Call of Duty 3 Review (Xbox 360)
December 19th 2006 06:57
Infinity Ward’s World War II shooter Call of Duty 2 was one of the biggest selling launch titles for Microsoft way back when the Xbox 360 launched. It showed off the technical capabilities of the console whilst proving a remarkably entertaining experience, both online and off. When the reins were handed over to Treyarch to develop the next installment in the popular franchise, Call of Duty 3, there was a collective breath taken by COD veterans. Treyarch are no slouches, but Infinity Ward constantly produces grade A, quality action. Whilst I wish I could say the team at Treyarch did a sparkling job now that all is said and done, unfortunately COD 3 doesn’t reach the heights that its predecessor did. Whilst the single player offering is solid, and certainly entertaining, and the multiplayer gameplay is more robust than COD 2’s, the final code does fall short in a number of very important areas.
Treyarch haven’t strayed too much from the core single player gameplay found in COD 2. This time around, however, you control the British, American, Polish and Canadian forces as they attempt to gain a stranglehold on the Normandy region during the 2nd World War. As each of the missions is part of a larger, united offensive, the story is a lot more cohesive than Infinity Ward’s product, and there is some surprisingly strong character development offered in amongst all the shooting. Cutscenes are plentiful, there is plenty of chatter on the battlefield, and each nation has a few characters who are fleshed out quite nicely through smart use of dialogue. At it’s core, the game still revolves around getting from checkpoint to checkpoint, accomplishing a variety of objectives along the way. Storming Nazi bunkers, holding off counter-attacks, blowing stuff up. However, the process is not as hellishly fun as it was in the previous game. There are still some wonderfully exciting scenarios thrown at you, and the locations are very well designed, but it just doesn’t come together like it should and really nail you.
The main reason for this is the poor AI scripting. Due to the fact that they’re an expendable commodity (they are replaced when they’re killed off), your comrades in battle are next to useless. Sure they’ll get off a few shots here and there, but their scripting is such that they effectively rely on you triggering them to advance, which can get very annoying when you’re alone on the frontline with a tree stump for cover. Germans pounding you left right and center, and your buddies are hanging out fifty metres away huddling behind a truck while they wait for you to cross an invisible line. Sure you can try a different route and sometimes they’ll behave differently, but this game on veteran (which is the only difficulty to play, if you want a challenge) requires enough trial and error as it is.
The enemy AI is even more frustrating. On veteran, they will headshot you from a kilometer away with a sub-machine gun, but miss you from point blank. They will stay in cover often, and react to situations realistically on occasions, but they will also run around like headless chooks during some sequences, stacking up at doorways clipping each other and being strangely unable to shoot whilst moving.
You see the AI is programmed to come at you in waves. You kill an enemy, and whilst inching forward, another takes his place. You kill him, and then another arrives. The only way to halt this progression is to advance forward hurriedly and block the AI’s target area. With the complete lack of brains of some of your brothers in arms, this can be an extremely dangerous endeavour though, and at times you’ll have to settle for kicking back and picking off every single one of the buggers once they’ve spawned. This can, and often does, become very tedious, especially as the checkpoints are few and far between, and you might kill thirty or forty enemies, only to eventually die and have to do it all over again before advancing. It just feels cheap, cheap, cheap, especially compared to the much more realistic AI routines of the enemies in COD 2.
Tryarch has implemented a number of new gameplay ideas, the most obvious of which are the interactive cutscenes. These entail the player being prompted to hit a combination of keys in order to successfully navigate a certain task during a little mini cutscene. Setting up bombs, turning valves and even hand to hand combat are accomplished using this mechanic, but it ends up breaking up the experience, especially as you are effectively invincible to anything that is happening outside of the current script. Tapping a, then b, then a again to drop a slab of concrete on a bunch of Germans who are ripping through you with automatic fire just feels wrong. You should be dead.
The weapons are pretty similar to what we’ve had before, and they feel pretty much the same too. The physics are a real highlight, however. There will be explosions, there will be bodies flying everywhere, and you will get a kick out of it, no doubt. The sound is fantastic too. If you are excited about this game, and you don’t have a 5.1 setup yet, go get one before playing it. The audio is just that good.
COD 3 is definitely one of the biggest challenges on the Xbox 360 when set to veteran, and some of the locales are absolutely stunning. The campaign is sizable, and the firefights are just as hectic as in the previous game. It doesn’t feel as climatic, real or daunting, but there’s some awesome battles packed in, no less. The level design for the most part is excellent too. You’ll never feel dwarfed by the size of the levels, but you’ll hardly feel constricted. You’ll definitely feel like you’re being herded though. The checkpoint system is back, and it’s as poorly implemented as ever. Hopefully Call of Duty 4 sees the checkpoint system discarded, or at least tweaked.
Call of Duty 3 is a very pretty game. The character models, the environments, the explosions. They all look great, and taken individually, each of them almost looks better than those in COD 2. As a whole, however, the visuals seem a little too fake for my liking. Similar to early special effects techniques in film, things often seem out of place, due mainly to inconsistent textures and a vibrant sheen which infects what is happening on screen. It’s almost like all of the characters are drenched. Well at least it works in the rainy missions. Overall, this game has nothing on COD 2 visually, but this is primarily due to the style of the graphical effects, and you may find them to your liking despite my concerns.
The multiplayer gameplay has been beefed up from it’s predecessor, allowing a maximum of 24 players per room, and boy does it make a difference to the experience. COD2 felt more like squad battle, where as now you will truly feel in the middle of a full blown war, just like in single player. The maps are huge and smartly designed, there are a number of different game modes to keep you entertained, and the inclusion of a large splattering of vehicles adds a very welcome element to the gameplay.
Unfortunately, at release, the ranked matchmaking is effectively broken in multiplayer, somewhat annoying considering it’s the only way to earn achievements. Although you can sometimes get games if you’re prepared to sit in a connecting screen, all too often the connection just breaks down trying to match you with other players, and despite Treyarch’s assurances that this will be fixed pronto, it’s unacceptable for this to be present in the final version of a game these days. Treyarch obviously decided that they would have to release the game on time and start prepping a patch straight away, which is an ominous choice.
Overall, Call of Duty 3 is a mixed bag. There’s a lot of fun to be had alone, but frustrating AI and some questionable gameplay implementations limit its potential. Whilst the multiplayer game is big and bold and engrossing in the way the single player isn’t, the broken matchmaking is a terrible shame. If you are looking for a shooter to tear you away from the big guns, Gears of War and Rainbow Six Vegas, this Christmas, you might have to think again. But if you love your World War 2 shooters and just can’t get enough COD 2, this one’s still worth a try. It does pack quite a punch, despite its shortcomings, and who can ever say no to killing Nazis?
Score: 8.1/10
Treyarch haven’t strayed too much from the core single player gameplay found in COD 2. This time around, however, you control the British, American, Polish and Canadian forces as they attempt to gain a stranglehold on the Normandy region during the 2nd World War. As each of the missions is part of a larger, united offensive, the story is a lot more cohesive than Infinity Ward’s product, and there is some surprisingly strong character development offered in amongst all the shooting. Cutscenes are plentiful, there is plenty of chatter on the battlefield, and each nation has a few characters who are fleshed out quite nicely through smart use of dialogue. At it’s core, the game still revolves around getting from checkpoint to checkpoint, accomplishing a variety of objectives along the way. Storming Nazi bunkers, holding off counter-attacks, blowing stuff up. However, the process is not as hellishly fun as it was in the previous game. There are still some wonderfully exciting scenarios thrown at you, and the locations are very well designed, but it just doesn’t come together like it should and really nail you.
The main reason for this is the poor AI scripting. Due to the fact that they’re an expendable commodity (they are replaced when they’re killed off), your comrades in battle are next to useless. Sure they’ll get off a few shots here and there, but their scripting is such that they effectively rely on you triggering them to advance, which can get very annoying when you’re alone on the frontline with a tree stump for cover. Germans pounding you left right and center, and your buddies are hanging out fifty metres away huddling behind a truck while they wait for you to cross an invisible line. Sure you can try a different route and sometimes they’ll behave differently, but this game on veteran (which is the only difficulty to play, if you want a challenge) requires enough trial and error as it is.
The enemy AI is even more frustrating. On veteran, they will headshot you from a kilometer away with a sub-machine gun, but miss you from point blank. They will stay in cover often, and react to situations realistically on occasions, but they will also run around like headless chooks during some sequences, stacking up at doorways clipping each other and being strangely unable to shoot whilst moving.
You see the AI is programmed to come at you in waves. You kill an enemy, and whilst inching forward, another takes his place. You kill him, and then another arrives. The only way to halt this progression is to advance forward hurriedly and block the AI’s target area. With the complete lack of brains of some of your brothers in arms, this can be an extremely dangerous endeavour though, and at times you’ll have to settle for kicking back and picking off every single one of the buggers once they’ve spawned. This can, and often does, become very tedious, especially as the checkpoints are few and far between, and you might kill thirty or forty enemies, only to eventually die and have to do it all over again before advancing. It just feels cheap, cheap, cheap, especially compared to the much more realistic AI routines of the enemies in COD 2.
Tryarch has implemented a number of new gameplay ideas, the most obvious of which are the interactive cutscenes. These entail the player being prompted to hit a combination of keys in order to successfully navigate a certain task during a little mini cutscene. Setting up bombs, turning valves and even hand to hand combat are accomplished using this mechanic, but it ends up breaking up the experience, especially as you are effectively invincible to anything that is happening outside of the current script. Tapping a, then b, then a again to drop a slab of concrete on a bunch of Germans who are ripping through you with automatic fire just feels wrong. You should be dead.
The weapons are pretty similar to what we’ve had before, and they feel pretty much the same too. The physics are a real highlight, however. There will be explosions, there will be bodies flying everywhere, and you will get a kick out of it, no doubt. The sound is fantastic too. If you are excited about this game, and you don’t have a 5.1 setup yet, go get one before playing it. The audio is just that good.
COD 3 is definitely one of the biggest challenges on the Xbox 360 when set to veteran, and some of the locales are absolutely stunning. The campaign is sizable, and the firefights are just as hectic as in the previous game. It doesn’t feel as climatic, real or daunting, but there’s some awesome battles packed in, no less. The level design for the most part is excellent too. You’ll never feel dwarfed by the size of the levels, but you’ll hardly feel constricted. You’ll definitely feel like you’re being herded though. The checkpoint system is back, and it’s as poorly implemented as ever. Hopefully Call of Duty 4 sees the checkpoint system discarded, or at least tweaked.
Call of Duty 3 is a very pretty game. The character models, the environments, the explosions. They all look great, and taken individually, each of them almost looks better than those in COD 2. As a whole, however, the visuals seem a little too fake for my liking. Similar to early special effects techniques in film, things often seem out of place, due mainly to inconsistent textures and a vibrant sheen which infects what is happening on screen. It’s almost like all of the characters are drenched. Well at least it works in the rainy missions. Overall, this game has nothing on COD 2 visually, but this is primarily due to the style of the graphical effects, and you may find them to your liking despite my concerns.
The multiplayer gameplay has been beefed up from it’s predecessor, allowing a maximum of 24 players per room, and boy does it make a difference to the experience. COD2 felt more like squad battle, where as now you will truly feel in the middle of a full blown war, just like in single player. The maps are huge and smartly designed, there are a number of different game modes to keep you entertained, and the inclusion of a large splattering of vehicles adds a very welcome element to the gameplay.
Unfortunately, at release, the ranked matchmaking is effectively broken in multiplayer, somewhat annoying considering it’s the only way to earn achievements. Although you can sometimes get games if you’re prepared to sit in a connecting screen, all too often the connection just breaks down trying to match you with other players, and despite Treyarch’s assurances that this will be fixed pronto, it’s unacceptable for this to be present in the final version of a game these days. Treyarch obviously decided that they would have to release the game on time and start prepping a patch straight away, which is an ominous choice.
Overall, Call of Duty 3 is a mixed bag. There’s a lot of fun to be had alone, but frustrating AI and some questionable gameplay implementations limit its potential. Whilst the multiplayer game is big and bold and engrossing in the way the single player isn’t, the broken matchmaking is a terrible shame. If you are looking for a shooter to tear you away from the big guns, Gears of War and Rainbow Six Vegas, this Christmas, you might have to think again. But if you love your World War 2 shooters and just can’t get enough COD 2, this one’s still worth a try. It does pack quite a punch, despite its shortcomings, and who can ever say no to killing Nazis?
Score: 8.1/10
| 109 |
| Vote |
Add Comments
Comments (1)
Read More
Comment by JohnnyG
on The Next Gen Console War Part 1
A Weekend Full of Quality Time With PlayStation 3
By SETH SCHIESEL
Published: November 20, 2006
Howard Stringer, you have a problem. Your company’s new video game system just isn’t that great.
Ever since Mr. Stringer took the helm last year at Sony, the struggling if still formidable electronics giant, the world has been hearing about how the coming PlayStation 3 would save the company, or at least revitalize it. Even after Microsoft took the lead in the video-game wars a year ago with its innovative and powerful Xbox 360, Sony blithely insisted that the PS3 would leapfrog all competition to deliver an unsurpassed level of fun.
Put bluntly, Sony has failed to deliver on that promise.
Measured in megaflops, gigabytes and other technical benchmarks, the PlayStation 3 is certainly the world’s most powerful game console. It falls far short, however, of providing the world’s most engaging overall entertainment experience. There is a big difference, and Sony seems to have confused one for the other.
The PS3, which was introduced in North America on Friday with a hefty $599 price tag for the top version, certainly delivers gorgeous graphics. But they are not discernibly prettier than the Xbox 360’s. More important, the whole PlayStation 3 system is surprisingly clunky to use and simply does not provide many basic functions that users have come to expect, especially online.
I have spent more than 30 hours using the PlayStation 3 over the last week or so and may have played more different games on the system — 13 — than probably anyone outside of Sony itself. Sony did not activate the PS3’s online service until just before the Friday debut. Over the weekend a clear sense of disappointment with the PlayStation 3 emerged from many gamers.
“What’s weird is that the PS3 was originally supposed to come out in the spring, and here it came out in the fall, and it still doesn’t feel finished,” Christopher Grant, managing editor of Joystiq, one of the world’s biggest video-game blogs, said on the telephone Saturday night. “It’s really not the all-star showing they should have had at launch. Sony is playing catch-up in a lot of ways now, not just in terms of sales but in terms of the basic functionality and usability of the system.”
Sadly for Sony, the best way to explain how the PlayStation 3 falls short is to explain how different it is to use than its main competition, Xbox 360. When I reviewed the 360 last year, I wrote: “Twelve minutes after opening the box, I had created my nickname, was in a game of Quake 4 and thought, ‘This can’t be this easy.’ ”
I never felt that way using the PlayStation 3. With the PS3, 12 minutes after opening the box I realized that Sony inexplicably does not include cables to connect the machine to a high-definition television. Keep in mind that one of Sony’s main selling points has been that the PS3 plays Blu-Ray high-definition movie discs. But high-definiton cables? Sold separately. The Xbox 360, by contrast, ships with one cable that can connect to either a standard or high-definition set.
Then, before you are even using the PS3, you have to connect the “wireless” controller to the base unit with a USB cable so they can recognize each other. If you bring your PS3 controller to a friend’s house, you’ll have to plug back in again. The 360’s wireless controllers are always just that, wireless.
If there is one thing one would expect Sony to get perfect, though, it would be music. Wrong. Sure, you can plug in your digital music player and the PS3 will play the tunes. But as soon as you go into a game, the music stops. By contrast, one of the things I’ve always enjoyed most on the Xbox 360 is being able to listen to my own music while playing Pebble Beach or driving my virtual Ferrari. Doesn’t seem too complicated, but the PS3 can’t do it.
In that sense it often feels as if the PlayStation 3 can’t walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. In the PS3’s online store (which feels like a slow Web page) you can access movie trailers and trial versions of new games, but when you actually download the 600-megabyte files, you’ll be stuck watching a progress bar crawl across the screen for 20 or 40 minutes. Astonishingly, you can’t download in the background while you go do something that’s more fun (like play a game). On the Xbox 360, not only are files downloaded seamlessly in the background, but you can also shut off the machine, turn it on later, and the download will resume automatically.
The PS3’s whole online experience feels tacked-on and unpolished. On the Xbox 360 each user has a single unified friends list, so you can track your friends and communicate with them easily, no matter what game you are in. On the PlayStation 3 most games have their own separate friends list and some have no friends function at all. There is a master list as well, but in order to communicate with anyone on it, you have to quit the game you are playing.
There are some high points. The multi-player battles in Resistance: Fall of Man are excellent. The arcade-style action in the downloadable Blast Factor is suitably frantic.
But the list of the PS3’s disappointments remains, from its undersupported voice chat to its maddening cellphone-like text messaging system. (In frustration I ended up plugging in a USB keyboard.) Overall, Sony seems to have put a lot of effort into cramming as much silicon horsepower under the hood as possible but to have forgotten that all the transistors in the world can’t make someone smile.
And so it is a bit of a shock to realize that on the video game front Microsoft and Sony are moving in exactly the opposite directions one might expect given their roots. Microsoft, the prototypical PC company, has made the Xbox 360 into a powerful but intuitive, welcoming, people-friendly system. Sony’s PlayStation 3, on the other hand, often feels like a brawny but somewhat recalcitrant specialized computer. (Sony is even telling users to wait for future software patches to fix some of the PS3’s deficiencies.) The thing is, if people want to use a computer, they’ll use a computer.
Through the decades of the Walkman and the Trinitron television, Sony was renowned as the global master of easy-to-use, seamlessly powerful consumer electronics. But recently Sony seems to have lost its way, first in digital music players, in which it ceded the ergonomic high ground to Apple’s iPod, and now in home-game consoles. For now Sony’s technologists seem to have won out over the people who study fun.
As a practical matter, given the limited quantities Sony has been able to manufacture, the PlayStation 3 will surely remain sold out throughout the holiday season. If you can’t find one, don’t fret. Sony still has a lot of work to do. As Mr. Grant of Joystiq put it: “Maybe in six months it’ll be finished. Maybe by next fall I’ll be able to do all the cool stuff. I’m still kind of waiting.”
Looks like you're going to be putting on a bit of weight.