Call of Duty 3 Xbox 360

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. 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
  2. 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
  3. Apr 1, 2015
    8
    The single player is great but not as great as cod or cod 2,however the multiplayer was awesome great maps,vehicles,spawns,guns ect
    I whish this would also be on pc
  4. Jun 23, 2014
    8
    The FPS in relation to Call of Duty 2 has a lot of similarities, bringing little changes in quality and gameplay, but it's still as it's predecessor a very enjoyable game.

    (please note that during this review i will be comparing COD 3 with COD 2 and NOT COD 2: Big Red One. COD 2: Big Red One is in my opinion one of the best I have ever played in the franchise and i strongly recommend to
    The FPS in relation to Call of Duty 2 has a lot of similarities, bringing little changes in quality and gameplay, but it's still as it's predecessor a very enjoyable game.

    (please note that during this review i will be comparing COD 3 with COD 2 and NOT COD 2: Big Red One. COD 2: Big Red One is in my opinion one of the best I have ever played in the franchise and i strongly recommend to at least try it once.In this case, think of COD 3 as a younger cousin to COD 2: Big Red One with less story, with regenerative health and harder enemies.)
    The singleplayer campaign is solid, containing some interesting stories of your fellow teammates even though you will mostly not pay attention because of the immersion.

    Through it you will be playing as either Private Nichols (American) or as Sergeant Doyle (British), each with their own set of weaponry, stages and obviously objectives.
    And the multiplayer was one of the first to include specific class selection instead of the ability to choose custom weaponry or abilities, balancing out the OP presets on the previous game, as well as making the return of vehicular combat in maps (like tanks and even in some cases motorcycles).

    In relation to platforms:
    X360 and PS3: The X360 and PS3 version like every single other version had multiplayer advantages in relation to COD 2, however the factors that would mostly differenciate them would be the quality and the max. aumount of players in 1 battle possible. And the X360 and PS3 version excelled at both of them in relation to other platforms, as it is able to allow triple the aumount of players COD 2 would be able to (COD 3 able up to 24 max. and COD 2 able up to 8 max), allowing a better experience.

    PS2 and old Xbox: The PS2 version would allow up to 16 players, however due to performance issues it would be achieved rarely, setting the bar at about 10-12 players max. and a minor quality difference in graphics.The Xbox had similar issues, yet the performance issues weren't as bad as in the PS2, setting the bar for an extra 1-2 players without severe problems.

    Wii: The Wii version had no multiplayer at all which is a bit of shame, so i can not say anything about it sadly.

    I gave this a 8/10 because even though it's not THE best FPS game it's still a fun and enjoyable game despite everything.
    However, due to the lack of nowadays anyone playing classic COD's on the new consoles multiplayer is extremely rare unless you have a couple of friends to play with, but if possible i suggest you try it.
    Expand
  5. 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
  6. Jan 16, 2014
    2
    I know I have played and completed this game I cannot remember a thing about it, it only earns a 2 because It must have been engaging enough to play through to the end. Overall the only thing I can say is that it's not as memorable as COD 2 or Modern Warfare, the gameplay is same old just without anything that stands out like in the previously mentioned COD titles.
  7. Oct 26, 2013
    8
    its a good game
    it was fun to play it
    it has a good gameplay and still better
    than modern warfare. i think that the original trilogy
    is better than modern warfare
  8. 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
  9. Jun 25, 2013
    8
    It's gameplay and graphics may not be as revolutionary as Infinity Ward's predecessor, but Treyarch's "Call Of Duty" still represents a memorable WWII shooter that rings a high-note in the franchise's narrative track record.
  10. Jan 29, 2013
    8
    An overall decent FPS, that brings little more to the genre than more beautiful graphics and the grappling encounters. Worth getting if you like WWII shooters.
  11. Nov 28, 2012
    3
    This game sucked the tanks are too overpowered the maps sucked ppl can drop shot with their eyes closed this game sucked it was aweful it sucked dont get it
  12. Apr 14, 2012
    4
    It's horrible in my oppinon and I can tell you. The campaign's crap as hell and needed work. And the multiplayer was was even worse with messed up combat and broken guns. Campaign 4/10 Multiplayer 2/10 COD 3 4.2/10
  13. Mar 31, 2012
    10
    An OK game. Brings little new to the table. Has some very fun objectives and has some interesting characters, but they were largely forgettable. Graphics are OK, nothing special, but the game still hold very smooth and fun gameplay that can be enjoyed for long periods of time
  14. 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
  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. 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.
  17. Nov 16, 2011
    4
    Nickels? Really? Who would call their child Nickels? I'm come on! That name wrecked the game play for me and I couldn't focus to killing anything because that guy's name was Nickels. And how can you have a good arm if your name is Nickels? I don't like that name very much.
  18. 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+
  19. Jul 27, 2011
    8
    Treyarch made big mistake in putting a number for a franchise that is not even of them, normally destroying the projects of Infinity Ward ( because IW never made a third installment if you've have seen). Usually when they announced World at War , that seemed to be their real CoD version . Apart from those mistakes, CoD3 plays nice enough , great intensity , good pace , and fine multiplayerTreyarch made big mistake in putting a number for a franchise that is not even of them, normally destroying the projects of Infinity Ward ( because IW never made a third installment if you've have seen). Usually when they announced World at War , that seemed to be their real CoD version . Apart from those mistakes, CoD3 plays nice enough , great intensity , good pace , and fine multiplayer awards the players satisfaction. I just don't want them to put their wrecking hands on another developers franchise. Take it or leave it. Expand
  20. 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
  21. Sep 26, 2010
    10
    Call of Duty 3 is probably the best COD game I have played, and still remains that way. MP was very well balanced, with some of the best maps in the series. Once COD 4 came out, the series seemed to take a dive for the worse. The class based system, and vehicular gameplay trumps the close quarter combat, run and gun style of the newer COD games.
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. Buddy
    May 22, 2009
    1
    Could have been a good game. But things like: 1. Having the cutscenes start up - no matter where you are in the level - when you first load the game is retarded. 2. Having to watch the cutscenes (no way to click out of them) is retarded. 3. The friendly AI is retarded. 4. Allowing the enemy AI to lean, but not giving the player that option is retarded. 5. Having to completely expose Could have been a good game. But things like: 1. Having the cutscenes start up - no matter where you are in the level - when you first load the game is retarded. 2. Having to watch the cutscenes (no way to click out of them) is retarded. 3. The friendly AI is retarded. 4. Allowing the enemy AI to lean, but not giving the player that option is retarded. 5. Having to completely expose yourself in order to throw a nade is retarded. 6. The friendly AI is REALLY retarded. and finally, 7. The most completely asinine, retarded spacing of checkpoints EVER is completely friggin' retarded. I won't ever buy another Call of Duty game. Expand
  25. WarEagle
    Mar 12, 2009
    0
    Horrible AI. Friendly AI stands in your way and fire in the air. Enemy AI can track you through smoke, brick walls, and can kill you even when you are completely prone hiding behind three walls and completely out of line of sight. Won't ever buy a Call of Duty game again.
  26. SeniorAwesome
    Nov 27, 2008
    3
    Overallm this game is pretty awful. The characters are stupid and no one cares about them, the campaign is boring and repetitive, and the multiplayer is really weak compared to Cod 2. There are a few cool scripted moments, but thats about it. and the close encounter things with germans are absolutley ridiculous.
  27. 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.
  28. samjames
    Jun 22, 2008
    8
    a good solid shooter that delivers everything you'd expect. if you wanna test yourself BIGTIME, finish this game on vetran. i have finished just about every major fps on the market, including Halo 1,2,3 all Call of dutys (this one most recently) Half lifes, metroid primes, rainbow sixs, ghost recons, far crys, unreal tournement s and brothers in arms out there on the hardesta good solid shooter that delivers everything you'd expect. if you wanna test yourself BIGTIME, finish this game on vetran. i have finished just about every major fps on the market, including Halo 1,2,3 all Call of dutys (this one most recently) Half lifes, metroid primes, rainbow sixs, ghost recons, far crys, unreal tournement s and brothers in arms out there on the hardest difficulty, and THIS is the hardest of them all. impossibly hard. just try it and you will see. the game is really a 7, but i gave it and 8 cos i like the challenge Expand
  29. JohanA.
    Feb 13, 2008
    3
    Unskippable cutscenes that you have to watch everytime you load, silly scripted close encounter sequences that doesn't add anything fun and AI buddies that offer no help at all. Very frustrating game.
  30. 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.
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.