This game is even worse than Modern Warfare 3.

The Story is that After Mason and Woods failed to stop Raul Menendez in the first Cold War, David Mason has to stop him during the second Cold War. This story could have been interesting, especially since it has multiple choices that can lead to different endings, and in Level 2 shows great commentary on a superpower's reliance on foreign nations, and Menendez' plan to get captured to use a hidden device inside his shoot up eye socket to take control of the drones was a genius one. But the story is so broken, I am surprised no one else has brought most of these problems out. In level 1: They bring back Woods and Kravchenko from the dead, despite the fact that Hudson in the first game said that Mason's team killed Kravchenko, that Woods and Bowman were both killed "which he wouldn't say if he didn't find their dead bodies, that this game says wasn't there" and bringing back Kravchenko undoes Alex's triumph for Reznov at the end of the first game. The Opening cinematic lies to you with moments that may happen or not depending on your choices "Alex's head not having a bullet in it, or Defalco being in Level 13". Then you go on a mission to save Woods from a container that he has been in for weeks with no food or water, surrounded by his decaying allies, and survived that too. The missions then continues to have Mason and Hudson bring the injured Woods along a stealth mission where his moans could give them away, and where Menendez survives a grenade explosion that should have killed him if Mason has to jump out of the building to survive it. In Level 2: The only huge problems I had in this level are the facts that this is when they introduce items that could help the soldiers out in many scenarios later but they don't use them all the time "Camoflage Suits and guns that can scan and shoot enemies through walls" when Erik gives you an important device, your troops don't watch the entrance to the room allowing Erik to get shot, and why didn't the enemy troops shoot at the soldiers, but instead the one guy who is unarmed? In Level 3: There is a choice at the end which is a very good choice, but when Kravchenko reveals Menendez has people in the C.I.A, and our boss from the C.I.A Hudson tells us it's not true "despite an innocent person would want to know as much about the possible traitors in their group as possible", and tells us to kill him, despite him not being that kind of person in the first game, should have made it obvious that he is one of those people working for Menendez, yet Mason and Woods don't question him. In Level 4-5: (Are side missions so I will mention those problems in the Gameplay section). In Level 6: You can find a file on the C.I.A, making it even more obvious about Hudson. Woods throws a grenade towards Menendez to kill him, which would also kill Hudson depsite the fact Woods doesn't know the truth about Hudson yet, instead of knocking Mason out, and using the gun again. When Hudson lies to Woods about Menendez being dead, he doesn't tell him and Mason the truth after they take him away from Woods, making it obvious to Mason and Woods that Hudson is a traitor when he appears in Panama. Menendez also should have been killed by the grenade, especially considering it destroyed a parts of the room that were further away from it. In Level 7: The whole mission itself becomes stupid when Menendez knew the whole time that you were spying on him, and yet he revealed true infomation that helps you out. In Level 8: (Side Mission again). In Level 9: Where did Harper's Burns go? that and Chloe's behavior are my only problems with that mission. In Level 10: When you go to save a scientist to help you out as much as Chloe could have, how does no one realise that Chloe is the scientist? In Level 11: Has the most problems of the entire game, depsite it trying to be the most emotional level. Apart from Noriega forgeting he wants to follow Mason and Woods, and Woods straight up revealing to the player that Hudson is a traitor even if you shoot Kravchenko and don't find the file, all the other problems are at the end where the emotional is "supposed" to be. As if Menendez was really the one who you have to shoot, then why did they bother putting a bag on his head, and it couldn't be Menendez, because we know he is still alive in 2025 thanks to the earlier missions, so obviously no one would shoot the bagged person in the head as they would know it's obviously a trap, and since we know Mason dies, and he isn't with you, and this is the only past mission where you don't play as Alex, it should be obvious that Alex is the bagged person. Also Hudson and Noriega point out that you missed when you shoot a limb, yet after three limb shots, they all think Alex is dead, including Woods who would only miss if he didn't want to kill him on purpose "because the Kravchenko line is in his head" indicating that is should affect your choice, meaning Woods had a choice of Organ or Limb, and chose Limb, but not one person can figure out he isn't dead, just so the Future half of the game can exist. But worst of all is that if Menendez can hypnotize people, why doesn't he use that ability to make winning the war easier? Too many problems that affect the whole game existing, even more than the first level, and the ones after it. In Level 12: (Side Mission again). In Level 13 the choice that affects the most characters fates is the worst choice in the game, "Shoot Harper or Shoot Menendez". Shooting Menendez doesn't work when the americans need him alive, and his men will kill you and Harper afterwards, also Farid moves his gun closer to Menendez allowing him to move it aside and kill Farid, also the ship appears at a different moment in each choice, Menendez doesn't kill Harper if he is still alive just so your choice can matter, why wasn't the choice to shoot as many of Menendez' men as possible since that would help the americans better, and they would still capture Menendez, doing like a Red Dead Redemption last stand, and shooting Harper doesn't make sense when we have had more time liking Harper than Farid meaning that we wouldn't help the character we are playing as this one time as much as him, and if the player believes Harper will live somehow if you shoot Menendez, then it is no option as the Americans are coming to capture Menendez, meaning they wouldn't need Farid anymore. In Level 14: They spoil Salazar being a traitor before the big moment where he shoots two of briggs' men, despite being the traitor, he helps out David when he is about to turn on him in a moment, why did Salazar not reveal that Farid is the traitor on the other side to Menendez so he could kill Farid earlier? "There are many ways to get in contact with Menendez if you work for him", and the choice of Killing or shooting Briggs doesn't make sense when the player has no reason to kill him, and why shoot him in the leg, when you can have Salazar knock him out, which he does if you do nothing anyway? The other problems involve certain scenarios, like why does Defalco knock out Chloe instead of shooting her? "Defalco alive, Farid alive, Chloe alive". Why doesn't Salazar kill Chloe after failing the first time? Why don't they even restrain Chloe after you knock her out in case she comes to? and if they want Chloe dead because she is the only one who can stop Menendez' plan, then why didn't Menendez order Defalco to simply shoot her on sight in "Karma" so that Menendez would 100% succeed. In Level 15: The only story problem I have is a contradiction I noticed involving Menendez' motives in the Character section. In Level 16: How does the guards not tell that it is Menendez is an american suit? Why did Menendez destroy the drones when he could still use them to attack the American troops? "Just because the technology is gone doesn't mean the soldiers with guns are" Who thought it was a good idea to cut back and forth between credits, and ending scenes? or to have a random clip half way through the credits after the real endings are over? Also if Alex lives, then why did he wait over 30 years to reveal that? "Just because the game asks that, but refuses to answer it doesn't help with that" How did the guard to the place Woods was living in doesn't recognize Menendez as his superior? "Menendez alive, Chloe dead". Finally if Menendez wanted to be martyred so that his video would play, why didn't he simply ask the guy who put it on youtube to put it on whether he is killed or captured so that Cordis Die would take over America regardless?

The Characters are mostly disappointing. The old characters are destroyed in this game. Alex is not a bitter dad who doesn't help his son out, and an idiot for not figuring out the truth about Hudson earlier. Hudson's new voice sounds nothing like the original, also Hudson the C.I.A hero from the first game is now working for a terrorist just for money as there is no other motivation at the time he hides Menendez' death even after Woods is gone, and why did he volenteer to be the victim over Woods who has no kids? Woods is an idiot for not figuring out Hudson's betrayal, and did I mention he shouldn't have survived the first game, let alone the events in this one? The new characters of Harper and Briggs are good, but when we first see him as a kid, David is a hypocrite for telling Alex to rejoin the C.I.A, and then going back on it a moment later. Salazar betrays you suddenly out of nowhere without enough time to see why he does, making him a bland villain, who as a hero, all we knew of him was that he grew up near the same area as Menendez "Which is not a personality trait", and being okay with surrendering after helping Menendez, and trying to spare Briggs doesn't make up for it. Chloe is the worst, she is mean to the soldiers trying to help her all the time, and even assaults Harper just to put herself in harms way to protect a random woman she doesn't know. Menendez started off showing many traits of a great villain, with his way of handling different scenarios, interesting backstory, relationship with his sister, and clever ideas. But that was shot down by him hating capitalism for killing his family, and innocent people, yet his Dad sold drugs for Capitalist money, and his attacks are obviously going to cause the deaths of many innocent people, yet the game never points these problems out, or makes a good reason around them. Also Noriega "Although based on a real person" I doubt would be dumb enough to run out away from Mason and Woods when he is in what he calls a warzone, and he is supposed to get to a certain place alive. Defalco is too bland to enjoy, and Farid is nothing outside of a simple nice guy.

The Graphics are obviously an improvement of all before it, and come that much closer to looking like actual people, especially for a game from 12 years ago.

The Gameplay has you shooting "with a number of customizable weapons" through warzones in The Cold War, and The Future of 2025 "Yes there was a time when 2025 was the future, you all remember that people from 2026?". There are also segments where you can control vehicles, make choices that affect the story, and even the side missions allow you to control any unit, and command them to do a task for the mission, or play as any one of them yourself too. You can also control a spy spider at one point. A number of good things in this game include The many Cold War locations, and some of the other things to do aren't always bad. But based on what I said, you can guess I have a number of problems with them. Although the weapons are fun to use, some of them like the camoflage suits, guns, and shoot through walls with xray scan, follow the common plothole of not being used at every possibility they could. Also the one biggest problem with the first Black Ops game, "The weak AI" isn't any better here, as I have noticed some moments where my allies wouldn't kill anyone, and enemy AI taking a few bullets extra to kill when you shoot them in the chest. Side missions also are broken, because the ability to command whole units, and be a one man army with one of them is too overpowered, and allows players to send all their troops to one area, and the man you control to another, before all going to the last one, or how even levels where a president die can be undone, or assassinating a leader yourself can be undone, meaning that they return to the same place in a short amount of time. One other thing is that you can play as Chloe in second chance, meaning that she can somehow shoot as well as a professional soldier. I am convinced her real name is Chloe Sue. The Multiplayer is once again a inferior version to previous ones, with less ranks, but it is still fun, especially with maps from the past and future. Theatre and ELITE make good returns. Zombies now has the edition of 2 teams trying to outlast the other. But the new addition of transit although can be fun, what little story it has doesn't make sense with a man at the beginning getting killed for not watching out for the zombies, and then respawning as if they needed that ability to be canon at all.

The Music is good though, some of the tracks are instantly memorable thanks to the scenes the atmosphere of them matching great with the scenes they are in.

Black Ops 2 is a total disgrace to the first Black Ops game.

This game is easily the weakest of the 3 by a landslide.

The Story is that Makarov threatens to find and Kill the Russian President's daughter if he doesn't give him the launch codes, and the now disavowed Task Force 141 has to stop him. This could have been a great story, but it has WAY too many problems to stand out with it's prequels. First off, in the last game, I thought the reason why Makarov wasn't a part of the Massacre was because he destroyed the security, but now they show the footage, yet the President of Russia declared war on America without even asking them why a C.I.A agent was with a famous Russian terrorist that both nations are against? But also, why do the Russian troops attack Europe when they know that their President is trying to have a peace Treaty "indicating that he wants his troops to stop" and there wouldn't be any fighting after everyone knows a peace talk is coming in, as there would be no point. Makarov I doubt threatened to Kill his daughter on sight for the army to continue, because then he could have threatened to have his troops Kill her on sight for the Nuclear codes. Also Price's plan to breach through the ceiling to get the President is dumb when he could have landed on the President himself. Also don't give excuses like "it was the only way to get to him" or "he used thermal vision to see" because people would assume that events take place in the middle of the room, which is where Price placed the charge, instead of next to the door area, and if he did look through a thermal scope "THE GAME NEEDS TO SHOW US" it's called Direction. Other problems with the story include, why is this the only game that skips the Tutorial in the Trilogy? Why didn't the group shoot the ropes holding the cargo in Sierra Leone to stop London being attacked? Why bother hiding Soap's real name only for it to randomly after his death be revealed that it is the same first name as Price's? that's not a mindblowing reason to hide a name at all. Why isn't Roach in the Second to last level? and why did Sandman keep calling Alena "ATHena"? Also after watching the Ukraine war in real life, there is no way Russia wouldn't be bankrupt after the damage they have caused, because there is no way the victim nations would pay for their pwn damages, as they too would either go bankrupt, or look the right to be a SuperPower.

The New Characters aren't very good, the only one's a care at all about are Sandman, and Yuri. The other characters are bland, and I don't like President Vorshevsky for declaring war on America for a dumb reason, or his daughter for not killing him for it. Even Wallcroft and Griffin from Modern Warfare don't make me think any differently of them. But the rest of the old characters are still great, I did get emotional over one character's death, and I think you know who I am talking about. Makarov is still the best Call of Duty villain, the things he does, his resources, him not having boundaries, and his attitude, and backstory with Yuri all help improve this villain who feels like you can't kill.

The Graphics are even more detailed than before, and the visuals have never looked more stunning to look at.

The Gameplay has you first person shooting through New York City, Europe, and other various locations to stop World War 3. It's still fun to playthrough as ever, but the problems this time can get big. The problems I found include, How did the Submarine not get hit by a mine that was above us in level? How were we not seen in Eye of the Storm? How does the coptor fly upwards to crash into the elevators in the final level? Also the Ally AI although mostly works, does get in my way alot. Enemy AI also runs out towards you more here. Not all the quotes after death were good. Also I noticed that the only reason Alena got captured was because Sandman had to command me to open the door, meaning if I ran ahead and did that myself, I would have saved her, that's terrible game design when it causes you to lose like that. The Multiplayer is also underwhealming, it does offer great locations, but there are now less ranks than the other game, and the new added items, and Kill Confirmed mode don't make up for that. If you copy an amazing multiplayer system for a sequel, give it a reason to exist "being better," or "continuing something unfinished from the last ones, like european maps, while also not removing great stuff from before" which it does. Special Ops is still great, as well as ELITE "for editing your gameplay".

The Music is overall not as great as previous games, but is still fits the universe well, especially the music played during that ONE old character's death scene.

Modern Warfare 3 is the start of the downward spiral for the Call of Duty franchise, and it only gets worse after this.

This is an awesome Call of Duty game who's problems make it drop below it's previous modern competition.

The Story is that you follow a man who was kidnapped by Russians during a mission to kill Fidel Castro, who have a secret plan to wipe out America with a secret Bio-chemical weapon. This is a great story for the series. It's engaging, has a number of interesting events that all fit together, and the best twist in the franchise. But I will mention that some moments in the game make me question parts of it. Like why doesn't the C.I.A reveal who they are to Mason at the beginning? Why does Mason tell them all they want to know without knowing who they are yet? How did Clarke get shot, but not Hudson or Weaver? How did Mason know which chamber the bullet was in? because if it was luck then that is not a good way for our heroes to get out of there. When Hudson said "We wanted steiner alive" revealing the interrogator to be C.I.A, why didn't Mason looked shocked by this? I personally didn't like how they reveal Steiner's death before the first part of the mission started when a few word changes could have hidden that.

The Characters are great, likeable, and different personalities. The main villain Dragovich is very interesting. The other villains work well too, and the way the characters are done makes them more memorable than other characters who might be in the same positions. The only character I didn't think got enough time to shine for me was Weaver, who only comes off as Hudson's helper "with one eye".

The Graphics are great for their time. Details show in the facial expressions, textures look stylish, and not overboard. The cutscenes are fun to watch on their own let alone as part of the game.

The Gameplay has you first person shoot through enemies, while completing tasks for the C.I.A, Army, and Viktor Reznov. This is still great gameplay "for the most part" with suspenseful moments to look at. The classified style of text at the beginning was a lovely touch of character for the game. The Locations give off different types of battles that don't feel the same. The levels are varied, and all have a point to them. But some problems I had with the game include, "my biggest problem with the game" The AI isn't as well designed as previous modern games. Sometimes they fail to kill all enemies before advancing, taking too long to take out enemies, or even the enemy AI during the tunnel popping out of the holes early enough for you to shoot them, despite them killing your ally when they would have no time to react. Also there are no quotes after death again. Why was one random Vietnamese soldier shot in slow-motion? How does the fire on your boat in Vietnam go away after a task? and why didn't that one agent in the mountains open his parachute when he fell? if you are dropping to your death, there is no reason to not try and open it. Multiplayer is still great, perticularly now that you can play during the Cold War, giving the option a reason to exist. But I didn't care for the COD point system. RC cars are awesome though, as well as new abilities thanks to it being in the campaign first. The option to edit the games you do in multiplayer is fun and creative. Zombies return, and is even more atmospheric than World at War's version. Also the new addition of Co-op playing with an AI although not as interesting as the rest of the ideas in the game, is still a nice extra.

The Music is awesome, the tracks are really tense foreach scene, and the copyrighted tracks during the Vietnam war, and the ending give off good feels of "The idea of fighting in the war started off awesome, but devolved into horror" and "We are going to dominate this war". But I will still say that the tracks are slightly inferior to Modern Warfare 1+2, World at War, and Call of Duty 1+ Finest Hour.

Call of Duty: World at War 2: Black Ops 1 shows why it is important to give it your all when gaming games, cause of how one or two problems can make it far inferior to the rest.

This sequel is awesome, but not as much as it's predecessor.

The Story is that General Shepherd hires an American soldier to infiltrate a terrorist group, but it leads to his death, and the General now has to use his taskforce to stop World War 3 between USA and Russia. This is another great and surprising story to the Call of Duty franchise. It is something that is common now, but was extraordinary when it first came out, especially for a videogame. The best moments include the Terrorist attack, reuniting former characters, Killing the Twist villain, and Captain Price's plan to stop the Russians with the Submarine. Now some annoyances I have inside the story include General Sheppherd telling us about Makarov as opposed to showing us "show don't tell". Also Soap doesn't get any build up from the last game, he's simply appears.

The New Characters are good, Ghost is awesome and mysterious, Foley and Dunn were alright, and Soap finally getting to show his character is awesome to see. But Allen, doesn't give me anything "i'm including him, because he speaks in one cutscene". Makarov is a cunning villain, who feels like a guy you could never suceed in killing. General Sheppherd is mostly good, his personality is fun to watch, and I do understand his betrayal, and his motives. The only problem I have with it is that the game doesn't do a good job of making it clear what his motives are, which is something you should do if you want us to like seeing his defeat.

The Graphics are even more polished than the last game, with many opportunities to give off many details, thanks to the levels.

The Gameplay has you first person shoot enemies, sneak past them, collect intel, or impersonate a member of their group. This gameplay is very addictive, thanks to a variety of levels, locations, tasks, and good characters you want to see succeed. New items like Heart beat sensors, and riot shields are weapon stealers, and even the Level "No Russian" with it's ability to allow the game to continue without having to follow the exact story is very clever. The only minor negatives I had with the gameplay are. Why does Sheppherd stand out in the open where he can be shot. How would task force members let Rojas' assistant over power them? Why program it so Makarov could shoot you through a wall if you know what's coming? and why put a disclaimer on a game that is for mature people only, when only immature people complain about this stuff? Multiplayer is back and it is still great, with only main differences include added weapons, new maps, and more ranks. I actually like this multiplayer more than Modernb Warfare 1's one, due to it being the same, but with more options, and more variety of the types of maps. Special ops is a great Co-op game to test how good you perform in different challenge types that the game can bring to you. The Museum after the campaign is also nice to look at, and fun to fun off if you press the button.

The Music is great, many tracks capture the emotion of each scene, and will stick with you forever.

Modern Warfare 2 holds up as a sequel which is good, but not as much as the first.

This is the worst Call of Duty game from the pre-repetitive era.

The Story shows American and British soldiers fighting in the Pacific, and Europe during World War 2. Which would be an alright idea for a side game to the franchise if it was engaging, but it's not "due to the game barely having a unimpressive direction, the other factors in the game".
The best thing in the game is the World War 2 footage at the beginning of each level. Even the best moments are either default, or done better in the main game.

The Characters are either bland, forgetable, or taken from the main game, I know nothing about all the new cast. although they do show the people you play as, talk during the cutscenes, Sharpe was good, but Gibson isn't memorable, and Miller was done better in the main game.

The Graphics are awful, even the former side games in the franchise looked less pixelated than this, it is borderline Nintendo DS quality.

The Gameplay has you first person shooting Axis soldiers from real World War 2 battles. This sounds like fun, but a lot of the levels don't offer much variety is tasks, the AI for both sides suck, wether it's pushing you aside, or even soldiers on both sides being next to eachother, but they fail to kill eachother in that moment. You get killed for attacking targets that the leader doesn't tell you to attack yet "despite other games letting you do that anyway", there are no quotes after death, I also noticed that when Roebuck tells his troops to give a guy trying to stop the Japanese on his own support through supressive fire, there are no bullets coming from your squad's direction, and the thing that will tick most players off is that there is NO MULTIPLAYER, despite even the other side games having it.

The Music is very good, but the only tracks I could find were the main music, which is nothing special, and the ones that play in the cutscenes. There were no tracks I could find during the missions, and that shows how little work was used for this game.

Call of Duty: Final Fronts doesn't deserve to be associated with World at War.

This is the best Call of Duty game.

The Story is that during World War 2, the Americans are fighting against the Japanese after they attacked Pearl Harbor, while the Russians are fighting the Germans after they attacked them all the way to Stalingrad. The Story is basically a retelling of the events during the real war. But unlike the other World War 2 games in this series, this one is a reimagining of that timeline. Which is odd to do, but can work if it has a reason to exist, like being a better story than the previous ones, which it is. Not only is it more cinematic in it's direction, but the double storyline of the Americans giving mercy and suffering for it, while the Russians don't give mercy and suceed more because of it is extremely well crafted here. Many great moments include when you are captured by the Japanese, rescuing the swimming soldiers, the Japanese soldiers surrender, surviving a massacre in a fountain, watching German soldiers surrendering, and the fight in the Reichstag.

The Characters are great, all have enough personality to make us like them, and see how they play off of others, and feeling realistic. The best character in the game for he has to be Reznov, the absolute loyal soldier, who is almost blinded by his hatred of the Reich for what they did to the Russians.

The Graphics are even better than Modern Warfare, they look breathtaking, for a game of the time, and is still good enough to be taken away by the scenary without needing a remake.

The Gameplay has you first person shooting soldiers in Eastern Europe, and the Pacific Islands. This is awesome to play. The Japanese fight differently to all enemies before this game, and it gives off real, yet new interesting strategies for killing them. The new options of rescuing others, using a flamethrower, and choosing how what do to with some Nazi Soldiers really add to making this game stand out from other games from this franchise. The levels themselves have a variety of different interesting things to do, and/or have happen in them. The only bad thing I noticed about this game was that they removed the quotes after death entirely.
The Multiplayer is the same as Modern Warfare's, only with a few more ranks, and weapons are limited to World War 2 ones. So they both work perfectly for their timeline, and which one is better depends on wether you prefer to play in World War 2, or Modern Times. Now for the new type of multiplayer added "Zombies". This is an awesome side game where you and other online players have to kill zombies for more points to unlock more areas of the map, and/or on weapons to help fight them off, and keep playing until you all get killed, the mixture of the already great multiplayer gameplay, and this great idea make this is another reason to buy this game.

The Music is the best that it has been since the Michael Giacchino era, it makes us watch this game in ways that visuals alone couldn't do justice.

Call of Duty: World at War is a must play for any gamer who likes first person shooters, or who want to try out Call of Duty at it's best.

This one of the best first person shooters of all time.

The Story is that secret forces from America and Britain are doing various tasks to stop problems that could arise from a Russian civil war, and a Middle eastern nation having a Coup. This storyline they have to handle is told with so much intrigue to it. The first person perspective helps bring out the atmosphere in every scene. It has many amazing moments, the best ones include, the Execution of President Al-Fulani, and how well they handled showing the audience what will come from the new leader. The Bridge scene at the end of the game, where you and your friends are dead, or near death, the final villain is coming, and while being carried away to an unknown fate, the news reveal that what you did was covered up, and no one will even know of what you did for the world. But of course the most memorable scene is the Nuke scene, where you go from thinking you are going to capture the man you are after, to suddenly countless soldiers being killed by a nuclear bomb, and seeing the aftermath in the eyes of one soldier before he dies, Best moment in the game. The only minor problem I have is "Why didn't they show us the whole scene of Captain Price beating up a prisoner? they fade to black until around the last part of it".

The Characters are very likeable here. I really like Captain Price and his hang out the crew attitude when things are going well, or his brutal honesty with first meeting Soap, to helping out his crew, and how capable he is. I like rest of the crew, with their humor, banter, capability, including Nikolai, McMillan, and Kamarov. The only character I didn't care for is LT. Vasquez, his serious get the mission done persona isn't enough for me.

The Graphics are great, they looked very realistic for their time, and the style of them makes them still great to look at today. The Colors are very appealing to each mission too.

The Gameplay has you using modern weapons to complete tasks for your task force, including, shooting, stealth, and obtaining items. The way it is handled here is amazing, the movements of all things feel as smooth as they can get, the many weapons make for some more clever ways to take out enemies, the AI for your teammates is amazing, they never block your path, and kill a lot of enemies if you don't do it yourself, enemy AI are also improved, and depending on the situation will try to find a way flank you. The Missions are all good, in tasks to complete them with, variety, and how necessary they are, not every single mission matches all three catagories, but they all fit at least one catagory, and the only mission that is optional is a small level after the campaign for those who want to see how fast they can complete it in, and it's as fun as the rest of the missions. The only problems I have with the gameplay is how if you fail to protect a tank in the second level with Jackson, you have to do the whole level again all over. Also some of the quotes said after a death, are sometimes garbage. Also you can replay the campaign in a way where you can get more points on your skills in killing enemies, which really adds replayability to the game. But now for the part everyone loves, the Multiplayer. In this game it is amazing, the greatness of the campaign makes this extremely playable, the little room to survive being shot makes it feel like a realistic version of the campaigns gameplay. The ability to use a perk to benefit the group depending on your kill streaks, and waiting to use them incase you want to go for better ones shows a perfect level of fairness to add to combat with perks others don't have, and showing how great players are by having them slowly rise in real life ranks depending on the number of points they get from kills in games are an amazing way to make you really feel like a true soldier. The variety of games to play give off an entire school life's worth of things to play, and they all work great too, giving people who are good at different tasks the opportunity to use their best skills to win.

The Soundtrack is great, the tracks are well composed and a number of them are memorable to listen too. The feelings you get when hearing these sounds is exactly what is going on in each scene.

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is a testiment in how modern first person shooters should be done, that no number of years will require it to be remade.

This game is a shocking downgrade from all the games prior to it, including the side games, and it shouldn't have.

The Story is that we travel with soldiers from America, Britain, Canada, and Poland as they help to fight in the Battle of Normandy during World War 2. Already the biggest problem with the game is presented to us. Every other game before this focused on multiple World War 2 campaigns, but now they only tackle one, and except it to be as good as games that cover more. Also they don't even do the best they can with it, because they don't focus on the Normandy landings, or the allies actually taking back Paris, only the unknown stuff right before that, and removing the World War 2 footage takes away from the realistic feel of what you are about to go through. It also causes a plothole where Major Ingram is with the british and french resistance for a period of time, but in the first game, he was captured during that time.

The Characters are better than the first two main games, but not as good as Big Red One. Mostly because despite the fact that this game focuses more on characters than anything else, The American is the only campaign that did characters well. The British are good, but the French aren't to nice to them, The Canadians only good character was the Lieutenant, and The Polish are all bland, and didn't get enough levels to know them "2/14 and one of those you spend inside a tank, away from the rest" and there isn't any conflict in between them.

The Graphics are great, the best so far, and hold up very well compared to other games from 2006, although the color scheme of the game does make environments look unappealing and all look the same.

The Gameplay has you first person shooting around Normandy in four different campaigns against the Nazi invaders in France. Although it did bring us QTE's for some close combat, setting charges, and a few great moments. A number of problems with the campaigns include Corporal Keith giving orders to a Sergeant, the jeep as the end of mission three becomes unstuck before the screen fades, they forgot to put the stats of which group you are with before mission 4, how did one German survive being inside an exploding tank? The random soldier ranks return, some of the dates were wrong, how is a crane operational during a battle? The subtitles don't come in until after the lines were already said, the close encounter in mission ten ends in an over the top death, they could have had a level of the Polish taking over Mount Ormel to give more time to the characters but don't, the checkpoints sometimes are extremely unfair to you, and the AI makes your team mates block you, or run past enemies, and have enemies charge at you unrealistically. Also the fact that this takes place in one campaign decreases the items you can use which is terrible in a sequel to two main games that had an extreme variety. Multiplayer is almost good. It is great for including the same enjoyable things from previous entries, and adding the ability to choose what kind of class you are for your team "or yourself". But it does suffer from the lack of a variety of places to fight it due to the campaign's limited locations.

The Music is good, it's not as good as the other games "except for Big Red One" but it does what it tries to achieve, only not very highly.

Call of Duty 3 needs to be liberated by Germany, and any other country that sells it.

This game could have been a good side game, but was ruined by the these problems below.

The Story is that you follow one man "who is a member of an important group of soldiers known as The Big Red One" throughout his journey throught World War 2 battles. This isn't as big as the previous games due to us only following his story "and his brother's for one plane mission" but since it focuses on an important group, it makes sense to follow one guy, and also it's a side game, so they can get away with some things being less. Although I don't like how the intro to the game spoils the death of one of the soldiers, or the tutorial for also spoiling who won't make it to that point, or how they simply to an excuse to have you control a tank, and a plane. They both felt very forced, and shoved in.

The Characters are much better than previous games. They show more of their personalities in this installment, and make me care if any of them die. Even one's introduced later have a moment or two.

The Graphics are a huge downgrade from every past game. It's looks too cheap, like they cut the budget in half.

The Gameplay has you first person shooting axis soldier's throughout North Africa, Italy, and Western Europe. Now the gameplay is unfortunately far inferior to past games. I mean the grenade timer was good, and I can excuse the return of Medic kits due to this game being made around the same time as Call of Duty 2. But the subtitles aren't always right. There are no famous quotes if you die in a level. the bullets you fire didn't always come out of where your weapon is. Your squad seems to love having multiple Corporals, and Sergeants. But also the AI for both sides have never been worse before this game, with allies not shooting soldiers right in front of them, or charging into areas where they could get shot just to stand face to face with an enemy, and Axis soldier's failing to shoot them, or never shooting at us while running. Even the multiplayer sucks. It is also has inferior graphics, and the worst thing about multiplayer is that the movements of players isn't smooth, it's makes it harder to actually aim properly at others, and the ability to rise in ranks depending on kills you get isn't worth all that. Thus making it no a lesser version of previous multiplayers at best, and terrible at worst.

The Music is nothing impressive, I am not going to praise a soundtrack that I feel any composer could have done.

Call of Duty 2: Big Red One ends up disrespecting how the World War 2 soldiers fought by telling us that one of there best strategy's was running in front of the enemy in plain sight to kill them without being killed themselves.

This is an even better World War 2 game than the original.

The Story is that you once again, play as different soldiers in different campaigns during World War 2. This is the same simple, but works strategy from before and it works again here. In fact it works more here, thanks it feeling more cinematic in a lot of the scripted moments that will definately stick with you. Especially the Tutorial level, the last Russian level, the last two british levels, both Omaha beach levels, and Hill 400. Even the end credits have great clips of World War 2 fights in the style of this game. The only problem I have with the story, and I believe to be the worst thing in the game is that the ending doesn't have a satisfying ending feel to it. The games before it ended with three armies coming together to stop war changing rockets, and actually taking Berlin. Finest Hour's ending to the final campaign has you cross the reine on a fortres of a mighty bridge. This game's final mission has you take over a small village, and that's it, no grand feel to it at all.

The Characters stand out slightly more than the previous games, but not enough to be called developed though. Also the game doesn't follow the Finest Hour game of introducing the protagonists, but Captain Price is back from the first game, so that is good.

The Graphics are way better than ever before. The detail, on everything is more clear, including small bullet holes, and snow coming off of shot places, and cold air blowing around. It also holds up way better than a lot of other first person shooters of the time.

The Gameplay has you first person shooting through Russian winter, North Africa, and Western Europe shooting at Nazi soldiers. This gameplay is way better improved over it's predesessors. Thanks to it taking all the good things of the first game, and adding the mechanics of regenerating health, smoke grenades, a grenade detector "which you will need in this game" soldiers from both sides shouting what to do more often adds to the realism, you can choose to do certain missions before others, and multiplayer carrys all this over from the campaign making is blow the previous game's ones out of the water. But a few problems I found while playing includes, not being warned of which direction the stukas are in again, the AI of allies are less accurate than before, and there were certain points when granades came out of places without any german soldiers in them.

The Music is also great again, despite it not being by Michael Giacchino this time, but it is still epic.

Call of Duty 2 is an awesome war game that will should give you the call of duty to play it.

This game falls short of what it's predesessor has done.

The Story is that you follow a number of different soldiers as they fight through battles during World War 2. Same concept as the first game, but with moments of other protagonists sometimes appearing to another one, and this game didn't need to do any different than what it did.

The Characters are better than the last game, perticularly in the protagonists. They give you their backstory before the first level that you play as them for, and it's good to see different types of personalities fighting the same war. The downside is that most of the characters you don't play as are as bland as the first game. The only exceptions for me was the soldier that you follow in the very first mission of the game, he was good for what little time he had, but nothing great.

The Graphics are worse than the first game. It's slightly more pixelated, and less slightly less detailed, especially the character models. Also why do some soldiers give tasks to ones with a higher rank than them?

The Gameplay has you first person shooting, across World War 2 battles. This is the same type of great gameplay from the first game, with some changes, and some ingame cutscenes to try and give more to the characters despite what little there is. But nearly all of the changes added to this game are for the worse. Like there is no timer now on the bombs. Destroyed vehicles disappear from the scene. The Checkpoints suck. Your allies don't show up on your compass. The Friendly AI isn't as good as the first game's. The Enemy AI is awful in some moments. The props on the screen "including the red X that tells you when you hit an enemy" all feel to cartoony for a serious toned war game. Although I like the idea of using medic kits on fellow soldiers, it's pointless when the soldiers you care about the most will live regardless, leaving only the ones that have no lines to be helped. Even the final minute of the campaign where the last enemies are above a ladder that you can't get to without being shot up, having to fight off stukas without warning, and not being warned which direction the they are coming from doesn't work gameplay wise when they could come from any direction this time. The Multiplayer is mostly the same as the first game's, but with the same problems as the campaign gameplay, and I don't like why the text saying who killed and has been killed is now near the middle of the screen instead of off to the side.

The Music is the best thing in the game. It's not as awesome as the first game's, but it is still of similar quality. Michael Giacchino really puts his effort into even side adventures that a lot of people wouldn't even see. But the sound effects of some of the guns don't have the same shocking impact of the first game.

Call of Duty: Finest Hour is not a Finest Hour to it's predesessor.

There was a time when Call of Duty was good, this was the start of that time.

The Story is that the three characters you play as are involved in different operations for different nations to stop the Nazi's during World War 2. There is barely any story moments outside of the missions themselves, but for a World War 2 based game, it didn't really need too. It's focus is on the Gameplay. The Cutscenes that appear sometimes before levels are great, and give a real war feel with the atmosphere of the game.

The Characters are bland, I would not care if any of them died, including the ones I play as.

The Graphics were good for their time, but are now very pixelated. But not to the point where the game is unplayable, and there is more detail put into the environments than the average first-person shooter of the time.

The Gameplay has you in first person, shooting Germans with your weapons, and completing tasks to help the squad you are in to become one step closer to winning the war. Now although Call of Duty wasn't the first first-person shooter to change the gaming industry, it was the first to use friendly AI to help you out in missions, and the gameplay itself is very iconic, and can lead to many games trying to emulate what this game achieves. Also it's a computer game, so you can save whenever you want. Your actions can also make the difference between the fates of random soldiers in your squad, it doesn't matter that much as a new soldier will spawn in most of the time, but it's nice to know it's there for people who want to simulate it. The first level in the russian campaign is easily the best level in the game with it's real look into how some of the allies had to fight, and the suicidal mission atmosphere that the whole sequence gives off. Now there are some flaws with the game. Like the fact that the objectives reveal future tasks, despite the fact that it doesn't feel as real to know what is going to happen next. The AI barely ever kills targets, and at least three quarters of them will have to be killed by you. The Text to tell you about where you are at the beginning of levels is too fast for you to read. You can cause a vehicle to explode without the vehicle you are in exploding itself. Random soldiers for the group sometimes have ranks that surpass the leader of the squad. There is no Grenade detector. Sometimes the enemy isn't prepared for you, even when they should have heard what you were doing prior to that. Multiplayer is good. You can play a few different game types, while in the maps from the game (or more if you get the United Offensive pack). But unlike the campaign, more like in reality, you can die in one shot. Which is fun if you are okay with the realism "minus the respawning of course", and I say it works for a game where you kill normal soldiers in a realistic way, and where the opponents are other real players. Also the feature of having certain random players use submachine guns, and others using ones that cause more damage, but can't be fired as fast is a great way of having people play with many types, while not making it so that everyone uses the same gun.

The Music is awesome. It was composed by Michael Giacchino, the same guy behind a number of Pixar films. The tracks really push the dark atmosphere of each level that it's in, and are great to listen to on their own.

Call of Duty 1 deserves to be known for it's achievements that are very forgotten about thanks to the modern era of the franchise.

This is a very good SpongeBob game, but it's not the best.

The Story is that Gary finds a treasure chest with The Flying Dutchman inside, who decides to kidnap Gary, and the rest of SpongeBob's friends for his own pirate crew, and It's up to SpongeBob to find the Dutchman's treasure to free them from their spell, and also find and rescue them too. This is an interesting idea for a SpongeBob game, and it helps with giving this game feel like what you would do in a game, while still sticking true to what SpongeBob Squarepants is.

The Characters are the same as in the cartoon, they also have good moments and lines that really make them feel like they are the same ones.

The Graphics are not bad, but not great either. They are very colorful, and everything looks how it should be for a tie-in game. But the Animations look non-existant outside of cutscenes, and it will be very distracting.

The Gameplay has you going around different areas of the cartoon to find all the letters to SpongeBob's name each part, so that they will reveal where one of the seven treasures of The Flying Dutchman are, and make them appear. This is a great mixture of gaming, and feeling like the show, and the missions have you go around, doing stuff you could see SpongeBob do in the show, instead of random stuff that doesn't feel like stuff the character would ever need to come across. Collecting money also help out for some later missions to happen, exploring the cartoon world "although limited" is still enjoyable for fans to playthrough, and the controls feel free, but not to the point where they become slippery, they have a decent balance. Also getting SpongeBob to move faster by rolling is more fun than simply walking around. But for the praise I have been giving this game, there are a number of problems I have noticed. Like how can you catch bees and wasps with a net? How can you use your to glide across areas? How do you take out big enemies with you net? Why do random lifeguards and clowns attack you? Why are some of the delivery homes in places no normal delivery guy could get to? How are the cracks covered in Sandy's dome when the acorns are not identical to the holes? Why did I launch myself into a anchor, but SpongeBob still went through to the other side of it? Also you can play certain missions in random order, yet the dialogue doesn't always compensate for that, causing SpongeBob to be ready to give his gift to Sandy, but only after talking to her later, does he finally question what to get her in the first place. Also fighting challenges in this game "minus the final boss" resort to who is the fastest at hitting enough junk first. You can only change in certain areas, meaning you would have to backtrack if you don't have the right costume for the next scenario. The throwing ball past the anchor carnival game is broken because you can simply place the balls in there instead of aiming. Finally, why is there a beach under the ocean with it's own ocean of water that is under the water? All these problems prevent this game from being any higher than where I am placing it.

The Music is great, the tunes give of an atmosphere of the cartoon. But the one dumb thing about it is that, the music depends on what clothes you are wearing instead of the environment. So you will have to put up with the music not fitting in to the current background, depending on where you are, and what you are doing.

Revenge of the Flying Dutchman will have SpongeBob happy that they can enjoy playing a game as their favourite Sponge.

This Game, based on a cartoon with many leaps in logic is too illogical.

The Story is that Spongebob keeps doing tasks for Mermaid Man, and Barnicle Boy, so they will sign a picture for Spongebob to give to patrick for his birthday. This is all there is to the story, and it is not enough to justify making a game out of it. It's not interesting enough on it's own, and even the ending makes me question why Squidward, Mr. Krabs, or Plankton would turn up to the party. Also during one chapter, Barnacle Boy says that Kandy bars can be found only in BIKINI Bottom, instead of Rock Bottom, which you go to anyway during the level.

The Characters are the same as in the show. I do believe that the characters doing these things are the ones from TV.

The Graphics are trash, they are too pixelated for the Playstation 2, and animations don't even try to match what the characters are saying.

The Gameplay has you going to random places to get items that you probably could find "mostly" anywhere normal, while fighting off random enemies by catching jellyfish, or other weapons to throw at them, and fighting bosses in not very fun ways, especially the first boss, who is a giant jellyfish who is scarred of JELLYFISH, yes I know it's shocking, and a final boss which is pathetic when it's AI doesn't always attack you, but instead hides from cover when it could get to you first. All with slippery controls that can make you miss your jumps and landings. During one chapter, you get a Time Machine from Plankton "which begs the questions, how does Spongebob know he has one? and Why doesn't Plankton use it to do whatever he wants?", and also the other characters come and give you tips, even in places they could not get to. Also the Story says that Spongebob gets eaten by a whale, but in the level, we move him inside it's mouth.

The Music is good, has a very respectable Spongebob feel. But when there are sound effects all the time, during collecting spatulas, collecting jellyfish, jumping, walking, and the audio, and music that is at the same level of sound as the effects make the whole game feel cluttered in the sound department.

Spongebob Squarepants: SuperSponge for the PlayStation 2 is to be arrested for vigilantism, and not the good kind.

This is the most overrated videogame of all time. The Story is that while on patrol, Joel helps a girl named Abby out, but is then captured and killed by her, with Ellie coming just in time to be held down, and forced to watch his brutal death, and after Joel's funeral Ellie plans to get revenge on Abby and her friends for killing Joel, now this is the kind of story I expected from a sequel to the resolutions to the first game, so I went in ready to see how well they could handle it, and after watching/playing the story, I don't see how they could have gotten away with telling it any worse, first off, the whole narrative of repercussions and revenge, Joel's death is a result of him killing someone and the other side getting revenge, now Joel is portrayed as a guy who made a bad choice, but if it is or not doesn't matter, because if it was the right thing to do then there should be no consequences, meaning we hate the other people and never forgive them, especially because of their low repercussions I will be talking about later, and if he deserved it for doing the wrong choice then that also fails because Abby didn't come all the way out here to kill the guy who stopped The Fireflies Project, the only reason she is this determined is because her father was killed, but the only reason Joel killed him was because when Joel was about to take Ellie away, he held a gun at the others for them to surrender, and let them live, but the dad stupidly came at Joel with a sharp weapon, making Joel have to kill him, so you can't say Joel's bad choice has come back for him when that is not the reason for his death, and if simply saving Ellie was the bad thing he did, he would have served no repercussions for it, so there is no moral for Joel at all, especially when the only person who thought negatively towards him for it forgives him to the point where she was going to the end of the country trying to kill the people behind his death of it, so if the moral wasn't talking about Joel, then maybe it was against Abby right? wrong, because although Abby kills a man who only did for self-defense, and also saved her life right beforehand, ruins that moral already when you only managed to do it because the guy you claim is bad saved you, since the moral becomes "Don't get revenge or the bad guys won't help you out" and even if that didn't happen, it wouldn't work, because after her friends are killed, she gets revenge again, and although doesn't kill 3 of them, still kills 1 "who was only there for support" and didn't suffer repercussions after that, so the moral becomes "get revenge, but only on 1 of them, so the others will be happy to save you" oh wait, even that would be too much praise for her, since the last time she did that, she was hunter for across the country, even after biting off Ellie's finger, she is let go with no repercussions since she should be grateful Ellie was dumb and risked her safety to kill Abby, and not go through with it, when she was okay with it before, and in case you are thinking "that was because Dina made her re think it" then we will get to that later, so the only person left that moral could be for is Ellie, but that fails to, because not only does it not work when Abby does it, and gets away with it, meaning that the moral is "others can get revenge but not you" and even if that wasn't the case, it's still broken because 1- she only lost Jesse because Dina came along for a dumb reason "we will get to later" and it only happened because of her making dumb choices her character would not do "I'll explain them in her character study" and yes she loses Dina for revenge, but she doesn't go through with it, gets over it, and lets them go, and is still alone, and don't say "they will get back together when she finds out in part 3" because, a game shouldn't rely on a future game to happen so that a moral will make sense, and the current game feels like it could end here, and when a game that would have them back together afterwards would have cut to that happening, and even if that moral was "don't do revenge, or it's too late to get your loved ones back" then Ellie should have at least killed Abby for what she did "since I established that she was in the wrong a few paragraphs ago" so the moral becomes "don't do what's right, or your loved ones will hate you, even if you waste your time at give up at the end anyway, and become the person they want to be with" so in every possible character the moral fails, also I want to point out that even without all I have said, it would still be bad, because if you want to teach people not to do bad things, the best way is that the same thing happens to them, "that's why instant karma videos are so satisfying, no one watches them and says that they feel sympathy for the person who suffered karma at the end" so according to that, a person who kills someone deserves death in return, "it's an eye for an eye for a reason" and getting revenge on someone who deserves it isn't a bad thing that won't take the pain away, it will take the pain away "it won't bring them back" but pain will go, why? because getting revenge on people that deserve it is justice, and Abby shouldn't be forgiven, just because the person she killed just so happened to do something else bad, after all, "if a person murders someone not because that person is a serial killer, but because they took the last parking space" then they should be sorted with too, and even if you say "but Ellie also did it for a un-necessary reason" that actually doesn't matter here, because the fact that Abby did it first, and didn't get killed at the end alone means that the game is for no reason, okay with letting Abby get away with it, but not Ellie, which means the game would be saying once again that "others can get away with things as long as it's not you" and even then, the only way Abby would be given the punishment she deserves is by Ellie doing it, meaning that whether Ellie succeeds or not, 1 person is getting away with bad acts, so it doesn't work for that moral, especially when no one would have killed Ellie if she killed Abby and Lev, so either way, they are spreading a toxic moral, and I don't care if the way they directed and edited it was masterful, the way you handle something is a tool, it's not the actually thing itself, so it doesn't matter how get the directing is if the moral it is being used for is atrociously toxic, also it is very confusing showing the scenes where Ellie spares Abby not long before the scene where Ellie talks about forgiving Joel, it's like the ending of the story was to say "Joel, I am going to forgive you, and show it by sparing the life of the woman who will murder you" and don't say how "it shows why she should forgive Abby" because I already mentioned why she shouldn't, and even disregarding that, you shouldn't add to a meaning by ruining another, and one other thing to point out is that Abby only killed Joel because he Joel killed her father, but Joel only killed her father because the father stupidly ran at a man with a gun while he only had a sharp object, and clearly wasn't going to win, so in other words, if Abby's father didn't make that dumb move, THIS WHOLE GAME DOESN'T HAPPEN. this whole game only exists because they turned a dumb thing in the first game, that doesn't effect how the rest of that game played, to being something that makes the whole second game what it is, and that is terrible writing when you make a whole game only exist because of a dumb choice that shouldn't have happened, especially since the father should know that their could possibly be more immune people out there, but he knew he was the only one who could solve the problem, and he couldn't win the fight, meaning that 99.9999% of people in his position wouldn't have made that choice at all. The Characters are mostly awful, and that's only the returning ones, Joel is mostly the same as the last game, with his skills, and father figure to Ellie, the scenes with him doing stuff to make Ellie happy are the best scenes in the game, the only thing I hated about Joel was that he went from being careful about who to reveal his identity too, to revealing to anyone he meets, and don't say "he lived at a community for so long it made him more open" because he knows that people are likely to be after him because of what he did at the end of the first game, which if anything should make him more cautious than ever before, and Joel's character from the first game would have been smart enough to know and do that, and the same with Tommy, these two are the best characters in the game, and they both have the problem of being to open with people "since Tommy should also be smart enough to not risk Joel's life, or his since he is related" and that says a lot when I have a big problem with the best characters in the game, Ellie is even more ruined in this game, because she hates Joel for saving her, which is horrid because "even though she was willing to be sacrificed" that fact he had no way of guaranteeing that you were okay with it when you know how he felt after losing a daughter before means that of course he is going to save the closest thing he has to one, and Ellie was also dumbed down when the plot required it, here's the biggest dumb things she did, 1- she dropped the map without checking before leaving to make sure she didn't leave any equipment behind, 2- it wouldn't have even been a problem if she didn't draw her location on the map for others to see, 3- they wouldn't even matter as much if she sealed off the entirety of her base, so they wouldn't even be able to get in, and her on guard approach means she could have handled herself if Abby and Lev came out from anywhere after Ellie left the safehouse, 4- she could have shot Abby from around the corner without her firing, like Ellie did to many people in the game, but decided to get out of cover where the woman who killed Joel, and knows you killed her friends now has the ability to kill you both, and leaves a pregnant woman unprotected if she does, 5- she fools for the whole distract with a sound that she used throughout the entire game, and even the sound itself she should recognize by now, knowing it's an item not a person, 6- fighting Abby, if you want her dead, do it anyway, if you don't, than let her go, and you would still play the guitar, and 7- sparing her after losing everything anyway when she did bad things deserving of repercussions, those are the 7 dumbest things Ellie did that effects the story, and what Ellie in the first game never would have done, Jesse is bland, I know nothing about him, and it's not my memories fault because I tried to pick up his traits, and if they aren't memorable, that's the game's fault for writing him that way, since they clearly wanted Ellie and Dina together, to the point that he didn't even need to be on the journey, since Ellie didn't know she was pregnant, so neither did he need to know, Dina was bland throughout the game, except for when she is dumb, hateable, or both, she was dumb for standing on top of glass during a shootout, and of course going along on a dangerous journey when she is PREGNANT, "even the retards who love this game can't defend that" and becomes hateable when Tommy comes to help out Ellie with what he thinks she wants "and the thing itself is justice by the way" and Dina tells a man who is like a member of her lovers family to never come back again, and without even apologizing, she hears Ellies is going back to bring justice, and stop her trauma, but instead of Dina even trying to make it up to Ellie and Tommy, she braids her and leaves her because of it, and does even when she doesn't go through it anyway, and not caring bringing justice to the woman who killed the man who gave her a baby, and she is portrayed as good in this story for some retarded reason, Diana was alright, until she left Tommy for the same reason as Dina, and I hate her now too, Abby's crew are bland stereotypes, except for herself, Owen, and Mel, Owen is a sleaseball, who sleeps with other women, even when he is in a relationship with 1 of them, and is having a baby with them, Mel was bland, except for when she is obedient to Abby despite her behavior, forgives her for stuff that shouldn't be forgiven for, and only berates her later for a different reason, Yara and Lev are next, Yara is a bland girl overall, who didn't take kindly to Lev's behavior to look out for Lev, and yet regrets that, because teaching Lev to be like the rest was to help Lev stay alive, of course she would do that, if she didn't and prompted Lev to be different, Lev might have done something that could have lead to Lev's death, so NO, trying to keep Lev alive was what she should have done, and Lev is Yara's transgender sibling, who was born a girl, and identifies as a boy, Lev is very unlikeable, by doing stuff like, run home for mom, causing Yara to follow, and get killed by Lev's own actions, and the fact that Lev didn't check out why Abby was on her mission to avenge her friends before shooting pregnant Dina is disgusting, not even the fact that Lev makes Abby spare her changes anything, and if you want to know my thoughts on Lev being Transgender, then (THIS WEBSITE WON'T LET ME TYPE MY THOUGHTS, SO IF YOU WANT TO KNOW, WATCH PIERS MORGAN UNCENSORED, AND LISTEN TO HOW PIERS VIEWS THEM), and finally ABBY, she is the worst, she goes to kill a man who murdered her father "in self-defense" which she must have known about, because the other people in the room were spared, when she discovers that Owen is in love with another girl, she hates not only him for his feelings, but also her for being her feelings, only forgives them after being told to without even an apology for her disgusting behavior, not even Mel getting angry at Abby later for something else is enough to make up for it, when Owen says he wants to find another place with Firefly soldiers he can live in peace in, Abby hypocritically tell him to grow up, despite the fact what he is doing has nothing to do with immature behavior, and when he calls her out for her immature behavior towards Joel "and towards being horrid to Owen and Mel for no reason, but Owen doesn't mention that" she assaults him as a bratty woman does, but then makes out with him , despite the fact not only is she now being horrid to Mel again by doing it, but also this isn't how a human behaves "YOU EITHER LOVE SOMEONE, AND WOULD NEVER ASSAULT THEM, OR NOT LOVE THEM AND HAVE NO PROBLEM ASSAULTING THEM, YOU CAN'T BE BOTH, if you assault someone, then you don't love them" case closed, also she later turns down Owen disrespectfully, despite the fact what she did was awful to him, more than he did to her, and proves her heart changes at the blow of the wind, she is also dumb, because after killing Joel, she leaves Tommy and Ellie alive, so they can tell the community near by "that Joel obviously live in" about the situation, which would lead to people coming to kill her and her friends, which is exactly what happened, making her responsible for their deaths, meaning that not only is she a bully to Owen and Mel, but also killed them, she also was happy to shoot an innocent pregnant woman, just because a different person did it to her friend "even though she was nothing but unforgivable to Mel" and only stopping because a moral compass for you made you shouldn't be a requirement, and of course EVERY SINGLE THING I MENTIONED THAT ABBY DID BEFORE HAND, and the fact that you play as Abby against Ellie is a personal insult, especially when letting Ellie kill Abby which is what anyone with a heart would have wanted gives you a game over. The Graphics are outstanding, even more than the first game, this is stuff that even the most expensive blockbusters wish they could look like. The Gameplay has you move, sneak, attack, and distract your way to the next level, past humans, infected humans, and even guard dogs that can smell when you are near, but you can make them ignore you by making a distraction somewhere else, now as last time, the gameplay is amazing, and the same gameplay qualities of the last game all return with extras, as I mentioned, the whole bad guys having names called emotionally is a great idea, if it was done in a game where we didn't have a good reason to hate these people, one dumb thing they did was something they also did in Uncharted: The Lost Legacy where only one level in the game was open world, and the rest was linear, for some reason, and the whole kill or spare enemies concept was amazing,,, until you find you that sparing them makes them kill you anyway making murder the moral of the game after all, meaning this Studio can't even get their morals straight. The Music is amazing, the notes of all tracks pop with story through only sound, and the majority of tracks surpass the original. The Last of Us Part 2 is the worst kind of liberal propaganda, the kind that makes male characters dumb, jerks, or both, pushes many Liberal groups in the story for appealing to a small demographic, despite the fact that they can enjoy a film without their kinds in them, and also alienating the majority of people who aren't those architypes according to their own actions, picks on people from ideologies that they don't agree with, despite the fact they support being respectful to all walks of life, which would include types that they disagree with, considering that they support women's right, but Muslims culture limits women's rights, and you don't see them criticizing Muslims, so are hypocrites to do so to any other group, no matter what, and tells morals that are dangerous and can easily trick the brain dead people into thinking that they are anything but that, and I sentence it to death by being hated by anyone that deserves to be known as a human being, and death to anyone involved with the game who criticized the critics for being right.