Call Of Duty 3 (X360)

E

El Diego

Guest
Release date November 10 2006.

Can't WAIT for this. 24 players online instead of just 8.

This is gonna be good.
 
yeah i saw a vid of it, it was like a demo, sort of like a dev walkthrough and everything was kicking off, bullets flying past and what not, soo many things happening at the same time, just imersed you into what was going on, Plus it din't looks decent, nope, it was just stunning. also the amount of debree/dust flying off everywhere, it was 3-4 times the confetti EA had in RTWC and trust me that was a lot :lol:... cant wait for this though
 
Last edited:
Yeah I have seen the trailer, this looks AMAZING. My favourite games are FP shooters and footy games so the next few months will be good for 360 owners!
 
May well check this out but I think there are far too many FPS's on XBox 360 right now.

DJ
 
*Rant start*


Fuck all the stupid ass WWII games, Im so fucking sick of them, has all innovation left developers when it comes to FPS based on wars. How many times are they going to exploit WWII and how many damn times do I have to win WWII. Fuck, at least make one about another war :roll:


*Rant end*
 
deftonesmx17 said:
*Rant start*


Fuck all the stupid ass WWII games, Im so fucking sick of them, has all innovation left developers when it comes to FPS based on wars. How many times are they going to exploit WWII and how many damn times do I have to win WWII. Fuck, at least make one about another war :roll:


*Rant end*
Click to expand...

Probably because it's not politically correct for a games company to release a game set in Iraq or Argentina yet? It will be in 30 years time though.
 
El Diego said:
Probably because it's not politically correct for a games company to release a game set in Iraq or Argentina yet? It will be in 30 years time though.
Click to expand...
I think you missed the point as there are plenty of other wars throughout history. And it would be even easier for them to just make up a war, at least that would be innovative and not just the same over-used theme.
 
Last edited:
deftonesmx17 said:
I think you missed the point as there are plenty of other wars throughout history.
Click to expand...

Name 3 wars which would sell a game throughout Europe & the US?
 
Good reply Jeblo, but we've had countless Korea and Vietnam games too. Call Of Duty will always be set in WWII because it's a franchise. This new one looks at a different part of WWII though (playing as Poland, Canada, Britain and the US)
 
El Diego said:
Name 3 wars which would sell a game throughout Europe & the US?
Click to expand...
Your still missing the point............I'm talking about the pure lack of a creative mind when almost every other FPS is based on WWII. Think outside the box for a second and lets not even talk about real wars.

Halo sells millions upon millions throughout Europe and the US and it is a fictional war..........Resitence for the PS3 is something everyone is talking about and again, its a fictional war.................Gears of War is looking hot and will sell, another fictional war...............see the point I'm making yet. Making a game based on a war that many many many many other games are based on (WWII) is about the farthest thing from innovation I have ever seen.


And Call of Duty as a franchise started as nothing more than a carbon copy of Medal of Honor, with slightly better gameplay, thus I deem it not innovative at all right from the start.
 
WWII games have been around since the Early Medal Of Honour games! now thats what I call repetitive.

DJ
 
Call Of Duty II is still one of the best titles on the 360 and III will be even better - I have had hours of enjoyment from the previous title and can't wait for the third installment. I do understand the point you are trying to make though, Deftones. But I like the atmosphere, the grimey, smokey locations and it's a bit of a history lesson as you play against the 'evil' Nazi regime.

If I want fictional FPS, I buy them. I cannot WAIT for Half Life 2: Part two.
 
I'm with Deftones, unfortunately. I could be missing out on a great game, but because the genre has been done to death (and then into the afterlife, and then into the next life and into that death), I'm just not interested.

It's like a basketball or a baseball or a hockey game. They could be incredibly realistic and a lot of fun, but I wouldn't be interested at all.

Now games like Battlefield 2 on the other hand, based on a fictional war happening TODAY... That, I like.
 
Im looking forward to this, but then i enjoy the ww2 genre, whether its films or games. For some reason i prefer it to fictional wars containing aliens and stuff. If they would make a fictional war based on real countries/sitiuations then i would be more interested. Resistance looks really good, but because they have starshiptroopers bugs running about its made it less interesting for me. Same for HL2 with the bug sections, prefered fighting the sentinals soldiers, or whatever they were called.
 
deftonesmx17 said:
And Call of Duty as a franchise started as nothing more than a carbon copy of Medal of Honor, with slightly better gameplay, thus I deem it not innovative at all right from the start.
Click to expand...
A FPS is a FPS is a FPS. Some people like the WW2 genre, and don't get tired of it. Of course it wears thin, but tbh so does the FPS genre these days, it's got no innovation in general other than in some games you're shooting a futuristic weapon compared to a real-life weapon from 1944.

The original Call of Duty was the *true* sequel to Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, and was an outstanding game at the time (the team who made MoHAA split and most of them went on to develop CoD). To call it a clone does that game a disservice, IMO.

I do agree they've just about sucked the setting dry, but it happens all the time, with any successful franchise. Look at Grand Theft Auto and games such as Saint's Row that just blatantly copy that series. I'd also say that if a game is well-done, the setting doesn't usually detract from the experience, Company of Heroes is a recent example.
 
Played this for an hour or so yesterday and it is a brilliant game, well worth buying if you love shooters and don't mind playing WWII games - great graphics, solid game-play and it's excellent on Live.
 
The review on eurogamer highlighted some poor aspects of the game, glitches/bugs etc, that shouldnt be there. It still has standard (read: poor) AI etc. Also its the online part that has saved teh game in their opinion giving ti a 7/10. It would have otherwise been a 6/10. Agree with most of their other reviews so think im gonna give this a miss and go for f.e.a.r. instead and wait for medal of honour to see how that turns out.
 
Yeah the FEAR demo seemed pretty good but I wouldn't buy it.

GOW on Friday!
 
Anyone got this? How is it comapred to COD2. I haven't got any of them, and was thinking to get COD2 first then COD3 when that is cheaper.
 
Its good, I didnt play COD2 on 360, but have played previous PC and PS2 versions, I got this mainly for on-line and plus because of the price, PC world for £30, their collect at store service.

It's something different to play from Gears, and it has vehicles, big levels, loads of different guns, and loads on-line.
Plus the graphics are top notch, I think underated because of Gears. I only got it for on-line, but the one player game is good also. Defo worth £30.
 
ash its alot better than COD2

the graphics, multiplayer, different classes and u can now drive/ride stuff :)
 
Had a little play today, seems more like an add-on for CoD2 than a whole new game to me (and I wasn't really into CoD2 either - to my eyes, if you've had enough of WWII then CoD isn't different enough to change that). Maybe I'm too used to the innovation offered in GoW though. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom