Most helpful critical review
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful
Same old, Same old...............
on 15 December 2005
Had I been writing this a few years ago I would have had no hesitation in awarding Call of Duty 2 a full five star rating. Call of Duty 2 is a competent WWII shooter, more Competent than the last two installments of the MOH franchise and for a long time, since the appearence of Call of Duty (I'm sure I speak for most gamers) I have been looking to Call of Duty to pick up the baton which MOH dropped when Rising Sun was released. I can't help but feel a little dissapointed though that COD2 has failed to build on what was a good platform. Most of the innovations (gun sighting etc) have become standard in WWII shooters, as have machine guns, flak guns and artillery pieces. These are all again included in the package but the envelope pushing seems to have ground to a halt. The only new feature I have come across so far is the level where you are a gunner/bombadier aboard a flying fortress, and this felt like a pointless side show, only being tenuously linked to the main plot. The plot itself is non-existent with you simply being a soldier campaigning with the 1st US infantry, no playing as a British or Russian soldier as in COD1. Another bugbear of mine is your squad-mates. These too have become standard issue in WW2 shooters and can vary between being an integral part of the game (Brothers in Arms) or more often just a nuisance. In COD2 you are unable to command your squad and they conform to the latter, infuriatingly frequently getting in the way of your line of sight so you have to move to a more exposed position.
All in all COD2 feels more like an expantion pack, something like GTA london was to GTA1 and not a sequel. COD2 feels tired compared to games like Brothers in Arms, even the levels have become monotonous, beaches, hangers and warehouse/supply depots. One WWII shooter too many for the PS2, Time to move on to the next gen.