User Reviews (41 - 51 of 131)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

Disappointing Sequel

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 3 / 5
Date: December 23, 2006
Author: Amazon User

I fell in love with the Xbox 360 Call of Duty 2. An excellent game with great graphics and online play feel. I was chomping at the bit to purchase the new game. The graphics suffer in the online mode, this was done I believe to accomodate the extra players. The maps are too large and confusing. Many on-line players have returned to playing the far superior Call of Duty 2.

Lots of fun if you like war games

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 3 / 5
Date: November 10, 2006
Author: Amazon User

I love the call of duty series, and this game has some really cool features. Note that I'm a strong multiplayer gamer, I don't play a lot of single-player games. The multiplayer mode for 24 people is so much better than cod2's 8 player mess of a system. Players host, and when they leave you just see a small message that says someone else took over as host. The game itself is different than cod2 in that it's hard to bum rush and knock them dead. This requires some thought and patience. But it feels more realistic.

I give it 5 stars out of 5. I couldn't put this down for two nights straight. I'll probably be playing this a LOT until they come out with a new release ;)

Another amazing COD experience!

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 3 / 5
Date: December 09, 2006
Author: Amazon User

I'm a bit surprised by some of the negative reviews that I've read on this game. Call of Duty 2 took the world by storm when it became the "killer app" of the 360 launch. Often times, it is hard for a sequel to measure up to such a stellar original and I think that COD 3 (unfairly) catches some flak here. First off, the graphics are as good as any that I've ever seen on a system (I've got Gears of War and a 57" high def running 1080i and I think COD 3 is in the same class with GOW in terms of graphics). The sound is incredible overall, with a beautiful music score. The vocals have gotten a bit less repetitive in battle situations as well. I enjoyed the driving levels and you get to fight as Americans, British, Canadians and Polish in a variety of missions, which was pretty cool as well. I do miss the North Africa missions from COD 2 and the Russian front missions. I have not yet tried the multiplayer, but I have heard good things. All in all, COD 3 may not have quite the charm of COD 2, but it is a very polished, excellent game and fans of the former definitely need to check out the sequel.

The heat of battle....is not so hot.

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 3 / 5
Date: December 16, 2006
Author: Amazon User

I've returned two Xbox 360 copies of this game due to freezing...(about
20 minutes into the game)...Bought a third copy for my first gen Xbox.
I played it through once and probably will let it collect dust. I much
prefer COD2 over COD3. No freezing, fun two player action, no long, boring
video interrupts....my opinion is that COD2 is the better game experience.

Great visuals + OK game play = ...

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 3 / 6
Date: December 18, 2006
Author: Amazon User

A pretty good WWII shooter. This was one of the first games I got with my 360 about 4 weeks ago. Eventhough it was the first game I played when I got home, I put it down for a while since getting into GOW. After beating GOW, I came back to COD3.

Now that I have beat this game I must say that I am fairly satisfied with the game. And that is a big FAIRLY.

The graphics are the best thing about the game. The war zones seem life like down to the individual blades of grass swaying as you and your comrades creep through it. You will see dirt fly up in the air as you and your enemies exchange fire on the battle field. Glass breaks realisticaly as you try to kill Nazi's from inside houses. Your comrades and enemies are also done very well, the move like humans move and they die the same way. I really haven't found much to complain about with the graphics.

If the graphics are the best part of the game, the sound is a real close second. I decided to purchase the optical audio cable for the 360 and plugged it in directly to my A/V receiver. The result? True 5.1 surround sound from all 6 speakers. The sounds of explosions, bullets whizzing by your head, tanks, trucks, all sound lifelike. Crank the volume up and you get an even better audio experience. Truly impressed with the sound.

The controls are easy to pick up as well, the 360 controller seems well suited to handle this game. While nothing beats a mouse and keyboard, the controller gives you great control over your character.

So if the graphics are awesome and the sound it great, then the game has to be excellent right? Not so fast. While this game has all of the elements of an "excellent" game, they just don't come together as I would have exepected. To me the game is not nearly as fun as the original COD on the PC, and there were only a couple of levels in which it was easy to feel like I was actually there; something the original COD was able to do very well on every level. Maybe it was the actual levels; which I found many to be somewhat boring and tedious because of the annoying checkpoint system. I found myself having to do the same thing over and over and over again, which greatly took away from the fun factor of the game. I don't know about you, but it is real annoying for me having to spend another 10 minutes doing something I already did, just because I got killed before the next in game checkpoint. If a game is going to have checkpoints, make them closer together and/or give the player an option to save at any point in a game, even if they are only given 2 or 3 saves per level (e.g. Rainbow Six Three for the XBOX.) Another thing about the game was that many of the actual missions were simply not fun. I wanted to feel like I was just another person in the war, but things always seemed to center on your character, it would seem enemies would direct all there fire at you, and many of the missions involved YOU having to do something. Another ANNOYING thing about the game was that there was no way to skip through the cut screens between levels. It was fine to see them for the first time, but if you load a saved game after you turn on your 360 again, you have to sit through the cut screen again, with no way to just go to the action. Some cutscreens are rather long so you can imagine the frustration. This is unacceptable and I have no idea how this was overlooked and allowed to be in the final product.

In summary COD3 is an OK game, the four stars are actually rounded up values from a 3.8 or 3.9. It's definetely worth playing and completing, but I probably won't play it again unless I decide to get my XBOX Live subscription back again, which I am still debating due to the stupid kids online.

A tired game from a spent genre.

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 5 / 14
Date: June 01, 2007
Author: Amazon User

You should definitely avoid paying retail for this title. It's really not that good compared to what else is available, and the improved graphics and audio are the very least one should expect from a next gen console game. The fact that there's nothing new here is particularly frustrating. I think the WWII experience peaked about 6 years ago, with certain of Steven Speilbergs productions. We can never repay the greatest generation, and making stale video games meant to approximate what those people saw and did is the very height of cynicism. The only thing that could trivialize the horror of WWII more than this game is probably some kind of sugar cereal.

Things that suck:

-Extremely linear gameplay
-Worthless multiplayer
-Annoying AI
-Highly contrived hand to hand combat scenes that literally resort to button mashing
-Unclear objectives
-Very little control over what equipment you can use (basically you should steal the first German MP40 you can get your hands on for ammo purposes).
-Unclear reasons for dying(often).
-Little in the way of fun

By the time I finished this game, naught 4 days after purchase and moderate play, I felt no other sense of achievement than I didn't have to play it anymore. Once you finish the game that's it, you don't get anything special when you start a new campaign , like the ability to select the one or two cool guns that exist in this game. You don't get any medals, no promotions, I mean, who cares? The only reason to play it again is to try to justify its unwarranted expense. DO NOT BUY IT.

How about a Korean War game, or maybe Vietnam? Do those conflicts not deserve our respect, understanding, or attention? Isn't this supposed to be a variety of "edutainment"?

Great Game

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 2 / 3
Date: December 20, 2006
Author: Amazon User

This is a really great game. It didn't take that long to beat but it was still very good. If you haven't played COD2 yet, you should buy that game instead. But this is stilel a very good game but COD2 is better. Compared to COD2 this game would receive 3 stars but since I am comparing this to other WW2 game as well I shall give this 5 stars.

Fun until you hit "The Impoossible Forest of Re-Spawning Enemy"

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 2 / 3
Date: January 03, 2007
Author: Amazon User

This game is pretty good until you have to cross through a forest to end this level (you'll know it when you get there). At this point the game just bites. I am a pretty good gamer but have been trying for hours to get through this area. It's insane, they surround you and keep spawning! Whoever designed this level is a jerk. Expecting people to handle unlimited spawning by using smoke grenades and perfect aiming on targets they can barely see is just a jerk, plain and simple.

Why did they take away the Russians?

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 6 / 20
Date: November 25, 2006
Author: Amazon User

The newest COD is great, but my only regret is that they replaced the russians w/ canadians and polish people. What kind of idiot would think anyone would rather be a canadian then a russian. The russians were my fav because of their accent and the commisars threatening to shoot you if you ran away, plus the russian levels were cool, fighting in bombed out urban areas like moscow or stalingrad, hunting down tanks and sniping clueles nazis. It would be so much cooler if they left the Russians

Overrated

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 4 / 11
Date: March 26, 2007
Author: Amazon User

I'm sure I'll get lots of haters for this review, but I'm a very experienced and objective reviewer of games, especially shooters, especially FPS, so in my opinion, I know what I'm talking about. I've played hundreds of `em. This one does not stack up and brings nothing innovative to the table. Button (trigger) mashing when you struggle with a Nazi for a gun a couple of times in the game is not a brilliant game innovation. It's a tiny little gimmick.

PROS:
- grenade catch and return is cool (although an exact grenade arc throwing system is not used). We've seen this happen in dozens of movies.
- some minor ragdoll physics
- no bad glitches or something that makes you consult the internet to see what the hell you are supposed to do
- fairly good score
- allows for subtitles
- some decent mass firefights
- some well-placed jeep/tank missions to break up the regular shooter monotony.

CONS:
- when I started playing, I thought I'd put in COD2. looks like many of the exact same bombed out farm houses. Just very derivative.
- graphics are only mediocre despite what anyone else says. Colorless and lifeless. If you think this thing has the greatest graphics ever, you haven't played a lot of games. It simply doesn't. This game uses the rarely known, rarely used in-house developed NGL engine. Not an engine that is used in first or maybe even 2nd tier quality games.
- character physics (movement) is a little jagged, not as fluid as in other FPS and other engines (Unreal3).
- uses the INFINITE HEALTH system of COD2, Splinter Cell DA, GoW, R6Vegas, etc. Get shot a million times, move back, no problem.
- annoying repetitious voice acting (JERRIES!!!) What is this Seinfeld?
- cannot bypass cut-scenes. UNFORGIVABLE!
- uses bad grenade throwing system that most next-gen games now use instead of an exact arc system.
- AI = average to dumb, some guys stand there waiting to get shot.
- game is so colorless it's hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys a lot of the time
- vehicle driving is not the intuitive RTrigger = forward, LTrigger = reverse of all other games; it uses some moronic RTrigger = forward and then makes you press a button to go backward. NOT INTUITIVE!
- no real upgrades or innovations from last title other than those previously mentioned
- the WWII game genre is boring, overdone, oversaturated and tired so much to the point that it is one of the only genres that is routinely ridiculed (for example, by the folks at x-Play). It is done to death to capitalize and exploit the last good war the US fought in, which was so long ago (well over half a century) it has no bearing on the current political climate and dirty oil and strategic wars that the US currently fights in, nearly anyone that fought in it is dead, and none of the gen X'rs playing this game have any connection to it at all. The movie industry is no different; churning out 1 WWII film after another (Clint Eastwood even spewed out 2 in 1 year and people laud him for it). In other words, I'm saying it's an easy and convenient softball genre.

My guess is that when EA's Medal of Honor: Airborne and more importantly, Ubi's squad-based FPS Brothers In Arms: Hell's Highway (both using Unreal3) are released, this title will be left in the dust.

Give me the LAST-GEN Halo/Halo2, Doom3, Half-life2 any day of the week over this FPS. For military shooters, give me any Ubisoft title (GRAW, etc) over this. For historical shooters, I guess this is as good as it gets for now on the 360. You have to go into an alternate WWII/sci-fi genre and/or off this platform to get a good one (Resistance: Fall of Man for PS3).

Review Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next 

Actions