2003 Reviews

Call Of Duty

  • Review Date: 2009-11
  • Release Date: 2003-10
  • Developer: Infinity Ward
  • Rating: 8.0

Released 1.5 years after Medal Of Honor and on the same engine and almost the same settings, it's easy to draw comparisons between the two. Most players seem to prefer Call Of Duty, and I agree, but only by a small margin.

In fact, they could almost be the same epic long game, there's not much difference. The level design is good, but not particularly fantastic. The levels are fairly standard fare; either cross-country with some average looking greenery, or destroyed towns. The highlight is the final level and the level which takes place at a dam that you have to sabotage. Ultimately, the level design is an improvement over Medal of Honor, as there were no downright boring levels as MOH had.

The gameplay is all enjoyable, again the same as you would expect from this genre. High speed guns mixed with plenty of sniping means you won't get sick of the gameplay. What makes COD unique is that 90% of the game your fighting alongside computer controlled teammates. Fortunately, they're not complete morons and don't get in your way. They also don't take over the game and leave you with nothing to kill. It stills feels like your playing your own mission, but with a little help and company here and there. It was certainly a unique and satisfying feature.

The major problem with COD was it's length. I played the entire game within a day; in two sittings, and could easily have done in one sitting. This is a very short game, perhaps around seven hours. For a full game, this just doesn't cut it. I complained about MOH being so short, but this COD is much shorter. At least there is an addon pack which I'll be playing next.

So overall, Call Of Duty was a blast. Good level design, fun gameplay, not overly difficult or frustrating in any way. It's certainly the best WW2 based game thus far, despite the short length.