We're approaching the winter of discontent for gamers.

Can you feel it? We're officially in the Autumn season now, and the air is beginning to cool ever so slightly - even here in Los Angeles (though not that cool, much to the annoyance of Aaron McKenna, the editor of Tom's UK. Yeah Aaron, we all saw the Ryder cup. Nice hurricane.) The leaves will shortly begin to change colour and Halloween decorations and pumpkins will soon be plunked in the front yards. And of course, we'll see a flood of new games and top-notch titles across a wide range of platforms.

Typically, this is the time of year when gamers get excited. But not this year. At least not for me. We're limping toward the finish line here in 2006. There just doesn't seem to be a lot of strong games lined up to close out the year, which seems strange to me. Last year we had games like Call of Duty 2, GUN, Guitar Hero, F.E.A.R., Quake IV, Star Wars: Battlefront II and Age of Empires III. Some titles didn't live up to their hype (I'm looking at you, GUN), but there was no shortage of buzz about a lot of the big-name games schedule for arrival late last year.

Don't get me wrong. There are a lot of big name titles coming out in the next three months. In fact, there could be just as many as triple A games and hot sequels lined up this Q4 as in the last couple of Autumn seasons. But this isn't like any other year. This is 2006, a launch year for next-generation consoles. It's the year when the wrapping comes off of Wii and PlayStation 3. It's the year of Nintendo's resurgence and Sony's reckoning. It's the year that Xbox 360 is expected to take its game to the next level and build on its lead. Well, erm, except if you're in Europe. Sorry, but my dear European readers will have to wait into 2007 to get the PS3. I don't see much on that games line up that's worth crying about anyways.

It just doesn't feel like we're running up to a massive, seminal, event in the history of video gaming, does it? I'm not sensing the electricity in the air that came in 2001 with the arrival of the PlayStation 2 and GameCube. Granted, that was a long time ago, but you get the point. Probably, the biggest buzz title at E3 was the PC first-person shooter Crysis, but that won't be out until next year; ditto for other hot titles like God of War II and John Woo's Stranglehold that were shown off at E3. Nintendo stole the show with Wii, but complaints about Wii titles Red Steel and The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess have begun to pop up. And honestly, how many "alien creatures invade earth" FPS games do we need?

Maybe I'm just reeling from a traumatic experience I had with Call of Duty 2, one of the big releases last Autumn/Winter. I'll be blunt - Call of Duty 2 sucked. It has to be one of the most disappointing gaming experiences of my life. Okay, that's an over-statement.

Wait a second. Actually, it's not. I loved Call of Duty. It's one of my favourite games of all time and one of the best shooters I've ever played - visceral, explosive and bloody brilliant. I hold it near and dear to my heart, so maybe my expectations were too high going into to Call of Duty 2. That said, I cannot understand how the sequel scored such stellar reviews from critics and gamers alike. It was nothing more than a glorified expansion pack with slightly - and I'm being generous with the word "slightly" - better graphics. I've played this game on Xbox 360 and a PC (and a Mac, for that matter), and saw little difference from the original in terms of presentation, design and environment. So what's the attraction for Call of Duty 2? What does the sequel offer that the original title didn't provide? A grenade indicator. And heavy breathing replacing the health meter. That's pretty much it. It's the same game, except shorter and with less imagination and fewer maps.

Yet, Call of Duty 2 was the most successful Xbox 360 launch title and, as of this summer, had sold 1.5 million copies on the console. So while it was a colossal disappointment for this reporter, it was a grand success. And now Call of Duty 3 is arriving for the Wii and PS3 launch. And there are several things that concern me.

First, there's no PC version. Huh? Something doesn't smell right here. Second, original Call of Duty developer Infinity Ward is gone. Taking over is Treyarch, which developed Call of Duty 2: Big Red One. Personally, I liked Big Red One better than most, particularly the focus on characters instead of nameless NPCs that can get shot repeatedly and still soldier on. But I'm not sure how the loss of Infinity Ward will affect Call of Duty 3, which was built from the ground up.

That said, Call of Duty 3 will add some sorely needed additions that may not be game-breaking innovations but are interesting nonetheless. Hand-to-hand combat could provide some excellent action, and being able is make improvised explosive devices and disarm opponents will enhance the game play. But the most intriguing feature may the branching mission paths, which will add an element of strategy to the shooter by allowing players to choose attack routes. Will I answer the call? I'm sceptical, but leaning toward yes.

See the Call of Duty 3 slide show for more