Call of Duty 3 Review

By Kristan Reed Published 9 November, 2006

Pack up your troubles.

Version tested: Xbox 360

Just when you thought that interest in World War II games was on the wane, along comes Call of Duty 2 and becomes by far the biggest selling Xbox 360 launch title.

Clearly the public's lust for shooting thousands of Nazi soldiers is as high as ever - especially when it's framed in the cinematically intense fashion that has become Infinity Ward's trademark. Activision knew it had to get a high quality follow-up on the shelves in time for this Christmas' buying frenzy - especially with EA's latest Medal of Honor franchise making its comeback in 2007. Having the whole WWII market to itself for the second Christmas running is a gift-wrapped opportunity.

But Infinity Ward isn't one of those sweatshop developers that can just merrily churn out annual updates of its games - and Activision knows it. Which is precisely why it's been such a smart decision to have another talented developer beavering away on various Call of Duty console projects over the past few years. And with IW taking its traditional two-year cycle to work on a proper 'next-gen' Call of Duty game (presumably due out next Christmas), Call of Duty 3 sees Treyarch take centre stage for the first time

Act of neglect

But its first controversial act has been to neglect to do a PC version, which, given the series originated on the beige box, has annoyed a significant chunk of its audience. Conspiracy theorists have every right to suspect that hardcore fans who've traditionally played the game on PC are effectively being funnelled into buying a next-gen console version. Certainly, here in Europe that decision puts an awful lot of extra focus on the Xbox 360 version, where the PS3 version is an irrelevance until March. By accident or design, it's handed Microsoft another golden opportunity to shift a few more consoles to those who won't be denied their latest CoD fix.

'Call of Duty 3' Screenshot 1

The opening scene in the game - right up there with Omaha beach for chaos and intensity - but does it last?

It's disappointing, then, to find that Call of Duty 3's core single-player offering feels like it's been rushed to market to fulfil demand rather than its potential. If it's not the minor technical glitches that give the impression of slapdash development, it's the half-baked new ideas, resistance to change and cut and paste mission design that serve as a stark reminder that we've been here so many, many times before that novelty hasn't just worn off, it's completely transparent. Luckily the multiplayer is a major saving grace, but we'll come back to that one.

Given that so many of the famous events of World War II have been covered off, Call of Duty 3 thumbs the pages of the history books to focus on one specific sequence of inter-connected events in the summer of 1944 that involved not only the Brits and the Yanks, but the Poles and Canadians as well, all fighting to squeeze the Falaise gap and liberate the French. Unlike Treyarch's more focused campaign in last year's acclaimed 'last-gen' Call of Duty 2: Big Red One, this reverts back to the formula where you're flitting between different nations over the course of the rather brief 14-mission campaign. As a result, the game often feels like a disconnected series of set-pieces culled from any WWII title you might care to mention. The narrative tries its best to inject character into the proceedings with some cheap anti-French gags and the odd flare-up between soldiers, but it mostly falls flat, and what you're left with is a game that never truly drags you in. Your sense of purpose is reduced to eyeing the mini-map and heading for the next starred objective. Destroy the artillery. Defend the south side. Clear out that house. Regroup with your squad. And all this surrounded by an anonymous sea of re-generating allied cannon fodder to make the scenes look as epic as possible.

Just an illusion

'Call of Duty 3' Screenshot 2

The familiar 'look-down-the-sights' aiming system makes a comeback.

At first glance, you could easily argue the case for Call of Duty 3 being one of the best-looking games ever. Some of the scenes of intense battle are right up there with the most incredible sequences you've ever seen committed to videogaming, and it's no wonder they made for incredible-looking teaser videos. Appropriately enough, some of the very best are right at the beginning of the game - always a key tactic to pull in the unwary punter. The individual blades of grass swaying in the breeze, that church roof exploding in a massive plume of dust and debris. That tank rolling on by, inches from your head as you scramble through a stream. The incredible rattle of gunfire and explosions from all sides. Man, the explosions. The dust. The smoke. The sound is incredible too, with shouts of desperation from pinned down comrades alerting you to the machine gun nest that's got them pressed up against a tombstone, rather fittingly. With a spectacular Joel Goldsmith score putting the gloss on the package, it merely underlines that it's still capable of being the same incredible assault on the sense that it ever was - but if you stop and look around for more than a few seconds, you're constantly reminded that the battle doesn't ever just carry on around you. That's the illusion. The reality is all-too easy to identify, and it generally relies on you moving the scripted events on and going in the direction the game dictates. Despite some very loose concessions to in-mission freedom (read: branching paths or choice over which house to clear first), you're still tightly penned in by some ludicrous invisible walls and rarely given a chance to experiment. Of course, it's always been this way, but in essence Call of Duty 3 is weighed down by the baggage of old school game design decision that we really should have moved on from by now.

What rankles even more is that some of the so-called 'new' elements introduced to Call of Duty 3 are so flimsy it's hard to believe that a developer as talented as Treyarch thought they improved the game in any way. The supposedly intense Close Quarters Combat sequences that pop up four or five times during the game are, frankly, a pathetic waste of time. Now and then the game dictates that a German solider will get the jump on you in a fight to the death. The screen switches to a close up view of their gurning face, and you're tasked with fending them off by hammering the left and right triggers (a rubbish idea in Fahrenheit, and no better here). Eventually, you'll have to press the indicated button when it flashes up to finish them off - the only bonus about the whole affair is that it doesn't occur very often.

'Call of Duty 3' Screenshot 6

Multiplayer madness. War wasn't supposed to be this much fun.

Elsewhere, the game throws in some equally pointlessly unchallenging sequences where you have to use your binoculars to mark targets (click left stick to go into zoomed-in binocular view, move cursor a few degrees left or right, press X, boom), and tries to make the bomb-planting sequences more interesting by turning them into a Simon Says-style sequence where you have to press the buttons in the directed order, rotate the stick, touch your toes and wiggle your ears. The sections where you drive a tank feel nicely bombastic, but, again, it's hard to fail, and feel more like interactive cut-scenes than a life-or-death part of the war effort. Equally half-baked are the occasional driving sections where you board a jeep and marvel at how much it feels like you're driving a hovercraft through the set of Telly Tubbies. Unfortunately there's no sign of Tinky Winky.

Stuck in a rut

Normally, it'd be easy to overlook some of the more undercooked elements, but then some of the technical deficiencies start to prove irksome. For example, on more than one occasion you'll find yourself inexplicable stuck in the scenery and unable to get out. Fair enough. Restart checkpoint. But then you'll come across times when the AI itself gets stuck, and as a result events don't trigger the scripted events that move things on. Grr. Restart checkpoint.

Other things also strike you as strange - muzzle flash showing up through solid walls, dead enemies stuck mid air in scenery, the occasional appallingly textured area, some dreadful lighting bugs where soldiers are either inexplicably brightly lit, or too dark to see their faces. And then there's the clunky-looking animation transitions where you see men literally flicking between stances, and even, shock, some pop up (though admittedly that's on one small section in the whole game). It's the lack of attention to detail that take you out of the moment, that shatter the suspension of disbelief, that remind you that the game engine's already horribly dated in places that matter, and you have to wonder how significant the game's parallel development on PS2 and Xbox had on the so-called next-gen versions.

Lean on me

Instead of being involved in a tense battle for survival, you're wondering where the five extra allied soldiers just came from, and how many times they're just going to wander straight into the firing line of that machine gun nest. Even the generally slick controls have the capacity to annoy, by mapping the binoculars to a click on the left stick, you're forever accidentally getting it out just as you're trying to flee imminent danger. You'd also think that in a game that's mostly based on making good use of cover that you'd at the very least be able to lean out from behind a wall, column or doorway by now. Yeah, we know the CoD games have always been like this, but why should we put up with being given the same old creaking controls and gameplay mechanics and just 'cos? GRAW and Gears of War have shaken up some of the old school convention, so why can't this? It's easily on an equal footing as one of the biggest, most anticipated games of the entire year. And yet we're supposed to be happy to part with the cash for something that feels like a marked step back in the current climate?

As with last year's version, Treyarch has come up with the latest game to adopt the rather controversial recharging health system. Now, while this definitely makes it a less frustrating game, and removes the need to litter the battlefield with medikits, it also reduces the challenge to almost zero. Played on Easy or Normal, you'll whomp through the game in about six or seven hours without breaking sweat. To try and spice things up and to see whether it made the game more challenging and tense, and to see if the game's AI gets any better, I played a fair chunk on Veteran level. Supposedly the AI is tougher, more uncompromising and a better shot, but the real difference is that they react slightly quicker, nothing more - the main difference is your ability to take shots is massively reduced so you'll merely be taking two or three times as long to inch your way through each level, mentally logging all those surprise moments that catch you out first time around and reloading certain checkpoints repeatedly. But after a combined total of about 15 hours playing the single-player campaign, the thing that really jumps out at you is how old the core battlefield/house-clearing combat feels.

'Call of Duty 3' Screenshot 3

Happy when it rains. You'll enjoy the inclement weather effects rather too much.

After playing something like FEAR, you'd think Treyarch would maybe consider applying an approximation of Monolith's exciting 'hunt you down from all sides and exploit your weaknesses' ethos, but it does nothing of the sort. It's the same old story with the AI in CoD3. The enemy has precisely two behaviour modes: the 'sit behind cover and pop out now and again' mode or the demented 'rush towards you like a bunch of lemmings' AI that's been in place forever - and that applies both inside and outside. For all the amazing feats that Treyarch pulls off with regard to creating environments that look incredible at first glance, it doesn't take long to see beyond that, especially when it's shattered by the dense behaviour of the AI on both sides throughout. Until Infinity Ward (and Treyarch, presumably) gets around to fixing that side of the game (hopefully) next time around, what you're left with is an obliging enemy that only flanks if the game scripts it that way, and clueless squad mates that happily run into a hail of bullets and often have trouble dealing with enemies standing right in front of them. If all of this is the definition of top class next generation entertainment, then clearly we've got spectacularly low standards and the ability to forgive a multitude of gaming sins when they're glaringly apparent in front of our eyes.

Halfway there

'Call of Duty 3' Screenshot 4

A familiar view. Soggy, raining, the wind whipping through the trees...

So while, yes, the uniforms and tank models look better than ever thanks to that fancy scanning machine that NASA uses, and yes, we've never seen better smoke in a videogame, and yes, the impression of raging battle is impressive to the eyes and ears for much of the time, there's an equally crucial portion of the game when it all goes to pot and you're left with the feeling that you're playing an old, funnelled shooter against primitive enemy, going through the motions of things we've done so many, many times before. It's these things that, sadly, stick in your mind.

But if you're into the multiplayer aspect of Call of Duty, then you're definitely in luck, and it's this facet of the game that drags the review score up a notch. For a start, this year's version supports triple the number of players (24), of which four can join in for online action from the same box, not to mention split-screen and, of course, system link. This year there's six modes to enjoy either on ranked or unranked player matches, comprising Capture the Flag, Single Flag CTF, Headquarters (one team sets up an HQ and defends it, the other tries to infiltrate and attack), Team Battle (deathmatch), Battle (free for all deathmatch) and War (team mode where you battle to control spawn points). There's a lot to enjoy - most of it pretty familiar territory, for sure.

'Call of Duty 3' Screenshot 5

It's a beautiful looking game in so many ways, but close up the cracks begin to appear.

The key difference this year isn't just the presence of the nine excellent sprawling maps (with more to come online for sure), nor the ability to ride around in jeeps, tanks and motorbikes (with side cars), but the fact that it's gone all Team Fortress on us. Yes, this year you get to enjoy a class-based system with no fewer than seven different types to choose from, including Light and Heavy Assault, Medic, Scout, Support, Anti-Armour, and Rifleman. As you might expect, each play their own role and have specific strengths and weaknesses that - if played properly as a team - will make all the difference to your team's success. Each player has a predetermined loadout of two different weapons and a grenade (or mine), and is rated in terms of Damage, Range, Accuracy, Melee, Speed, and Rate of Fire, so, for example, a Medic has awful range and accuracy stats, but is great at melee and speed, while the Scout has great damage and range with his Springfield rifle, but is disadvantaged by his rubbish melee skills and low rate of fire. Tellingly, Activision has included some achievements to encourage those to take the less sexy Scout and Medic roles, so that should help balance things out in the short-term at least. Also, another thing to mention is that each player has their own special skill, so Scouts can mount artillery, Medics can revive downed soldiers, while the Rifleman has a deadly rifle grenade to go with his smoke grenade. It's beautifully balanced.

So far, with few players populating the servers, there have been no major incidences of lag, and we have thoroughly enjoyed every session so far. Certainly, for those with a PC gaming background, you'll appreciate the larger scale matches, the numerous ways to set options in game and the decent variety of modes. It certainly promises to be one of Live's most popular games ever, and arguably warrants a purchase for the online multiplayer alone - if that's your thing.

And there lies a straightforward decision. If you're only interested in the offline game and have maybe had your fill of WWII action, then Call of Duty 3 won't be for you. It's too stuck in its ways to provide any meaningful progression to the genre, and of the changes it has made to the gameplay, frankly none of them are worth getting excited about. Maybe if you're a committed fan then you'll be happy to overlooked the many criticisms we've jabbed in the chest of Call of Duty 3. Maybe you'll think we've gone raving mad for thinking the single-player's no better than a six out of ten, but no change there. It's much easier, though, to praise the advancements made to the multiplayer side of the game, where every new addition and every change is one that will help make it even more popular. If you spend a lot of your time online, then it's far more than a consolation 'bonus mode' to make up for the lacklustre single player offering - it's without doubt one of the better online games that console gaming has offered us all year. Maybe next year they can get both elements of the package spot on and we can start singing its praises again.

7 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Kristan.

About Kristan Reed

Kristan is a former editor of Eurogamer, dad, Stone Roses bore and Norwich City supporter who sometimes mutters optimistically about Team Silent getting back together.

Read more articles from Kristan by visiting the Kristan Reed archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (117) Latest comment 5 years ago

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

  • Super_Zee #1 5 years ago

    CoD3 is the new GoW!

    And first!

  • stuarty_2003 #2 5 years ago

    I have it, and I'll play it when I finish my criminology essay. By the way - what do all you chaps think of capital punishment?

    Yay - Nay? Why?

  • sport #3 5 years ago

    Don't you get the feeling EG are just waiting to play more PS3?

  • phAge #4 5 years ago

    Shit! I had "so as good as GoW, then?" all ready to go, but then it gets a 7.

  • morriss #5 5 years ago

    I'm glad my 'good-games' senses are still working.
    Edited by 1 at 09/11/06 @ 12:17

  • the_dudefather #6 5 years ago

    3 pages? is that so we see more call of duty 3 ads?

  • Furbs #7 5 years ago

    kristan, out of interest, how were you able to include the online aspects in this games review, but no GoW?

  • Xerx3s #8 5 years ago

    Better than h..Go...oh bugger.

  • UncleLou #9 5 years ago

    One of the things that annoy me about consoles: many succesful games get a sequel every year, till the franchise is dead. Loved the first one, hated the addon, CoD 2 was ok, but I am really getting a bit tired of the franchise now.

  • gizmo #10 5 years ago

    My biggest gripe so far is the animation transitions. The Germans simply move too quickly at times and it looks like they're either on speed or I've slipped into another dimension where World War II has been mixed up with Benny Hill.

  • octo #11 5 years ago

    Dammit. Return to castle Wolfesnstein was my first introduction to online gaming and I absolutely loved it. This sounds a lot like it in multiplayer. So many games, so little money.

  • ralphwolfenstein #12 5 years ago

    "3 pages? is that so we see more call of duty 3 ads?"

    Bingo

    To be fair, EG are one of the least offensive sites in this regard. IGN typically spread big game reviews over 5- 7 pages, and each screenshot view counts as a page view

    It's all designed to butter up the site stats in order to fool media buyers who haven't done their research properly by actually looking at their target media...

  • Steroyd #13 5 years ago

    /rushes to see the score
    /is shocked he had to go through 3 pages.
    /is even more shocked that at the end of it all gets a 7.
    /eagerly awaits Resistance review.

    :D

  • Xerx3s #14 5 years ago

    I have it, and I'll play it when I finish my criminology essay. By the way - what do all you chaps think of capital punishment?

    You should not post that here but in a political thread. As for the topic itself, it's barbarous and makes the system and people no better than the scum that they bring to justice. Murder by state is still murder. Only socially underdeveloped countries still use it.

  • gizmo #15 5 years ago

    Scum should not exist and should be eradicated. End of.

  • TheEnd #16 5 years ago

    It sounds like they've finally taken a step forward in the multiplayer department, after completely dropping ball with CoD2... pity it's not coming to PC. Oh well, back to RO for me then.

  • stuarty_2003 #17 5 years ago

    "You should not post that here but in a political thread. As for the topic itself, it's barbarous and makes the system and people no better than the scum that they bring to justice. Murder by state is still murder. Only socially underdeveloped countries still use it."


    United States of America....

  • rauper Verified Managing Director, Eurogamer Network #18 5 years ago

    "It's all designed to butter up the site stats in order to fool media buyers who haven't done their research properly by actually looking at their target media..."

    Actually I think it's just a mistake, we don't do reviews that are more than 2 pages...

  • azwipe #19 5 years ago

    All for capital (absolute) punishment as soon as we have a criminal justice sytem that is absolutely fair and absolutely fool-proof.

  • Xerx3s #20 5 years ago

    Scum should not exist and should be eradicated. End of.

    Extremism is thinking in circles. If that really worked, why then do the Americans have such a high crime rate compared to the mild punishments in other parts of the world?

  • trevd72 #21 5 years ago

    £23 from playasia

  • rhinoxious #22 5 years ago

    For me the 4 player split screen on Live is reason enough to buy this game. Having some mates over for the evening and getting to kick ass together online will be great.

    Plus I can have a system link party again, I had one before but with only PDZ supporting split screen over system link it was kind of a dissapointment.

    Of course the last game should have featured this.

  • sport #23 5 years ago

    @disc: you're right, it does

  • Xerx3s #24 5 years ago

    United States of America....

    My point still stands. ;p

  • Inquisitor #25 5 years ago

    This is getting quite mixed reviews, both EG and 1UP gave it around a 7, but gamespot and gamer tv gave it an 8.8 and 5/5 respectively!

  • SentientNr6 #26 5 years ago

    While the reviewer doesn't seem to like first person shooters, he sure likes to write. :p

  • JayPee #27 5 years ago

    WWII. Again.

    Any chance there's a coincidence this is coming out near remembrance day?

    Played COD2 multiplayer to death, but mainly cos of the game dynamics, sick of the IP (setting etc) to be honest.

    I know WWII may be the last war the yanks can actually bo proud of but can we stop having videogames of it please. They kind of miss the whole point about remembrance.

  • t8yman #28 5 years ago

    I think 7 is generous. And I was fanboi #1 when it comes to CoD2.
    I desperately wanted to love this game, and I cant.
    Its BF2:MC set in WW2

  • ralphwolfenstein #29 5 years ago

    "Actually I think it's just a mistake, we don't do reviews that are more than 2 pages..."

    I was more referring to the other offenders ;)

  • Dark_Stranger #30 5 years ago

    Reviews are the perception of the world through one person's eyes, very much like a pint glass is half empty/half full - It's all a matter of opinion.

  • morriss #31 5 years ago

    Why hasn't Tiger Woods been reviewwed yet? It's been out for over a week.

  • bonker #32 5 years ago

    I'm gutted, trully GUTTED - but not surprised.

    As soon as I heard, way back, that COD3 would be taken from Infinity Ward I was pissed as COD2 is the best game I've ever played. The general gameplay and incredible atmosphere (LOVED playing the Russian missions) and immersiveness of COD2 was truly tremendous and to be honest, if they'd just relabelled the same game again as COD3 I'd have bought it.

    Oh well, no COD3 and no GOW for me - looks like it's gonna be R6 as soon as I've finished Dead Rising ...

  • t8yman #33 5 years ago

    " Why hasn't Tiger Woods been reviewwed yet? It's been out for over a week."


    because its the same as last year's?

  • #34 5 years ago

    SHUT UP MORRISS!

  • Psychotext #35 5 years ago

    So not WWII with aliens for sure?

  • #36 5 years ago

    actually t8yman, you couldn't be more wrong in your statement that TW 07 is the same as last years.

    Tell you what, lets talk about TW here in this thread until they get around to the review.....

    TW is much, much harder than last years effort, taking real skill to progress. The graphics are up a full 8 notches, and really, it's the best golf game ever made.

    9/10

  • TheGrandChappo #37 5 years ago

    My first order from Play Asia, lovin' the price, anyone know what delivery times to the UK are likely to be, cheers!

  • Steve007 #38 5 years ago

    @bonker

    "Oh well, no COD3 and no GOW for me - looks like it's gonna be R6 as soon as I've finished Dead Rising ... "

    Have you made this decision on the basis of the Eurogamer reviews?

  • gizmo #39 5 years ago

    "TW is much, much harder than last years effort, taking real skill to progress"

    All becomes clear.

  • bonker #40 5 years ago

    Harry, I've read other stuff that indicates that they've broken the atmosphere and immersiveness with gimmicky stuff that I guess appeals to Yanks/kids (stupid hand-to-hand fighting etc) so my expectations were pretty much set before this.

    It's a real shame but tbh, I think COD2 will take some topping for some time to come. It ain't just about graphics and guns, it's the story/scripting/design that makes a truly great game such as COD2 - something I imagine GOW falls short in ...

  • foxy2006 #41 5 years ago

    sad that this seems to be going down the need for speed route, pretty graphics, same game.
    Ive been a big fan of the CoD series since day one, lets hope the game can follow the TH Project 8 lesson and bring something fresh to the table next time around.
    I reckon this will be a case of play the demo, erase the demo.

  • Inquisitor #42 5 years ago

    I think everyones being a bit harsh on it. To me it just sounds like call of duty 2.5, which for most people here is probably no bad thing.

  • absolutezero #43 5 years ago

    Pangya > Tiger Woods.

  • Darren #44 5 years ago

    7/10 sounds about right to me after having played the first four levels yesterday. Single player isn't as good as Call of Duty 2's and it's buggy/glitchy as well which can force you to have to reload a checkpoint if you get stuck on the scenery! I've even seen my own soldier get stuck in walls and logs and even shooting into the walls because they're facing the wrong way into a doorway!!! LOL

    Online is fantastic though and a noticeable improvement over the last game, I played two 16-player matches last night with no lag.

    Good review...

  • Darth_Flibble #45 5 years ago

    I was going to get this Friday but i don't mind waiting till it arrives cheap from play asia. As from a lot of reviews and gamers comments it sounds like its a good game but not a game to pay £40 for. I hate trigger bashing/pressing bits its lazy game design they should of died, I bet I.F. would of done the game better as Treyarch do fall back on buttton bashing (and shitty races in their spiderman games etc

  • TonyBlair #46 5 years ago

    I read the review and then browse the eg staff page to formulate my decision hmmm... Yes I'm buying it...

    Have u got the FEAR...

  • Reapergold #47 5 years ago

    One pile of steamy bordom after the next. Id rather play fork in the socket then cod3, tw, or any fookin hockey games.

  • whome #48 5 years ago

    completely agree about single player, average at best which is v disappointing.

    have completed 4 or 5 missions and tbh it's just not doing anything to make me want to finish it, I hope the environments are going to be a little varied as it goes on....

    multi is good though.

  • Monkey_Chops #49 5 years ago

    A 3 page review for a 7 out of 10 game? Meh.

  • Foundry #50 5 years ago

    It looks like WW2 but with alie...oh hang on.

  • Rambaldi #51 5 years ago

    Well, I've just popped out and bought both this and FEAR and will have a fun old weekend anyways. You critics can go swivel on yer DSs and PS3s whilst I have a bit of fun blasting dudes, listening to some rock n roll, downing some buds.

    /applys face paint and ties green headband tightly

  • LittleVoice #52 5 years ago

    Post deleted at 18:03:32 01-02-2012

  • shamblemonkee #53 5 years ago

    I'd be happy with CoD 2.5 :) but then I'm easily pleased.

  • SomaticSense #54 5 years ago

    So it isn't as good as Cod2 then? Not interested in the mulitplayer side of it in the slightest, and it always looked as if they were concentrating more on that side as opposed to the single player, which was the main thing that put me off. Plus those CQC things always sounded completely shit. Whatever possessed the developers to keep bigging them up as some kind of 'innovation that is going to improve the game' I'll never know, as stuff like that only ever disrupts the main flow of gameplay and end up ruining games.

  • Arwin #55 5 years ago

    Rambaldi, you're being historically incorrect ... WWII was before the whole headband fad that was most prominently introduced by a certain fictional Vietnam veteran.

    Anyway, I was thinking that the rubbish 'mini-games' could be wholly blamed on the sixaxis and wiimote, considering the way they are implemented on the PS3. I'm going to reserve my judgment on whether they should have been left out altogether depending on how well they turn out on the PS3 version.

  • DrDamn #56 5 years ago

    @T8yman
    "I think 7 is generous. And I was fanboi #1 when it comes to CoD2.
    I desperately wanted to love this game, and I cant.
    Its BF2:MC set in WW2"

    BF2:MC set in WW2? Result :-)

  • Azazel #57 5 years ago

    I would be in the camp that is utterly bored with WWII fps games at this point... bored with the whole single player fps genre in fact. Bioshock is about the only one i'm still looking forward to.

  • DrDamn #58 5 years ago

    @Xerx3s
    ">United States of America....

    My point still stands. ;p"

    I thought that was your point ;-)

  • shamblemonkee #59 5 years ago

    "dissapointed that you failed to mention stuff like this:

    "the ability to toss grenades back at the enemy by picking it up with the X button and quickly tossing it with the trigger. Running towards an unexploded grenade to lob it in the other direction can be exhilarating but overusing the technique will eventually lead to some messy deaths"

    "Another area where Treyarch has bumped up the visual splendor of the game is with semi-destructible environments. Unfortunately hardware constraints still don't allow for fully destructible worlds but the developers have managed to make objects blow to bits where it counts. Things like shutters, some wooden crates, and banisters will explode into the air when hit with machine gun fire or a well placed grenade. Picture frames crash down from walls, exploding barrels bounce through rooms, and in an especially nice touch, barrels of wine spring leaks."

  • SomaticSense #60 5 years ago

    Steroid - "/rushes to see the score
    /is shocked he had to go through 3 pages.
    /is even more shocked that at the end of it all gets a 7.
    /eagerly awaits Resistance review.

    :D    "

    So you didn't even bother reading it? All review sites/mags should just get rid of review scores, that way it would FORCE people to make up their own mind on whether they would like a game or not based on reading the good/bad aspects of the game given in the main text. Which is the entire POINT of reviews in the first place.
    If I'd bought games purely based on review scores, then I would have had a whole load of games in my collection that I would hate or never play.

    Only idiots buy games based on review scores as they are easily the most inconsistent way possible of giving an opinion. Scores will always differ from person to person, ie, an 8 for one person is a 6 for someone else.
    Edited by 1 at 09/11/06 @ 13:48

  • Darren #61 5 years ago

    "Another area where Treyarch has bumped up the visual splendor of the game is with semi-destructible environments. Unfortunately hardware constraints still don't allow for fully destructible worlds but the developers have managed to make objects blow to bits where it counts. Things like shutters, some wooden crates, and banisters will explode into the air when hit with machine gun fire or a well placed grenade. Picture frames crash down from walls, exploding barrels bounce through rooms, and in an especially nice touch, barrels of wine spring leaks."

    That's from GameSpot's 8.8 review right?

    Well playing the game, there certainly is more in the way of destructible scenery but it's inconsistent. You can shoot a wine bottle to smithereens but you can't shoot vases on tables for example. Overall the environments are nowhere near as destructible as GameSpot make out... semi-destructible... try quarter-destructible!!! Debris, of course, disappears in seconds so the effect is rendered pointless because you never see the messy results of shooting everything as those magical invisible cleaners quickly come in and tidy everything up!

  • whome #62 5 years ago

    "So it isn't as good as Cod2 then? "

    from what I've seen so far in terms of Single Player no, IMHO.

  • PS3lol #63 5 years ago

    "Oh well, no COD3 and no GOW for me - looks like it's gonna be R6 as soon as I've finished Dead Rising ... "

    I laugh at you retarded 360 owners who base your purchases on reviews at Eurogamer. They hate the fucking console.

  • groovychainsaw #64 5 years ago

    Meh - sounds like all the flaws in COD2 remain, multiplayer sounds good (especially multiple players form one box) but not worth it just for multiplayer. Next!

  • skillian #65 5 years ago

    This is why I wasn't bothered about it appearing on PC.

    It was clear it was going to be a typical console Christmas rush-job.

    /Waits for Infinity Ward's real next CoD...

  • Eighthours #66 5 years ago

    The singleplayer is just Call of Duty 2 with knobs on, but the multiplayer is spectacularly good.

  • gizmo #67 5 years ago

    These nasty little gameplay gimmicks are going to be like a plague of rats when the sixaxis and Wiimote are established I fear.

    /dusts off pc

  • xs1ghtuk #68 5 years ago

    tbh all call of duty 2 needed was better graphics imo. I've loved the series and i'm pretty sure i'll love this! \o/

  • SlackMaster #69 5 years ago

    So it's not as good as GoW then? Is it better than Resistance Fall of Man? I hear that must be good cos it's on PS3.

  • Steroyd #70 5 years ago

    @SomaticSense

    Don't take my post the wrong way i was just curious what the score was at the end after the erm... Gears of War "upset" i at the very least read the summary but this was a special case in the aftermath of GeoW.

    I personally think WII FPS's are the definition of generic these days, I only have to play the first COD and that was enough WII FPS's for this generation, until they re-invent the wheel in a unique way somewhat... but with the devs vying for authenticity and accuracy to history bla de bla bla, all WWII FPS's feel the same... unless you're on the german side, that's be a change of perpective...

    Put it this way this webiste will explode if Resistance scores any higher than a 8.

    :D

  • Rambaldi #71 5 years ago

    @greggywocky

    little shop in local town ;)

  • PS3lol #72 5 years ago

    So splinter cell DA is better than Gears of war, and Fifa 07 is better than COD3. Ha ha fuck off Eurogamer you have no credibility left.

  • Darren #73 5 years ago

    I find it amusing that other websites are claiming that GoW and Call of Duty 3 on the 360 are getting low scores from EG because they want to make Resistance look amazing on the PS3 by giving it 9/10. /LOL

    That's ludicrous... isn't it?

  • Psychotext #74 5 years ago

    Darren: Honestly... with all the fawning EG have been doing over resistance and the PS3 I wouldn't be surprised! ;) Quite frankly I don't even care for hearing about the damn thing until it's near to release over here.

  • Rusta #75 5 years ago

    Sounds perfect for me then, I play COD2 online all time, I've completed a couple of missions in single player but got bored.

    I'm a online whore only, don't think I would play the box if it were not for online

  • pinhead #76 5 years ago

    "I was told Argos got a big fine last week, so there'd be no more early retail releases.... "

    Whichever retailer breaks the streetdate is fined. Once the street date is broken and the supplier is made aware of it, the supplier will then typically allow the other retailers to sell through the stock even before the release date. This is common practice.

    I expect GoW will break the street date. So keep em peeled!

  • FooAtari #77 5 years ago

    Well I was going to leave this for a while, but at £25 from Play Asia delivered I picked it up.

    It might be a bit linear, but thats what I liked about CoD 2, it kept the game really focussed. Not every game has to be a massive free roaming adventure... Everyone would start complaining about that eventually.

  • malteaserhead #78 5 years ago

    gizmo
    'Scum should not exist and should be eradicated. End of.'

    Wrong! Even wankers have a right to life.

  • Azazel #79 5 years ago

    ^ tru.dat

    Also: That's ludicrous... isn't it?

    Yes, but I prefer the term "f***ing sad"

  • The-Bodybuilder #80 5 years ago

    @ Crofto

    What makes EG's review of this game any more "honest" than the others? Giving a game a lower score than others doesn't automatically make the review more honest (if that's the case, then the chromhounds review is as pure as light). It just means they thought less of the game than others (but stilla good game).

  • oldfruit #81 5 years ago

    It's not "they" or "EG's" review - it's the individual writers review which may or may not reflect the views of the other EG staffers. The score any particular reviewer gives a game is not reflective of the site - it's merely an insight into the reviewers thoughts. The quality of the writing and the ability to articulate those thoughts to the reader is reflective of EG and this is where EG score rather highly IMO.

    By the way - played CoD3 for 30 mins last night and then sold it on E-bay - ran it back to back with CoD2 and I'm afraid it just does'nt have the magic of 2.

  • rhinoxious #82 5 years ago

    If COD3 gets extra credit for its multi-player, then surely GOW should probably pick one up for its co-op play (unmentioned in the EG review but massively acclaimed in the gamespot one).

    review scores are useful sometimes, for example if I want to look at the top 20 scoring xbox reviews on a gaming site then its easy to do and I can see if I missed something that someone else thought was great. Which was how I ended up playing freedom fighters over a year after its release.

    But the arguing over review scores for big titles, that are yet to be released is pointless. I f the game is good it will prove itself over time and in its sequels (possibly).

  • Spydez #83 5 years ago

    I picked up a copy from Gamestation today. The uninspiring single player aspect is not a concern for me personally. Confirmation that the multiplayer will rock harder than that of COD2 means this game will spend a lot of time in my 360.

  • darkbhudda #84 5 years ago

    God of War had a decent button mashing system where it was part of the game, but here it sounds like it takes away from the immersion. Making a player think about what controls he is using so he can quickly find the green button really takes you out of the game.



    @BlackCelebration
    If I have a choice between 3 page reviews and 1 page fluff journalism with the standard Xbox360 score of 7, I'll take the 3 pages thanks.


    From review:
    Maybe next year they can get both elements of the package spot on and we can start signing its praises again.

    You'd be fun in a bank when you sing your cheques.

  • skillian #85 5 years ago

    I figured the reviewer was deaf :/

  • TonyBlair #86 5 years ago

    @darkbhudda

    From review:
    Maybe next year they can get both elements of the package spot on and we can start signing its praises again.

    You'd be fun in a bank when you sing your cheques.

    The Xfactor in Barclays Luv it! :)

  • viperfoxbat #87 5 years ago

    I don't have the money anyway. LOL. Just bought Gears of War and boy is it sweet. Just finished 2 hours of 4vs 4 online and it was smooooth. :)

  • Rambaldi #88 5 years ago

    Well, just played COD3 and it's cool. Just as much fun as COD2 and twice as good looking. Bloody critics eh? SUre it's more of the same, but so what!

  • whome #89 5 years ago

    but it's not more of the same, not afaic anyway.

    the reviewer is spot on with the cut & paste mission design, some of it just smacks of developers running out of ideas & dragging out missions with pointless objectives that are about as much fun as a trip to the dentist, if you've done the mission taking out tanks arround the factory you'll know what I mean,. And it's not that it's hard, I just dont want to keep doing the same thing till the mission ends :/

    I REALLY enjoyed COD2 SP and still play it regularly, ok it was hardly original or groundbreaking but it had some v good level design and several good campaigns, honestly can't see me bothering with COD3 SP again, might look pretty but it's ZZZZzzzzzz
    Edited by 1 at 09/11/06 @ 18:48

  • dudefella #90 5 years ago

    I didn't have the willpower to slog through CoD2, another identikit (but very pretty) WW2 shooter, and I sure as hell don't have the willpower to clear out 50 houses and destroy 3 artillery installations yet again. So utterly, utterly tired of WW2 shooters you won't even believe. It depresses me that another of these games will come out a year from now, but maybe that will actually innovate.

  • bioreit #91 5 years ago

    Ok, I just scanned through all 107 (at time of typing) and couldn't see this point, so I'll make it...

    @ Kristan / Krudster (?):

    In the review (which was excellent, as ever), you deplored the lack of leaning:

    "You'd also think that ... at the very least [you should] be able to lean out from behind a wall, column or doorway by now."

    but then semi-justify/semi-criticise this by saying:

    "yeah, we know the CoD games have always been like this, but why should we put up with being given the same old creaking controls."

    I just worked my way through the first half of Treyarch's CoD2:Big Red One on Xbox last weekend and I can lean in that using the D-pad left/right. Which I know disproves AND agrees with your point (in fact, it makes the situation even worse, as CoD3 is from Treyarch too....tsk, tsk), but I just wanted to clarify.

    Anyways, I'll probably get this because I like FPS and 3PS (TPS sounds like a cleaning detergent. Or an international courier. Or maybe an international cleaner....) and I never get bored of decent ones - and I started on Wolfenstein 3D when it FIRST came out.....

    Oh christ I'm old.

  • tiddles #92 5 years ago

    Get it somewhere cheap, think of it as United Offensive for Call Of Duty 2, and you'll be fine...

  • Der_tolle_Emil #93 5 years ago

    I haven't played any of the Call of Duty games yet except the 360 demo for CoD2. I kind of enjoyed it but then again the scope of what this game has to offer seems limited. The paths are more linear than anything I have ever seen but the setting and athmosphere fit nicely and I can imagine that in situations like this you simply do not sneak around every house or corner and just push forward with your squad. It was fun and I probably will get CoD2 second-hand and then decide about CoD3 myself.

  • captainrentboy #94 5 years ago

    This or F.E.A.R,this or F.E.A,R?.....It's a toughie,I can only afford one of them.As I am a gigantic graphics whore does anyone know if FEAR's graphics have been improved since the 360's marketplace demo a few weeks back,because as impressed as I was with the enemy AI and stuff the graphics were a little bland,and generally buggy.

  • dudefella #95 5 years ago

    I'd go for FEAR, because imo, the action is much more satisfying, and between MoH and CoD, I've seen enough WW2 games for about a lifetime.

  • Avaloner #96 5 years ago

    We want better games.... Fresher ideas... please

  • Vin #97 5 years ago

    Any wagers on the score for the Ps3 release?

  • krokomkiller #98 5 years ago

    Is it only me who thinks the multiplayer part seems to be a nerfed version of Battlefield 1942?

  • FooAtari #99 5 years ago

    Go to Play Asia folks, £25 makes CoD3 a whole lot more appealing...

  • admir #100 5 years ago

    COD = meadel of Honer
    put some gore in it

  • krenzler #101 5 years ago

    I'll be very disappointed if Twilight Princess isn't awarded 5...










    ...pages!

  • Penguinzoot #102 5 years ago

    Currently playing through COD2 again at the moment, and enjoying it. Will probably pick up FEAR instead of COD3 though .... (my ageing PC couldn't handle FEAR :-( ).

  • Genji #103 5 years ago

    3 pages??

    What is this, IGN?

  • gizmo #104 5 years ago

    If you're into multiplayer in any way - pick this up for that if nothing else.

    It is absolutely outstanding - it is silky smooth and just feels so right - its A1.

  • Raziel #105 5 years ago

    You do know ALL of its multiplayer "features" come directly from Wolfenstein: Enemy Territoy?

  • krudster #106 5 years ago

    To be honest, most FPSs have identical multiplayer modes and similiar features - I think most of us realise that by now. The fact that they're new to this game is the important thing to point out.
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 09:07

  • smoothpete #107 5 years ago

    I agree completely with the review having played through several levels last night. The controls aren't as tight as CoD2, and although it's extremely good looking and there are some stand out moments, I can't see me playing through the single player campaign more than a couple of times. I'll finish it then I'm trading it in.

    Very good, but not as good as CoD2.

  • PS3lol #108 5 years ago

    Not going to roll out the token EA exec to confirm your COD3 review was right?.

  • gizmo #109 5 years ago

    The multiplayer in this game though is exceptionally well done.

    24 players and still very smooth.
    Full open mic voice comms - and a great bunch of players so far.
    Balance seems excellent and battles ebb and flow with an epic feel to them.

    I love the little details, for instance if there is a minor lag, making another players tank movement slightly inconsistent, you actually hear the engine tone and gears change to make it seem natural. Soldiers actually mount and dismount the tanks, tanks recoil when firing, if on an assault you want to hide in the grass and put down covering fire, it works.

    What is also great is that its not one shot kills, but enemies go down pretty quickly. Spot on.

    Cannot wait to get back to it tonight. Been a while since a game has had that draw for me.

  • bauhaus #110 5 years ago

    AAAiiiiieeee


    i simply cannot make my mind up on this

    it will be £40 in my local shop I know, allways loved CoD (on PC) allways feared FPS games on consoles..


    what. to. do.

  • Fab4 #111 5 years ago

    I played the MP last nigt and didnt realise 6hrs passing, thats how much fun I was having.

  • TonyBlair #112 5 years ago

    I think it's a solid game too the hours flew by last night one thing that annoys me but it's more down to me is after firing I seem to club with my gun with the right stick but on reflection I much rather do this than have a tilt sensor on the sixaxis now that would get really annoying I guess well just have to wait and see...

    Good Game more of an 8 for me...

    Still Battlefield MC rules the zone and that got poor scores all around for me value wise and gameplay blah blah that's a 8 come 9 so...

  • Glitch #113 5 years ago

    I am playing this game right now, just having a cig break. I am on the second level playing it on Hard with no cursor. ITS FUCKING TOP! if anyone was going to buy this game and have decided not to bcuz of the review then DO NOT LISTEN TO EG. Sorry EG but a 7/10 is just wrong. The game is top, works well and is just pure mayhem which is 100% fun. The nit picking of this game is pure shit, i mean cmon lets be realistic, dont talk shit just to make a review that bit longer. Its like reviewing a new car and saying the tires are 10mm to wide, I think this game improves on the last and adds new features and is all round a better game. 8.5.10 for me and defo worth the buy!

  • PS3lol #114 5 years ago

    COD3 and GeOW are fantastic games. If you're a gamer go get them with a live subscription. Best damn time you'll have all year.

    Fuck the reviews here, they want to keep 360 scores down to make Resistance fall of man look better.
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 15:06

  • gizmo #115 5 years ago

    Hey Tony, no wonder you've totally screwed the country with your sticky fingered scottish sidekick if you're posting on here.

  • spookyzombie #116 5 years ago

    That Kristan Fella's a bit rubbish. He's given COD3 and GOW lower scores than loads of other respected sites. He either see's things all the others miss, or he's just perhaps wrong.

  • Steroyd #117 5 years ago

    His opinion is incorrect? o_O

    Maybe he's sick of the same o' shooters with the same o' guns that produce the same o' results.

    Maybe he's waiting for a special FPS with weapons that produced different from the norm results.

    If only a FPS like that existed.
    If only.

  • bennieporter #118 5 years ago

    The reviewer wrote: "So while, yes, the uniforms and tank models look better than ever thanks to that fancy scanning machine that NASA uses, and yes, we've never seen better smoke in a videogame, and yes, the impression of raging battle is impressive to the eyes and ears for much of the time, there's an equally crucial portion of the game when it all goes to pot and you're left with the feeling that you're playing an old, funnelled shooter against primitive enemy, going through the motions of things we've done so many, many times before. It's these things that, sadly, stick in your mind."

    Some people need to change jobs. The constant nit-picking and bitching about insignificant crap in a game is getting old and useless to us gamers out here. Last I checked, games were for fun and a release from reality, even if its a simulator! Most people that buy WWII shooters want just that, a WWII shooter. We know what we want so don't tell us about how this genre is getting old. Most gamers nowadays are working people that don't have the time to nip-pick or even notice the slight glitches that this reviewer mentions. Some folk want more of the same and aren't expecting revolutionary life-changing sequels. I could have played 10 more levels of COD2 and been fine, but if I have to buy COD3 for those new levels, then so be it as long as I don't have to re-learn the game and controls. Sometimes same is good.

    I personally wasted my time reading this 3-page bitchfest based on insignificant things that most gamers don't recognize in games anyways. I guess when you have 40 plus hours a week dedicated to reviewing video games your judgement can become tainted, which isn't fair to some that are actually stupid enough to base our choice of games on reviews such as this.

    Just play the game and enjoy it!

  • Rusta #119 5 years ago

    I'm afraid to say the review is right, played the game tonight and it is boring, some of graphics are great, the lighting etc, but feels like a step backwards with the gameplay.

    Multiplayer seems poor aswell, it reminds me of Farcry multiplayer, one that I took back the nextday.

    I got this from online so feel I am stuck with it unless I trade it in.

    I have been a faithful follower of the CoD series but this is a let down.

    I'm really gutted :/

  • SwedBear #120 5 years ago

    The game does look damn good but I can agree I think it lacks something in the SP department. This is however said from jsut playing an hours or so SP so it could get better.

    MP though was a blast for me. Not sure how many we were (think it was almost 24) and it was completely lag-free and really fun. The battles ebbed back and forth. I definitely like it that the tanks aren't super-weapons. 2 well-placed anti-tank shots and they are gone.

    The gfx in MP also was very good. One effect I loved (in both SP and MP) was when you aim and the focus shifts a bit in and out in various places of the image. Felt really well done and in some wasy "real".

    I think I'm going to enjoy this game for some time, at least for the MP.

  • captainrentboy #121 5 years ago

    I bought it and I'm really enjoying it so far,only about 6 hrs in mind.The graphics seem to be lovely all round,BUT the AI is occasionally absolutely awful,it's been a very long time since I've played a game where 10+ enemies will run around the same corner straight into your path of fire,and in no way change their attack or put up a fight.
    It's still about an 8 for me so far.

  • mohsendevil #122 5 years ago

    cool.but this idea(world war 2)is not interest anymore.why dont try some great idea like pirates world(i know there are some pirates game but i mean is a real good game fore example a elder scroll rpg based on pirates world)or anything else.please dont fu-ck me.its enough baby.fuck you world war.

  • guvner #123 5 years ago

    "the reviewer is spot on with the cut & paste mission design, some of it just smacks of developers running out of ideas & dragging out missions with pointless objectives that are about as much fun as a trip to the dentist, if you've done the mission taking out tanks arround the factory you'll know what I mean,. And it's not that it's hard, I just dont want to keep doing the same thing till the mission ends"

    Yeah, I was enjoying it up until the factory. I kind of agree with bennieporter that reviewers can overdo it with nitpicks that the vast majority either won't notice or care about, but for me the factory was a bridge too far with turning a blind eye to them. Traipsing in and around the factory for ages continually carrying out some brainless objectives, while all the time Jerries continually RESPAWN in dark cubbyholes everywhere.

  • YUSHi #124 5 years ago

    Has anyone else seen planks of wood and oil drums drifting though the air as though they were pieces of ash? and as the review mentioned you regularly get stuck in the scenery, i often find climbing over walls or climbing under things to get a nice hidy hole to snipe from will result in my character becoming a penament installation to the scenery. The AI is indeed thick as pig shit though.

    It's an enjoyable game to play oddities and frustrations aside though.

  • JonasWolfe #125 5 years ago

    I'm extremely disappointed with this game now. I have been playing this on an off since Friday and have formed some observations of what is good and bad about this version.

    The Good:
    - Fantastic graphics
    - Excellent sound
    - Good clear campaign structure
    - Voice acting is cliched but immersive
    - The feel of the game is "right in the action" which is great

    The Bad:
    - the stupid button mashing games when you wrestle with a Nazi trooper or plant bombs
    - poor communication of controls within the game, particularly around the use of the mortar. This is criminal in Treyarch's negligence as they do not tell you how to move the mortar fire arc or how to altar the trajectory. You have to figure that out for yourself.
    - collision detection is vile
    - control of the vehicles is fun, but you can easily get stuck in the scenery
    - delays in objectives being updated
    - poor scene transition
    - a totally useless compass/map that doesn't accurately reflect the action around you
    - a ridiculous level of AI enemy survival when being hit by a grenade. I can;t count the number of times I placed a grenade right between two Nazis and they survived the impact.

    Has anyone else felt the same?
    Edited by 1 at 14/11/06 @ 13:24

  • TheAdmin #126 5 years ago

    I can't believe that you guys have rated this game above Call of Duty 2! This game was a let down for me.

    Can't wait for COD4 though, as it's by infinity ward, like COD2, and looks freaking awesome!