Learn more Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Learn More Shop now Fitbit



There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on 12 November 2005
CoD was hailed as the best game of last year, and this year I think that CoD2 will grab the title once again. On first impressions, gamers will be amazed by the stunning graphics, real-life footage and attention to detail, which is an improvement on the previous.
Gameplay interaction has been improved, with tonnes of weapons and the facility to play multiplayer on-line is recomended for the more experienced gamer. The game is staged over certain campaigns of WWII starting in the U.S.S.R then into North Africa with the British, then France and Germany with the Americans. Each level of the game is challenging and diverse which will make it hard to realise that you do have a life away from your computer.
As an experienced gamer, I managed to complete the game in 3 days but dont be put off by the fact. I then tried it on the hardest setting and am finding it hard to get by the first campaign.
Who would I reccomend this game to? simple! every living organism on this planet with a pulse, who has access to amazon and who is over the age of 15 (15 age restriction) with a PC.
0Comment| 4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 16 November 2005
i played the first cod games and they were good..so i was looking forward to this game
the graphics have improved alot the characters look more realistic and the scenery is impressive..
the single player game is fun...you fight as russian american and british forces ..with large groups of soldiers doing small objectives ...its fun ...but not the best single player gameive played
well i enjoy online gaming..and the online cod 2 is great
the maps are superb ..the weapons are varied and offer different strengths and weaknesses...the game feels like a cross between enemy at the gate and saving private ryan[2 ww 2 movies]
it feels good and looks good..and is a blast to play
so by all means buy this game for its single player option...but its the online game that offers most pleasure
a good single player game....a great online game that will last
0Comment| 15 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 25 June 2006
OK, this game is amongst one of the best war shooters, but does not bring anything new into the big picture. Yeah, you get to garrisson massive gun emplacements to blow walls apart, but thats about it, other than a slightly new armoury. The thing I really enjoy about this game is how smart the AI is...For once there is a shooter in which you cant just walk up to a bad guy, line up on his head and squeeze off a few rounds all in a matter of minutes...COD2 requires you to interact more with your company and get into cover, or else be martyred. Also, unlike the choddy new war shooters (not naming any games here) like MEDAL OF HONOUR (especially the new ones) if you take a hit your camera doesn't wildly jerk around the screen like your character is on acid - yeah, this compromises how "realistic" the game is, but whatever....

All in all, a very cool game, but if your expecting a revolution in the COD series, don't. But I'd buy it anyway because it is very cool, and you can trust it to be a good shooter.
0Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
VINE VOICEon 4 November 2005
I don't usually put words in upper-case in my reviews, but I had to this time. I've been a long-time online FPS fan, right from the days of the first Doom, through Quake, through Medal of Honor, through Battlefield 1942/BF Vietnam, and Battlefield 2.
Recently, after a brief period out of the country, I got my broadband sorted and looked for something new. BF2 was the first, and disappointed in many ways. I won't waste this review on why! I then bought Day of Defeat: Source and was very pleased and got back into the zone of things. Troubles aside, it was very playable.
Then I bought Call of Duty 2. And I was astounded. My PC is up to spec, yet BF2 struggled to deliver. Day of Defeat: Source, looks great, yet falls down quickly on it's scope and unequal weapon classes (e.g, the M1 Garand is practically useless, whilst the Kar98 wehrmacht Rifle is a one-shot wonder to those who can aim). Having spent time in forums relating both to BF2 and DoD:S, I wondered what Call of Duty 2 could deliver.
It's awesome. It sounds good, it looks amazing, it is an inexplicable amount of pure fun. In my multiplayer sessions, sure, there were no vehicles. But the action was there, no framerate was dropped, and I racked up the kills. At the time I write this review, it has just been released so we were all "n00bs", so to speak.
One of the features I really liked was the KillCam. When you get killed by someone else, and are awaiting a respawn, you get the viewpoint of the guy/girl that took your life. Not only is this entertaining, but it is also educational as it clearly shows you where you went wrong in exposing yourself in such a way.
I've yet to fault this game, and the other games I mentioned above will be being un-installed for good. I've never had so much fun in an online game since Medal of Honor, which, prior to the release of this game, was what I considered the benchmark of Fun Online First-person-shooters.
EA needs to pay attention to what Activision has done with this game, because if they don't, they'll crumble.
In summary, if you like FPS, buy this game. Period. That's all :)
See you online!
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 8 November 2005
I thought Call of duty when it was released was great.
This title is great...But to be honest its much of the same again.Having gone through 3 levels i'm starting to get bored!
I know this is a war FPS but i cant help it!
They shouldnt call it call of duty 2 but sell it as an add-on to the first title. Sorry infinity but its just re-packaging the same old war title. F.E.A.R. blows this out of the water for originality and gameplay...........
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 19 November 2005
Ok, so im a FPS fan big time, but at the minute games have got just a litle dull ( bear in mind ive been playing for 15 or so years), and the genre just a little tedious. F.E.A.R offered some differences in the shape of improved AI and good graphics are always welcome.
Regardless i still find myself at times walking through games hoping for something to happen, doom 3 springs to mind.
This game has many competitors, world war 1 and 2 being the style of many games these days. Why i dont know. But just how good this game is is hard to explain.
Let me try. In any FPS you run around trying to shoot the enemy before they do you, usually let down by your squad (if any). No change here. The games are for the most part linear. No change here. And so on. But thats the problem this game does'nt do anything drastically different, it just does it better, much better.
We are talking, times when you so get panicked you just dont know where to turn, were talking great graphics ( by the way i have a gtx 7800, so bear that in mind), were talking frantic, mad, exillerating, fun. I find myself shouting at the screen for backup, which by the way appears to be different at sometimes( replaying the same scene differently brings different results from your squad).
And that is the best way i can describe it, fun, in a genre that is swamped, this game is so polished, so fun that i had to write the first review ive ever written.
P.S ive havent got around to the Multiplayer yet.
0Comment| 24 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 23 February 2006
I'm a big fan of first person shooters, especially WWII based ones. But sometimes a game falls far short of the hype and I fear that Call of Duty 2 is one those. I played and loved the original Call of Duty and bought the sequel because of that. Except for better graphics & scripting, there really aren't that many advances in game play to be found here.
Like its predecessor the in-game experience is more like a concentrated war flick than reality. The game contains three distinct campaigns where you play as a Russian, British or US soldier. The game itself borrows heavily from Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers and Enemy at the Gates. If you've seen any of those then you know what to expect. Let's not beat around the bush here, the Pointe Du Hoc level is such a blatant ripoff of Saving Private Ryan that it screams lawsuit. Despite the ripoff clichés throughout, the production is very high. For each campaign you unlock more levels as you progress. The graphics engine has obviously been overhauled and looks very nice. Some levels are very well designed and the detail in the soldiers and levels is excellent. But if you were expecting swaying trees, destructive scenery, doors that you can kick open, foot prints, gravity or anything else – forget it. The scenery is basically a maze to hem you into the level. Aside from scripted effects, and weapon pockmarks, your ability to interact with it is zero.
So the game is a lot more graphically advanced than its predecessor, but the “feel” of the game is virtually the same. Each level consists of a series of objectives which you must complete in order to finish it. While reaching for the objective, scripted events such as bombs go off around you, soldiers shout, and you hide behind walls fighting a machine gun nest or some other obstacle. Your fellow soldiers are pretty dumb although they do kill some enemy for you. The enemy themselves also suffer from spawn-itis, appearing from nowhere (often infinitely) until you overcome them. Once you do, you advance, trigger the next wave and repeat.
Some levels are extremely intense and well designed, others are boring invisible rail shooters. The best levels are those that open up a bit with several paths to the same objective, or where you must defend some position. But there are far too many levels where you plod from one crate to the next along a preset route. One Russian level actually has a visible rail - you must run the length of a field telephone cable which bizarrely goes down tunnels, over buildings and straight through numerous enemy emplacements en route! I wonder if the dev team put that in as a joke. You certainly won't be in any doubt where you are meant to go.
Multiplayer mode is actually distinct and IHMO much better than the single player game. I question if anyone used to Enemy Territory, America's Army or H&D2 would think that much of it but it is very well executed. I also witnessed some suspiciously accurate players through the player cam. No one is that good unless they are cheating. Perhaps they were since the game has no obvious cheat protection (e.g. Punkbuster).
Some other points about the game. It's very short and it won't take you more than 8 hours to finish it. Such an inadequate length screams “expansion pack”, but I won't be biting. The game also has some insidious bugs. There were a number of occasions where the script “stuck” midway or the save point never fired so that you couldn't advance or if you did you just died and kept on doing so forever. The only solution was to restart the level from scratch to fix the issue. Finally, why is there no German campaign? It's absurd to not include one even for reasons of political correctness.
So to wrap up. If you like arcade style WWII games with nice graphics where you don't mind walking the invisible line then you might like Call of Duty 2. For others, this game will feel old-fashioned despite its graphics. There is little strategy here, no depth. You point, shoot, move forward and repeat.
11 Comment| 31 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 10 November 2005
This game is excellent and deserves the 5* and is worth the money. It still has some of the old maps from the first call of duty but with up rated graphics and some have different names of towns but there are also loads more new maps. The people are also uprated and look more life like and the clothing is different and the sounds of the guns are amazing compared to the first game. The multiplayer is also just as good but seems to be missing the artillery strike when you score over 40 which is a shame and the promotion you get when you kill does no longer exist. To play this game you need some serious equipment the graphics card must be a good one or you will end up playing the game in 800x600 which is rubbish.... i have a 5900xt 1gig of ram and a 3200xp processor and that plays ok at 1024x786 with setting quite high, any higher and then i struggle but apart from that its brilliant.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 4 May 2009
Honbestly, this game is truly groundbreaking! Graphics are good, Gameplay is Brilliant. Theres nothing more that i can say, this is truley brilliant!! I would extremely recommend that you should buy it because you wont regret it! Online is very good as many people play this. there are plenty of servers where you could play on, very good weapons that you could use and even, believe it or not, there is a server in which you could play Zombies!
0Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
VINE VOICEon 29 January 2006
You have two sorts of games in life. You've got the freeform, do whatcha like kinda games: Battlefield 2. Operation Flashpoint. Then you've got the "on-rails", do what we tell you kinda games: Half-Life. Medal of Honor. COD2 falls firmly in the second category, you are but a mere spectator on a conveyor belt which takes you from start to finish.
There are some neat enough touches. Excellent use of grenades, best smoke grenades I've ever seen, sensible enough AI, three campaigns from different perspectives.
But what lets it all down is that the game gives you no reason to care. Say you kill an enemy. He'll be respawning in 10 seconds and you'll have to kill him again. Oops, your buddy's been shot. Don't worry, he'll be back in 10 seconds. You've been hit. Don't worry, you'll be fine in 10 seconds. So what you do in the game, the actions you take, have no real consequences. In a few "entrenched" scenarios, enemy advances stop when you kill enough waves of bad guys. Most of the time however the only way to force a retreat is to just charge in there. When you move to the right spot your buddies all suddenly materialise behind you and you move on to the next section. So what the game is saying is that it doesn't really matter what you do in this war; just walk along our conveyor belt and we'll show you some stuff.
Now you can say the same thing about plenty of games. Take FEAR for instance, very linear. But the bad guys are hard to kill, fighting is intense, the weapons are chunky, and there's a plot. All sadly absent in COD2. So what's the verdict then? For my money I preferred the original COD1 or Medal of Honour as at the time both games felt innovative. If you want an excellent squad-level WW2 game I'd recommend something a bit different, namely Soldiers: Heroes of WW2. It's actually a squad-level RTS which you can play as the Brits, Germans, or Americans. In that game though you'll get attached to every little detail and it provides enough structure to keep things moving, but allows you to devise your own ways of doing things.
Enemy entrenched in a building? Snipe him. Storm the building. Blow the supports and take down the balcony he's standing on. Drive a tank through the wall and blow the roof out.
You don't like too many choices? COD2 will push your buttons for a few hours, but really it belongs on a console.
0Comment| 22 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Questions? Get fast answers from reviewers

Please make sure that you've entered a valid question. You can edit your question or post anyway.
Please enter a question.
See all 2 answered questions


Need customer service? Click here

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)