User Reviews (1 - 11 of 71)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

Not even worth downloading the demo.

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 10 / 19
Date: October 15, 2004
Author: Amazon User

I really enjoyed Call of Duty. Unfortunately the same thing that makes the Medal of Honor (yet another WWII game) add-ons so awful and a complete waste of data makes this add-on to Call of duty so bad. You literally follow a path that can not alter in any way, or the game kills you. A mortar shell magically lands on your head if you don't follow a very linear set of orders in a set time allotment. There is no ability to find alternate solutions in a battlefield scenario (unlike the original game), your orders are just barked one after the other in rapid succession, and they sound very much like one of the developers just pulled them randomly from a hat full of ideas written by the neighbors kid (they have nothing to do with strategy in a battle). Essentially this one add-on has made me completely lose any interest I had in 'grey matter' the company that did the add-on (a long time ago they used to make great games when they were xatrix, that is definitely not the case anymore, they must not have any of the original developers), and I certainly am wary of anything from infinity ward if they have such low standards for their products while claiming they are 'commited to excellence'. Not even close guys, not even close.

Disappointingly SHORT!!!!!!!

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 7 / 15
Date: September 19, 2004
Author: Amazon User

All reviews before 9/16/2004 are worthless!

1ST of all, I don't know who these people are that post reviews before the game is even released but they should be completely ignored!!! Ego maniacs and know nothings wanting to prove they could do a review first I guess.

Basically, this is the same game you have come to love - COD but with new missions. Nothing is really mind blowing or must have about this expansion pack.

I bought this game on the 9/17/2004 at COMPUSA, installed it at 11PM on the 18th and within 4 hours on the 19th, I have finished the expansion pack.

I really feel ripped off. $30 down the tubes almost.

The missions are almost the same as before, infantry, blowing things up, driving a tank but some of the new battles are VERY fierce and challenging. You also get to play as a bomber gunner. There are some new weapons but nothing amazing. The flame thrower is cool but you really never get enough ammo or get the chance to use it under the right circumstances - like flushing out a bunker!!

The AI is the same. The graphics are the same. The mood/atmosphere is the same.
The missions are still VERY scripted. Your men will not move forward until you do, they get in the way and will not move and block your shots still! The tanks won't go forward until you take heavy machine guns out...even though the tanks should provide infantry with firepower!!!

Is this worth playing? YES. Is it worth $30.....barely.
I would have paid $50 if they had made it longer and more in depth. Why not? The engine is already developed, the bulk of the work is done, now all you have to do is build the levels. I mean...I was done in 4 hours, on the Veteran difficulty setting!!! If I had to choose between spending my money on DOOM 3 or this, I would choose COD:UO. DOOM 3 is scary and edgy...and that is all. After the first level or so, scary gets old and you start looking for a good gameplay. COD:UO might be short but atleast it was thrilling.

not as great as I would have thought

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 0 / 5
Date: April 11, 2005
Author: Amazon User

I love played WW2 games, and I loved CoD. The expansion pack, however, fell pretty short of my expectations. Everything is too scripted, the AI is more like Artificial UnIntelligence, the campaigns are too short.
If you loved call of duty, you might like CoD:UO if you can deal with the same old stuff. Cool weapons, and a really nice mulitplayer make it barely worth buying.

You need a $300 graphics card to play

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 3 / 9
Date: October 02, 2004
Author: Amazon User

While my amd 2400+ Ti4200 system has held its own through the original Call of Duty, this new expansion pack requires the newest, most expensive card to play it with good frame rates. It was choppy even at 640x480. Overall the game plays like all the worthless Medal of Honor expansions. Oh well, I guess there isn't a title they won't ruin in the name of profits.

The thing wrong w/ this game is

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 1 / 25
Date: January 08, 2005
Author: Amazon User

THE HOLE TIME. i am a very big fan of the call of duty games in fach i have the first one for my pc. A little latter on i bought the expasion 'united offensive' and i was dissopointed some of the things they added just ruend the game. i still love the call of duty games and will get all the expansions that come along but i hope theyle fix it later on

Too frustrating to be fun

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 0 / 1
Date: June 16, 2007
Author: Amazon User

Some levels are far too difficult to be fun even on the 'easy' setting--the Foy church tower comes to mind, among several others. It's a thin line between challenge and frustration. It's no fun to do the same levels over and over without result, and it should not be necessary to constantly use cheats to get through the levels.

Disappointing Mission Design

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 11 / 13
Date: October 12, 2004
Author: Amazon User

I really enjoyed COD and played it through several times. The missions in this expansion pack however seem overly scripted and frankly, poorly designed. It's as if the A team of level/mission designers was devoted to the new console version of the game, leaving United Offensive to the second string. Many of the missions are laced with hackneyed "sandwich" puzzles, where, to proceed you have to run around looking for the hidden bazooka or panzerfaust, and then return 3 and 4 times to the same place in order keep retrieving the same device (or ammo for it) in a frustrating exercise in tedium. If I wanted to play a cheezy puzzle game, I'd have bought Myst 12 or Kings Quest 53. Some missions are so poorly conceived that you end up back-tracking through half the level to talk to a guy who only tells you to pick up the documents in the room you've already searched, just in order for a new section to open up. Makes you wonder how well they tested the thing. Another mission leaves you with some guy yelling at you for "coordinates" without ever telling you how to find or convey such a thing.
All that said, COD United Offensive is still good fun. It's just not up to the level of the original when it comes to single player mission design.

A Lackluster Follow-Up

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 10 / 12
Date: November 04, 2004
Author: Amazon User

I wanted to like this game, I really did. I loved Call of Duty and played my favorite missions repeatedly. However, United Offensive just wasn't up to snuff, missing a lot of the flavor of the original game. As other reviewers have noted, single player missions are WAY too scripted - to a ridiculous extent. It's tiring, unimaginative, and not very challenging - as long as you hit the right waypoints in a mission, enemies magically appear, then stop spawning, often without reason. It lends a very artificial and mechanical feeling to the mission design, with little variation in tactical decisions (even so far as to end the mission when you 'fail to follow orders'). The AI has not improved at all (if anything, it's worse) and your own allies constantly get in your way, blocking shots, crowding the doorways. Some new weapons are cool, like the deployable light machine guns and you can cook grenades (not that the AI will ever throw them back), but these do little to compensate for the rest of the game's faults.

Doesn't live up to Call of Duty

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 6 / 7
Date: October 07, 2004
Author: Amazon User

I'm surprised the previous reviewers like UO so much. I thought CoD was one of the best WW2 FPS made yet and was looking forward to UO. Unfortunately I feel UO focuses far too much on scripted missions. You are forced into almost preset paths that do not allow for much variance. For example, one mission has you running across a bridge to attack a Tiger tank. You almost have to hit the various spots along the way on the nose or there is no way to successfully complete the mission. This leads to too many reloads and this detracts from the experience. I didn't get this sense from the original game.

Of course having said that some of the missions really are amazing and have you do some new stuff but the above points ruined a lot of the fun for me.

Good overall, but one shortcoming in Single Player Mode

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 5 / 6
Date: November 01, 2004
Author: Amazon User

I prefer to play single player for most of my computer games. I've had too many frustrating/bad experiences with online scenarios. CoD:UOEP is a little lackluster in the Single Player area. Why? One big reason--there are far too few missions. Everything else is fine--good action and overal game tactics/strategy effects, but I got through this game FAR to quickly. I also think that CoD:UOEP could have tried to have some more stealth based missions.
On the plus side, you get to use light machine guns, an interesting if at times cumbersome addition to the overall aresenal.

Review Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next 

Actions