User Reviews (1 - 11 of 31)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

not up to PC par

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 0 / 1
Date: November 13, 2006
Author: Amazon User

i'm a huge fan of call of duty, united offensive and 2 on PC. however, COD 2 was disappointing in numerous ways so i was excited to be wowed again by COD 3 for ps2. unfortunately, nothing of the sort happened. things looked great at first during the training session.. then the game starts and i quickly realized 1. the graphics are a big problem. at first, they look great. the problem is when you start trying to shoot people, and realize that the graphics are blurry and it's hard to see. apparently they made these graphics for the 360 and ps2, but the problem is, ps2 can't handle graphics that good. in that sense, i'd take the graphics of COD 2 any day, a game which gives incredible distance graphics where you can spot someone far off. the second thing i don't care for is using the ps2 controls. i guess that's a matter of preference, but on the other hand, i was impressed with the controls for timesplitters: future perfect, resident evil 4 and urban chaos: riot response. to me, the weapons and moving here just don't "feel" good or fluid. in fact, they make me feel sick. the controls in COD 2 are probably the best in any FPS ever to date.

this game might be worth playing on 360 or ps2 if you like console controls, because i'm sure the graphics are a lot better. but i can't recommend it as a ps2 game. on march 26th, 2007, medal of honor: vanguard for ps2 will be released. it looks like an amazing game.. if it controls well, it will easily surpass COD 3.

What a discrace... A 14yr olds review 12-27 -06

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 6 / 17
Date: February 20, 2007
Author: Amazon User

Okay, first off I just want to say i have finished all of the Call OF Duty games and by far this falls below the whole damn Medal Of Honor series(which i have also finished)! I mean come on, the whole damn game is based on fighting in Paris when the only fighting in Paris was the Nazis vs The French Resistance. And the French Resistance lost! This was just really unrealistic and doesnt have anything in common with WWII. The gameplay is okay and i hate the grenade throwing system! It freakin SUCKS along with having to be in the British front. Call Of Duty 3 also lacks the blood and gore that the second had. Overall Call Of Duty 3 lacked all the detail that Call of duty 2 had. The only thing that was relatively good about Call Of Duty 3 was that you had more freedom to run around without losing your squad. Call Of Duty 2 is still what me and my brothers play because Call Of Duty 1 takes too damn long to get to the american front. And the story of Call Of Duty 2 is better than the 3rd in many ways. If you liked the tanks in the first and second game, well guess what you dont get to drive tanks in the 3 only jeeps!All im trying to say is that it's probably one of the most unrealistic war games ever. There are some War games that are worse like "BLACK" but Call Of Duty takes the cake. I'm telling you, dont waste your money on something thats only OK graphic wise and the story line sucks. I wasted my money on it and niether of my brothers likes it and they play all the war games i have like the whole Medal of Honor series and Socom series and finally Call Of Duty series. Thank you for reading and i hope you change your mind about buying this game. See Ya.

sumwhat disapointing

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 3 / 21
Date: November 18, 2006
Author: Amazon User

this game is not wat i had expected. i had bought COD 2 big red one last year and i thought it was pretty good but nuthin to the 360 version. but anyway i just bought COD3 yesterday and i wasn't really impressed. the graphics were no better. and the gameplay barly changed at all. there were a couple things however that were improved. one was the health. there was no health bar but instead u duck for cover when u can see the heart beats. another thing was that smoke grenades were put in this one and there is also the melle block thing that i liked. but aside from that nuthin changed. disapointing

too simple

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 1 / 4
Date: June 05, 2007
Author: Amazon User

it was fun but easy and not the best graphics. i got through it in one day on the normal level and i couldn't change it to hard. it was a cheap thrill for a day

Falls short of hype!

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 0 / 1
Date: January 08, 2007
Author: Amazon User

The new features were not significant enough to over come the slow and disconnected story line compared to COD2 which had a map to show the progress of the mission. It was very disconnected. The individual segments have some intensity but you are left with no since of accomplishment with the exception of perhaps three very challenging segment. One in the middle of the game and the last two missions. The second to the last feels as if you finally defeated the (game) but you supprisingly have a final mission! Some missions have too drawn out battles to get to a checkpoint and others have rather frequent ones. Lastly, the music score and ability to control sound effects are essentially nil. Get this game if you are a COD enthusiast but the first two CODs are excellent!

Take a trip into a lackluster World War II

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 4 / 12
Date: November 20, 2006
Author: Amazon User

To be honest, I never really was a fan of those Army kind of games such as Medal of Honor, SOCOM or Call of Duty. While it is kind of interesting experiencing a history you weren't around for (or even your parents), it was never really something that I paid a large amount of attention to, preferring to play things such as RPG's or Zelda. Well since the stores didn't exactly have anything interesting, I thought "why not?" so I picked it up and while I don't regret trying it out, there's almost an air of "wasn't this supposed to be really awesome?"

Story: Not really a story per se, you're a soldier during World War II doing various missions after the Invasion of Normandy. To be honest I wasn't even following the story much since it was mainly "we gotta go here and take care of this and defeat that" and off I went.

Graphics: Coming out on XBox360 and then on PS3 and the Wii, the graphical qualities look nice enough but then you see the next-gen ones and you feel like these look tame but ultimately level designs have enough detail and there's enough lighting and textures to make the levels feel alive. Only thing is that your zoom for your guns almost cover your enemy so distant sniping makes it a pain since you can't tell if you're gonna hit him or not and whether you should re-adjust for the recoil.

Sound/Music: It's big, loud, epic, and surprisingly forgettable. Yeah it sounds Hollywood-caliber music but ultimately you won't find yourself humming along to this stuff which is a shame since it sounds like you should. Voice-acting is alright, certainly better than most games out there but it would've been nice if I could hear it half the time without having to adjust my settings.

Gameplay: The biggie for any game any there are parts which this game does well but other times it's just ridiculous and even frustrating. You get your standard weaponry found during that period but like I said in the graphics, using the scope sometimes covers your enemy. Enemies at times don't react like they should. I pumped an enemy full of bullets in his gut yet he just reacted like you shot him with a paintball and he got up and started shooting again. Not to mention they have sharp aim which makes you wonder why we even won the war since they're such sharpshooters, not to mention it's hard to see them at times and figure out if they're yours.

As with any squad-based games, the big thing concerns their AI: namely do you have to do everything yourself or can they manage on their own for awhile? And they're actually quite good, ducking when they have to and advancing when they have the advantage. A couple times though I noticed they would fire smoke grenades instead of the normal ones making it near impossible to see who I'm shooting at (which doesn't help since apparently Nazis have smoke-proof eyeballs.) Is it a fun game? Well it certainly is intense at times but it also can get frustrating since you're shot at from every which direction and you always feel like spinning all over figuring out who's shooting you.

It's strange that Call of Duty 3 is a launch title for both the PS3 and the Wii with it figuring that it was going to be one of the top launch games yet as one of the few for PS2 you feel like they dropped the ball.

Fun game, but not on PS2

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 1 / 3
Date: January 13, 2007
Author: Amazon User

Call of Duty is really fun, on the PC. Too bad COD3 is only made for Playstation. Difficult to aim/shoot quickly with a game pad.

If not a ww2 games maniac don't buy it...

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 3 / 5
Date: April 11, 2007
Author: Amazon User

I bought the game two months ago and i was experienced 'cause i had a new call of duty game in my hands!But when i put it in my console i begun rethinking about my choice!First of all the graphic system hasn't change a bit...it brings back memories of old fashioned games with a lot of faults at the graphics.Although it has a nice storyline but this advantage is covered by the bad graphic system!!The graphics are just like Call of Duty 2!We thought that a new title will bring and a new game experience!But Call of Duty 3 is definately not this experience!The only reason i haven't sell the game is because i am a ww2 games maniac so i mast keep it for my collection...It is not worth to buy it unless you are one of the ww2 maniac!!Keep your money and buy something else that may worth it!!

WAY To Short (Is every Call of Duty like this?)

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 1 / 2
Date: January 03, 2007
Author: Amazon User

This is only my second Call of Duty game and I wonder if all of the games are like this:to short and repetitive. I'v beaten the game 4 times in less than a week. Once you beat it the first time, you might as well sell it. It's SO boring after. I've played it on easy the first time and basically meely attacked everyone to conserve my ammo. On normal it's still easy, but when your playing hard they acually mean it. The levels are long, boring, and annoying if you play on a higher difficulty. The graphics are pretty good(probably the only good thing about the game.) There's no variety with the guns, just the same ones over and over. But there is acually, one other thing good about the game. The first time through is fun, that's why I gave it 4/5 for fun.

Am I the only PS2 owner left? So Call Of Duty 3....

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 19 / 27
Date: November 11, 2006
Author: Amazon User

Just to let you know, I have played and finished every Medal Of Honor & Call Of Duty game for both the PS2 and Gamecube. So how does Call Of Duty 3 stack up to the previous installments? Graphically it has some smoke and texture detail that is unmatched on the PS2. As far as overall graphics, it does fall below Medal Of Honor European Assault. Many of the levels are heavily textured, but it all just blends together and sometimes looks messy. The sound is great as well as the music. This game is STUNNING on the Xbox 360 and that is the version to play if you can. The levels are basically the same on every console version but the PS2 has a tough time keeping up and begins to show its age on this title. If you have a PS2 and like this series then pick it up. It's more of the same with some nice added touches (like hand-to-hand fighting, very crowded battlefields & smoke grenades). I will play it through and eventually re-buy it for the 360.....

Review Page: 1 2 3 4 Next 

Actions