Call of Duty 2
Ever since Call of Duty, we’ve been seeing WW2 first person shooters growing by the bushes. However, none of those have managed to even come close to the singleplayer experience that CoD provided. The most intense WW2 FPS ever has returned! But should we be happy with that?
We all know that Call of Duty was great. It provided one of the most intense environments ever to be seen in a Wold War 2 first person shooter and added to that an almost perfect multiplayer part. Everybody was happy and playing at full speed and the expansion pack that was released a bit later only added to the fun.
Now, Call of Duty 2 has arrived and everyone’s expectations are of course very high. Can the sequel match its older brother not only graphically but especially on gameplay? The answer, my friends, is yes and no.
First off, let’s start with singleplayer. Again we get three campaigns; one Russian, one British and one American. Unfortunately, all three were finished after a measily 6 hours and I’m not even pretending to be a fantastic player.
Ok, now that I’ve said that, let’s look at some more things to comment: after having played F.E.A.R. I was hoping for some decent A.I. but Infinity Ward apparantly doesn’t have the skills for that (or they haven’t had the time, that’s also a possibility). Don’t think you’ll see Germans running away or hiding from you. They just stay at their place and the only thing that makes it “difficult” is that they’ll keep getting reinforcements until you decide to go on a suicide run and start shooting them in which case the rest of your team will follow and shoot those you didn’t manage to kill yourself.
After a while it becomes pretty repetitive: throw a smoke grenade followed by a frag grenade, start running towards the enemies, shoot on sight and get the rest of your guys to clean up after you.
The multiplayer part in the original game was fantastic (especially Search&Destroy). The maps were perfectly balanced, the weapons were terrific and there was little to improve. So what does CoD2 offer? The same maps but a bit altered to make them a bit more tactical and a couple of new ones that originate from the singleplayer campaign(s). One can say “never change a winning team”, but on the other hand there’s also a saying that goes like this: “change of spice makes one eat”.
Not all is bad though. The graphics have improved and things look better than ever (although they can’t match up with F.E.A.R.). The addition of the smoke grenades is also a very nice touch that comes in handy for the multiplayer part, and to be honest: I’ve never seen smoke this realistic in any game yet.
The soundtrack is typically CoD which means you’ll have bullets flying all over the place and creating a frantic atmosphere where getting a shot in the head is just a corner away.
When comparing with the original Call of Duty, the only thing that hasn’t improved is the length of the singleplayer campaign. However, CoD was released two years ago and next to a graphical upgrade and a couple of new multiplayer maps alongside the addition of the smoke grenades, there’s little inventive or really new to the series.
Call of Duty 2 doesn’t feel like a new game but a mod with highly enhanced graphics and that’s exactly what people will buy it for: a great multiplayer experience with better graphics, the same popular maps from the original but slightly altered to make them even more intense, a couple of new maps, and the addition of the smoke grenades that makes things a bit more strategic.
As final word I would like to say the following: If you’re into multiplay, CoD2 delivers what you expect. If you want to get your value from the singleplayer part however, CoD2 clearly disappoints on both the length and the A.I.