Call of Duty 3

By John Walker Published 13 October, 2006

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.

'Call of Duty 3' Screenshot 1

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.

'Call of Duty 3' Screenshot 2

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.

'Call of Duty 3' Screenshot 3

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.

'Call of Duty 3' Screenshot 4

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.

Picture of John.

About John Walker

Read more articles from John by visiting the John Walker archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (77) Latest comment 5 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • EmiliasHorse #1 5 years ago

    "Now with more of its power tapped, the visual effects are stunning, and of course only more so on the PS3"
    So are you saying the PS3 has better graphics than 360? Ouchy that could get some backs up.

  • Azazel #2 5 years ago

    Backs are for lashing!

  • neil_likes_bums #3 5 years ago

    Yay, my favourite war is back.

  • lambtron #4 5 years ago

    The war with no end! (No, not WWII the fanboy war).

  • Spydez #5 5 years ago

    "Now with more of its power tapped, the visual effects are stunning, and of course only more so on the PS3"

    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.

  • Bill_Gates_Bitch #6 5 years ago

    "Now with more of its power tapped, the visual effects are stunning, and of course only more so on the PS3"
    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.

  • Steroyd #7 5 years ago

    "Now with more of its power tapped, the visual effects are stunning, and of course only more so on the PS3"
    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. :)

  • EmiliasHorse #8 5 years ago

    I did read an article that RS Las Vegas was using the 360's floating memory to give best effects, then would be converted to the PS3 with hopefully minimal loss of quality due the memory limitations. It makes me confused and tired...mostly tired.
    Edited by 1 at 13/10/06 @ 09:27

  • Psi #9 5 years ago

    could we do away with wwii ? can we not have games based on the war in iraq with us as the bad guys?

  • Green-Midget #10 5 years ago

    what about the Wii? Is it going to be any good?

  • bloodflowers #11 5 years ago

    What was the frame rate like? That was one of the best things about COD2 on the 360 - silky smooth and a pleasure to look at, which few games are managing even now.

  • bauhaus #12 5 years ago

    and once more, with feeling...

    "Now with more of its power tapped, the visual effects are stunning, and moreso on the PS3."

  • MadMirko #13 5 years ago

    "Working with the Wii, and the PS3, takes a great deal of concentration, and so we deliberately focused on that."

    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. :)

  • captainrentboy #14 5 years ago

    Just that one simple PS3 praising line will get this msg board over 100 replies :) Either smug potential PS3 owners(as one day they'll be playing the better looking version...one day),or 360 owners getting really defensive and angry,here we go.
    Mind you if it's true about the frames per sec on both,I suppose it's a good trade for the 360 version.

  • EmiliasHorse #15 5 years ago

    So what are Infinity Ward upto now?

  • EmiliasHorse #16 5 years ago

    The cheeky little monkeys at EG edited the original article to sound less controversial...for shame EG

  • Guff-Pipe #17 5 years ago

    "Now with more of its power tapped, the visual effects are stunning, and moreso on the PS3."
    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.

  • Steroyd #18 5 years ago

    Well yeah with 2x more CPU power who knows what devs can accomplish? ;)

    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.
    Edited by 1 at 13/10/06 @ 09:52

  • Foundry #19 5 years ago

    So was this the original quote?

    "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.
    Edited by 1 at 13/10/06 @ 09:53

  • JetSetWilly #20 5 years ago

    Is it deliberate that the article tells us nothing about the Wii version?

  • kangarootoo #21 5 years ago

    YAAAWWWWWNNNNN.

    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).

  • cooper #22 5 years ago

    COD2 = very generic shooter with very high production values.
    Looks extremely nice though (I've played it on PC, 1600x1200 with graphic options maxed out).

  • smoison #23 5 years ago

    COD 2 was GREAT on PC.

    Looked really nice, and having ALL the bodies (hundreds) remaine on the ground once dead was awesome. Too bad no consols can do that....

  • DutchDemons #24 5 years ago

    YEa, let's talk about the game.

    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.

  • EmiliasHorse #25 5 years ago

    I really enjoyed COD2 but the tank levels were a bit poor.

  • Eighthours #26 5 years ago

    "Of course"? why would you put that in?

    Bit of a slip-up there!

  • Machiavel #27 5 years ago

    Hmm, if the team had interviewed German survivors as well, perhaps it wouldn't be such a one-dimensional duck shoot.

  • krudster #28 5 years ago

    The "of course" bit was originally edited out by me, unfortunately the unedited version went up. Then I saw the first comment, slapped my forehead and re-edited it. Such is the way of things on t'internet.

  • Kurgan #29 5 years ago

    "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. E.g. It looks pretty awesome. "

    That should be i.e. not e.g., E.G.

    "E.g., i.e., fuck you!" - Ray 'Bones' Barboni
    Edited by 1 at 13/10/06 @ 10:31

  • Eighthours #30 5 years ago

    The "of course" bit was originally edited out by me, unfortunately the unedited version went up. Then I saw the first comment, slapped my forehead and re-edited it. Such is the way of things on t'internet.

    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]

  • JetSetWilly #31 5 years ago

    krudster - but why zero Wii details? Aside from the obvious differences in graphical fidelity I can't tell from the article whether I should expect what you say of the game to be just as true for the Wii.

  • Rusta #32 5 years ago

    Shame it's not on the PC anymore........ahhh didums

  • Xerx3s #33 5 years ago

    I don't get it why they have to fuck around with health. Use health bars ffs. 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. That might even make it more realistic because you would have to camp the fucking medic against snipes.

  • Mordum #34 5 years ago

    CoD2 was great in single player (the veteran setting made for an intense experience), although back when I had the game the multiplayer almost unplayable. So I'm really looking forward to CoD3 in a big way, I hope they get the Live side of things spot on, maybe that'll finally stop me playing Halo 2.
    I'll be buying it for the 360 simply because the PS3 won't be around upon release, so an easy decision there.

  • Mordum #35 5 years ago

    @Xerx3s
    "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.

  • Azazel #36 5 years ago

    Only ever played the original on PC... thought it was top bit of entertainment really.

  • botherer #37 5 years ago

    I'm very sorry for the error. I wrote a sentence that came out completely wrong and it was rightly edited. Apologies for the worries caused to people of all agendas. Lay the blame at my feet, send your poo-bombs to my address.I still love you, and I hope you can learn to love me again.
    Edited by 1 at 13/10/06 @ 11:32

  • kangarootoo #38 5 years ago

    I feel need to mention (as its a bugbear of mine) that I thought the control stick system in the CoD2 demo was pretty good. I don't remember that much about it, but that is almost certainly a good sign as bad systems always stick in my memory.

    What did everyone else think of the controls compared to Halo (the benchmark in my eyes)?

  • PearOfAnguish #39 5 years ago

    I think i'll stick with Resistance, WWII with a twist. :)

    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.
    Edited by 2 at 13/10/06 @ 11:34

  • EmiliasHorse #40 5 years ago

    Control felt really good now you come to mention it. It's true that you only really notice bad controls not good ones.

  • Darren #41 5 years ago

    I don't see why people are getting excited over the implication that the PS3 version of Call of Duty 3 looks better than the Xbox 360 version.

    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

  • EmiliasHorse #42 5 years ago

    I think John wanted to add a little spice to our lives.

  • Steroyd #43 5 years ago

    From what I saw of that, it's just another generic FPS, nothing really stands out apart from the visuals.

    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.

  • Arwin #44 5 years ago

    I just wanted to say that allthough the focus has been very much on next-gen in many articles on this game, the PS2 version is actually nearly finished too and coming along really well. In fact, it is an almost identical game experience apparently to next gen, with only graphical sacrifices (most notably smoke looking more like fog), fewer enemies on screen, and fewer players in multiplayer online (16).

    All in all, actually rather impressive!

  • Xerx3s #45 5 years ago

    Similar to Black then.

    But a lot better implemented and without the boring stuff.

  • ProfessorChaos #46 5 years ago

    Does anyone know if this just a FPS or does it have the 'over the shoulder' GRAW gameplay

  • The-Bodybuilder #47 5 years ago

    >"could we do away with wwii ? can we not have games based on the war in iraq with us as the bad guys? "

    The game would never end.

  • BBIAJ #48 5 years ago

    @ ProffChaos:

    What part of FPS do you not understand!?

  • Foundry #49 5 years ago

    You've edited the article again. Now it doesn't even state the graphics are better on the PS3.

    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.

  • L0cky #50 5 years ago

    Hmm, I couldn't give a toss about the 360 or the PS3 but it's apparant that the PS3 has the more capable hardware and will technically be capable of displaying *slightly* better graphics.

    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?

  • krudster #51 5 years ago

    I think the point is to steer the discussion off obsessing over which version's better.

    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.

  • UncleLou #52 5 years ago

    Does anyone know if this just a FPS or does it have the 'over the shoulder' GRAW gameplay

    Thank God it's "just" an FPS.

  • RedPanda #53 5 years ago

    Post deleted at 14:31:59 28-01-2012

  • ProfessorChaos #54 5 years ago

    @BBIAJ

    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.

  • mkreku #55 5 years ago

    I figured the biggest news from this article was that they've canned the PC version. From what I understand, their excuse is that it takes so much time and resources to learn all these new consoles that they basically don't have resources to spend on the PC gaming front? Now that's an odd way of looking at it.

  • EmiliasHorse #56 5 years ago

    Dropping the PC version does seem to be a bit poor considering this series started life on the PC. Imagine Halo3 not coming out on 360... Does this mean we get a much more consoley game that PC players would hate? Hope not as PC conversions are some of the best because they are, for want of a better term more "Hardcore"...actually that is a terrible term.

  • SomaticSense #57 5 years ago

    Yellowtruck - "never played a Call of Duty game, are they any good?

    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!!
    Edited by 1 at 13/10/06 @ 14:51

  • Jericho #58 5 years ago

    I think it's utter tosh that they have canned the PC version. It all started with COD 2 as the PC version that was originally released was the most obvious console port you'll ever see. And Console games on a PC rarely play well. After the clan I play for introduced the BJust realism mod and tweaked it a bit things got better.

    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

  • EraSerX #59 5 years ago

    who cares how it looks on xBox360 or ps3.. I want the PC version

  • BadDevotions #60 5 years ago

    @L0cky

    apparently wii has no online mode. there is a dev interview on gametrailers.com

  • kangarootoo #61 5 years ago

    @BBIAJ

    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.

  • holloguts #62 5 years ago

    Cod 3 will be great on 360 and I'm sure with it's extra £200 for 'slightly better graphics', on the PS3 as well. I enjoyed CoD2, plenty of action although a bit too scripted and a few badly placed checkpoints.

    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.





  • effinwooly #63 5 years ago

    Multi platform games will 'near enough' be exactly the same, your choice of console is down to exclusives (games)and money........its your choice

    ps i love you all !

  • Dire #64 5 years ago

    Can't be arsed to read the whole thread.

    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.

  • PS3lol #65 5 years ago

    I don't take no notice of Eurogamer when they talk about the COD games, they under scored COD2 by so much it was a joke.

  • jenguin #66 5 years ago

    it is 1st person on foot and you have the choice of 3rd/1st in vehicles.

    J

  • effinwooly #67 5 years ago

    yes please dire......ta

  • Xerx3s #68 5 years ago

    The actual game is great. The only fault being the total lack of save points (resulting in the PS2 having to be left switched on for days at a time).

    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. :\

  • Xerx3s #69 5 years ago

    Dire, pls follow up on your claim with recent source links. Making statements like that without a source is rather dangerous, if not lethal in here.

  • urban #70 5 years ago

    i think they've rushed this one, 2 is only just a baby, they should have waited.

  • PhakeDC #71 5 years ago

    Ahhh.. Call of Duty.. Nothing else has shown me the true absurdity of war.. outside of theatre and real life that is ;)

  • Reapergold #72 5 years ago

    No pc version?
    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.

  • bauhaus #73 5 years ago

    surely they will work on a PC version? they would be stupid not too

  • SexyBodyBuilderDude #74 5 years ago

    This website makes it absolutely clear that Call of Duty 3 on the Playstation 3 runs at a much SLOWER graphical speed than the very smooth Xbox 360 version.

    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

  • Edward_Gamer #75 5 years ago

    You are correct,

    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



  • BadDevotions #76 5 years ago

    @Edward_Gamer

    that shut 'em up eh?

  • Inflatable #77 5 years ago

    When this console version of CoD3 has been released they'll probably announce a PC version of CoD3 which will include full use of DX10 etc.. This console CoD3 is most likely not released on PC because it comes to soon after CoD2, and they know PC FPS gamers don't like new versions of their games coming out that quickly.. Normal lifecycle of popular PC FPS fransiches is usually at least 2 years..

  • Reapergold #78 5 years ago

    Yawn soo bored of COD that im gona ignoire this and try BASS instead.