User Reviews (81 - 91 of 255)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

GREAT!

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 3 / 5
Date: December 04, 2003
Author: Amazon User

Call of Duty is by far the BEST WW2 or any other war pc game so far. Actually I think it's better that Counter Strike. The maps, the graphics, the action is the best ever.
Better than Battlefield 1942, Medal of Honor, Wolfenstein,Ghost Recon, Blackhawk Down, Rainbow Six 3, Tactical Ops, and all the others.
Activision should be proud that they have put out such a great grame. Thanks

Overrated

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 3 / 5
Date: March 18, 2004
Author: Amazon User

I bought this game thinking it would be another Battlefield 1942. I was wrong though however. Like others have said, it is scripted. I wanted a game with unpredictable AI, and this game is very predictable. It reminds me of the James Bond games and there is even a high speed chase in this game which to me is stupid for a WWII game. I feel Activision is trying to cash in on the WWII FPS fad that is going on right now. This game is just a clone of the MOH:AA.

The only positive thing I liked about this game is the graphics.

Also the multiplayer sucks! The maps are very small and the guys run like they are always trying to do the russian dance of joy.

To sum this game up: very overrated!

Amazing graphics and storyline

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 3 / 5
Date: October 22, 2004
Author: Amazon User

I'm not a huge game player (mostly because I don't have the time). The last games I were addicted to were SimCity, Alpha Centuri and Ages of Empires which all are more of the stratagy type (as opposed to games were lots of dexterity are required).

That said, I really got into this game and enjoyed the combination of arcade type shooting with the stratagy required to solve problems and work through mazes.

To move through each level you have to work with team mates (computer controlled in the sp mode which is all I've played) to reach an objective. To get there you have to use different weapons, sometimes a machine gun, sometimes a sniper rifle and you have to take certain routes.

I'm going to say the downside to the game is that once you've gone through all the levels all you can then do is work on them in a higher degree of difficulty (I've only played on the lowest level, because as I said, I don't play these types of games often.

One good thing about this game is that it didn't take too long to figure out how to play and how the controls worked, but that didn't mean it was an "easy" game, I still found it quite challenging and fun.

AI is horrible, not realistic, but a fun game.

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 3 / 5
Date: August 05, 2006
Author: Amazon User

Personaly I feel Medal of Honor was better constructed. Medal of Honor has way better squad AI and the game flows better. It's also a bit more exciting. Nothing beats the Omaha beach mission.

Now for Call of Duty. DONT LISTEN TO ANYONE WHO SAYS THE AI IS GOOD. The squad AI is the worst I've ever seen. My advice to anyone who wishes to stay alive is to lead your squad-mates to their deaths before they kill you. And never listen to anything they tell you to do. Examples of how bad the AI is.
-Your squad-mates will ignore enemies who are right in front of them.
-They'll yell grenade when an enemy throws one but instead of running away they'll duck down right next to it and blow up.
-They'll shoot endlessly at an enemy but will never hit them.
-They never EVER cover you when you need them to. For instance when your on an AA cannon, your leader will be yelling at you to fire down planes, but your squad mates wont cover you from ground troops and you end up getting shot to death... repeatedly.
-They'll yell, "Get down", or "look out" for no reason at all.

The list goes on and on, it's really very bad. Again, TERRIBLE AI.

On the plus side, the graphics are great, the sounds are good, and the missions are fun. You play the roles of a Russian, Brit, and American which makes it a little more interesting... although doesn't really flow. One minute your a Russian, next minute your an American, and so on. There's nothing to really tie the missions together.

All in all I would say it's well worth the money, but Medal of Honor was far more exciting and original.

Fun, but no medal of honor

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 2 / 3
Date: November 11, 2003
Author: Amazon User

This game is not worth the $50.00 that activision is asking for it. It lacks the crispness and detail of MOH titles. It is far to busy for my taste, i.e. life packs scattered all over, your squad mates running each way, being able to run up to a door and have it automatically open, furthermore, I don't like the way the german soldiers die after you shoot them. You don't here or see the impact of the bullet. I think activision needs to tone down their rhetoric in making statements that Call of Duty will make WWII gamers forget about MOH. They should rather focus on game improvement. When I play it and get through a campaign, I feel like I just finished a level of pacman. You lured me once, you won't lure me again!!!

A Must Have Game for War Gamers and FPS Fans

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 2 / 3
Date: November 20, 2003
Author: Amazon User

The second you turn this game you are absorbed into its amazing game play. The auto-run menu is the nicest I have ever seen. When you start off the American campaign, you are alone and scared, luckily you aren't expected to do much. The game starts off slow but quickly gains speed when the airdrop starts. Playing thru Call of Duty is like reliving "Saving Private Ryan" and "Enemy at the Gates."
The American campaign is squad based combat missions and it includes a action packed ride in a French "tin can" thru German lines. If you loved the squad based action then you won't be too happy with the British campaign, though you do start off with a squad you quickly loose them and work thru half the campaign alone. However, even though you are alone you aren't expected to accomplish things that a whole army couldn't usually do. Then you reach gaming AI heaven when you reach the Russian campaign, I don't want to give too much away about this part of the game except that be ready to run and "Not one step back."
Over all, the single player is very worth while and might be worth buying the game on its own over. However, the game doesn't last long, it's only 8 hours in length, it seems much shorter because you can't stop playing.
After you're done with single player you will want to try your hand online with 64 other players. This is where the game really shines. The online game play really focused on team work, and you will notice that when playing there are a few players who will be barking orders, and guess what people follow them. The online is like a new counter strike. The game offers various modes of game play, such as the "Search and Destroy" which is like counter strike, in which you have to place a bomb on the objective. Then there is the usual death match and team death match. Also there is a new mode called "Behind Enemy Lines," which you have to play to understand.
Now to get to the bad stuff, there is nothing bad in single player except that it is too short. The multiplayer is extremely off balanced, you will hear people complaining that there are too many snipers, which there are, the game prides itself on realism but doesn't limit the number of positions, which the CoD team are planning to do. Other than that the only complaint I have is that some people are smacktards and don't use team play, and because of them we loose, but when u get a few of your friends just hook up Roger Wilco and you should be good.
Overall this is a must have game for any fan of war games or first person shooter. If you don't have the internet or only 56K I wouldn't bother getting it only because there isn't too much value to be gained from it. If you have cable, run out and get it.

It's OK

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 2 / 3
Date: November 22, 2003
Author: Amazon User

I neither love nor hate this game. It's not the type of game you can play for hours and hours and forget about time. As fun as certain scenes in the game can be, others you just want to get past as soon as possible. The game play is fun, but it's your typical 1st person shooter: fast-paced but little strategy involved. Being the Russian soldier is funner than the American or British. If you enjoy 1st person shooters, you will enjoy this game. If you prefer more strategy-based games, look elsewhere.

Call of Duty more realistic

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 2 / 3
Date: January 13, 2004
Author: Amazon User

In so many first person shooters, the enemy is a gaggle of moronic automatons. Cover is their bane; they rush out from behind walls and from under bushes firing their guns into the air and screaming a bloody warcry. Scores of their ilk are mown down in action hero cinema. None of their bullets hit true, they run into fists and occasionally they've been known to perform gymnastics after being blown into the air by a fragment grenade. My friends had a name for these guys: scum-guards. Their only purpose in life is to die for the hero. I mention this because a few elements of Call of Duty impressed me. In this game, you won't make it as a 'bug-hunter'. Think William Dafoe doing his jaunt through the jungle at the end of Platoon- the scene where he haphazardly rampages through enemy lines, killing twenty guys in two minutes. That strategy will not cut the mustard in this game. The enemy knows how to take cover, and he knows where you are after you've peeked around a corner. If he has a large caliber mounted machine gun, you'll get a heavy spray of lead directed at you that almost seems to chip away at the wall you're hiding behind, making you back further away from the edge. Also, the enemy will rush you if he's close enough and start hammering on you with the butt end of his rifle. The one trick they haven't learned from Medal of Honor is to pick up the grenade you just threw and toss it back in your direction. But lets face it- grenades were totally useless in Medal of Honor. Here they will kill the enemy- they seem to have a greater area of damage and the enemy doesnt panic their way out of rooms as fast. Also, I don't know what kind of breakaway plaster they were using in Medal of Honor, but in this game a few well placed shots will take you out of the action quick. The enemy can shoot and their bullets hurt. A few other nice touches are the moments of shell shock, when a mortar lands too close to you, and of course the last scenario, when you play a poor Russian peasant being ferried across the river to Stalingrad. It's the best survival horror I've seen in a video game aside from the Omaha beach landing in Medal of Honor. Stalingrad is a wreck, the mood is visceral and dirty and the ground looks cold. This is a great addition to what is becoming a very interesting sub-genre. In six years or so, when a few more leaps in graphics capability have been reached, you're going to see a game that will do this even better: steaming breath, splashes of mud, clouds darkening the sky, crawling wounded- the works. But this will do for now.

Good Gameplay/ Short Playing Time

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 2 / 3
Date: January 20, 2004
Author: Amazon User

The gameplay fells average, just like the "on a track" feel of Medal of Honnor Allied Assault. Not much space to improvise or take another aproach. Just do "that" and lets go to the next level. The sound and graphics are very good, nothing new but really pleasant with attention to detail. There's no "Use" button, you can not open doors or drive vehicles. The movement is slow, no mather how you are aiming. The best aspect of this game is that,for some times, you can feel very inmersed in the story and in the "war" that is going on around you. The multiplayer option needs more development. My biggest complain is the time for completing it. Terribly short time, I finished in TWO days. For a game on this price there are other options in this particular genre (First person) that have a more value for money (Ex. Return to Castle Wolfestein or No One Lives Forever). Get it if you can buy it used for a very low price, but paying more than $40.00 for it is not very wise.

Call of Duty, another WWII game that wins the jackpot!

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 2 / 3
Date: December 08, 2006
Author: Amazon User

Call of Duty is a WWII game that takes you around Europe in an anti-Nazi shoot-em up. In the game, you play an American private named Martin, Sgt. Evans of the British, and a Russian sniper, which is a pretty good mix of historical accuracy.

Positive: Apart from killing Nazi's there is lack of swearing, no fear of F-bombs, and Rambo is not welcome. In Battlefield 1942, you had "Springtime for Hitler" Germans who run around shooting for no reason. In Call of Duty, you had some Germans that acted like real people. Please note that the thrill of the kill can be exciting and damaging at the same time.

Negative: Mild language creeps up in this game. Apart from that, the Russians are cruel and though you don't see it, they shoot a deserter which is not a kiddie scene.

Conclusion: Call of Duty is the best WWII game I've played so far. I recommend it, although you should be at least a mature 12+ to play the game.

Review Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next 

Actions