Call of Duty 2: A Review

Eyes bloodshot and palms sweating, the Thompson in my shaking hands rattles as I riddle my foes with lead. My brow constantly gives birth to a swarm of sweat, and my elbows are sore from the constant rubbing against the armchair. Teeth clamped together but lips open, I show all signs of focus, wanting and a drive for power. I must be victorious, I must make progress, I must--, ffpt ffpt ffpt! Three bullets?! I’m dead?! This is no hero’s death. I.... Has that much really changed since the second world war, to a third? I grip the banner that stands tall with my bloody hands, remaining loyal to difficulty and the thrill of the kill at all times. My ears are ringing with the constant cries of children, cheering each other on such an easy kill. I am living in the past, but dying slowly in the future.

It’s not rare that I give one of the last Call of Duty games so much credit. Indeed, this was the last official CoD game before it was renamed to Generic Cashcow by other developers who could get the license. This was the final game to be based around World War 2 before Activision fully took over, and was the final game to feature the English/Scot (oddly enough no Irish or Welsh) soldiers, because according to Activision, we didn’t fight WW2. But let’s look past racism and stereotypical Russian accents, I want to talk about one of the greatest shooters ever known, and an underrated classic which had many things that were abused in future games.

At the time, many shooters like Medal of Honour and Call of Duty were at each other’s throats with the whole WW2 theme. Missions were varied, but the formula had been done to death and variation was needed. While CoD was years later than the founding fathers of present-day-based FPS games (Goldeneye being the most recognizable, and Perfect Dark not long after to make its stand), it is still seen as one of the greats. As per usual, the stories would focus entirely on the Americans in Normandy, the British forces of El Al’amain (apologies for the spelling there) and the Russian rebels restoring order to Stalingrad. As always, it would focus on winning the battle but not the war, because they tried to keep the game realistic. In all honesty, they did just that - there were few scenarios when you thought “that’s impossible”, and missions actually felt like you were doing something for the war effort - from raiding a house to fixing telephone wires, you knew you were helping push the Nazis out of the country. Players would start with a tutorial as the Russians, then there’d be a few missions from their nationality, then a few from another, then back to the Russians, then another, and so on. The characters were memorable, and players would do everything in their power to prevent them from dying (I found myself reloading saves a lot of time in order to save Pvt. Imsupposedtodieanyway), as we develop a good relationship with the soldiers very quickly - a sign of an excellent game.

Unlike GCC: Modern Warfare 2, this game has class and doesn’t nerf itself for anyone. The game wasn’t patched during online multiplayer and didn’t need to be, as there were few exploits that bothered anyone, and if you couldn’t kill someone, it was obviously your own fault. The same applies to single-player - veteran difficulty is for veteran gamers, not those who started with CoD4 and claiming to be “l33t skillz br0”.The game is extremely easy on its first two difficulties, but you really see a difference in Hardened mode and certainly towards the final one.

Control is average and uses the same scheme as before. Because Call of Duty 2 is on a different console though, the layout may have changed and possibly thrown several gamers off due to it being new. Aiming is always on easy-mode, as instead of clicking the right stick like a half-decent shooter, players merely need to hold down the trigger for easiness. There’s three modes for position - standing for full movement speed but highest visability, crouch for slower movement but excellent for cover and finally prone, which gives the slowest speed but much harder to hit and see. The average kill on CoD2 takes around 3-5 bullets, maybe more (especially from a handgun) on most difficulties. If you’re lucky enough to get a headshot, your enemy may not die due to wearing a helmet which’ll get shot off (but they give a funny animation by looking around for it, then back at you), but it’s much better than RAGE’s idea of headshots (even without armour, enemies won’t die in one hit, as if headshots are merely an inconvenience to them). Depending on what difficulty you’re on, it’ll take several hits before you get the red screen on death. On Veteran difficulty, it only takes 1-2 hits before you get the red screen - one more hit and you’re dead, back to the checkpoint. Final point on combat would have to be melee - it’s not a knife; you don’t go zooming towards your target and slightly jab them or slice your enemies with it. Melee kills can take up to three hits for a kill by using the butt of your gun. If you don’t like this, play CoD: WaW where you can upgrade to the bayonet. Enemies can attack much faster with this though.

The multiplayer is simply wonderful - no sprint, no XP, no accolades, no perks, no awards and no deathmatch if it’s objective based. It’s near-perfect. Kills take a while to get, as players always have a chance of running (and jumping comically) to get away, but you can still get them in the next two or so hits. There’s nice little hidey-holes for snipers to go into prone and shoot from, and for that matter, the game has many opportunities to use crouching and prone cover. On open maps, the Sniper Rifle is your best choice, but you can’t go wrong with a Trench Gun or MP40 at times. If the game’s got 8 or 2 people in it, players can still have a great deal of fun because there are no limits, nor too few. I remember the glory days of when myself and a good friend would play 2v2 repeating the same thing over and over again, but it would be fun at the same time - it was difficult and we did learn a lot, honing our skills for when the video game crash was later to come. An excellent game where players can always find new areas to kill, instead of the latest trend of “fight for this one spot or die trying”.

It’s no lie that the graphics are terrible, but to a critic like me, I could ask for nothing less than what I’m seeing. Call of Duty 2 is an excellent example of just how good a game can be when you focus less on the art, and more on the control, soundtrack, community and the facts. The game is bloody, but you won’t see limbs flying like World at War, but it’s enough to know that you’re at least hitting your enemies and killing them for good. The environments can lack textures at times, but this was the early age of shooters on next-gen consoles, and it wouldn’t be until later before Call of Duty could prove it’s graphical capabilities. Even then, it was still ultimately beaten by major players such as Battlefield (an example of two wrongs don’t make a right - in this case, those wrongs being non-engaging story and fancy graphics) and Perfect Dark Zero (despite it being an earlier release, it still beat CoD’s graphics by miles).

As for the soundtrack, there’s few that can compete. Just listening to the Russian story music really makes you feel victorious at the end of each mission, making you feel that it you’re making progress and even a name for yourself. Whenever you charge with your comrades, whenever you’re being flanked, whenever the odds seem impossible, know that the soundtrack is playing to motivate you, to empower you. If you go down, at least go down fighting whilst listening to the music on full whack - I dare you not to!

Call of Duty has to be one of the greatest underrated console games I’ve ever played. The single-player story is engaging and makes you feel like you’re in control; the co-operative oppurtunities give both players chance to work together as a team; and finally the multiplayer makes you remember the good old days of FPS games, and for every frag you bag, every bullet fired, every breath taken, you’re making the good ol’ FPS heart beating. It’s how you roll.

Yet all good things must come to an end, as the series ended with Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. A new series dawned and blinded gamers with a dazzling light, making sure they couldn’t see the glorious past. There will always be tough times in the gaming industry, and for each of them we’ve always thought, “is this the end of video games”? This time, it could damn well be. What other genres can we turn to? Maybe we need to unite and actually think, instead of letting developers reimagine all the classics. Look at Nintendo and SEGA - writhing in agony, trying desperately to survive but they simply cannot compete. It’s time for new competition, a new predator to enter the fray and see who will become the dominant species.

So now it’s time for scores, and I have to honesty say that this game deserves an extremely high 8/9. Why 9? Because 10 is overrated and 11 has been coined by TGWTG.com. Call of Duty is no doubt an extremely addictive game and doesn’t stop for anyone or anything, earning the “More bang for your buck” award. Because it’s an oldie, you can probably get it for around £5 (I’m guessing $7) at its cheapest, but it’s totally worth the price paid. You don’t have to agree with the points I’ve made, so feel free to share your views below - remember, be constructive and I’ll be sure to give you a good argument!