User Reviews (31 - 41 of 110)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

This game will change your view of FPS gaming forever !!

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 3 / 4
Date: July 21, 2006
Author: Amazon User

You all might have read all the other reviews here which gives this game a fantastic rating (majority of 5 *).
To be very very honest - every one of them is ABSOLUTELY right.
This game is really mind-blowing.
Just to give you a background, I have been playing PC and console games for the last 10 years, and I never have liked
First-Person-Shooters. The First Person view makes the head spin and I have been a FPS-Hater throughout the better part of
the ten years of my gaming life.
But seeing all the rave reviews here and in other game sites such a gamespot, ign etc., I decided to take a huge gamble
and bought this game.
Ane let me tell you, the moment this game loaded and I started playing ... I was a transformed man, suddenly out of the
blue I was no longer a FPS-Hater, I was transformed into a FPS-Lover, or to be more precise, a COD2-Lover.
The graphics are just mind-blowing gorgeous. This game really shows us what next-gen gaming is. This game IS the next-gen
game.

The sound has to be best ever sound I have ever experienced in my whole life in a game. Yes, it is that good.

The action is very fast and furious with bullets flying all around and grenades being launched at you from all corners.
The best part is the new health system. No longer is the need to hunt around for health pack, whenever you are hit badly,
your vision gets blurred and bloody, and you just need to hide in a corner and take some few seconds rest to come back
to full health. This is a fantastic system and I am sure this formula will be followed by many more games in the future.

The missions are just fabulous, you have to blow up tanks, re-connect telephone wires, all while bullets are flying
around you and bodies of your comrades are being gunned down.

Beleive me when I say that dont just read this review - go get it.
It really THAT good.

Awesome Game

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 3 / 4
Date: January 13, 2007
Author: Amazon User

This game is absolutely awesome game it has great graphics and sound. The gameplay is great and the missions are so much fun to play with. The only reason i gave it 4 stars was because it is a little easy to beat, i have almost finished the game i have beat two campaigns and almost half way done with the third campaign. I have accomplished this on regular in about 6-8 hours of playing. Luckily there is still hard and harder to beat. This game is really intense and historically accurate with footage before the mission starts giving you the historical background. The AI are also very good and accurate at shooting. I recomend this game and it is well worth the money. Be sure however to check the requirments and make sure you have enough room on your computer for this game which took 6 dics to load.
Great Game, Lots of Fun and action

Authentic War at your finger tips

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 2 / 2
Date: November 20, 2005
Author: Amazon User

Just picked it up today. i loved call of duty 1 because of the explosions the cross fire going on constantly like in real war for crying out loud. in cod2 the ai is amazing especialy on your side they are very helpful in laying down fire gernades and such. it beats the heck out of doing everything urself. this game is very intense and very fast pace. the game's graphics are great definatly worth the 50 i spent for it. i dont know what that other guy was talking about being 20 computer games most of the time are 50 or 40 brand new and bit titles. its tied between battlefield 2 and call of duty 2 great game.

Does what it says on the box, but not for very long...

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 2 / 2
Date: December 28, 2005
Author: Amazon User

I've played the orignal COD and almost all of the FP Shooters of the last few years. I got this game for Christmas, and was finished with the single player missions 2 days later, which makes it one of the shortest FPS I have ever played.

Having said that it beats Quake 4 hands down for playability. Quake 4 is totally linear, the graphics are average and the AI is completely mindless; in COD2 the AI is some of the best I've seen. Its more intense than F.E.A.R (also a short game), perhaps a little too intense sometimes - especially the final soviet mission, where I did my bit as a sniper only to get shot in the back time and time again.

The graphics are awesome, the best in any game I've seen. Thats been commented on before so I wont repeat it here.

The health system/(lack of) save system takes a bit of getting used to and does not always trigger properly so some missions end up like ground-hog day where you continually play the same 3seconds to 15 minutes of play only to be sent back to the save game having turned the next corner..

Contrary to other reviewers I dont think the missions have the variety of the original COD. It is certainly not as long. Most missions are short and consist of clearing buildings. If I had paid for it I would have felt cheated by just how short it is, but I imagine the new health system will make multiplayer slightly more playable and less punctuated than the original COD which I gave up on because I died with monotonous regularity.

The worst gripe I've left until last and that is the player targetting. As you shoot you gun recoils - as real guns do - the sniper rifle is not steady when you look through it - also real, so why oh why can every German manage to hit you with monotonous regularity with a machine gun from 2000 yards - thats just not realistic and it p.. well its very frustrating.

In summary, better than Quake 4, better than F.E.A.R but not as good (for single player) as Operation Flashpoint or Delta Force Black Hawk Down.

Fun, fun, fun

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 2 / 2
Date: September 21, 2006
Author: Amazon User

Yeah, Call of Duty 2 is pretty much the same game as the original and the expansion pack. But, who cares? The game is still one of the most fun WWII first person shooters to play and still has excellent graphics. The campaigns have been changed up a bit, enough to keep it interesting. Also, know there are a couple different routes that you can go about your objectives rather than having to follow one path. Does it have the squad based stuff like Brothers in Arms? No. Is it as realistic as Red Orchestra? No. However, the game is authentic enough with its weapons and maps and missions and more than makes up for any pitfalls with the fun factor. If you want a fun first person shooter, you can't go wrong with this game.

Improvement over the original

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 2 / 2
Date: May 05, 2007
Author: Amazon User

The original Call of Duty and United Offensive expansion pack set the benchmark for first person World War II shooters. Call of Duty 2, by following the formula of the original and offering numerous improvements, might actually be a better game overall. First, the graphics have gotten a much needed update. While the original Call of Duty is nice, COD2 is pure eye candy. Little details in the graphics make all the difference -- the smoke is incredibly realistic, the models look far better, and the weapons are much higher definition and have a more realistic feel to them. Second, the sound is drastically improved. The battle chatter is great, especially in the British campaigns. Bullets whiz, mortars boom, and anti-aircraft fire rattles away. It truly is an immersive experience. Third, the level detail and layout is much better than the original Call of Duty. The mission selection menu is great. You switch between the Russian and British campaigns and wind up closing down the game with the Americans. While each campaign has great levels, some of the best are the initial British fights against the Desert Fox in northern Africa and the American battle at Point Du Hoc. Taking the beach there is incredibly -- even better than Stalingrad in the original Call of Duty -- but the best part is the second mission where you have to hold the beach against a Germany counter offensive. You end up getting beaten back all the way to the ocean before your reinforcements arrive.

Although some other reviewers have noted the short length of the game, I found it perfectly fine. A first I was afraid that I would beat the game in short order, but it ended up taking over a month with average game play per week around seven to eight hours. I highly recommend setting the difficulty setting on at least "hardened." That will definitely make the game a more enjoyable experience and lengthen it for you. If you're beating the missions in ten minutes, that's probably because the difficulty is too low for your skill level.

My one gripe is the system requirements. While they are not too bad, you need a very nice machine to run this game in all of its glory. I have a Pentium 2.8Ghz, 1.5GB of ram, GeForce 6800GT graphics card, and could run the game with most of the special affects turned down but the detail turned all the way up at a decent resolution without much lag. But still, the original Call of Duty would run seamlessly on my system, even though there is a noticeable difference in the graphics quality. COD2 was definitely designed for the latest graphics cards, so be warned. Unless you're into high resolutions and all the bells and whistles, though, your system should run it OK.

I'm glad to see the price for COD2 has really come down. You can get a used copy for around $10 here. Not bad at all. Definitely recommended.

Read! important!

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 3 / 5
Date: November 15, 2005
Author: Amazon User

OK, people say this game is too short but it is actually very long you can do one of every mission and get it done with or you do every mission in the game. this truely compeletes the game and you are not seeing half of it if you do not do this! my only complaint is there is no jeeps etc. i would like vechiles back in! but every thing else is REALLY solid the game play and graphics are better than the last game! MUST BUY!

DirectX errors

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 3 / 5
Date: November 21, 2006
Author: Amazon User

i have a high end system with a GeForce 6800 nVidia video card, and the game has many errors. At first I had to run the game with low video settings to avoid the "Directx unrecoverable error". Then, I had to run it in safe mode to avoid the error. The tech support had many things to try and were baffled at why the error is still occuring on my high end system. About half way through the game the error still came up even in safe mode!! The gameplay is predictable, but still fun at times. I'd wait til the price drops to about $20 to buy it...

Really awesome FPS

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 3 / 5
Date: November 24, 2006
Author: Amazon User

This game is AWESOME. The firefights and graphics are top-of-the-line. The single player campaigns are ok, but cod's were better. My favorite army to fight in is the Russian, and I was pleased to learn that Pointe Du Hoc was in the American campaign. The multyplyer mode is lots of fun. My only 2 regrets about single player is the ending, where some colonel says he'll give you a promotion, and the fact that the number of bullets in the Thompsen sub-machine gun's magazine has gone from 30 to 20 bullets. it seems i'm constantly reloading. This is the best WW11 shooter I have.

Phenominal on all accounts

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 3 / 5
Date: January 08, 2006
Author: Amazon User

I always like reading others reviews of video games, its almost as entertaining as the games are. This one is particulary entertaining for a variety of reasons. Kids complaining that the video card they own can't handle the game (a common complaint for those who do not keep up). Adults complaining that the 'history in inaccurate", or that its too easy, or that the weapons are too slow.

As usual, people take this stuff to seriously. Its a video game for goodness sake; as in GAME.

If you are into WW2, this game is amazing. Its total infantry based chaos, which much of the war was. It was a mostly ground war where there was complete insanity most of the time. The weapons depicted are from the era, and performance is very similar (I have held and shot a thompson, and its certainly not something you would find in Quake 4).

The war was a very "analog" war, with poor communications, terrible conditions much of the time, people everywhere, nasty battles, and millions dead. And you could'nt just wander over somewhere and pick up a health pack to feel better.

WW2 was not a history channel 1 hour film, it was a 7 year mess. This game gives a pretty good inkling into how nasty and chaotic it was on the front line, which is what the game is about. Far Cry (one of my favorite games) is pure fantasy and somewhat ludicrous. Call of Duty 2 is neither.

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

Actions