Why COD3 stunk(in my opinion)

There has been alot of talk recently on the forums by gamers disapointed by the fact that treyarch is developing COD5, because COD3 was so much lower in quality than the previous entrys in the series. There is no denying that COD3 was a huge disapointment, but after playing it, it was hard to tell what was so bad about it. The controls were solid, the graphics were decent, and the level design was the same linier design as in all other COD games.

I think that the problem with it was just the general lack of consideration for the gamer. For instance, everytime you wanted to play, or even replay a level it made you waste 3-5 minutes watching a boring cutscene which you had already seen before, wereas in COD2 and COD4, the story was briefly explained in the loading screens, and you could easly skip them once the game had finished load. I think that Infinity Ward just understands what gamers want more than treyarch, which reflexts in each companys interations in the sieries.

I haven't beaten Call of Duty 3, but gameplay wise, it seems exactly like its predecessor. What am I missing?

multiplayer:

multiplayer was good but it only had 1 good level Poisson you could argue edar dam was good aswell but the other levels were bad.

everytime you searched for a map you wanted to play in multiplayer it didnt tell you how long was left in the game or what the time/kill limit was. i think the times were 15/30/1 hour etc. and kill limit 100/250/1000.

with time limits 15mins and kill limits 100 it was annoying.

spawn points were pretty sketchy aswell

I don't see why so many people hate Call of Duty 3, because it's really not that bad. The multiplayer was truly excellent, and if you (original topic creator) are going to dock a game for not being able to skip cutscene's, I hope to god you never review a game, because, some people have some people have something called patience. If you don't then, go do something else while the cut scene is playing and come back later.

Someone probably mentioned this, but I believe Treyarch only had 11 months to complete Call of Duty 3. Call of Duty 3 I believe is also where the throw back function was first introduced, as well as those interesting hand to hand combat fights. In other words, Call of Duty 3 was like, well Call of Duty 2 with better multiplayer, new features and a new story line.

I don't see why some people are worried about Treyarch making Call of Duty World at War anyways. They are using the Call of Duty 4 engine. They're basically riding on the success of Call of Duty 4. Seriously.

You are quite right.john-cena112

I Agree...that pissed me off every single time I loaded the game!

You weren't ALWAYS in huge groups in COD4...you tended to be with the staple characters, like Vasquez and Griggs or Price and Gaz...RichyRulez

yeah I know, but I mean bigger battles. I thought the battles in cod3 where boring, and it didn't even feel like they where a part of the war. They also make you feel like a hero in cod3. But the thing I like about IW cod's is that you're just playing the role of a normal soldier. And there battles everywhere, not just where you are fighting. Of course cod3 had this as well but the majority or the games where these small boring missions imo.

[QUOTE="RichyRulez"]You weren't ALWAYS in huge groups in COD4...you tended to be with the staple characters, like Vasquez and Griggs or Price and Gaz...elmafia

But the thing I like about IW cod's is that you're just playing the role of a normal soldier.

Fail. COD4 made you a hero. Jackson, he had to do everything. Soap, well if you've played it to the end, you bloody well know what he did. COD1 and COD2 however holds true in keeping you a standard soldier. And I don't see how they made you a hero in COD3. They never reallyed talked to "you". You were more of a support character, everyone else was the main.

I just really hate how people put down a good game because it's predecessors are just a little bit better or equal to it. COD3 is a lot better than many WWII FPS games out there.

[QUOTE="elmafia"]

[QUOTE="RichyRulez"]You weren't ALWAYS in huge groups in COD4...you tended to be with the staple characters, like Vasquez and Griggs or Price and Gaz...RichyRulez

But the thing I like about IW cod's is that you're just playing the role of a normal soldier.

Fail. COD4 made you a hero. Jackson, he had to do everything. Soap, well if you've played it to the end, you bloody well know what he did. COD1 and COD2 however holds true in keeping you a standard soldier. And I don't see how they made you a hero in COD3. They never reallyed talked to "you". You were more of a support character, everyone else was the main.

I just really hate how people put down a good game because it's predecessors are just a little bit better or equal to it. COD3 is a lot better than many WWII FPS games out there.

I don't think you get what i'm trying to say, but anyway. I never said the game was bad. I actually enjoyed it, well not the stealth mission. But as a whole the game as quite good. And for the time treychard had on making the game I think they did a great job. And with more production time on cod5 im sure it will be an even better game.

I think that Infinity Ward just understands what gamers want more than treyarch, which reflextsin each companys interations in the sieries.

julienelson

COD4 is so much better than COD3 by comparison that Treyarch will have to blow COD:WAW out of the water if they want another COD success.

Also, why add an X? It's not that hard to pluralize a word...just add "s" to the end.

I don't see why so many people hate Call of Duty 3, because it's really not that bad. The multiplayer was truly excellent, and if you (original topic creator) are going to dock a game for not being able to skip cutscene's, I hope to god you never review a game, because, some people have some people have something called patience. If you don't then, go do something else while the cut scene is playing and come back later.

Someone probably mentioned this, but I believe Treyarch only had 11 months to complete Call of Duty 3. Call of Duty 3 I believe is also where the throw back function was first introduced, as well as those interesting hand to hand combat fights. In other words, Call of Duty 3 was like, well Call of Duty 2 with better multiplayer, new features and a new story line.

I don't see why some people are worried about Treyarch making Call of Duty World at War anyways. They are using the Call of Duty 4 engine. They're basically riding on the success of Call of Duty 4. Seriously.

RichyRulez

LMFAO cod3 has better multiplayer than cod2 are you on drugs?

cutscenes unable to be skipped should have been patched immediately i never wanted to play it because they took forever after i already waited for the system to turn on and all that

plus have people forgotten how impossible it was to actualy get in a game of multiplayer? it would always told me i failed connection after it found the game and tried to join. and dont say it was my internet. every other game works and i have fios at home

there was good things but yes the checkpoints were godawful and they always threw grenades absoloutely perfectly while your teamates let themselves get blown up

hopefully waw is actually good though

[QUOTE="RichyRulez"]

LMFAO cod3 has better multiplayer than cod2 are you on drugs?

TX360

No he's not on drugs. Perfectly sane.

Cod 3 was better in mutliplayer than COD 2. I like fighting 12 vs 12 battles much more than 4 vs 4. And the character clas$ selection were a good addition than just "pick your own gun" selection.

Infinityward........ Thats all i need to say

call of duty 3 wasnt by any means a bad game, and treyarch has actually done an extremely good job with all their games, but cod 3 was just too similar to cod2 and in too short of a span so the reviews were slightly lower and then people decided to start saying the game wasnt as good as cod2 because of the lower reviews, even though they were almost identical with cod3 merely being slightly better looking, and then people decided to hate on treyarch for making a "bad" call of duty game which is untrue. treyarch gets way too much hate for being a good developer. i still however like call of duty 2 better but thats just because i dont like playing the same game yearly.makchady

I'm glad someone noticed that. I find it funny how people love COD2 and hate COD3 when the gameplay on both is the same. Graphics and multiplayer wise, COD3 wins. Wouldn't that mean COD3 is a better game? Don't get it....

they made the game in 9 months and it was pretty good

cod 3 single player > cod4 single player

everytime you wanted to play, or even replay a level it made you waste 3-5 minutes watching a boring cutscene which you had already seen before

julienelson

agreed. i thought cod3 was good, it just got a little repetitive, like one long battle through the countryside, nothing particulalry bad about it but nothing particularly memorable either. cod2 was a hard act to follow though to be fair.