Customer Reviews

Call of Duty: Game of the Year Edition

5 star:		(226)
4 star:		(68)
3 star:		(20)
2 star:		(10)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

Call of Duty (CoD) is a true sequel to Medal of Honour: Allied Assault. If you have played MoHAA, you'd know that it is atmospheric and exhilarating. Who can forget the Omaha Beach level? If you think MoHAA is good, wait till you try CoD.

There are 3 campaigns in CoD though you don't get to choose which to start first. You start as Private Martin (USA) and play through a few levels.. the most exciting for me is to hold a particular bridge from invasion. Later you play as Evans a British SAS. The 3rd campaign, the best I have seen by far, is playing as a Russian soldier.

The Russian campaign is an exact depiction of one part from the movie "Enemy of the Gates". In the movie, the Russian troops fight to take back Starlingrad. Any Russians who retreated will be killed by their own soldiers. This was depicted exactly in one of the levels in CoD. Lots of soldiers swarming from the boat up the hills with just one gun and one ammo clip - almost like MoHAA's Omaha but more atmospheric and much more exciting.

Graphics-wise, CoD uses Quake 3 engine. It is a bit dated as compared to the today's new generation graphics engine but in my opinion, the graphics served it purpose. I owned a Pentium 3 with Geforce 4 card and CoD runs like a dream. It is games like CoD (and recently, Max Payne 2) which convinced me that game content and gameplay are what matters most. Not the graphics! Some games have excellent graphics but lack content. These are the type of games I'd install and uninstall in less than 10 minutes.

The world in CoD is so lifelike it's scary. The AI is excellent. Your team mates and enemies fight like real soldiers. Bullets flew all over the screen and you can see the traces of them .. or hear them - sometimes I had to "duck" in front of my PC just to avoid them - kinda silly but it shows how into the game I was.

All in all, an excellent game!!! A definite must-get!

I downloaded the Demo game and played it all night long. It was terrific. The following morning, I went out and bought the game. True to its ratings, it IS an excellent game. I would compare it to MOH almost exactly. And contrary to what previous gamers wrote, the snipers ARE extremely accurate as are guards, when you play in the "Veteran" or difficult mode. I rated MOH highly and I do likewise with this game. It's costly, but worth it. The only downside I can see with this game, is that it's short. I started playing it at 4PM in the afternoon and finished it at 4AM. Yeah, it's that addictive...and fun. You can save anytime you want and you can play at varying levels of difficulty. I found a few minor bugs in the game, but still, nothing that made me cuss out the designers... The controls are great, the graphics are pretty darn good, not excellent, but good. I just wish it was ten times longer. One other thing I have to say I was a bit disappointed with, was the multiplayer online thing. It could be me, but I don't see the sense in it. I tried it a couple times and it's kind of boring... The single player mode is much more exciting and fun. Now, to see Vietnam in this kind of realism... Payback... To sum up, the game is well worth the money and a lot of fun. I highly recommend it!

WWII shooters have taken the PC gaming market by storm. With the huge success of titles such as Medal of Honor, Wolfenstein and Battlefield 1942, one more game saw fit to see its way into the competition - Call of Duty! If you'd like to know how Call of Duty plays, I have a quick question: Did you play Medal of Honor Allied Assault? If so, the same team of developers worked on Call of Duty so you may notice a striking resemblance in gameplay. Multiplayer is very similar with most servers dominated by single death objective matches so if you have a low attention span and don't like waiting for a game to end after your early death, I'd recommend a game like Wolfenstein instead where respawning is a normal routine in multiplayer. As usual, in order to play on the best maps, you'll need a high speed connection such as DSL or cable. If you're only purchasing Call of Duty for the singleplayer campaign, don't fret because the campaign is loads of fun and truly impressed me with some of the script sequences planned out for my virtual platoon buddies. Unlike Medal of Honor, you arrive via parachute (instead of storming the beaches) and combat centers around your platoon most of the game so there's always plenty of lieutenants barking orders and fellow privates forgetting to duck. Unfortunately, while the singleplayer campaign is fun, it's pretty short. It's not as long as other campaigns in games such as Medal of Honor and Half-Life. If you can't play online, my advice would be to wait for the price to drop because the singleplayer campaign will be over before you know it leaving you with nothing else to do. Overall, I enjoyed Call of Duty. I'm a WWII buff and a fan of PC first-person shooters, so this game was right up my alley but it probably didn't entertain me as long as other shooters. It has nothing to do with the game, it's a terrific product that I would recommend to any gamer, but because I played Medal of Honor and all its many expansions as well as other recent WWII shooters, Call of Duty really didn't bring anything new to the table.

Warning: Call of Duty may keep you glued to your screens for a LOT longer than you may have bargained for. It's bloody addictive.

Things I love, no, adore!, about the game:

(1) Graphics are mindblowing. There are places you could be forgiven for thinking you were on the sets of Black Hawk Down or The Pianist...the scenery of Europe (in WWII) is spookily elaborate. Very, very authentic atmosphere.

(2) Ammo is fascinating, a host of machine guns, grenades, rifles, and other arms from around that time. Weapons and nations are correctly linked. The best thing though -- the ability to grab just about everything you can see in the battlefield....low on ammo? Shoot the next soldier you set your eyes on, and grab his MP40 sub-machine gun. Beaut!

(3) It is NOT very resource intensive on your PC, and if you have a half-decent video card, it'll rock. (Is Urisoft listening?)

(4) The movement assigned to human characters is top-notch. You can crouch, jump, dodge bullets etc...all with easy and pleasantly responsive WASD controls /mouse movements. (Tip: crouching is slower but safer especially when in the middle of a shootout. The game does not really allow you to run, AFAIK.)

(5) Have played Battlefield '42 before but the plotline development in Call of Duty is something to beat. There is a great variety of mission types which keeps it from getting boring. The game bills itself as having three distinct single-player campaigns: for Americans, for British, and one for the Russians, but I found this is not true. You do get to play a number of exciting missions from the perspectives of each of these allied forces, and each one takes place in a different part of Europe. (I highly highly recommend the Russian missions)

All in all, this is a game you must get your hands on pronto if you haven't already. And be prepared to be playing it for a while!

Call of Duty might just be the most authentic and engaging WW2 game you've ever played. Featuring 24 mission, split into 3 campaigns, players take on the roles of a GI paratrooper, a British commando and a russian conscript, taking the first-person fight to the Germans with a variety of weapons. So far, so Medal of Honor. Where this title raises the bar is in its full realisation of squad based combat, hinted at in other games but never before explored to this degree. Players fight alongside computer controlled squad mates, usually between 6-8 in number.
The AI that governs your fellow soldiers is one of the most practical, robust and flexible I've ever seen in a first-person shooter. Your buddies will lay down supressing fire that actually WORKS (a very pleasant change), cover each other's movements, use grenades without blowing up the whole unit, and generally behave as realistically as you could hope for computer players.

Thankfully the AI for the baddies is just as convincing. No longer do enemy soldiers bluster towards your rifles, hurling grenades with pin-point accuracy. In Call of Duty, they will advance in sqauds from cover, laying down their own supressing fire, lay traps and ambushes and even fall back to cover when overwhelmed. If a machine gunner gets hit, his buddy might choose to take over, or make a run for it. It gives a very rounded impression that you are flanked by real people, and facing an adaptive and versatile enemy.

The real beauty of the title is that you are part of the team, without being the star of the show. Sure, there's times when its up to you to take the initiative, and maybe even save the day, but if your squad fails, you fail. When playing, I actually felt like covering my squad rather than dashing on ahead, protecting them rather than trying to ignore them. Likewise, I felt confident in their abilities to watch my back, without cringing in case a friendly grenade lands at my feet.

Graphically, Call Of Duty is gritty, realistic and smooth, even at high resolutions. Explosions look great, with tanks going up in flames, while grenades produce a convincing burst of dust and fragmentation. Tracers wizz overhead, puffs of dust ricochet off walls, and wood splinters apart under machine gun fire. The scenery isn't fully deformable, but their is enough scripted demolition to keep things realistic. There's also some great additional touches that really round and polish the experience, such as the blurry 'shell-shock' that warps the screen when a explosion goers off right by your head, or the restrained mixture of blood and dust that marks bullet hits on your target.

I found there was some loss of framerate when my squad found themselves in very close combat with lots of enemy soldiers, but the haze and confusion of the situation was such that I didn't really mind.

The real star of the effects show is the sound, where the game really drags you kicking and screaming into its world. The weapon effects are sufficiently hefty and the bass from an MG42 will definately stop you in your tracks before its bullets do. Best of all, dialogue between soldiers is both contextual and practical - shouted warnings to seek cover really do make a difference, your officer's military jargon is clear enough to give you a good idea how to act in the middle of a firefight..."Shift base of fire right, FIRE!" barks my captain as a platoon of German Paratroopers bursts from cover, and I find myself hurling myself prone and rattling off rounds from my Thompson Carbine.

Call Of Duty brings to the table the intensity of Medal of Honor and the epic scale of Battlefield 1942 with unsurpassed grace and conviction. A must for any WW2 gamer, and a splendid heart-thumper for any action game fan. Highly Recommended.

I just finished this game and want to share the pros and cons (as I see it) so that you potential buyers know what to expect. The only thing I haven't done yet is play Multiplayer, so that could obviously change your outlook.

That being said...

Pros -
I was impressed with the game. The graphics, sound, and overall feel were incredibly well done. Whether popping off a stolen Luger or manning a stationary machine gun, the intensity was just plain sweet.

One particularly creative note was the timing of orchestral scores that slowly get louder as certain levels come to an end. For example, one level has you defending a bridge, (a la Saving Private Ryan), until reinforcements arrive. As your comrades' numbers dwindle to enemy fire and the outcome seems hopeless, this great violin piece chimes in. Truly, I felt like I was in the final scenes of a movie. Very cool.

The weapons, while not terribly diverse, are fun, and as far as I can tell, accurate for the time period. Grenades work better in this game than in any other I've seen, a nice change from the norm.

The settings and level introductions are nicely varied, ranging from parachuting into enemy territory to infiltrating an enemy battleship. And, like Medal of Honor, there is indeed a "tank" level. Kaboom...fun.

Cons -
A few times the A.I. would seem a little off. For the most part it was fine, but every now and then I'd see an allied soldier a foot away from an Axis soldier and neither were shooting at each other. I don't know about you, but I'm not terr finicky about that sort of thing. In general, the A.I. was quite impressive with their skills, so this is really just a minor gripe.

The only real gripe is that the game was rather easy and quick. I played on "Normal" and found several boards where I didn't die once, a rather strange occurance, especially non-dexterous skills. I'm not the most patient person, so it's not like I thrive on impossible levels that require hours of reloading, however I felt that all it went by just a little too fast. Honestly, I think this game took me less than ten hours to complete. Perhaps on my second outing of the game I can try it on a harder setting and maybe get a little more out of it.

Bottom line -
The four stars are basically saying that if you like 1st person shooters, and WWII shooters for that matter, you're most likely going to enjoy this. The quality is great, but the quantity could use a little more oomf. I'd suggest waiting until the price drops from the traditional "start" price of most video games before picking it up, that way you're sure to get your money's worth.

I am not sure if you can ever get enough of good games, but the first person shooter market seems to be perilously close to becoming oversaturated. With so many excellent titles in so short a time, it could be easy to become desensitized to a certain genre of game. Fortunately, Call of Duty (hereafter COD) is a superb World War II shooter which falls short of being a classic only because of its extreme brevity. When most of the team that created the original Medal of Honor bolted 2015 to form Infinity Studios, most gamers could be sure of two things: the Medal of Honor series would suffer, and Infinity Ward would probably be creating a first person shooter very soon. In many ways, COD bears a striking resemblance to Medal of Honor but manages to improve on an already wildly successful formula in almost every way.

COD features three campaigns: one American, one British, and one Russian. Most missions consist of two or three smaller levels, none of which take more than about a half hour to play through. The American campaign begins with Pathfinder units of the 101st Airborne parachuting behind enemy lines to place beacons for the massive airborne landing of June 3, 1942, and ends with a frantic battle through the snow draped vista of the Ardennes. The British campaign starts with a daring raid on a prisoner of war complex and works its way through the capture and defense of Pegasus Bridge. The Russian campaign begins with the Siege of Stalingrad and ends with the Siege of Berlin. COD does an excellent job of providing new locations and different, interesting missions to play through, but unfortunately the campaigns are not really linked together in any discernable way. Finish with the US campaign and you will be abruptly thrust into the British campaign. While the overall story is fairly self explanatory considering the subject matter, the mission briefings are sparse and uninteresting, and fail to give the player the feeling that he is truly an important piece, no matter how small, in a far grander plan.

Most levels in COD are fairly standard for war-based shooters. You will attack enemy outposts and buildings, defend positions, rescue and escort prisoners, destroy tanks and artillery, defend locations with fixed weapons, and even go through the obligatory vehicular chase mission. The levels are almost all fun and well designed, but they are extremely limited in scope. Most of the levels are fairly small, and there is really only one way to make your way through the level. The fact that there is a compass in the upper left hand side of the screen that gives the direction of your next objective makes the game feel even more restricted, and even when the level design feels inspired, COD feels like it plays on rails. Still, many of the levels are so well constructed that you will ignore the fact that you are being funneled through them while you admire your surroundings. Small towns in France ravaged by bombs and constant combat look like surreal ghost towns. Fires rage through bombed-out buildings, airplanes roar by overhead as artillery thumps through the sky, and the drab grays and browns of the town form a stark contrast with the rolling hills and grass, windmills and dead cows that surround the village.

In other levels you will trudge through the strangely silent snow-covered forest of the Ardennes, where Germans in winter camouflage will suddenly emerge to shatter the illusion of peace that the snow seems to create. You will run through enemy prisoner of war camps and even the devastated city of Stalingrad, a brilliantly recreated set of levels that is so hopeless, desolate, and damaged that you wonder just how the Russians made it though the war, much less managed to rebuild.

Gameplay itself is mostly fast, visceral, and violent. One of the most hyped features of COD is that you will fight with a squad for almost the entire game. The squad based gameplay is a good addition and the logical extension of the one-man-wins-the-war ideal of the Medal of Honor series. Unfortunately, unlike Hidden and Dangerous 2, another WWII shooter that got squad based combat just about right, COD fails to make your squad feel like an important part of the game. Members of your unit will die; in fact they will die at a fairly high rate. In the Russian campaign you should not expect to have many comrades that survive with you for more than a few minutes, and in the early missions of the American campaign assaulting Normandy your unit will suffer enormous attrition. While this stays true to the historical reality, it doesn't make for the most engaging gameplay. Almost none of your squadmates have any personality at all (with one notable exception in each of the campaigns), and they have no background and personal information that might make the player relate or grow attached to them. You also have no real control of your squad, an unfortunate omission that effectively prevents the player from using the squad based gameplay to actually affect your mission plan or tactics.

Thankfully the squad AI is uniformly good. I was rarely blocked or shot by my men, who followed me blindly even into the most harrowing of situations. My men managed to fire their guns, and every once in a while actually managed to hit something. While there is an enormous amount of room for improvement available in the inevitable sequel, having squadmates does make the game feel more real and creates a different atmosphere. When your men are dropping all around you as German MG42's, grenades, and small arms fire blanket the small field you are trying to make your way across, you begin to feel like you are apart of the most violent and bloody war mankind has ever waged.

The missions are also uniformly fun. There is a tremendous feeling of danger when you are assaulting fixed gun positions, capturing a village building by building-and then defending every square yard of that ground you just paid so dearly for. The levels are so well-crafted that despite their linearity you will feel more like you are playing through an interactive war movie than any shooter yet released. One of the most amazing features of COD is the effect when a grenade or artillery round explodes near you. The sound immediately changes to a high-pitched whine, the screen grows blurry, and your player stumbles forward as he recovers. After several seconds of this effect you suddenly return to reality with a loud whoosh, the muffled sounds of the battlefield immediately becoming frighteningly loud and your vision returning to normal. It is one of the single most atmospheric effects I have ever had the pleasure of experiencing in a game.

I've been an avid gamer since back in the mid '80's when I would play at the arcade or my old NES. While I don't do console anymore, I'm a military/CT/Covert Ops game enthusiast. I've played the Clancy games (Ghost Recon, R6, etc.) and everything from Medal of Honor to flight simulators.
Playing Call of Duty (hereafter, "CoD") was an amazing experience. The graphics are outstanding, the combat is highly realistic, and completing the game gives you a tremendous sense of accomplishment. If you're looking for brainless gorefests, try Doom. If you want a realistic, somewhat historically accurate, thinking man's action game, CoD is for you. The combat is brutally real - Germans are shooting at you, machineguns are tearing up your buddies, mortar and artillery rounds are exploding to your right and left, your squad leader is yelling commands - a Panzer bursts out of a nearby wall and takes aim at you. You come to care for and respect your buddies, and you find yourself not wanting to let them down.
You also get to participate in historical campaigns. If you ever wanted to know what it was like to be a Russian soldier fighting in the suicidal battle for Stalingrad (as in the movie "Enemy at the Gates"), you can experience it first hand. You also play as an American 101st Airborne Pathfinder at D-Day, and a British 6th Airborne at the battle for Pegasus bridge.
Give this game a try. You won't be sorry.

First, I'd like to say that I never liked Medal of Honor. I never felt engaged in it, as neither did my friends. So, do not feel like if you have not played or liked MOH, then you will not like Call of Duty.

There are two very different sides of this game: Single Player and Multiplayer. Single player is truly incredible. It does not feel like your in a movie; it feels like your in a battle that will soon be a movie. It takes you through missions that make your blood filled with adrenaline. It makes you turn your volume up to full blast to hear the gunshots in the distance, and to be scared as hell when someone shoots at you. It is completely mind blowing.

Now, the Multiplayer is different. I can guarentee you that you will love Single Player, but Multiplayer is a different ball-game. You have to be good to enjoy Multiplayer... and I mean really good. And you cannot aquire the skills through Single Player. Therefore, you must go through a stage of being terrible and getting your butt kicked by 10-year-olds. And I'm not joking. I beat Easy fairly easily in SP, but I got killed in MP.

However, once you get good, a whole bunch of things start to happen. Clans come into the picture. You start owning everything. I went back to play Single player on the hardest level possible, and I went through it without dying once. No loading, no anything.

The game has provied countless hours of fun for my friends and I. I just thought that I wouldn't be doing the game liberty without writing this review.

If you like war games - this is it! Compared to games like Medal of Honor, Battlefield 1942, etc., this game takes it. It is as photo-realistic as Medal of Honor with the added realism of "squad tactics" that are fantastic. I was literally freaked out by the realism of the D-Day invasion! Blood and guts everywhere... planes crashing into buildings... flak flying up into the clouds, mortars, body-parts flying everywhere... it was OVERLOAD! But that is what war is...

The Single-Player mode is the best... the game is worth it for that alone. If you don't like SP mode - then don't buy this game.. it's not a "quake" run and gun - you have to work with your squad and pay attention... or die...

The Multi-player mode I nickname "Call to Quake." It is basicaly like a huge doom server - with about as much fun... it becomes too chaotic with guys running all over like maniacs on steroids "running and gunning" everyone down... still, the MP is pretty exciting....

This game is worth the 50 bucks if you like War II games and are tired of MOH or BF1942...