PDA

View Full Version : [PC] Call of Duty 2 Review


thecrazyd
01-25-2006, 07:37 AM
A while back I said I would write a review for Call of Duty 2. I really wanted to do it because I feel strongly that this is a mediocre game that is only getting the attention it is because it is a 360 launch title, and one of the best games available. But then again, I find this a little hard to write, because I do not feel that strongly about the game itself. It is chocolate milk; hold the chocolate. It is a side of steak fries, with no steak. So bear with me here.

I want to start off by describing the average battle in CoD2. Basically what happens is you first walk around some forced corner, and see roughly five to ten Nazis behind cover. One is most likely manning a mounted machine gun. So, you run behind a convenient piece of cover, and shoot Nazis until they throw a grenade. One of your team mates yells “Grenade!” and you run in the opposite direction of the grenade indicator on your screen. Once the grenade explodes, you walk back over to your cover, and continue to shoot Nazis.

Now, you can do that all day if you like, but the Nazis will keep on respawning, so you will need to take some ground. At this point, you run forward to the next row of convenient cover. You may want to throw a grenade or something, but if you are playing on one of the harder difficulties, this is pretty useless, as you cannot burn grenades, and they will just chuck them back at you. Once you are at the next convenient row of cover, you shoot Nazis to thin them out a little (remember, they respawn), then charge their location. Congratulations, you have witnessed a Call of Duty 2 battle. Now, rinse and repeat for the rest of the game.

Note that I made no mention of your teammates in the description of the battle, besides that they occasionally yell “Grenade!” This is because your teammates are pretty much useless, with the exception of the aforementioned “Grenade!” yelling. They may kill the occasional bad guy, but for the main part they are just grenade yellers. They have pretty much no AI, and simply follow wherever you go. They hide behind the convenient cover, and take a couple of pot shots, but the odds of them actually killing someone are very low.

There are a couple of fairly memorable set pieces, but they are few and far between. Some of the forced ones are fairly stupid and annoying, such as calling out tanks for artillery to attack while a flood of Nazis are storming your location. But there are some decent moments. I hate to compare this to the original Call of Duty, but I feel it is really fitting in this case. I remember reading an interview before the original came out where a designer said they wanted to make the entire game as intense as the D Day scene in Allied Assault. In the original game, there were many parts where I feel they succeeded in that regard. CoD2 feels more like the rest of Allied Assault.

The controls are fine (with a little remapping) although, outside of multiplayer, the prone is totally useless. Come to think about it, the peeking around corners is pretty useless as well, but it is a move I like to see. There is no sprint. There is a separate key for throwing grenades, which I generally like, but I do not like how you cannot burn grenades.

Graphically, the game is alright. Much like the original, I do not feel strongly about it either way. They are definitely serviceable, and far from ugly, but nothing I haven’t seen before. The smoke is marvelous looking, but that is the only thing that really stands out.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I know this review sounds really negative, but I did like this game. I just do not feel it is special. It does nothing that has not been done before, and does not excel in any regards. It is just another solid FPS. I would recommend it to 360 owners, and people who really like FPS games. For everyone else, there are better choices available.

bapenguin
01-25-2006, 07:55 AM
I just finished the game last night on Veteran. I played about halfway through on the PC on normal difficulty before picking it up on the 360 and playing through. The game is completely different and a lot more rewarding on veteran.

The beauty in the game comes in the level design. I've been talking to a guy at work here about certain levels and how we did stuff, and even though the game is very linear, how you accomplish the stuff is very free flow. I'm not even talking about in the multiple objective missions, every mission just seems to have all these options for how you get to the objective point.

You are definitely correct about the gun fights, but really this is no different than any other FPS. Look at FEAR, a highly regarded FPS. Is it really anything different than enter a room, x amount of guys stroll in take cover and firefight commences. With the exception of the amazing elevator fight in that game, that pretty much sums it all up.

You sort of hint on the "cool" moments, but fail to mention quite a few good ones. The tank battles come to mind. Shooting down the planes with the AA gun. Riding through the town in the half-track. Sniping mortar teams on the silo. The Hill 400 mission by itself is absolutely amazing, especially the rush as you charge up the hill. Pointe Du Hoc was quite a lot of fun as well climbing the wall and working your way through the trenches.

My complaints about the game. The infinite respawn points on some levels of enemies which you mentioned. The incredible aim the enemy has with the MG42. The fact the enemy has infinite grenades and can literally toss them in your pocket on Veteran difficulty.

This is an above average shooter. It was getting a lot of praise before it was on the 360. GameRankings (http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/searchresult.asp?term=call+of+duty+2&itemid=921995) has it at 87% for PC and 91% for 360. I think the only downside to the PC version is it's quite the performance hog.

VoodooKarma
01-25-2006, 07:58 AM
Did you play this game on Normal or one of the harder difficulties? I really believe this game was meant to be played at at least the 'Hardened' difficulty. Those strategies you mentioned above for fights will not work in the harder difficulties, proper use of grenades (especially smoke grenades) is ESSENTIAL in the harder difficulties. And while your teammates are sometimes inept, they are also sometimes invaluable especially in clearing the ground floor of buildings. If you cover your teammates and allow them to get to a building intact, they will do a lot of the heavy lifting in clearing out buildings. Granted, they won't go upstairs for you but that is to be expected. More than a few times one of my AI teammates made a nice shot to save my ass.

thecrazyd
01-25-2006, 08:10 AM
Did you play this game on Normal or one of the harder difficulties? I really believe this game was meant to be played at at least the 'Hardened' difficulty.
I played on Hardened. I started playing on Veteran, but gave up. That is another thing that annoys me. Normal mode should not be insanely easy.
The beauty in the game comes in the level design.
I will have to disagree with you there. While I did enjoy that there were multiple ways around some areas, I found it to be mostly pretty straight forward. Not nearly as awesome or varied as FEAR. Which brings me to another point. FEAR does far more with a couple of office buildings then CoD2 does with the whole of WW2. While FEAR did not have as many divergences, I believe that they had every fight perfectly set up to be awesome. They made good use of a fairly smart AI. The CoD2 AI pretty much just stays behind cover and throws grenades.

I think the linearity can allow a tighter design. Sure, you are going through a set path, but they can keep more control and be sure that what you are seeing on that path is awesome. That is how the original handled things, and I found those battles to be far more intense and focused.

bapenguin
01-25-2006, 08:20 AM
I will have to disagree with you there. While I did enjoy that there were multiple ways around some areas, I found it to be mostly pretty straight forward. Not nearly as awesome or varied as FEAR. Which brings me to another point. FEAR does far more with a couple of office buildings then CoD2 does with the whole of WW2. While FEAR did not have as many divergences, I believe that they had every fight perfectly set up to be awesome. They made good use of a fairly smart AI. The CoD2 AI pretty much just stays behind cover and throws grenades.

Talk to other people that have played the game. Talk about specifics on how they moved through areas. You'll find there's a lot more to the game than you realize. I really thought it was very linear as well until I started reading some stuff on forums and talking with a few people.

I'll agree with you on the AI, they rarely do anything special in Call of Duty, especially compared to FEAR.

thecrazyd
01-25-2006, 08:25 AM
Talk to other people that have played the game. Talk about specifics on how they moved through areas. You'll find there's a lot more to the game than you realize. I really thought it was very linear as well until I started reading some stuff on forums and talking with a few people.

I'll agree with you on the AI, they rarely do anything special in Call of Duty, especially compared to FEAR.
Doing things different is not too exciting if the differences are only if you walk on path A or path B. I do see what you are saying, I just don't think the divergences matter if it just means you are shooting the same guys from a different angle.

bapenguin
01-25-2006, 08:45 AM
Doing things different is not too exciting if the differences are only if you walk on path A or path B. I do see what you are saying, I just don't think the divergences matter if it just means you are shooting the same guys from a different angle.

Let look at the last mission in Caen as an example. Where you have to take the german building E. There's a building broken building in front of you, a large wall that surrounds the base as well. There's a building to the left of the base as well. The entire building is also surrounded by a picket fence. You are told to flank the building.

I kept trying to flank right, cut along the high wall, smoke the cross fire work up to the building and get in the back doors. This way is perfectly acceptable and in fact on the GameFAQs walkthrough is how they tell you to do it. You teammates follow you, they set up in specific areas and know where to position themselves.

You can also flank to the left though and take the small building next to it. There actually a checkpoint in that building at the top. Then you can move around the back of the house and basically do the same thing, but what's different is you have the high ground and don't need to smoke to cover because of the short distance. Again your teammates follow you and take up specific points for covering fire and capturing locations.

I just think the game offers a lot more than it appears at first impression. It's probably why the developers chose to give the majority of the achievement points for playing through on Veteran. That's probably the way the game was designed to be played, but they wanted to keep it accessible to everyone thus including the lower difficulty.

thecrazyd
01-25-2006, 09:09 AM
Did you play the original, bap?

bapenguin
01-25-2006, 09:21 AM
Did you play the original, bap?

Yeah on PC.

thecrazyd
01-25-2006, 09:23 AM
How did you think the sequel held up? I thought the original had a larger scale and was far more intense.

The Iron Weasel
01-25-2006, 09:31 AM
How did you think the sequel held up? I thought the original had a larger scale and was far more intense.

I respectfully disagree. I thought that the levels in CoD2 were much larger. I'm not sure if thats what you ment by larger scale. But for me personally, no game has come close to the intensity of Hill 400 for me.

bapenguin
01-25-2006, 10:52 AM
How did you think the sequel held up? I thought the original had a larger scale and was far more intense.

Well...I think the battle scenarios for the first one were a much larger scale. Not many people have hard of some of the stuff chosen for CoD 2 which was a bit more low key. The battles in CoD 2 were more squad vs squad as opposed to company vs company based.

But I think both games complement each other nice. The Stalingrad mission from the first CoD is still the best by far. Hill 400 runs a close second though.

thecrazyd
01-25-2006, 05:53 PM
Well...I think the battle scenarios for the first one were a much larger scale. Not many people have hard of some of the stuff chosen for CoD 2 which was a bit more low key. The battles in CoD 2 were more squad vs squad as opposed to company vs company based.
More like squad vs infinite supply of Nazis. Maybe it is just a preference, but I did not like the small battles. I loved the original because everything was massive. I expected bigger and better out of the sequel, not smaller and worse (in my opinion, as justified by my post). It is far from a bad game, and I tried to keep comparisons to the original out of the review, as it is really not fair to the game, but the limitations kept it from being great in my mind. This is the kind of game I will forget about in a couple of years. Solid, but unremarkable.