the game still revolves around getting from checkpoint to checkpoint, accomplishing a variety of objectives along the way. Storming Nazi bunkers, holding off counter-attacks, blowing stuff up. However, the process is not as hellishly fun as it was in the previous game. There are still some wonderfully exciting scenarios thrown at you, and the locations are very well designed, but it just doesn’t come together like it should and really nail you.
The main reason for this is the poor AI scripting. Due to the fact that they’re an expendable commodity (they are replaced when they’re killed off), your comrades in battle are next to useless. Sure they’ll get off a few shots here and there, but their scripting is such that they effectively rely on you triggering them to advance, which can get very annoying when you’re alone on the frontline with a tree stump for cover. Germans pounding you left right and center, and your buddies are hanging out fifty metres away huddling behind a truck while they wait for you to cross an invisible line. Sure you can try a different route and sometimes they’ll behave differently, but this game on veteran (which is the only difficulty to play, if you want a challenge) requires enough trial and error as it is.
The enemy AI is even more frustrating. On veteran, they will headshot you from a kilometer away with a sub-machine gun, but miss you from point blank. They will stay in cover often, and react to situations realistically on occasions, but they will also run around like headless chooks during some sequences, stacking up at doorways clipping each other and being strangely unable to shoot whilst moving.
You see the AI is programmed to come at you in waves. You kill an enemy, and whilst inching forward, another takes his place. You kill him, and then another arrives. The only way to halt this progression is to advance forward hurriedly and block the AI’s target area. With the complete lack of brains of some of your brothers in arms, this can be an extremely dangerous endeavour though, and at times you’ll have to settle for kicking back and picking off every single one of the buggers once they’ve spawned. This can, and often does, become very tedious, especially as the checkpoints are few and far between, and you might kill thirty or forty enemies, only to eventually die and have to do it all over again before advancing. It just feels cheap, cheap, cheap, especially compared to the much more realistic AI routines of the enemies in COD 2.
Tryarch has implemented a number of new gameplay ideas, the most obvious of which are the interactive cutscenes. These entail the player being prompted to hit a combination of keys in order to successfully navigate a certain task during a little mini cutscene. Setting up bombs, turning valves and even hand to hand combat are accomplished using this mechanic, but it ends up breaking up the experience, especially as you are effectively invincible to anything that is happening outside of the current script. Tapping a, then b, then a again to drop a slab of concrete on a bunch of Germans who are ripping through you with automatic fire just feels wrong. You should be dead.
The weapons are pretty similar to what we’ve had before, and they feel pretty much the same too. The physics are a real highlight, however. There will be explosions, there will be bodies flying everywhere, and you will get a kick out of it, no doubt. The sound is fantastic too. If you are excited about this game, and you don’t have a 5.1 setup yet, go get one before playing it. The audio is just that good.
COD 3 is definitely one of the biggest challenges on the Xbox 360 when set to veteran, and some of the locales are absolutely stunning. The campaign is sizable, and the firefights are just as hectic as in the previous game. It doesn’t feel as climatic, real or daunting, but there’s some awesome battles packed in, no less. The level design for the most part is excellent too. You’ll never feel dwarfed by the size of the levels, but you’ll hardly feel constricted. You’ll definitely feel like you’re being herded though. The checkpoint system is back, and it’s as poorly implemented as ever. Hopefully Call of Duty 4 sees the checkpoint system discarded, or at least tweaked.
Call of Duty 3 is a very pretty game. The character models, the environments, the explosions. They all look great, and taken individually, each of them almost looks better than those in COD 2. As a whole, however, the visuals seem a little too fake for my liking. Similar to early special effects techniques in film, things often seem out of place, due mainly to inconsistent textures and a vibrant sheen which infects what is happening on screen. It’s almost like all of the characters are drenched. Well at least it works in the rainy missions. Overall, this game has nothing on COD 2 visually, but this is primarily due to the style of the graphical effects, and you may find them to your liking despite my concerns.
The multiplayer gameplay has been beefed up from it’s predecessor, allowing a maximum of 24 players per room, and boy does it make a difference to the experience. COD2 felt more like squad battle, where as now you will truly feel in the middle of a full blown war, just like in single player. The maps are huge and smartly designed, there are a number of different game modes to keep you entertained, and the inclusion of a large splattering of vehicles adds a very welcome element to the gameplay.
Unfortunately, at release, the ranked matchmaking is effectively broken in multiplayer, somewhat annoying considering it’s the only way to earn achievements. Although you can sometimes get games if you’re prepared to sit in a connecting screen, all too often the connection just breaks down trying to match you with other players, and despite Treyarch’s assurances that this will be fixed pronto, it’s unacceptable for this to be present in the final version of a game these days. Treyarch obviously decided that they would have to release the game on time and start prepping a patch straight away, which is an ominous choice.
Overall, Call of Duty 3 is a mixed bag. There’s a lot of fun to be had alone, but frustrating AI and some questionable gameplay implementations limit its potential. Whilst the multiplayer game is big and bold and engrossing in the way the single player isn’t, the broken matchmaking is a terrible shame. If you are looking for a shooter to tear you away from the big guns, Gears of War and Rainbow Six Vegas, this Christmas, you might have to think again. But if you love your World War 2 shooters and just can’t get enough COD 2, this one’s still worth a try. It does pack quite a punch, despite its shortcomings, and who can ever say no to killing Nazis?
Score: 8.1/10
| 83 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
