Staredit Network

I was actually somewhat disappointed with Call of Duty 2.

1. The graphics are "nice," but they don't feel crisp like F.E.A.R. or Half-Life 2 do. However, the environmental and particle effects are spectacular - I was just disappointed with the models.

2. It felt like a console shooter. This was an even worse let-down than the poor models. I know that it was also being developed for X-Box 360, but the original Call of Duty was made for the PC, and I feel that they should have stayed that way. I will probably stick with CS: Source for online play (and maybe even play CoD and UO for MP). I can't really explain how it's a console shooter. It has a lot to do with the aiming and moving though. Aiming is just... different in this one. I like the CoD gun physics. Brothers in Arms did the over-the-top aiming well (since it was a large part of the game, and squads were actually quite useful). CoD doesn't, because you are just a lowly foot soldier, and you have tons of Nazis to plow through. I'm not saying I want CS lack of gun physics, but just keep the CoD style of gameplay.

This game does capture the gritty feel of WWII very well (better than any game I've played before), but it fails to capture CoD's charm. I guess I'll give it a few more shots (maybe I'll get used to it). At times this game is even a drag (even though it's realistic).

I only played the game because I was bored. I wanted to play the online play, but it sucked.

Graphics: 7
Sound: 6
Gameplay: 4
Fun: 5
Overall: 5.5

Ehh.. Havnt played it and probably wont buy it. Call Of Duty 1 was such a pain in the arse. I mean, if you died at the very end of a long level, its alll the way back (Or maybe back to a DISTANT checkpoint, I forget, but I do remember the basic idea), and I always got stuck.

You offically lost the graphics arguement, FEAR's suck hard ass, the only good thing is enviroment interaction, bad GFX engine and bad graphics. It's a classic 2003 game, graphic wise.

I feel no difference between console and PC games, but that's just me (Except for RTS of course) I didn't really understand the rest of the crap you said. So I won't respond to it.


I only found the vehicile and rail gunning sequences boring and dragged on. And yes, I spelt vehicile wrong, I use to be able to spell it, I just forgot somehow.


That is really inaccurate. Whether you like the game or not, the graphics are the best thing out on the market now (Or one of the best) giving it a 7? Is underrating. An right at least. Sound? Is there any other game that has soilders yelling back and forth locations of nazi soliders, or has explosion sound effect, machine gun fire for normandy level, or any realistic war sounds on this scale? I think not, again eight at least. You can't change that. As for Fun and whatnot there's nothing I can do about that. I like the idea of you being one solider in a war, your troops acutally kill a few people.

Opinions arent wrong. He can rate the graphics 7 or .0000000001 if he wants.

Wow Call of Duty was actually disapointing? Wow and I wanted this game too! Now I gotta rethink my disision lol.

I believe it's a good game on the 360. Online is little laggy for some (because i know you guys like big parties. i dont, i love 3v3, 4v4. Larger would make me hate that game (not the full game itself just the game I was playing on). I loved it and so I give it somewhere close to 9/10.

No they can be widely inaccurate and/or stupid though. I was trying to say that he should give COD2 more credit and not rate down on stuff just because he didn't like the gameplay. Like I could do:
HALO2:
GRAPHICS: GHEY (0)
SOUND: GHEYPORN(0)
GAMEPLAY: SYX()RZ (0)
OVERALL: GHEYEST EVA (0)

As you can see it would both be stupid and inaccrate. So he really should give more credit to the game than he is.

The aiming was quite difficult at most times, but you get adjusted to it. I really loved the atmosphere thugh, and the graphics were pretty good. But I played for an hour and it gave me a headache, I don't know why.

Well....Too me Call of Duty 2 was actually really Good.

Graphics-9.6/10
Gameplay-9.2/10
Design-9.3/10
Story- 8.9/10

What i enjoyed about it was the Beautiful Graphics and it's Designs they dazzled me with astonishment. I also love the Gameplay with it's Hp recovery system, it helps keep the player in the game and instead of them looking for Health Items. It was also enjoyable to take bunch of differen't variety of roles as a Soldier, where you were able to plant bombs, destroy Aircrafts with AA-Turrets, using sniper rifles, taking out motar and artillery teams and as well as riding along with Tank brigades. I also liked the Grenade indicator which helps you detect warns you of near by Grenades but it would of kinda be better if it showed you where exactly the Grenade was and let you throw the Grenades back at the enemy. I also liked that the Objectives in the Mission such as going from offensive to defensive fronts, which to me keeps the action fresh and enjoyable, and even in times it forces you to think strategically. The Story was really nice even better than the Original. Like in Call of Duty 1 they let you play as three differen't prespective in the war, Soviet Union, Great Britian and United States of America. But this time whats really differen't about the campign is that each time you complete a mission in a specfic side (such as GB,USSR,USA) you unlock the missions from the other side. Which to me helps understand the conflict as you enlist in mupltiple sides fighting the same enemy. (Personally I like the Missions in North Africa, they were a blast!)

I agree, there is another disappointment, the PC version is way different than the Xbox 360 version, same names, differet games.

The 360 version looks better and doesn't get stuttery when you throw more than 2 smoke grenades(That could have just been my friends shizty graphics card though.) The online for 360 is boring. One it is host based so if your host has a bad connection it will lag, not to mention if your host decides to leave it disconnects everyone. No options to choose maps or what so ever for online play is stupid too, not to mention the majority of people suck, or camp hardcore.
I still wish they would just go with the M rating though and add blood. Could you imagine with high-end PC or 360 Graphics how good the blood effects for Normandy invasion could be.

My Scores for current date:
Graphics:9.5
Sound:10
Gameplay:8(some missions dragged on or lacked variety)
Value:9(Great buy specially if you lack mutliplayer)
Tilt:8.5(I thought it was a good game)
Total:9

Online sucks compared to UO

They're the same exact game, right down to the name of the soilders that run around and menu screen. There is no difference between them.


It is. I'm guessing you had it on low settings and in chopped up? I'm running it on medium/high settings and I only had a problem in the british level where you use a tank for cover, but it was only for a few seconds. The Xbox360 version runs on Meduim Settings and doesn't have as much Anti Alaising.

The 360 version according to all the reviewers looks better than the PC version. its more like CoD 2 for 360 is running on highest settings with no slow down at all. At least give a game credit for what it does instead of dogging it about everything just because you do not find it fun.

I've played it at a friends house, I don't see a noticable difference graphicswise, but it DOES bog down like the PC Counterpart.


I really farking hope that wasn't directed towards me.

Actually that was a general statement to everyone. I hate many games but still give them credit. I hate Peyton Manning but I still admit he is a good QB. You played CoD2 on a 360 at your friends or on PC? 360 version has never bogged down for me once at all and I have put well over 40 hours into it. Graphics are really eye of the beholder and the majority of reviewers and myself think that the 360 graphics are better. Maybe your friend has a small 21' crt tv instead of a 42' HD Widescreen TV. The HD and size does make a difference.

The online is just plain horrible. Either its laggy or its not. Pure luck you play with friends and there is truly no ranking system. The single player i believe was excellent. The graphics could be better but I enjoyed it. Its not one of my favorite games but it comes close. Quake 4's graphics are better and so is the fun. The actualy battlefield is what makes cod2 unstoppable to quake 4.

Golden-Fist stop being such a prick. Your opinion does not equal fact, so stop toting it like such.

I thought that F.E.A.R. had better models and some really awesome effects like grenade explosions and slow-mo was art in there. It was also nice to have an actual rendering of your character. F.E.A.R. had a lot more stuff to throw in, and is far more taxing on the CPU than CoD 2. I will give CoD 2 one thing though - it has widescreen support. However, that is becoming the norm for games. I had to go and download a program for widescreen support on F.E.A.R. so 1680x1050 would not make the graphics distorted.

Yeah but posts like these don't make it seem any less senseable. There's a fine line between supporting what I say all the time and bring a prick. If you don't like what I say, you don't have to read it. But just saying: "That guy is a prick" doesn't change what I say and it doesn't make your arguement any better.

Xbox360, I didn't camp outside the store for days that's why I got the game for PC (Unlike him). By the way the size and type of TV doesn't change the frame rate of the game, just how pretty it looks. I've seen it bog down before, but like the PC version it only happened when A LOT of crap was going on at once.

You were really mature and said I "lost the graphics argument." Have you even played F.E.A.R?

Yes.
The game is cool and everything but the graphics as in character models and such are nothing to scream about like everyone says. There's a lot of action in the game so you can say "The destruction is cool" but the character models are not, compared to a lot of things.

The environments in Call of Duty 2 are bland and I just personally don't think the models look good at all. I mean the graphics are "good" but everything seriously blends together. F.E.A.R. has deliciously crisp graphics.

That "cripsiness" your talking about is called 2001 graphics. If CoD2's enviroments blend turn up antialiasing.