User Reviews (11 - 21 of 110)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

A good Call of Duty 1.5, but...

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 6 / 6
Date: January 10, 2006
Author: Amazon User

A good refinement of the original CoD ethic, with enhanced effects, more constant action, and numerous little touch-ups to the gameplay. The automatic healing system was a bold change, and I think a big improvement. It makes the game a bit easier, but keeps the action steadier by eliminating the need to run around looking for med kits. You really have to play it to see how well it works.
But a big opportunity for expansion has been neglected, and many of the games' advertised selling points are phony. There aren't many new conflicts or enemies to face. The scope of battle is marginally bigger, but some of the missions are actually repeats of CoD missions. You fought D-Day and Stalingrad in Call of Duty; you fight them again in CoD2 and the levels, though not copied, are similar experiences. The enemies are still only German. As for the non-linear gameplay promise, it crops up occasionally, but most of the game you're still fenced in, guided down one path.
You don't actually use rocket-propelled grappling hooks at all; your squad uses them in a scripted sequence in one mission. "Call of Duty returns with ... even more sea, land and air missions." You never take to the sea or air. Try land, land and land. And I think they advertised somewhere improved physics. They've added barrels that explode when shot- which is too arcade-like and innapropriate for a realistic WW2 shooter- but all items are made of the same indestructable, stuck-to-the-ground material.
They could have really expanded the scope of the game by including some sort of missions on sea or in the air, such as infiltrating an enemy cruiser and fighting the crew, or an aerial bombing mission. Or they could have included the Japanese somewhere, rather than simply fighting Germans in somewhat new locales. If this was another expansion, it would pass with flying colors. But given what we were promised with this full-on sequel, only two groups need this: People who never played the first Call of Duty, and people so fanatical about the CoD series they can't pass an installment up. Casual CoD players shouldn't have to pay $50 for this.

The Sequel Falls Way Short of the Original

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 11 / 18
Date: January 08, 2006
Author: Amazon User

I was very excited when Call of Duty 2 came out, because the first Call of Duty is my favorite computer game of all time. I am a history teacher myself, and World War II is one of my favorite eras to study. First person shooters are the kind of game I like to play on the computer. Call of Duty combined both of those interests, with battles to fight patterned after real World War II engagements such as the Battle of Pegasus Bridge on D-Day or the Battle for Stalingrad. Call of Duty 2 brings in more battle situations based on actual World War II engagements, like Pointe Du Hoc and the Desert War in North Africa. That's good. The sound effects for the weapons fire was also improved, as were the graphics. But unfortunately, other than those pluses, the game is full of minuses.

1) Call of Duty 2 is not nearly as challenging as the first one. I played through every level on one of the mid-range difficulty settings and found the game play to be less than difficult, and as an experienced game player, I was extremely bored with the lack of challenge.

2) The levels are way to repetitive in their scenarios. The first Call of Duty, and the United Offensive Expansion pack, had much more of a variety of levels. One level you were taking a village, but then the next you had to storm enemy entrenchments. The next, you jumped into a jeep for a running battle through enemy lines. They next you were busting your buddies out of a POW camp. Call of Duty 2 basically only had three basic battle scenarios: 1) House-to-house fighting, 2) Take the bunkers, or 3) Hold the village. Whoever designed the levels for this game was not very creative at all. For example, the British levels in Normandy are all basically the same thing. "Men, we have to take this village house-by-house. Go." After three villages in a row on three long levels in a row, that got extremely tiresome. They didn't even bother to make the villages look different. They just changed some trees and rubble here and there. So you are basically playing the same level three times in a row, with maybe a tank to destroy thrown in.

3) I was very pleased with the expansion pack to the first Call of Duty, United Offensive, because it actually added new features to the game. You had some great new weapons selections, and you could do things like cook off a grenade for several seconds before throwing it so it would explode faster. You also had a sprinting feature which allowed for short bursts of speed across open spaces to avoid being shot up. But Call of Duty 2 adds almost no new weapons at all to use, with the exception of smoke grenades. In fact, Call of Duty 2 CUTS BACK on a number of options in weapons and features from the previous Call of Duty. Some examples-in Call of Duty 1 you carried two main weapons, plus a pistol. Call of Duty 2 only allows two weapons period, the third pistol weapon is out. Also, you can no longer cook off a grenade before throwing it, and the sprinting option was also gone, thus reducing your options from the United Offensive expansion pack. One feature they did add which was extremely dumb was that you had to steady your sniper rifle before firing it. This was just a distraction that was totally unnecessary to the game play, and I ultimately opted not to use sniper rifles at all through the whole game because of it. Whereas the game creators increased the games options, thus its playability, with United Offensive, they have reduced it with Call of Duty 2.

4) One of the stupidest things about this game was how to deal with being wounded. The other Call of Duty showed your health level and required you to find health kits to heal yourself, which added more challenge to the game. What about Call of Duty 2? You would get shot a certain number of times, then a red light would come on. You were getting badly hit and about to be killed. How do you heal yourself? You crawl into a corner, wait a few seconds, then you are all healed up and ready for action. RIDICULOUS!

I got some enjoyment out of playing Call of Duty 2, but it is definitely a far inferior game to the first Call of Duty or to United Offensive. If this had been the first Call of Duty, and I hadn't experienced the quality I did with the other, then I might have rated this game higher. But when you set high standards with the first game, and don't meet them with the sequel, then the game has to get a low rating.

Sorry, gamers. Call of Duty 2 is, overall, a let down.

I agree with MYSELF

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 6 / 7
Date: November 10, 2005
Author: Amazon User

Well, I wasn't always a big "First Person Shooter" fan until I tried Call Of Duty (the first one) and I was hooked. I used to play the big strategy games like the other guy here is trying to sell but as far as this genre, This game rocks!! Maybe if you are 15 and daddy buys you a game, you have some inherent right to say it's terrible. Or if you have some concocted fantasy of Hollywood combat being real, then you might not like it either.

No super buzz-wammo weapons, secret powers from other planets. Just straight "In your face" combat. Its what it shows on the box... It's what you get in the game. And the LAN experience is much more fulfilling because of the upped graphics.

My only disappointment was that I wanted it bigger.. but I am completely satisfied.

A great follow up to COD1

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 6 / 7
Date: June 07, 2006
Author: Amazon User

Before I bought COD2 yesterday, I had gotten the COD1 + United Offense Deluxe set only the week before. I got a late start in the COD series as I had been a Battlefield 1942 fan. I only play Single Player Missions as I do not play over the internet. As a rookie I was real happy with COD1, and very disappointed with United Offense (as I kept getting killed all the time on the Greenhorn Level and the auto-save and even self-save were very annoying as I often ended up in the same bad situation that got me killed in the first place). I have written reviews for both of these games.

I was somewhat cautious about getting COD2, but decided to take the risk after seeing other reviews. I am glad that I did because it really is a terrific game. COD2 has all the great qualities of COD1 plus a self-healing feature where you recover from injuries quickly without those bothersome healing kits - about time! The weapons are great! I managed to stay alive on the greenhorn level - unless I did something stupid, which is the way the greenhorn level should play out. I was not frustrated with frequent kills and repetitive re-plays because of the ease of this level and the really, really, good auto-saving mode this game has! The auto save works wonderful saving the game at the right moment so that you usually pick up close to where you died, but in a situation where you can correct your mistake and not get blown away again and again and again as often happened in the earlier games.

Activision is getting it right! In fact, since the greenhorn level is fun and easy to play. As with COD1, I am now motivated to play the next level up for more of a challenge. I was discouraged to do so with United Offense with all the hassles on just the greenhorn level. The variety of missions of COD2, the graphics and sound effects are great. The smoke bombs are a nice addition and work well.

If the COD series continues on this path I will continue to be a loyal member. I hear COD3 is coming out in 2007 - I can't wait. I just hope it keeps the single player missions as numerous and well designed as they have with COD 1 & 2. Perhaps United Offense was just a quirk in the series.

When a console port goes wrong

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 6 / 7
Date: June 06, 2007
Author: Amazon User

For the record I have always preferred Call of Duty to Metal of Honor. The weapons in CoD~1 were responded better, the graphics and maps seemed better to me. I knew from the first second I opened this box that I had made a bad mistake and didn't trust the negative reviews here: HALF the game manual was blank. That might be okay for me since I've played FPS's since DOOM but still... from there things got worse. At least the CD-key was intact.

I'm sad to say that CoD~2 does not live up as a sequel. At first glance the graphics are better, the AI seems better and everything is a notch up but the PC version of this game is simply a Console Port for a game obviously designed for the X-box et.al. it ignores everything that a PC offers over a console (like quick saves)

This game has about as much to do about WWII as the 1980's coin operated game "Duck Hunt" had to do with duck hunting. The game "cheats" - clear out a 5 man post and wait 5 seconds and 5 more men appear, and again and again and again until you advance to that spot and the game autosaves (or you run out of ammo and die) There is no flanking or tactics or careful house clearing here. If you clear a spot and do not advance far enough before you die (again) then you have to repeat the procedure ad. nauseum. Clear some trenches and backtrack and hand grenades "magically" appear from a nearby trench that you have already cleared to blow you up. Each Zone contains at least one "insta-kill" spot where every single angle is covered and there is no way to advance except by throwing a smoke grenade - oops - you DID save a smoke grenade for later right? Because killing everything does not work, 5 seconds later more bad guys magically appear on the 3rd floor of a building where all the staircases are blocked...

You are almost at a disadvantage to using your own weapons, if you swap out everything for German weapons then at least you collect ammo laying on the ground as you advance. Or, for the truly morbid, just coax 10 of your squad mates to a machine gun nest and pick up THEIR ammo... do NOT depend on your team members - you will be doing 95% of the killing yourself as they get crushed by tanks and walk single-file around a corner into a machine gun nest, or even worse - block the doorway as a grenade gets tossed at your feet. In a crowd of 20 the game ALWAYS shoots at YOU, as they don't even count as a distraction... It's no wonder the game fails automatically if you shoot your squad mates because otherwise I would have executed all mine at the very beginning of each mission (more ammo - yay!)

The "health" is the worst mockery of this game. Even on 'Difficult' nearly any amount of single shots is survivable. While slapping a band-aid/med kit on a sniper bullet hole might not be "realistic" for some, it's even less realistic to find the sniper by walking into the center of the town square, take a chest shot, duck, wait a few seconds until you have "calmed down" then stand up again to take another shot, then repeat as needed as a way to figure out where a sniper might be.... how realistic is that?

Needless to say - I love the old Call Of Duty and it's expansions. This "sequel" left me wishing I had waited for the price to drop to 5$ And furthermore, I won't be buying CoD 3 (or 4) - because I hear it has a really nifty segment that forces you to row a rowboat using the control keys... um, yea.

Frustrating 1st Person

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 8 / 12
Date: May 12, 2006
Author: Amazon User

The person who decided to make game saves automatic should be demoted to the mail room. This game is SO frustrating because of the lack of saves. Even in easy mode, you can get killed and you are right back to where you started 15 minutes ago. I have played the same stretch of ground 20 times and have finally given up. I applaude Activision for getting some realistic detail into COD2, but the there have been WAY too many times of frustration that has quenched the fun.

Same singleplayer as MoH:AA, terrible multiplayer

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 11 / 20
Date: January 09, 2006
Author: Amazon User

Do you like being sniped by machine guns? Spawning on grenades, do you like that? How about killing an enemy only to have them spawn right in the same room as you? Perhaps you would enjoy a game where to heal you have to sit in a corner and hide? If this sounds like fun to you, then by all means go ahead and buy Call of Duty 2.

Most of the reviews you read here are about single player. The only problem is, they haven't played Medal of Honor. In Medal of Honor: Allied Assault - a game released in January 2002, four years ago - you do some of the EXACT same missions as in CoD2. Normandy campaign, MoH:AA, you recieve a mission to blow up some artillery fixtures, only to find out later they've been moved. Normandy campaign, CoD2, you recieve a mission to blow up some artillery fixtures, only to find out they've been moved. Anything sound "unique" or "exciting" about a game that was made 4 years ago? Well then, why would it be exciting now, because the graphics are better?

Oh wait, no they're not. Due to the apparent rush to get CoD2 out in time for the Xbox 360 launch, the developers must have forgotten to optimize DirectX 9 mode in their game. What does this mean? It means that their game, while capable of looking beautiful, doesn't perform well. For most people (including myself, with 2GB DDR 400 RAM, a GeForce 6800 GT, and a 3.0GHz P4), the game will not run over 40FPS in DX9 mode. Only by setting it to DirectX 7 will the game run at it's full intended speed, at a cost - no rain, snow, reflective textures, flags don't wave in the wind. Even though United Ofensive, the expansion to CoD1 featured minor details such as waving flags, apparently that was just too hard to feature in a game this advanced. Battlefield 2, more graphically advanced game, runs at a silky smooth 90-100 FPS on my system, leaving me to wonder why Activision and IW would push out the game so quickly when it was so obviously bugged. Not like it matters, no matter how smoothly you can get your game to run you still won't stand a chance in multiplayer.

Why do I say that? Beause it's true. The maps are tiny compared to United Offensive's, a total shift in gameplay than what many former CoD1 players are used to. Throw in the recoilless machine guns, the amazing accuracy to go with them, and the apparent lack of any soldier to take two or three bullets to any place, even in the foot or arm, results in an extremely unsatisfying multiplayer experience. Unless you happen to like extreme action variants of historical conflicts, this is definately not a finished product. The lack of anticheat, shooting through walls, random headshots (like when a clanmate shot me in the foot with his pistol while running and landed a headshot on me), sticking through walls (complete with the ability to shoot those enemies, no matter what kind of material they are sticking through), random spawns, and generally incomplete, broken multiplayer experience leaves MUCH to be desired.

If you want a good singleplayer game, go buy FEAR. If you want a good multiplayer game, go buy Battlefield 2.

A bug in the game is preventing me from playing to its fullest

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 6 / 8
Date: January 29, 2006
Author: Amazon User

**This is an updated review. I've finally figured out why the game is dang difficult. It's a bug. I have a dual-core AMD processor and there is a bug in the game that prevents my health from regenerating! So I've been going through the game on one life with no health power-ups! The reason I'm NOT changing my ranking is because the patch Activision released to fix this bug doesn't work! To make matters worse, the patch actually disabled my mouse! The only way I could get it working again was by tabbing through Windows until I got to the Add/Remove programs and uninstall the game! I have a dual-core AMD 3800+ X2. If you have that processor, steer clear! If you do'nt, For more, please read on...

As someone new to first-person shooters, I fell in love with the demo to CoD2. But the demo is nothing like the actual game. I breezed through the demo without any problems. But when it came to the actual game it's just too dang hard. I'm still stuck on one of the Russian levels and I've probably died close to 50 times. Part of that could be my newness to the game, but quite frankly, I don't think that's all of it. I have it on easy mode, and I still get my butt whooped! I use cover. I duck. I use smoke grenades. I use frag grenades. I let my squad mates soak up enemy fire. I look for alternative ways to an objective. And yet still I find myself dying from hidden Germans that pop out of nowhere. Hats off to those of you that comment the game is too short and only lasts 20 hours, because I've already used up those 20 hours and I haven't even finished the Russian levels. Here are some other pros and cons:

Pro: Great graphics. And it's not a hardware killer like some say it is. I have a moderate system: a 256MB geForce 6800GS, 1 GB RAM, and an Athlon 64 X2 3800+ and everything runs fine. No noticeable slow downs even with the smoke. I suspect that hardcore gamers who have software that can detect a 1 frame-per-second dip in performance might argue differently.

Pro: Great audio. The thumping of machine guns, mortars, and tank shells are awesome and really make you feel like you're in the game. My personal favorite is the sound of far-away gun fire. Just something cool and realistic about that.

Con: Too dang hard as described above.

Con: Auto-save is a big pain in the butt. You can't manually save at any point. If you're having a tough time getting through a choke-point, the last thing you want to do is start half a level back every time you die because that's where the auto-save starts you. Just bad.

Con: No sprinting. If it's in the game, I missed it. It's incredibly frustrating when you have to cross a killing zone and can't run. That's just silly.

Con: Physics are nothing compared to Half-Life 2 or FEAR. I once found myself unable to hide behind a stack of crates because there was an oil lamp on the ground. Give me a break. If you're not going to let me push aside an object that weighs about 2 pounds, then just get rid of it so I can hide behind the dang crates.

Pro/Con: Squad AI can be great at times and they kill lots of Germans for you and terrible at others. Some other users commented that the game will continue to roll on even if you do nothing. This is true only up to a point. There is eventually a point where your squad mates will stop and won't progress any further, forcing you to lead the charge through a choke point. In one occassion, I had a squad mate who refused to budge from behind a building no matter how far I advanced leaving me by myself to fight off a Panzer tank and 12 Germans. And remember, this is on the easiest setting!

When I put a game on easy, I expect it to be easy. Not incredibly hard and frustrating. Even a casual user like myself should be able to get through the game on the easiest setting, and I can't. If I wanted to get killed every five seconds I would have put the difficulty on high. I'm seriously thinking about selling it on Ebay.

INCREDIBLE

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 4 / 4
Date: November 16, 2006
Author: Amazon User

i bought this game a week after buying MOH: frontline, which, at the time, i thought was incredible.
but once i got COD2, i was blown away.
constant firefights and all out chaos across a bombed out battlefield is just plain awesome.

but what really gets this title is the online multiplayer.
i have found myself playing for hours on the same maps and still not getting bored.
it uses a perfect combination of strategic firefights and incredible gameplay to keep you addicted for weeks.

the only faults in this game are the eventual lag, and the graphics card requirements, which had me frustrated for days.
but, if oyuve got a fast computer and and extra $30 on your hands, this is a must buy!

Good, but with some disappointments

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 4 / 4
Date: January 01, 2007
Author: Amazon User

It looks and sounds good. It takes advantage of the wide screen video modes that graphics cards have been capable of for the last couple of years and CORRECTLY renders the proportions of everything. There are some games that take the easy way out by simply stretching everything. Like the original CoD, it makes great use of a surround sound setup. So far, only Half-Life 2 does graphics and sound better.

Now here's why I can't give this game five stars. Some are minor reasons, and some are major...

Since I mentioned Half-Life 2, I found it interesting that it was capable of detecting if my video card was DirectX 9 hardware compliant. But CoD 2 required me to manually switch to DirectX 7. Don't try DirectX 9 if your video card isn't made for it. The performance differences are drastic!

Why bother with a CD edition? The Collector's Edition (which is a DVD) should've been the only edition for Windows. When was the last time a computer was sold with a CD-ROM drive instead of a DVD-ROM drive? 2002? CoD 2 was released in 2005. Doesn't add up.

Everyone but YOU can pick up/return a previously thrown grenade. Another thing that doesn't add up.

Grenade "cooking" was a great idea that was implemented in United Offensive (and Return to Castle Wolfenstein, which came out in 2001!). Too bad it wasn't done in CoD 2. It would make the "grenade return" aspect of the game somewhat more amusing.

The Thompson SMG was issued with 30 round magazines. That's how it worked in the first CoD. Why the hell was it changed to 20 rounds in CoD 2?

The "you can't save the game when you want to" aspect bites the big one. It doesn't make the game more challenging, but it does make it more repetitive, and ludicrously so. Another unnecessary change from the first CoD.

Why are you no longer able to sprint and stuck with only moving at one speed? A third unnecessary change from the first CoD.

"Hold your breath to steady the scope view" doesn't add up. Oddly enough, you can stand and aim down the sights of any other weapon and it's steady. A real sniper would either already know how to hold the rifle steady or at least brace it on something. And it's not as if there aren't any objects in the game to brace against...

The new damage system is something of a toss up. While it's not realistic to have instant healing medkits lying around, I think it's more unrealistic to find cover after getting hit four times and then pop out in a short while as if nothing had happened.

The following might be indicative of another bunch of bugs, but after applying the latest patch (v1.3), I'm far more inclined to believe that they're DESIGN FLAWS:
The first one I found in the Normandy invasion. After climbing up the cliff, I found an opportunity to snipe one of the enemy machine gunners in the bunker. I shot him TWICE IN THE HEAD and he was STILL blazing away with the MG42! The machine gunners in the trench aren't "special" in this way. But if you fight your way through the trench, you can take out that "special" machine gunner in the bunker in any way you wish, including melee. Give me a break! Any chance of this game getting five stars is gone.
And when it's time to defend against the German counter attack and you're inevitably scripted to go back to the same bunker and trench area, those MG42s that were there earlier are miraculously gone. It doesn't take a genius to see what's wrong with this.
Now here's the part that cost this game another star. This is where you're at the top of a silo in the town to defend against the German counter attack (I think I see a theme here). You don't have to be a combat expert to know that staying in one spot for too long is tactically stupid. Unfortunately, you're STUCK there. One of your squad mates is completely blocking the way and can prove to be moronic (you'll see why later). You'll quickly find that you need to take out many German mortar teams. But somehow, the many regular German soldiers that also running into town around such a big deal. These mortar teams are also some of the most miraculously accurate ones in existence because they're able to land a mortar on you in only TWO tries! And why are they only trying to take you out? And just when I thought I finally got the hang of this ridiculous combat scenario, some German soldier managed to climb up the silo and meleed me to death! That squad mate that was blocking the ladder didn't do a damn thing!

While I understand it's a significant technical leap between programming for DirectX 7 and 9, the overall quality of this game doesn't qualify it as being part two. It feels more like another expansion pack. Combined with the other criticisms I've read, I can't help but wonder if there's credence to claims of the developers trying to finish the Xbox 360 version just to rush it out to market with the Xbox 360.

If Infinity Ward and company are working on CoD 3 for personal computers, I hope they get it right!

Review Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next 

Actions