Call of Duty 2

"A small step backwards"

With the success of Call of Duty, and its expansion, it was a given that there would be a sequel. The sequel is just as much fun as the original on all forms. However, while there are some improvements, the game also holds more issues.

Graphics
The graphics are a huge improvement from the original, very pretty. The models are also great. These graphics come at a high price, however. The game does have high requirements, but unlike the original where the minimum requirements were more than enough, in this game the minimum will only allow you to play at the lowest settings. Honestly, I played the game on medium settings, and only experienced slow-downs just as a huge battle was starting. Yes, it was noticeable, but it did not really hinder my game-play much. For those that find that unacceptable, just run at a lower setting, the game still looks great.

Sound
First, I must remind everyone of my personal grudge, Russians don't talk to each other in English with a Russian accent. They talk to each other in RUSSIAN. One of my relatives by marriage is from the Ukraine, and she confirmed this. There should at least be an option to have them speak Russian or English, that way everyone can choose if they want to go authentic or not.

Other than that, the sounds are great. The German voices are done well; the battle sounds are as real as you would like them to be. Other than the Russians that speak English, there is nothing to complain about.

Controls
First Person Shooter controls the entire game. One thing that was a step-back is that in this game you can't “cook” the grenade. That was a nice little feature in the Expansion pack. It's a shame it was not carried over. The only difference you will find in controls is when you get to drive the tank. Even then, if you are familiar with WSAD you should have no problem.

Game play
Once again, there are ups and downs, but let's start with the ups. First, there isn't a single mission in this game that could be considered slow or boring, buy any stretch of the imagination. There were a few levels that were slow to start in the first game, but in this one, every level is fast paced action. Second, this game comes much closer to the goal of giving you the “feel of the battle” than the first. There were both American and British levels that had you advance with tanks. This lets you feel more like a team. Instead of you as part of a squad, and slowly advancing at your own pace, you have to duck behind tanks while you advance, or get shot. Finally, you now can throw smoke grenades. This adds a whole new level of game play, if you can use them wisely. There really is no such thing as not enough cover in this game. If you have to charge down a narrow street with nothing to hide behind, throw some smoke. The smoke is a very nice touch to this rather intense game.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of downs to the game play. First, maybe the levels are a little too intense, because most of them last about 5 minuets. Sure they are fun, but some levels end just as you are getting your adrenaline pumped up. So the 20 levels or so that are part of the game go by very fast. I finished in about 6 hours on Normal difficulty. Hard difficulty will provide much more of a challenge however. Second, your teammates still follow you, and wait for your initial charge before advancing. This was a huge problem with the first Call of Duty. In the second one, they made it better, but its still noticeable. You are the one who has to advance or else the Germans just keep re-spawning and your team never moves forward. Thirdly, while the AI has not changed much, there are still too many scripted scenes. The only real advancement in the enemy AI is that they pickup and throw back grenades more often.

While it is possible to complain about the lack of variety in the levels, the fun factor is just as high in the last level as it is in the first one. It would have been nice to have either longer levels, or a few more, because the game just goes by way to fast if you play on Normal. One last issue is that the smoke grenade just seems like a rip-off of RTCW: Enemy Territory, although, it is good to finally use it in a single player environment.

The multi-player is more or less the same as the first game. If you liked the multi-player from the first Call of Duty, you should like it for this game. If not, then this game probably won't catch your interest. Personally, I don't think the multi-player was that great, but many other people do, and there really isn't any reason for me to call it bad. So give it a try.

Overall, it seems like this came could be following the path of Tomb Raider in terms of quality. The first game is considered great and very innovative, yet that innovation is now expected in the sequels, and people are not as impressed. That is more or less the feeling that you get from this game. Sure, it's a great game in its own right, but it really just seems more like an add-on to the original, rather than a full sequel. In fact, United Offensive, made by a different company, seemed more like a sequel than this game. In fact, there were a lot of things from United Offensive that I was hoping for in this game, and that did not happen. UO had much longer levels, not so with this game. UO gave you the option to “cook” a grenade, which you need to do in this game cause the enemy throws it back at you, but you can't. The UO level design in general was better, but apparently Infinity Ward did not even look at Grey Matters notes.

Infinity Ward had some great idea's for the first Call of Duty, but now they need to come up with some new ones, or at least make the games last a little longer. Whether they adding a new country into the campaign, or put in some more game play elements, they will need some new ideas soon or else the next Medal of Honor game will blow it away. As it stands, this is a very nice game on its own, and you should get it if you were a fan of the first one. However, to get your money's worth, you will need to enjoy the multi-player, as the single player is over quickly.

Reviewer's Score: 7/10, Originally Posted: 01/27/06