Call of Duty 3
History repeats itself, and then shoots you in the head.
What stands out most distinctly when previewing a Call of Duty game is the severity with which the subject matter is taken. Sorry, both subject matters. Because FPS games are subject to two very important matters: being games, and being about something. Within the development of all four Call of Duty titles, whether by Treyarch or Infinity Ward [or Spark, don't forget - Ed], both sides are taken so seriously that you begin to realise why the finished games are quite so affecting.
I've been to two CoD preview events, and both times I've not been allowed to see the game before I've been taught something of the history behind what I'm about to play. You might argue that this is promotional puff, a trick to manipulate me before I sit down. You might be right. It probably is. But while previewing the game's development, it's so very revealing. If watching a series of interviews with elderly American, Polish and German men, dressed in their age-old uniforms, describing the horror of their experiences, can affect me at a brief glance, then how can it not affect those making the game? If you ever wondered how it was that Call of Duty made you need to quit out after completing a mission, just so you could calm down for a bit, then this might be why.
Military advisor to the series, Col. Hank Keirsey, is at great pains to ensure that everyone knows this is the last chance to speak to these people, and to hear their stories. In ten years time, he points out, they will all be dead. He sees the games as an opportunity to record that history in a new art form.

See, the reason wars in the future will be better is improved exterior lighting. It's just so dingy in the past.
And then, seemingly in direct conflict with the respect and awe generated from their interviews with those present at the conflicts they seek to replicate, is their need to entertain. Everyone involved in developing recites the same mantra: "great cinematic intensity", closely followed by, "entertainment must come first." The two halves seem in conflict over the intent of their product. And here are the two peaks across which CoD has so far spanned - a tribute to those who fought, and an entertainment product trying to blow our socks off. So can Call of Duty 3, this time for next-gen consoles only, do it all over again?
Treyarch, taking over the main franchise from Infinity Ward this time around, is bringing some of the ideas it fostered in Big Red One. Rather than the series' previous detached chapters of different nation's battles, Big Red One followed one group of soldiers throughout some of the First Infantry Division's most significant conflicts. In CoD 3, where the multi-nation perspective is a requirement, a potentially imaginative change has been made. This time a chronological narrative will logically link it all together.
You'll play squads from America, Britain, Canada and Poland, but moving back and forth between them, so as to experience the story in historical order. Despite even the team's own early fears of running out of significant events to recreate, they were stunned to find so many more important stories untold. The main theme this time follows the weeks from the Normandy landing to the liberation of Paris, in the battle for Chambois, seen from the four distinct angles.

Gone once more are silly things like health bars, replaced with the even sillier need to dodge out of the way and rest for a few seconds.
Each squad, like Big Red One, will have its own narrative, told through their appearances throughout the game, with the four combined forming the tale of the full campaign. Gone, we're promised, are the load points, with their awkwardly worded 'letters home', that attempted to justify the leaps in story, replaced by cut-scenes that will conceal load times completely. Executive producer, Marcus Iremonger, points out that the team won last year's Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences 'Best Story' award with BRO. "Quite an achievement for an FPS," he notes pointedly.
However, this doesn't mean there will be an abandoning of the traditional linear nature of the previous games. CoD 2's slightly unwise foray into offering multiple paths was a tactic quickly abandoned by anyone playing, once it was realised the rest of the squad would be sticking to the main route, and you'd be dying a lonely man. There's no such silliness this time around, we're promised, with alternate routes clearly flagged, generally with a scripted sequence explaining the likely consequences of either.
During my time with the game, I was crawling along at the bottom of a hill with my American squads, when someone informed me that half the team would be taking a bridge, while the other half would be clearing out the route beneath it. Choosing to go under rather than over, halfway along I passed under said bridge, and saw the other half of the guys overhead taking out the soldiers who would otherwise have slaughtered my men, letting us pass safely. Had I gone the other way, I'd have been up there protecting those below. Still sturdy tracks, but giving a greater impression of freedom.

Tom and John's fighting over who gets the next Mario review has grown somewhat out of hand.
This is combined with much 'wider' paths, which Iremonger explains offer another degree of choice. "People want to have this adrenaline-pumping experience, and sometimes that requires that the player is funnelled into areas," he begins. "But if you look at things like the scale of battlefields, they're much wider, so you have much more ability to choose your route across an area."
There's a huge step forward in graphics. CoD 2 was a 360 launch title, and as such was developed with little knowledge of the intricacies of the machine. Now with more of its power tapped, the visual effects are stunning. Realistic rain splatters, making soldiers wet, heavy rain streaming off the roofs of tanks, while lighting rips through the sky over distant hills, highlighting the fog; It looks pretty awesome. And developing for this new technology is the reason given for the lack of a PC release. "When it comes down to it, the team has to focus on those new platforms, and that's a major thing to do," explains Iremonger. "Working with the Wii, and the PS3, takes a great deal of concentration, and so we deliberately focused on that."
This perhaps misses quite a trick for next year's potential with Live Anywhere, and the 360's burgeoning online player base receiving a boost from the long-established PC crowd. Of course, this hasn't been too big of an issue for the series, what with CoD 2 being the 360's number one online game since launch. And this is despite the relatively limited multiplayer offered. CoD 3 intends to ramp it all rather a lot.

A quick and effective answer to, 'Oi, gerrorf ma laaaand.'
First of all, now 24 players can join any one game, much improving on the piddly numbers previously. Oh, and there's new vehicles controlled by multiple players. Indeed - Battlefield's having an effect. There's even a little flavour of Team Fortress, with soldier classes now available, which as you'd expect include Scouts, Medics, Light and Heavy Assault, etc. Each will be endowed with advantageous abilities, which will hopefully manage the rock/paper/scissors balancing act necessary.
There's obviously all the usual Capture The Flag and Deathmatch modes you'd expect, played in various war-torn locations. But there's some more imaginative games this time around as well. The most interesting mode I had a chance to die in an awful lot is being called, slightly superfluously, "War". It works a bit like PlanetSide meets Battlefied. Teams begin at various points on the map, and must advance, whether on foot or in the vehicles, to take territory - or spawn points. This is a frenetic approach, which unlike so many throwaway online modes, gives the sense of progress, or indeed the lack of it. It's an intense experience, and a slightly unsettling one. With the depth of authenticity, and the improvements in weather and environment effects, there's a chance the multiplayer will offer the same degree of emotional intensity that the single player series is famous for. It could be remarkable.
From an early look, Call of Duty 3 looks like it's making the correct adjustments to keep the series up to date, but still leaves the slight worry that cosmetic changes might not be enough to ensure it feels fresh. It's only a worry, and even if the game doesn't hugely advance from the first two, repeating them won't exactly be a bad thing. Infinity Ward left big boots to fill, so it will be interesting to see how far Treyarch achieve this. However, no matter the success of the single player campaign, we'd bet our bums that this is going to be the big Live game to look out for.
You may also like...
-
Retrospective: Star Wars Episode I Racer
-
Mass Effect 3 Demo: The First 20 Minutes
-
Why Devs Owe You Nothing
-
Face-Off: Final Fantasy 13-2
-
Digital Foundry: PS3 Skyrim Lag Fixed?
-
Game of the Week: Catherine
-
Who Killed Rare?
-
App of the Day: Ascension: Chronicle of the Godslayer
-
Gotham City Impostors Review
-
Face-Off: The Darkness 2
-
Epic's Sweeney on graphics tech: "the limit really is in sight"
-
Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning Review
-
EA evaluating FIFA Street features for FIFA 13
-
The Darkness 2 Review
-
Grand Slam Tennis 2 Review
-
Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3 Vita Review
-
Catherine Review
-
App of the Day: Sir Benfro's Brilliant Balloon
-
Sony admits "dropping the ball" with Demon's Souls
-
Catherine launch trailer is looking saucy
-
One Piece: Unlimited Cruise SP Review
-
Metal Gear Solid: The "Lost" HD Remasters
-
King Arthur 2 Review
-
Skyrim patch 1.4 now live for Xbox 360
-
Mass Effect 3 FemShep trailer debuts









Comments (77) Latest comment 5 years ago
Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
So are you saying the PS3 has better graphics than 360? Ouchy that could get some backs up.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
The PS3 version may have a slight advantage in the graphics dept, and if this is the case, I'll be interested to actually see what improvements have been made. However, the COD3 online experience is surely set to favour 360 and that's what really counts for me.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
So are you saying the PS3 has better graphics than 360? Ouchy that could get some backs up.
its the power of the Real Next Gen.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
So are you saying the PS3 has better graphics than 360? Ouchy that could get some backs up.
meh!
It reaches equilibrium when you find out that at the moment Treyarch have got the PS3 version running at 30FPS and the Xbox 360 version at 60FPS.
I think i'll stick with Resistance, WWII with a twist.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
"Now with more of its power tapped, the visual effects are stunning, and moreso on the PS3."
Comment below viewing threshold Show
That line caught my eye. I guess regarding the Wii they are referring to the controller and how they need to create a different control scheme? But what's with the PS3? Cell difficult to program?
Mr. John Walker, please clarify.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Mind you if it's true about the frames per sec on both,I suppose it's a good trade for the 360 version.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
On visiting a few major developers over the last few months (I capture game footage for internal and external games trailers) This is what they have been saying and I quote the guy last week saying to me "If you think it looks good now, you should see it running on PS3!" Although they would not let me see it running on PS3 for some reason just yet?! Sounds like they can get more out of the machine, but not as much as Sony would have liked you to think.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I wonder if they have the PS3 version running at 1080p or something, that's the only thing i can think of when they say "moreso on PS3".
That raises my eyebrow, if true then doesn't that mean the 360 at 30fps would look better than the PS3?
Only at the moment, Treyarch might reach 60FPS on the PS3 version in the final build and a decrease in Framrate would enable them to put in more stuff than just more graphical effects.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
"Now with more of its power tapped, the visual effects are stunning, and of course only more so on the PS3"
and this the edited one
"Now with more of its power tapped, the visual effects are stunning, and moreso on the PS3"
"Of course"? why would you put that in?
And why would you say something so contentious and not clarify it? How much more so, and in what way?
BTW - Psychonauts is available for D/L on Steam. Didn't see the news on the frontpage. ta.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Can this thread possibly recover from spiralling into a "lets compare HW sizes" pit?
How about someone try and talk about the game. Otherwise we may as well all just go an old PS3 vs 360 vs Wii thread and just read that back. Its not like anything new ever gets said when threads head this way.
So, who played a lof of CoD2 and what was the verdict? I liked the demo but never got started on the full game (for no particular reason really).
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Looks extremely nice though (I've played it on PC, 1600x1200 with graphic options maxed out).
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Looked really nice, and having ALL the bodies (hundreds) remaine on the ground once dead was awesome. Too bad no consols can do that....
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I played CoD2 on the 360, though mostly singleplay..cause the multiplay was awfull at launch, so i never looked back, even when they apparantly really improved it.
From what i've gathered from other previews, CoD3 is really gonna be awesome. I like the whole team fortress meets battlefield idea and unlike so many jaded gamers out there..i don't get tired of WW2 games.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Bit of a slip-up there!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
That should be i.e. not e.g., E.G.
"E.g., i.e., fuck you!" - Ray 'Bones' Barboni
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Bit worrying that it was even in there in the first place, krudster! Do you routinely edit flame-baiting bias from EG journos?
We'll be watching Mr Walker's comments in future, oh yes! [/shadowy intelligence figure]
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I'll be buying it for the 360 simply because the PS3 won't be around upon release, so an easy decision there.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
"And if you really want to make it more realistic, make it so that the only way that your health can recharge is by medics."
I LIKE THE SOUND OF THAT IDEA.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
What did everyone else think of the controls compared to Halo (the benchmark in my eyes)?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
From what I saw of that, it's just another generic FPS, nothing really stands out apart from the visuals.
never played a Call of Duty game, are they any good?
Yes.
They're linear and scripted which allows for plenty of intense setpeices. Better than most of the MoH series. Never done multiplayer though, BF1942 fulfils all my WW2-multiplayer needs.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Since both games share the same assets, they're both going to look pretty much identical in terms of textures and modelling and likely only differ in their use of graphical effects like lighting, smoke and explosions. I seem to recall developers last year saying that the PS3 was more adept at doing more graphical effects than the Xbox 360 so presumably this is what John Walker is referring to here? Of course, a little clarification wouldn't go amiss... /wink
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
The only thing that does it for me in FPS's these days are the weapons, so to me COD3 will be just like COD1... i get that "I've played one i've played them all" vibe with the COD series in general.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
All in all, actually rather impressive!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
But a lot better implemented and without the boring stuff.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
The game would never end.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
What part of FPS do you not understand!?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I think you have ever right to compare the graphical output of the various platforms - the original "of course" was wrong ( this made it sound like its a foregone conclusion ), and you should have given details of why you believed is was superior on PS3, and by how much.
Ta.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
What's the big deal? Most cross platform titles will be almost indistuingishable. The only true differences are the services; exclusive titles (the good ones) and the price point.
If you're not a fanboy then move along, nothing to see here.
****
On topic:
Will they be hosting servers or will it be 'p2p'? 48 players on almost any British (and most other places) home connection will surely fail miserably. And will the Wii version be online?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
As I mentioned to John, we don't even know whether they used the same TVs to show off each version, so let's leave the comparisons until we can see the finished versions running side by side. For the record, I reckon you'll barely even notice the difference.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Thank God it's "just" an FPS.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Graw is classed as a FPS on the Game website, so i thought I'd ask here, but thanks for not being a dick about it.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Call of Duty 3 looks ok, the screen shots didn't blow be away. Black on the PS2 looks like more fun. Speaking of which, i've cleared the bridge level (of Black) and onto the next section. The games huge, ongoing, i must be neear the end now
If you already have a 360 and haven't played CoD 2 and love Black, then go out there and get it now. I mean RIGHT now!
I got it when I got my 360 around Jan/Feb time and absoluely loved it. Then I got Black a few months ago and to be perfectly honest while it is a great game and one of the better FPS games released in recent years, it has nowhere near the level of intensity and enjoyment as CoD 2. It is linear, but stuff like that doesn't bother me in the slightest as long as the actual gameplay is enjoyable, and it still has much more freedom than most FPS games. Linearity wise, it is comparable to Half-Life 2 but with occasional choices as to how to progress in certain levels.
Playing CoD2 on Hardened or Veteran is still by far the best experience I've had on my 360 so far out of all my 20 or so games, and it is still the only game I get back out and play for hours just about every week. I'm STILL not bored of it!!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
But to not even release this on PC is another kick up the arse to the people who made COD the franchise it is. They released the first COD on PC only to start with. Us PC gamers made Call Of Duty what it is today. If it wasn't for the huge response it got and the great PC sales then it wouldn't be on COD 3 now.
Don't get me wrong I love console gaming as well but surely we should get the choice. For me FPS games are for PC's. Consoles are for footy and driving. Don't care about RTS as they bore me!!!
/rant over
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
apparently wii has no online mode. there is a dev interview on gametrailers.com
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Cool out. As I recall most FPS games have walking and jumping in them too. Does that mean they aren't FPS games at those moments? What about during the cutscenes?
It was a reasonable question to ask. Both GR2 and GRAW had 3rd and 1st person options for example.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I have noticed on Eurogamer any mention of anything to do with any console and there are more and more posts about 'fan boys', without any mention on the original subject. It would be nice if the 'non fan boys' could actually post something about the articles instead of cutting and pasting their usual boring repeated remarks about 'fan boys'. It's so over excessive on Eurogamer they make Xbox live moron's look intelligent.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
ps i love you all !
Comment below viewing threshold Show
But the COD3 developers have said that the 360 version is the best looking as it was developed on the xbox 360 development tools.
If any fanboys wish to have a link i can provide it.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
J
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Surely you have played FPS games alot better than that? 0_o Black wasn't a bad game, but it wasn't that good either imo. :\
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Fuck these traitorous scum bags. fuck them in the ass. The pc gave them success and a place in the gaming market. They want to turn their back on that and become EA games,lets make a pile of cash, mark 2 then fuck them, ill not being buying this.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
The editors of this website have made it 100% clear that the Xbox 360 version of Call of Duty 3 is smoother than the Playstation 3 version in a very obvious way.
Take a look: 1up.com/do/ne wsStory?cId=3154295
Comment below viewing threshold Show
The Xbox 360 version of Call of Duty 3 is much smoother than the Playstation 3 version.
There are several reasons for this.
First, the Xbox 360 has a much more powerful custom built Graphics Processing Unit that uses the new Unified Shader technology that Windows Vista uses. Playstation 3 still uses the outdated Non-Unified Shader technology that has been in use for the last decade.
Currently, there are no PC graphics cards that use Unified Shader technology, because Windows Vista has not yet been released. ATI will release a Unified Shader PC graphics card at the end of 2006 or early 2007 when it gets closer to the release of Windows Vista. This is the same form of revolutionary technology that the Xbox 360 uses. The Playstation 3 uses a non-customized Nvidia Graphics Processing Unit that is based on four-year old technology that is outdated.
The second major advantage that the Xbox 360 has over the Playstation 3 is the number of polygons that can be displayed on-screen at once. The Xbox 360 can display 500,000,000 polygons on-screen at the same time, while the Playstation 3 can only display 275,000,000 polygons per second. This is the reason why the Xbox 360 version of Call of Duty 3 runs at 60 frames-per-second, just like Call of Duty 2 on the Xbox 360, while the Playstation 3 version of Call of Duty 3 only runs at 30 frames per second.
The third reason why the Xbox 360 version of Call of Duty 3 is better than the Playstation 3 version is because the Xbox 360 hardware has so much more General Purpose CPU power than the Playstation 3. The Playstation 3 uses outdated parallel processing that is very difficult for game developers to work with. The CPU of the Playstation 3 has only two threads, which means that Artificial Intelligence in Playstation 3 games is not as good as the Artificial Intelligence in Xbox 360 games. The Xbox 360 uses a tri-core CPU, each CPU core runs at 3.2 Ghz, and each core has two threads!!!
Basically what this means is that the Playstation 3 has one CPU, which coincidentally runs at 3.2Ghz--although rumors say that this has been reduced to 2.8Ghz. The Playstation 3 then uses each of its two threads to send signals to different processors that run parallel. This is very similar to the design used with the Sega Saturn, and the developers didn't like that system either.
Originally, the Playstation 3 was supposed to have two CPUs, but when Sony saw the Xbox 360, they were forced to remove one CPU and add a GPU that was never planned. The Playstation 3 was not originally intended to use parallel processing like it now does. PS3 was originall supposed to be designed in a way that was similar to the original Playstation, which would have been a good thing.
From the point of view of the Xbox 360, basically, it has three CPUs, each running at 3.2Ghz. Each CPU has two threads. Tecmo and Ubisoft have said that they can literally devote one of the CPUs and the two threads on it to controlling nothing but Artificial Intelligence! Ubisoft has already publicly stated that the Artificial Intelligence in the Xbox 360 version of Assassins Creed will be superior to the Artificial Intelligence in the Playstation 3 version.
One other reason why the Xbox 360 version of Call of Duty 3 will be better than the Playstation 3 version is because the Xbox 360 RAM is so much superior to the Playstation 3 RAM. Both the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3 have 512MB of RAM; however, the Xbox 360 uses revolutionary new Unified RAM technology, while the Playstation 3 uses the same old Non-Unified RAM technology that has been used for decades.
Basically, what this means is that the Non-Unified 512MB RAM in the Playstation 3 has two separate sections of RAM: 256MB of RAM that can be devoted to help the CPU, and 256MB of Video RAM. No matter what happens, the Playstation 3 can NEVER use more than 256MB of RAM for Video RAM, even if only a small percentage of the other secion of 256MB of RAM is not being used.
The Xbox 360 uses 512MB of 100% Unified RAM. This means that the RAM can be used whenever and wherever the developers need it at any point in time. For example, if there is a need to use over 256MB of RAM for Video RAM, the Xbox 360 can devote more RAM to Video RAM. In a graphically intense section of a game where there is a need for much more detailed graphics, but a lower amount of Artificial Intelligence because there are fewer enemies on the screen, there might be a need for 384MB of Video RAM, while using 128MB of RAM to control things like Artificial Intelligence of the enemies. A boss encounter with only one enemy on the screen, but a GIANT boss with awesome graphics is a perfect example where the Xbox 360 has a HUGE technology advantage.
I fully agree with you and the editors of that website: The Xbox 360 version is much smoother than the Playstation 3 version. Actually, that is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact. The fact of the matter is that the Playstation 3 version of Call of Duty 3 runs at 30 frames-per-second, while the Xbox 360 version runs at 60 frames-per-second, just like the very smooth Call of Duty 2.
Here are some website links that you can visit that talk about the reasons why games like Call of Duty 3 end up so much smoother looking on the Xbox 360:
xbo x360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.html
oxm.co.uk/articles/new s/hardware/ps3_to_have_half_the_polygon_power_of_the_xbox_36 0
msxbox-world.com/xbox/features/article/179/PS3-Hardware-iss ues-Teething-troubles-or-a-deeper-problem?.html
the inquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32171
gamespot.com/ne ws/6157113.html
blo gs.usatoday.com/tech/2006/05/index.html
Comment below viewing threshold Show
that shut 'em up eh?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show