User Score
6.5

Mixed or average reviews- based on 200 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 40 out of 200

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jt
    Nov 11, 2006
    5
    CoD3 just wasn't worth my $60. Recoil makes many of the weapons I enjoyed in CoD2 useless (Example, every single fully automatic weapon except the Thompson and the German sub-machine gun.) Buggy friendly AI and plenty of checkpoint glitches all around. More than once I've only gotten close to beating a battle to be blocked by friendlies while I'm trying to get into/out of a CoD3 just wasn't worth my $60. Recoil makes many of the weapons I enjoyed in CoD2 useless (Example, every single fully automatic weapon except the Thompson and the German sub-machine gun.) Buggy friendly AI and plenty of checkpoint glitches all around. More than once I've only gotten close to beating a battle to be blocked by friendlies while I'm trying to get into/out of a house to heal. If you even get close to a checkpoint, even if you don't clear out all of the enemies and die, you respawn with new friendly soldiers, and skip the area where you were fighting last. Driving was a BIG let-down. You might as well paint a bullseye on your chest, prime a grenade, and run around screaming. Graphics weren't an amazing improvement, and I'm sick and tired of playing through World War II three times in a single series. Expand
  2. Aug 30, 2010
    6
    Decent game all and all but there are some major problems that hold this game back. For example, all of the quick time events are really repetitive never really that interesting. Once again, this shooter is good but brings nothing new to the table.
  3. PeterW.
    Nov 6, 2006
    6
    The long awaited sequel to a great Xbox 360 launch game is here. However, it wasn't exactly worth the wait. Game is too short (approx 10 hours of gameplay) and achievements are too easy (although there are a few multiplayer achievements I couldn't get because there aren't many people online yet). Graphics are just a tad better the COD2 which is a HUGE disappointment for me The long awaited sequel to a great Xbox 360 launch game is here. However, it wasn't exactly worth the wait. Game is too short (approx 10 hours of gameplay) and achievements are too easy (although there are a few multiplayer achievements I couldn't get because there aren't many people online yet). Graphics are just a tad better the COD2 which is a HUGE disappointment for me as this was to be believed 1 of the 2 second generation games that were bound to have great graphics... The best innovation is being able to drive vehicles and throw back enemy grenates! Expand
  4. JimmyJ.
    Dec 4, 2006
    7
    It
  5. MannyJ.
    Jan 1, 2007
    6
    I gave it a six because the missions are so fricking repetitive and the A.I. Sucks man! My guys block the way everwhere and I always die it gets very annoying. plus the online isnt very good either, too many people. CoD2 was way better treyarch didnt do such a good job if only infinity ward made this game would probably be way better but treyarch just ruined this game lets hope they do I gave it a six because the missions are so fricking repetitive and the A.I. Sucks man! My guys block the way everwhere and I always die it gets very annoying. plus the online isnt very good either, too many people. CoD2 was way better treyarch didnt do such a good job if only infinity ward made this game would probably be way better but treyarch just ruined this game lets hope they do better next time...... if there is one. Expand
  6. JayDee
    Feb 24, 2007
    7
    This game makes me respect war veterans around the world. The action is so intense you wont ever want to put the controller down, the one bad thing about it which stopped me giving it a 10 is that they still haven't got the computer A.I quite right yet, but other than that this is a game you will keep playing until you get your own V.C!
  7. DanW.
    Mar 5, 2007
    7
    Ok! the graphics are pretty good, but the gameplay is shocking like the campaign which is far too repetitive! The non-ranked online play is top draw, but when is comes to ranked matches, is takes about ten years to set up! Complete joke! I'm looking forward to Brothers in Arms - Hells Highway! Looks immense!
  8. Danny
    Aug 20, 2007
    5
    The campaign is a terrible experience with the the worst vehicle sessions I have ever seen. The mulitiplayer is okay but nothing great. My opinion... stick to Halo, Gears or Bioshock for shooters.
  9. JasonG.
    Nov 10, 2008
    5
    The gameplay is frustrating, and generally inferior compared to the previous COD games in the series. The only thing that saves this game is the online multiplayer - even with the little bugs and gliches its enjoyable.
    Not recommended to buy this game at full price, buy second-hand if you really want this game.
  10. ACE5
    Nov 17, 2006
    7
    Not a bad game really, I was expecting more out of this game though. Call of duty 2 I didn't like at first, but once I got into it I was hooked. CoD 3 just didn't do that. It didn't really excite me the way 2 did. I remember playing CoD 2 for a couple hours, and trying to go to sleep afterwords, and still seeing and hearing someone yelling, "JERRY'S, ON THE SECOND Not a bad game really, I was expecting more out of this game though. Call of duty 2 I didn't like at first, but once I got into it I was hooked. CoD 3 just didn't do that. It didn't really excite me the way 2 did. I remember playing CoD 2 for a couple hours, and trying to go to sleep afterwords, and still seeing and hearing someone yelling, "JERRY'S, ON THE SECOND FLOOR!", I don't get that same experience here. They should have let infinity ward make this game. Expand
  11. AlejoR.
    Nov 27, 2006
    5
    In the past few years, there are good WW2 games, and there are bad WW2 games. Some bad games were WW2 paratroopers, MoH rising sun (although I do credit pushing the game into a location), and I include all WW2 stategy games. These games were unpopular because of bad gameplay, bad storytelling, and some of the worst AI (which is 50% of gameplay). Some WW2 games that are GOOD are: the In the past few years, there are good WW2 games, and there are bad WW2 games. Some bad games were WW2 paratroopers, MoH rising sun (although I do credit pushing the game into a location), and I include all WW2 stategy games. These games were unpopular because of bad gameplay, bad storytelling, and some of the worst AI (which is 50% of gameplay). Some WW2 games that are GOOD are: the Brothers in arms series, which puts strategy in a first point perspective and gives you a squad to command, Day of Defeat: source, a PC multiplayer game which consists of fast action and tons of people to play with, and the call of duty franchise, consisting of great single player, great multiplayer, and surprising cinematic playtrough. but I am not here to talk about all these games, I am here to talk about Call of Duty 3. FIrst of all, lets get to the graphics, which look stunning as half life 2 on it;s first release (which came out before "next gen"graphics) with HDR (High Dynamic Range). In the sound department, the music is beautiful; it totally matches the century, but they used new sounds for the cast and the weapons, which don't sound like weapons anymore; the only thing that has not changes is the german voices. two new sides were added to the campaign,the canadians and the polish. they totally forgot the Russian campaign which was a really important part into winning WW2. take for example when the germans unconditionally surrendered, all because the russians invaded the capital. Now, the gameplay; new additions like vehicle driving (back in Call of Duty 1), riding on a tank, beating the crap out of the wermacht, and exiting multiplayer. Remember earlier that AI was 50% of the gameplay experience, well..... The AI is some of the worst ever in the call ofduty franchise; it makes the wermacht look like elite soldiers (keyword: wermacht). Seriously, almost every single NPC on your side will probably rush into action without hesitance or just stay into one position and miss every shot ( the american and wermacht could be close together and the german would win). One more thing, THERE ARE TOO MANY MOVIE SEQUENCES, SERIOUSLY ID RATHER WATCH SAVING PRIVATE RYAN THAN POOR ACTING. I am very surprised about Treyarch and hope that next year will be a new start. Expand
  12. CarcasGalactic
    Nov 9, 2006
    5
    Wow i take back everything i have ever said about call of duty. You have reaqched a new all time low. WHY THEHELL did you hjave trayarch crap whole do this insteat of infinaty? DUMB DUMB DUMB. Shoppers although it is over rated, gears of war is a much better choice than this game. You have disopointed me. Hopefully halo 3 wont when it comes out.
  13. Ben
    Nov 27, 2006
    7
    The one player campaign for COD3 is excellent, however I have a few complaints about multiplayer live games. I find myself spending up to twenty minutes just trying to join a player match, and cannot even enter ranked matches. I dont know if its the server or my internet connection, but it can get frustrating not being able to join ANY matches. Once i get into a game, however, i enjoy the The one player campaign for COD3 is excellent, however I have a few complaints about multiplayer live games. I find myself spending up to twenty minutes just trying to join a player match, and cannot even enter ranked matches. I dont know if its the server or my internet connection, but it can get frustrating not being able to join ANY matches. Once i get into a game, however, i enjoy the great graphics and extensive maps. I'v found a couple of glitches, but nothing to really complain about. The only thing that i find annoying in the gameplay is occasionally I get stuck pre-spawn when the host changes. Other than that, the multiplayer is great, offering seven classes and nine differing maps. Expand
  14. Sep 21, 2010
    5
    Review9 10 I have not played this game for a while, and now that i've said that it makes me want to go and take a look at the game. But COD3 was overall a pretty fun game, the campaign was not that long but most COD games campaign only last 6 hours any way. The multiplayer was ok and i'm not a fan of vehichles in war games except for battlefield because the maps are so big and the gameReview9 10 I have not played this game for a while, and now that i've said that it makes me want to go and take a look at the game. But COD3 was overall a pretty fun game, the campaign was not that long but most COD games campaign only last 6 hours any way. The multiplayer was ok and i'm not a fan of vehichles in war games except for battlefield because the maps are so big and the game types require vehichles. Back to cod3, it didn't have a great multiplayer and that is one of the reasons that it brings it's score down, but the other reason is the graphics. THERE WAS NOT ANY GRAPHICS DIFFERENCE AT ALL BETWEEN COD2 AND COD3. Because of those two reasons i give the game a 5.5 Expand
  15. Jan 29, 2012
    6
    I was originally going to give this a higher score, but before I could finish the campaign (I was on the last chapter/level) the game glitched on me and erased all my data, which sucks because the campaign was actually kind of awesome, granted it started off slow and suffered from awful cutscenes with horrible writing, crappy voice acting, and unlikeable characters, and some repetitiveI was originally going to give this a higher score, but before I could finish the campaign (I was on the last chapter/level) the game glitched on me and erased all my data, which sucks because the campaign was actually kind of awesome, granted it started off slow and suffered from awful cutscenes with horrible writing, crappy voice acting, and unlikeable characters, and some repetitive mini games, and you can still find multiplayer matches online, and the multiplayer is the most unique in the series featuring large open maps with emphasis on character classes and vehicles, and I would personally like to see the series try this style of multiplayer again, it may renew peoples faith in the series after MW3, so it's a great game, but receives this score because of all the glitches I encountered like my data being erased, it freezing up on me, and several others, so it's a good game hindered by bugs and glitches. Expand
  16. Jul 17, 2011
    5
    Don't Get Me Wrong, The Multiplayer is amazing in Call Of Duty 3, but it really bugs me how after Call Of Duty 2: Big Red One, the greatest campaign ever made by Treyarch, that the campaign in Call Of Duty 3 absolutely SUCKS. The script written for the whole thing is terrible, and the gameplay feels rushed. It's like they completely copied and pasted the Big Red One Engine and away you go.Don't Get Me Wrong, The Multiplayer is amazing in Call Of Duty 3, but it really bugs me how after Call Of Duty 2: Big Red One, the greatest campaign ever made by Treyarch, that the campaign in Call Of Duty 3 absolutely SUCKS. The script written for the whole thing is terrible, and the gameplay feels rushed. It's like they completely copied and pasted the Big Red One Engine and away you go. It also pisses me off how they bragged about how Call Of Duty 3 was the most historically accurate CoD game there is. Well, it is, but who gives a **** Did I also mention the famous "in your face" action? When the German puts his gun in your face and you have to wrestle? Yes, if you haven't mastered the art of tapping a button repeatedly, you are screwed. And You're not the only one. It probably takes about a whole minute before you win the fight. That "in your face" thing is crap and for a game where time is crutial, a waste of precious time. Expand
  17. Oct 4, 2011
    7
    Story: 3
    Characters: 5
    Graphics: 8
    Setting: 8
    Multiplayer: 6
    Soundtrack: 5
    Audio: 9
    Gameplay: 10
    Re-Playability Value: 6
    Fun Factor: 8

    Score: 6.8/10 = C+
  18. Nov 26, 2011
    7
    average campaign but good multyplayer,quit fun with a full team playing capture the flag!with tanks and jeeps this the funnest call of duty i've played.
  19. Mar 11, 2012
    7
    This game has an obvious difference from other call of duty games. The intensity in the campaign story and gameplay is not as good as the other call of duty games. The dialogue is so boring and does not hold my attention. The ragdoll physics are funny.. you'll go to melee a kraut and often times they will launch into the air like a 10 pound ragdoll. The gameplay overall is not bad, but IThis game has an obvious difference from other call of duty games. The intensity in the campaign story and gameplay is not as good as the other call of duty games. The dialogue is so boring and does not hold my attention. The ragdoll physics are funny.. you'll go to melee a kraut and often times they will launch into the air like a 10 pound ragdoll. The gameplay overall is not bad, but I liked call of duty 2 better overall even with the not as good graphics. Expand
  20. Jul 13, 2013
    5
    My score is based on the single player campaign only. This COD slipped through the cracks and I have just played for the first time in 2013, but I would have scored a five in 2006 as well. Terrible A.I. with allies blocking my path forward, enemies spawning in front of me I crouched and watched this for minutes (fascinating, like a mass exodus in star trek) annoying save points, the listMy score is based on the single player campaign only. This COD slipped through the cracks and I have just played for the first time in 2013, but I would have scored a five in 2006 as well. Terrible A.I. with allies blocking my path forward, enemies spawning in front of me I crouched and watched this for minutes (fascinating, like a mass exodus in star trek) annoying save points, the list goes on. After COD 2 this is definitely a step in the wrong direction. I have been retro buying early shooters to keep, but this one is OUTA HERE Expand
  21. ECU
    Apr 21, 2014
    6
    A decent shooter at best. It has a long and fun single player camgain but there are really big problems. First of all the game is swarmed with bugs. Frame rate chops nearly ever level, you can't reload your guns, you can't throw a grenade you've cought, enemies don't die even you shot them several times. There is practically no story, all the maps and settings look the same, and there areA decent shooter at best. It has a long and fun single player camgain but there are really big problems. First of all the game is swarmed with bugs. Frame rate chops nearly ever level, you can't reload your guns, you can't throw a grenade you've cought, enemies don't die even you shot them several times. There is practically no story, all the maps and settings look the same, and there are like 3 QTEs which will repeat through the whole game dozens of times. CoD 3 adds nothing to the Call of Duty franchise and it is too obvious that it was rushed to make it to the (then) next-gen consoles. Expand
  22. Jun 5, 2015
    7
    Despite being the first title in the series to not be developed by series creator, Infinity Ward, Treyarch's offering is very enjoyable from start to finish.

    The shooting takes the forefront here. Weapons handle really well, and feel powerful, and provide very enjoyable gunfights to the table. Definitely some of the most satisfying, tense, and enjoyable gunplay the entire Call of Duty
    Despite being the first title in the series to not be developed by series creator, Infinity Ward, Treyarch's offering is very enjoyable from start to finish.

    The shooting takes the forefront here. Weapons handle really well, and feel powerful, and provide very enjoyable gunfights to the table. Definitely some of the most satisfying, tense, and enjoyable gunplay the entire Call of Duty series has to offer.

    However, the game does have some missteps, including the forced repitition of annoying QTEs, specifically the same sort of minigames where you have to wrestle an enemy soldier to the ground, or plant a charge on a FlaK 88 or something.

    Also, the game's story is basically nonexistent. Forgettable characters are littered throughout unskippable cutscenes heading and tailing each level. It all comes off as being very ham fisted, and the points where the game really tries hard to get you to like a character or have some kind of emotional reaction will just leave you completely apathetic. Ita not until the end of the game when the story seems to take any semblance of weight.

    There is a nice variety in the various campaign pieces you can play, from basic gunfights in trenches, to manning a mortar as enemies advance up a hill, to driving a tank to take out an infamous enemy tank driver, to large open area battles in forests, to even escaping a facility in a sequence somewhat reminiscent of the final sequence from Halo.

    There are a few questionable design choices throughout the campaign on the whole, like the really terrible distance you can throw grenades, to some truly ludicrous animations (the BAR reload animation being the worst offender, the guy's hand literally misses the magazine as he reaches for it). Also, once again, even if you come play a new session and load up a checkpoint, you still have to watch an unskippable cutscene setting up the beginning of the level.

    The real thing to know about this game is that ot has really enjoyable WWII shooting mechanics. The oacing through levels is spot on, and though it has some issues and an utterly forgettable story and cast, its still a really fun game.
    Expand
  23. May 22, 2015
    7
    It may not have the create-a-class system, scorestreaks, or a co-op mode but it's still a fun World War II shooter. The campaign was one of the best for its time and is still fun to play and the multiplayer feels like a less refined version of Battlefeld's multiplayer with its larger maps and vehicles. It's not a game that keeps a bunch of records and lets you customize your appearance andIt may not have the create-a-class system, scorestreaks, or a co-op mode but it's still a fun World War II shooter. The campaign was one of the best for its time and is still fun to play and the multiplayer feels like a less refined version of Battlefeld's multiplayer with its larger maps and vehicles. It's not a game that keeps a bunch of records and lets you customize your appearance and your gun camos, etc. It's just a straighforward World War II shooter that lets you choose from a group of preset classes between death. It's fun, though, and that's what's important. How fun? 7/10 fun, so pretty fun but I don't like it as much as, say Black Ops. Expand
Metascore
82

Generally favorable reviews - based on 71 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 59 out of 71
  2. Negative: 0 out of 71
  1. While the [single-player] combat is still brilliant and it looks a lot better, the unskippable cutscenes, unvaried locations, irritating characters and mini-games all really grate. However, adding in the much improved multiplayer with a variety of cool vehicles, Treyarch has really rounded off Infinity Ward's vision. [Dec 2006, p.90]
  2. The scope for large online battles and some great fun action in the single-player mode make this a worthwhile purchase. Fans of "Call of Duty 2" will really have a lot of fun with it. But Call of Duty 3 could have and should have, been better than this.
  3. 85
    Treyarch and Activision have done an great job with COD3 and created an experience that is at once much the same, but also better, than its predecessor.