Call of Duty 2 Review
-----At the end of my play with the original Call of Duty, I came off enjoying that title overall. It had some really fun, epic missions with period accurate scenarios and aesthetics, and had a certain strategic quality about it. That being said, I did have some choice words for it. While fun missions were definitely present, this quality was inconsistent throughout the game’s playtime. I also thought the AI Call of Duty built itself on was more invasive than immersive. Finally I found Infinity Ward’s use of WWII imagery to be both striking and inconsidered all at the same time. It was an interesting experience to say the least, but one I don’t wish to return back to. Still, I concluded with a feeling of excitement towards it’s successor: Call of Duty 2.
-----
-----Part of the reason for this is my knowledge of what Call of Duty would become. As I stated in my review of Call of Duty 2003, I generally look back at Call of Duty’s classic period (Modern Warfare - Black Ops II) positively. I think those games have their genius moments that are worth keeping and worth bringing into the future. Another reason for my excitement about Call of Duty 2 in particular has to do with hearing Youtuber Raycevick speaking positively on the game in one of his videos. Raycevick has made many great videos and educated cases for the Call of Duty franchise, so I hold his opinion in high regard. However, despite my excitement and the buzz around it, I ended up feeling as if Call of Duty 2 is above average like it’s predecessor.
-----
-----Albeit, that isn’t because the two are the same game. On the contrary, there are some key differences between Call of Duty’s 1 and 2 that make them stand out from each other. For one, Call of Duty 2 has the kind of features that would become synonymous with not only it’s franchise, but with the shooter genre as a whole for years to come. An example of this would be Call of Duty 2’s health system. Gone is the finite health system needing replenishing from health packs, and in comes the iconic regenerating health. I was surprised to see it implemented pretty much fully formed here, and honestly I think Call of Duty 2 is better for its use of this new health mechanic.
-----
-----This is for a couple of reasons in itself. Infinity Ward’s technology, or use of it, has a clear upgrade from its predecessor. Call of Duty 2’s environments look so much better, meanwhile the amount of stuff they can fit in a scene while not sacrificing performance is astounding. These levels can feel like true huge war skirmishes that you’re just a small part of. As such, a finite health system could only be detrimental and hamper pace. At its best use of it, Call of Duty 2 and its health system will have you making incremental, progressive steps through its levels while under heavy, tense gunfire. At the health’s worst use however has been a long standing pet peeve of mine: making the screen less visible the more hurt the player is. I’m still not a fan of that here, especially since while the arenas you play in look better, their color is dark and washed out. It’s hard to make enemies out of their surroundings, or your own allies, already without a piercing red blur taking over your screen.
-----
-----Another way Call of Duty 2 stands out from its predecessor would be the AI. Call of Duty 2003 was sold on it’s NPC helpers and their complexity. I think the game that actually delivers on that is it’s successor. Call of Duty 2’s allies definitely give off the illusion of better intelligence. They’re humanized with more photorealistic faces that are distinct from one another. As you go through the campaigns, some of these NPC characters stick with you. I noticed this the most during the British missions. It was quite fun hearing the banter between Capt. Price and MacGregor, or hearing my sergeant address by name when yelling out orders to the squad. Once in battle, you can audibly discern orders between the helpers, and can witness them follow through with these. It’s very impressive. I especially liked when they would call out grenades when they were lobbed at me.
-----
-----Speaking of grenades, the helping computers aren’t the only non-playable entities that receive an upgrade here. Enemy combatants also display increased intelligence. They’re able to flank the player pretty well and keep them on their toes. While Call of Duty 2 may have regenerative health, it also has the capability to kick your but if you don’t utilize cover. As hinted, their use of grenades is very aggressive compared to 2003, which I think is a good thing. Their explosive attacks caused me to move out of cover and think dynamically about escape plans and covering fire. These same enemies will also lob the player’s own grenades back at them. Unfortunately that same feature is not available to the player. I also think it’s a bummer that grenades cannot be cooked yet. Finally, my biggest gripe with the enemies has already been stated above: they blend into the environments too easily and can be hard to see.
-----
-----While we’re on the topic of gripes, and firefights, while battles can be fun at times, they can also be exhausting. Another one of Call of Duty’s changes seems to have gone on to its level length. The scenarios, while more theatrical in places, are also longer. This to me makes action moments more repetitive in the latter half of the game. It doesn’t help that Call of Duty’s “Wall of Noise” is back and in full effect. Sitting in for large doses of 2 is equivalent to giving yourself a headache. I also don’t think Infinity Ward does enough with their environments either to help things feel fresh. Quite the opposite: they often reuse environments back to back. Their reuse doesn’t stop at the scenes either. One type of scenario Infinity Ward likes to reuse a lot in Call of Duty 2 is the timed defensives. These are where you're given a minutes-long countdown to survive while being attacked by waves and waves of enemies. It’s tense the first time around, but quickly gets old and comical near the end of the game as these fights feel like blatant padding. The cherry on top is the cheesy and dumb strings they use for music at the ends of these segments. Infinity Ward tries so hard to invoke the feeling of Spielbergian heroism, but it comes off as transparent and manipulative.
-----
-----In conclusion, I think Call of Duty 2 is above average like it’s predecessor, but for completely different reasons. Its regenerative health and intelligent AI’s make for some immersive and aggressive gameplay, while the enemies are laid on thick. However, there is such a thing as too thick. Longer levels and roaring gunfire can make the gun fights seem dull while the environments are dreary and repetitive. I would say Call of Duty 2 is more interesting than what came before, and offers more of a memorable experience. However it’s storylines and gameplay isn’t the most essential in the series. For that to come, players would have to wait for Infinity Ward’s next, most seminal title.
-----At the end of my play with the original Call of Duty, I came off enjoying that title overall. It had some really fun, epic missions with period accurate scenarios and aesthetics, and had a certain strategic quality about it. That being said, I did have some choice words for it. While fun missions were definitely present, this quality was inconsistent throughout the game’s playtime. I also thought the AI Call of Duty built itself on was more invasive than immersive. Finally I found Infinity Ward’s use of WWII imagery to be both striking and inconsidered all at the same time. It was an interesting experience to say the least, but one I don’t wish to return back to. Still, I concluded with a feeling of excitement towards it’s successor: Call of Duty 2.
-----
-----Part of the reason for this is my knowledge of what Call of Duty would become. As I stated in my review of Call of Duty 2003, I generally look back at Call of Duty’s classic period (Modern Warfare - Black Ops II) positively. I think those games have their genius moments that are worth keeping and worth bringing into the future. Another reason for my excitement about Call of Duty 2 in particular has to do with hearing Youtuber Raycevick speaking positively on the game in one of his videos. Raycevick has made many great videos and educated cases for the Call of Duty franchise, so I hold his opinion in high regard. However, despite my excitement and the buzz around it, I ended up feeling as if Call of Duty 2 is above average like it’s predecessor.
-----
-----Albeit, that isn’t because the two are the same game. On the contrary, there are some key differences between Call of Duty’s 1 and 2 that make them stand out from each other. For one, Call of Duty 2 has the kind of features that would become synonymous with not only it’s franchise, but with the shooter genre as a whole for years to come. An example of this would be Call of Duty 2’s health system. Gone is the finite health system needing replenishing from health packs, and in comes the iconic regenerating health. I was surprised to see it implemented pretty much fully formed here, and honestly I think Call of Duty 2 is better for its use of this new health mechanic.
-----
-----This is for a couple of reasons in itself. Infinity Ward’s technology, or use of it, has a clear upgrade from its predecessor. Call of Duty 2’s environments look so much better, meanwhile the amount of stuff they can fit in a scene while not sacrificing performance is astounding. These levels can feel like true huge war skirmishes that you’re just a small part of. As such, a finite health system could only be detrimental and hamper pace. At its best use of it, Call of Duty 2 and its health system will have you making incremental, progressive steps through its levels while under heavy, tense gunfire. At the health’s worst use however has been a long standing pet peeve of mine: making the screen less visible the more hurt the player is. I’m still not a fan of that here, especially since while the arenas you play in look better, their color is dark and washed out. It’s hard to make enemies out of their surroundings, or your own allies, already without a piercing red blur taking over your screen.
-----
-----Another way Call of Duty 2 stands out from its predecessor would be the AI. Call of Duty 2003 was sold on it’s NPC helpers and their complexity. I think the game that actually delivers on that is it’s successor. Call of Duty 2’s allies definitely give off the illusion of better intelligence. They’re humanized with more photorealistic faces that are distinct from one another. As you go through the campaigns, some of these NPC characters stick with you. I noticed this the most during the British missions. It was quite fun hearing the banter between Capt. Price and MacGregor, or hearing my sergeant address by name when yelling out orders to the squad. Once in battle, you can audibly discern orders between the helpers, and can witness them follow through with these. It’s very impressive. I especially liked when they would call out grenades when they were lobbed at me.
-----
-----Speaking of grenades, the helping computers aren’t the only non-playable entities that receive an upgrade here. Enemy combatants also display increased intelligence. They’re able to flank the player pretty well and keep them on their toes. While Call of Duty 2 may have regenerative health, it also has the capability to kick your but if you don’t utilize cover. As hinted, their use of grenades is very aggressive compared to 2003, which I think is a good thing. Their explosive attacks caused me to move out of cover and think dynamically about escape plans and covering fire. These same enemies will also lob the player’s own grenades back at them. Unfortunately that same feature is not available to the player. I also think it’s a bummer that grenades cannot be cooked yet. Finally, my biggest gripe with the enemies has already been stated above: they blend into the environments too easily and can be hard to see.
-----
-----While we’re on the topic of gripes, and firefights, while battles can be fun at times, they can also be exhausting. Another one of Call of Duty’s changes seems to have gone on to its level length. The scenarios, while more theatrical in places, are also longer. This to me makes action moments more repetitive in the latter half of the game. It doesn’t help that Call of Duty’s “Wall of Noise” is back and in full effect. Sitting in for large doses of 2 is equivalent to giving yourself a headache. I also don’t think Infinity Ward does enough with their environments either to help things feel fresh. Quite the opposite: they often reuse environments back to back. Their reuse doesn’t stop at the scenes either. One type of scenario Infinity Ward likes to reuse a lot in Call of Duty 2 is the timed defensives. These are where you're given a minutes-long countdown to survive while being attacked by waves and waves of enemies. It’s tense the first time around, but quickly gets old and comical near the end of the game as these fights feel like blatant padding. The cherry on top is the cheesy and dumb strings they use for music at the ends of these segments. Infinity Ward tries so hard to invoke the feeling of Spielbergian heroism, but it comes off as transparent and manipulative.
-----
-----In conclusion, I think Call of Duty 2 is above average like it’s predecessor, but for completely different reasons. Its regenerative health and intelligent AI’s make for some immersive and aggressive gameplay, while the enemies are laid on thick. However, there is such a thing as too thick. Longer levels and roaring gunfire can make the gun fights seem dull while the environments are dreary and repetitive. I would say Call of Duty 2 is more interesting than what came before, and offers more of a memorable experience. However it’s storylines and gameplay isn’t the most essential in the series. For that to come, players would have to wait for Infinity Ward’s next, most seminal title.