Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 just set a record with the biggest entertainment launch
in history. That’s impressive stuff, considering that the record was previously held by Avatar.
However, some newcomers to the series might accidentally refer to that game as Call of
Duty 3, which came out 5 years ago, and it was Treyarch’s first attempt at making a
Call of Duty game, back when the games were still set in World War 2. This is Call of
Duty 3 for the Xbox 360. Like my Medal of Honor review, this is going
to be a strictly single-player review for the same reasons. It’s 5 years old, and
there are better Call of Duty games on the market, so online play wouldn’t represent
what it was originally like. Call of Duty 3 has a similar plot to the earlier games
in the series. You’re still switching between different soldiers of different nationalities,
and this helps to give you a sense of just how large this war really was. You’ll have
your standard American and British troops, but other troops like Polish and Canadian
soldiers help to keep things a little bit fresh. In addition, the game uses really nice
cutscenes that help to give a small historical background of the events taking place at the
time of each level, not unlike Treyarch’s 2008 game, World at War. It’s one of the
best parts of older Call of Duty games, but it just wouldn’t work in the newer games
that feature entirely fictional plots. Now, while this is a Call of Duty game, its
gameplay might make some people a little bit confused when the start up the disc. For starters,
recoil on weapons is incredibly vicious, far more than that in Call of Duty 2, and enemy
AI actually seems a little bit worse. In addition, this game introduced the ability to throw
back grenades at enemies, which is now a given in any Call of Duty game. There’s something
really satisfying about doing that. The game also uses melee quick-time events with enemy
soldier that require trigger pulling and fast button presses. These have been much improved
in recent games, but they feel super lame in this one.
Treyarch’s main problem with Call of Duty 3 is that very small changes make it feel
like a completely different game. This isn’t a big thing on its own, but having rifles
and grenades perform so much differently from the previous game in the series is really
hard to get used to, especially when, to be frank, Call of Duty 2 did it better. Combat
just plays out much smoother in that game, especially when fighting over long distances.
That game does include some destructible elements that really do feel like a welcome addition
the series, and it’s strange that they’ve never been used again. Blowing up a floor
with a grenade is a…achem…blast. Visually, Call of Duty 3 is one of the more
impressive early 360 games. Faces, weapons and environments all look excellent, as well
as smoke and explosion effects. In addition, the game features very nice voice acting,
although the German lines do seem to be ripped directly from Call of Duty 2. I guess there
were only so many things that Nazis knew how to say.
Call of Duty 3 is not a bad game by any stretch of the imagination, and it truly did innovate,
but with a superior World War 2 game available in Call of Duty 2, there really isn’t much
reason to play this one today.