COD 2 or COD3?

[pop311]

Which one is better today?

[D4rkN1ght]

3? 2 will save you money though, but what did you think the answer would be?

[pop311]

I have heard that 2 was better. I also heard the single player het stale in 3 fast. I was just wondering

[thrustbucket]

Gears.

[paz9x]

3? 2 will save you money though, but what did you think the answer would be?
and youre basing this off what? cod3 isnt on your played list.

i need to play cod3, im tempted by the $40 cc deal but i still havent finished cod2.

i think if youre planning on spending a significant amount of time on the multiplayer 3 may be better as its newer. i have no stats to back this up but thats my opinion.

[slickkill77]

3 is better for multiplayer and 2 for the single player....3's sp isnt bad it is just hard as hell on vet and gets annoyingly repetative

[pop311]

how would you say the graphics compare?

[slickkill77]

If 2 was good, 3 was grood(Great/good). There isnt that much difference but you will notice things in 3 that are better than 2. And the destruction is much better too..3 has vehicles too

[Tha Xecutioner]

3 is much better in terms of storyline, multiplayer, graphics, and all out fun. There is a huge difference in graphics between 2 and 3, and 3 actually has characters you follow and people who have personalities that affect what you are doing in the war. And War mode, hands down, best game mode available for Xbox Live. No question, 3 is better.

[terribledeli]

I had more fun with CoD2 over all.

The graphics in CoD3 look busier (as in there is more action going on), but they look less attractive than CoD2.

I felt the storyline in 3 was stuck in that horrible MoH limbo. Not quite awesomely specific as Brothers in Arms, but not vague enough a la CoD2. Its always fun when they include less represented nations, but I felt the Polish missions were tacked on. Likewise for the Canadian ones (though not as much)

The Multiplayer in CoD3 is great...if you've got enough people. I played a couple of maps with 6-8 people and some of the maps were just too large. When beefed up to 12-16, things took off.

I'd recommend CoD2 just because I think its an outstanding piece of work, while CoD3 sorta felt like Activision just handed the project to Treyarch while Infinity Ward worked on a real sequel. However, with the new Medal of Honor and Brothers in Arms delayed for a while....both games will fill that WW2 void.

[Rozz]

Interesting responses.... I thought the general opinion was that COD2 was better.

[thagoat]

both are very similar. one detail, i thought the sound effects were better in 2 than in three(i play in 7.1 dolby surround.) but if you liked 2, you'll like three.

[Kaijufan]

I like the single player in 2 better then 3, but 3's multiplayer is leagues better then 2.

[Sporadic]

Call of Duty 3 is levels above 2 just for the multiplayer.

[pop311]

If I took Multiplayer out, would COD2 be better?

[slickkill77]

yes

[Tha Xecutioner]

No. It's a quicker play through compared to 3, it's less of a story (meaning it has characters, but nothing really happens with them and it doesn't blend well from fighting as an American to a Brit, and so on), there's a lot less action, and there are fewer achievements for Single Player.

Call of Duty 3 puts you more into the action because not only are you doing the shooting/clearing out of buildings that 2 offers, but you are arming bombs, escaping tanks in vehicles, rowing boats across rivers, and fighting German soldiers in a brand new hand to hand combat system.

Although Call of Duty 2 is a GREAT game..you asked which is better and Call of Duty 3 beats 2 in every department.

[zman73]

No. It's a quicker play through compared to 3, it's less of a story (meaning it has characters, but nothing really happens with them and it doesn't blend well from fighting as an American to a Brit, and so on), there's a lot less action, and there are fewer achievements for Single Player.

Call of Duty 3 puts you more into the action because not only are you doing the shooting/clearing out of buildings that 2 offers, but you are arming bombs, escaping tanks in vehicles, rowing boats across rivers, and fighting German soldiers in a brand new hand to hand combat system.

Although Call of Duty 2 is a GREAT game..you asked which is better and Call of Duty 3 beats 2 in every department.

I enjoyed part 2 but have liked 3 's sp more so far, but Im only past the american campaign

[Noodle Pirate!]

3 looks really nice but plays like ass. If you like rail shooters, go for it.
Rail shooters can be fun, but not when they make it so obvious you have no choice. This game wont let you step over grass, small rocks, and small branches.

Can't wait till the other development team gets back on the CoD series cause this one sucked.

[Graystone]

2 is an awesome game but 3 is better. 2 is at least worth a rental in your future. But go for 3 the multiplayer is better. Once you beat a games main campaign mode it comes down to multiplayer and 3 is better.

[slickkill77]

2 is actualt still in the top ten games played on xbl...They are both good games lets put it that way

[Graystone]

2 is actualt still in the top ten games played on xbl...They are both good games lets put it that way

Yes but thats sorta an unfair stat.

CoD2 is cheaper and been on the market longer. But yes they are very good games. I played the first on pc back in the day. A friend burned me a copy and I was hooked. Bullets whizzing past your head, loud explosions, oh, it was awesome.

[jwg]

Call of Duty 3 is the better game.

That's not to say CoD2 sucks, of course. If you're looking for a good FPS and not looking to spend 60 plus dollars on one, Call of Duty 2 is a great game.

[hiccupleftovers]

3 is better for multiplayer and 2 for the single player....3's sp isnt bad it is just hard as hell on vet and gets annoyingly repetative

Yaeh I pretty much agree with this sentiment although I didn't fele the annoyingly repetative part of it. it's simply damn hard as hell with some cheap and sometimes tacky A.I.

3 is much better in terms of storyline, multiplayer, graphics, and all out fun. There is a huge difference in graphics between 2 and 3, and 3 actually has characters you follow and people who have personalities that affect what you are doing in the war. And War mode, hands down, best game mode available for Xbox Live. No question, 3 is better.

This is pretty much true and once they fix the Ranked MP, the game will rule. Right now it was a combination of not having enough servers to handle three releases at the same time combined with some error that they are working around the clock to get a patch up for. Still, player matches rule and there is simply nothing like it.

I had more fun with CoD2 over all.

The graphics in CoD3 look busier (as in there is more action going on), but they look less attractive than CoD2.

I felt the storyline in 3 was stuck in that horrible MoH limbo. Not quite awesomely specific as Brothers in Arms, but not vague enough a la CoD2. Its always fun when they include less represented nations, but I felt the Polish missions were tacked on. Likewise for the Canadian ones (though not as much)

The Multiplayer in CoD3 is great...if you've got enough people. I played a couple of maps with 6-8 people and some of the maps were just too large. When beefed up to 12-16, things took off.

I'd recommend CoD2 just because I think its an outstanding piece of work, while CoD3 sorta felt like Activision just handed the project to Treyarch while Infinity Ward worked on a real sequel. However, with the new Medal of Honor and Brothers in Arms delayed for a while....both games will fill that WW2 void.

I can agree with this as well. Both are great games and you really can't go wrong with either. But 3's multiplayer is absolutely superb. The single player for 2 seemed slightly better. They're both great accomplishements and I can't recommend eithre enough. CoD2 was my single most played Xbox game for most of this year.

[SteveMcQ]

3 is better than 2. The SP immerses you into war a lot more. This game has the most intense firefights in any FPS. Add in terrific sound and insane smoke effects and you have complete and utter mayhem. The forest levels are damn sweet as well.

The only thing is that apparently there's problems with MP with those using routers. Executioner could probably tell you more about that, but I myself have yet to be able to try MP in the game. Everytime I try, either one game that's full shows up, or no games show up as available under any search I do. I tried joining Executioner's games a couple of times, but it wouldn't let me. So that part sucks.

[doubledown]

CoD3 is a RAIL game. I played through most of it, and I still have to finish it. I was debating this also. I think I may jsut trade in CoD2 now, since I finished it and the MP in 3 is better (so everyone says....I have yet to get online with it)

[thamaster24]

I realize now why I like COD2 more than COD3, it's the same reason I didn't like any Battlefield game. The classes in the game kill me. But that's just me, it's still a pretty solid game and I'll probably go through and play a lot online.

[Staind204]

Am I the only one sick of WW2 shooters?

[thamaster24]

Am I the only one sick of WW2 shooters?

Really it's the only war they can do anymore, new war games come out but if I remember correctly, by game WWII sells the most by far, I would enjoy a good game that includes naval battles. German U-boats and the British Navy, hmmm...

[elsnow77]

Am I the only one sick of WW2 shooters?
yeah, i wanna see a really good vietnam shooter