I prefered CoD3's single, it felt more epic with the single setting, and picking up live grenades ftw! But I don't really like the multiplayer for either of them, so thats why I just rent the games, just like I'm going to with CoD4.
CoD 2 is easily better than CoD 3. The missions and variety in settings (from snowy Stalingrad to the deserts of North Africa, to rainy bombed out french villages to the beaches of normandy). It's definately got what you want in single player campaign, plus the game is really cheap. Also, the guns have a better 'kick' and feel to them.
CoD3 is okay. you see a lot of the same environments (back woods of french villages) and everything seems dark, even if it's day light. They didn't hit the nail on the head in terms of graphics and the guns don't have a satisfying feel to them. The game is still really good, but comparing it to CoD2, it can't compete. It supposedly has a great multiplayer mode that outshines CoD2. It's probably true. But I only played online a few times and didn't care for either of them.
I disagree with all of you.COD2 had great multiplayer!COD3 had an ok single player it was better than 2.IDK maybe I just couldn't get into the COD3 multiplayer,
Log in to comment