User Reviews (1 - 11 of 110)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

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.

50 bucks down the tube

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 8 / 55
Date: November 02, 2005
Author: Amazon User

I recieved this game yesterday. Installed after luch, around 1 PM. By 6 PM I was watching the credits. The game was intense, I'll admit that, but I didn't pay 50 BUCKS for 6 hours of entertainments! I feel robbed! When my dad, who payed the game, came back home and asked me if I was enjoying it I had to tell him I was just starting!

If you can install and finish the thing in 6 hours then it's not worth more than 10 BUCKS!!! I would have gone to the movies!! It would have costed me a penny conpared to this!!!

50 bucks down the tube!!! I want my money back!!!

I agree with the kid!

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 6 / 66
Date: October 27, 2005
Author: Amazon User

Come on this is not good! There is no talent into this type of gameplay! The problem with soooo mannnyyyy game designer's today is that they are not very creative! They serotype tooo muccchhh like the kid said. Yes, the allies were the good guys and yes Socialism is wrong but why do we see WW2 from the allies side? Why can't we see it from the Axis side? Or have the choice? I'm don't care about multiplayer were kiddiees run around and run and gun, bunny hop and alll that with no real tactics, heck they know nothing of the war or tactics! Go back to URT 04 or Quake! This is war and there is no bunny hoping or rambo sytle combat in war. Everyone fights together as a team in a team. The funny thing is in the UO expansion they advertised that no one fought alone yet somehow you were the only one that could kill anything as if your me were just there in the background shooting at who know what? Brother and Arms is 10 times better than this game why? You can order your men around, flake the enemy more than just one way, and your aim is not as accurte? The guy who said it was junk because he couldn't hit anything was saying he can't hit anything and he can't jump either. Maybe he was trying to high jump over a bush. Good luck!

Anyway, if you really want to be creative create a game where you can fight turn based style either side or front of the war. Maybe if they just mix the Rome Total War style with First Person battle and relisem it could be a great hit! and of course add a world map where you could move your units around being Navy, Airforce, or Marines to different locations. That would change the WW2 hum-drums totally around! You could also play different roles as a commander or a general to a grunt soilder! Different battlefields, different weapons from each side, Tanks, artillery, you name it. Genuis!

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.

CoD2 only xp

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 3 / 39
Date: November 26, 2005
Author: Amazon User

The requirements posted at amazon site say 98/ME/2000/XP.

That was great. I was ready to buy, but Activision states CoD2 not compatible with 95/98/ME.

CoD is compatible but CoD2 is not compatible 98 or ME.

I can't run this without 2000 or XP OS. My hardware is fine but now I have to make my system boot both XP and 98. NUTS

Jilted IW really Messed this one up

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 3 / 43
Date: November 27, 2005
Author: Amazon User

Bug Riddled. Almost evrey map has exploits. This combined with all the built in hacks that COD1 had and absolutely no Anti-Cheat (PB) makes this a hackers dream come true.Hackers use wall hacks, aimbots at will, and can shut anyones server down, also at will. And Infinity Ward does not care.Mass multiplayer Server strike pending , read about it at iwnation.com/forums. I didnt buy it at amazon, but I believe that thier customers interested in buying this junk should be informed of the truth.If I was Amazon, I'd pull it from the shelves to avoid the inevitable angry customers.

Oh, and the single player is a joke. Too easy. Only gets one star for graphics...to bad they didnt attach that to a decent game.

do not buy call of duty 2

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 2 / 33
Date: December 13, 2005
Author: Amazon User

It costs to much and its very bad. Its to much like the last one and the graphics are terrible. there is only about 5 knew guns and they are all very similar, so if I were you I would not buy it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A total failure

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 2 / 8
Date: May 11, 2006
Author: Amazon User

I think I expected too much out of Call of Duty 2. I expected it to be playable. Sorry Activision but this game was a total flop. It is completely ridculous to have to have something more than a 256 MB nVidia 6800 and more than 2 GBs of Ram to play it a resolution greater than 1024x768. This game wasn't only a complete failure on the graphical front, but also on the fun front. It was a complete chore to play through the first few levels. What a waste of $50. Save it and buy something that is fun, like Call of Duty 1, Battlefield 2, or any of the other FPS games which are semi-decent.

Whats the point...?

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 1 / 41
Date: November 26, 2005
Author: Amazon User

This is just the same old game that you beat in two hours and then throw away... if you are so rich that you can throw 50 bucks off the window for 120 minutes of staring at a computer screen, go ahead... I know it's a contradiction to spend time in front of a computer screen writing a review to complain about how much a waste of time this game is, but hopefully, a few minutes of my time can save you 50 bucks.

CoD 2 is no UO, and that's the problem

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 1 / 5
Date: February 17, 2006
Author: Amazon User

This much awaited game is disappointing CoD fans worldwide. Beyond its demands on hardware, game play is tedious, maps are limited, and for multi-player no punk buster.

I have a VERY hi-perf system (Dell XPS 600) 2 gigs ram, dual 256 vid bds, and still the game lags in multiplay, while UO plays at 200 fps in highest settings.

This game is a BIG disappointment. Think carefully before buying.

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

Actions