Metascore
82

Generally favorable reviews - based on 14 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 11 out of 14
  2. Negative: 0 out of 14
  1. Call of Duty 3 isn't just another first-person shooter that takes place during World War II. It's a fantastic game with great online play and top-notch sound.
  2. Intense, anarchic, unrelenting and unsubtle, this is was and IT'S SHOUTING AT YOU. [Jan 2007, p.85]
  3. The action is unbelievably intense and the historical material is researched and presented in a way that borders on being educational.
  4. It provides fantastic visuals that has few rivals on the PS2. The sound and music of the game are top notch. The realism and grittiness of the game pull you right in and completely immerse you in the battle.
  5. Luckily for you, Call of Duty 3 for PS2 is actually very similiar to its next-gen sibling - and, in some ways, it's even better. [Feb. 2007, p.80]
  6. Call of Duty 3 could have been more than just another copy of previous installments, but with unnecessary gameplay mechanics, dumb AI, and a forgettable storyline, it brings nothing new in terms of enjoyment. Gorgeous visuals and a great multiplayer simply could not save Call of Duty 3 from being just a different battle in the same tired war.
  7. Grabs you by the collar and keeps delivering. Up there with "Killzone" and "Black" for best FPS on PS2. [Christmas 2006, p.64]
  8. The visuals are very well done and the sound is simply incredible, especially with the score it has.
  9. This is a markedly better game than "Call of Duty 2: Big Red One" and the finest World War II gameplay on the current-generation consoles.
  10. The most atmospheric and intense WW2 shooter we've played, hampered only by linear warzones and poor mini-games. [Christmas 2006, p.95]
  11. So if you're looking for an all-out melee, then Call of Duty 3 is your game. If you want something that's somewhat stealth mission-based, then you might want to give "SOCOM U.S. Navy SEALs: Combined Assault" a whirl.
  12. Even though the graphics are going to be toned down here, it’s still a solid and enjoyable game. Online is scaled back on the PS2, allowing only 16 players in a game, rather than the 24 offered on PS3.
  13. Take one part classic Call of Duty scripted FPS action, add in two parts improved level design, another one part updated graphics, and just about four parts upgraded multiplayer and you’ve got the ultimate Call of Duty stew.
  14. COD 3 pulls out all the stops to put you as close up to the action as possible, even allowing up to 24 players to experience full-on war in the online mode.
User Score
7.4

Mixed or average reviews- based on 62 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 11 out of 19
  2. Negative: 4 out of 19
  1. Dec 9, 2014
    6
    One of the most generic, average shooters I've ever played. It's not bad, just very forgettable and easy to pass by. In terms of story, IOne of the most generic, average shooters I've ever played. It's not bad, just very forgettable and easy to pass by. In terms of story, I actually don't remember anything much about the story. You just play as some soldier in world war 2 and I think you and some military unit battle your way to some place in France. All the characters where very bland and forgettable. I don't even know their names, not even the protagonist. The gameplay is just like all the other games, it's a first person shooter where you of course shoot bad guys and complete objectives and stuff. You may have to defend a certain, or plant bombs on certain things. The battles are surprisingly open though, given that all later cod campaigns are as linear as a hallway with giant flashing neon arrows pointing in one direction. The levels are rather bland, standard world war 2 European villages, forests and all other things you would expect. Every now and then there's a lame tank or jeep section. The guns are all World War Twoish and aren't very cool or unique. It's not all that challenging either there's no real difficulty curve. It remains easy the whole way through. The graphics actually look pretty good for a 2006 ps2 game. There nothing exciting to look at but do push the ps2 hardware a bit. The sound design is also pretty average. Guns sound like guns, jeeps sound like jeeps, guys yelling sound like guys yelling, can't remember any cool soundtracks. Voice acting is good, whatever *yawn*. I guess if you like first person shooters, then it's worth picking up for a low price I guess. It will entertain you while it's there, but lacks replay value and you will probably forget about it once it's over. Full Review »
  2. Oct 24, 2014
    6
    The game play was fun and some were really sad, but controls are not the best. Flicking right stick up-down rapidly to move a mortar or an ATThe game play was fun and some were really sad, but controls are not the best. Flicking right stick up-down rapidly to move a mortar or an AT gun is pretty boring and some things are historically inaccurate. Its fun at stages but there was more room for improvement. Full Review »
  3. Oct 3, 2014
    1
    At the time of writing (2014) this remains without a doubt the worst CoD game ever made. The only reason this will get high scores is becauseAt the time of writing (2014) this remains without a doubt the worst CoD game ever made. The only reason this will get high scores is because of console players who never played one of the earlier PC games which were generations beyond this travesty. Full Review »