I don't like to drop games but I got soft-locked about halfway through the British campaign in this (so around halfway through the entire campaign as well), already wasn't having a good time, and decided I would probably be better off just leaving it there. Apparently, this is one of the "good" Call of Duty games and while the series is certainly in pretty abysmal territory now I don't think CoD 2 is anything to strive for either. It is cool to see a WWII shooter that has you play through campaigns as the Russians in Stalingrad and the British in North Africa before doing the generic American D-Day stuff, but the actual missions are monotonous, the gunplay is weak and unsatisfying, and outside of some decent skyboxes, the presentation isn't much either. Worst of all the game is painfully linear, something that stood out especially because this is the game people always bring up when criticizing the linearity of modern CoD games. I think everything I've played or seen from the series since Black Ops 3 has been awful, but outside of a lack of scripted setpieces there's not really any choice or freedom to the mission design here either. The game wants you to think there is, and constantly tells you that you can deal with mission objectives in any order, but each time it did the variety boiled down to two or three identical clusters of enemies or pieces of artillery that were never more than a quick sprint apart. If you aren't looking at the minimap you probably wouldn't even register them as various different objectives instead of normal enemies populating the level. The lack of flashy setpieces only highlights how weak the gameplay really is with nothing to break it up. I think playing Isonzo at the same time as this killed it for me, that game is both more interesting on every level and more fun and satisfying to play. Maybe that's an unfair comparison since Isonzo is an online-only game that came out just a couple of years ago while CoD 2 is two decades old now, but it's not my fault people hyped this game up to a ridiculous degree!

I feel like I should at least try to bring up some stuff I liked about this game so here are some notes:
- Again, it is really neat to do a WWII game that starts you off with the Eastern Front and North Africa, but I wish they went all the way and had the American campaign be in the Pacific instead of just doing Normandy again. I think World at War has a Pacific campaign so maybe I should try that instead.
- I like that you've always got a small squad with you that moves through the whole level and can cover for you at times, for a while every CoD game had this and I wish it would come back in modern shooters.
- Constantly seeing Patton quotes on the death screens reminded me that I really need to watch the George C. Scott movie about him at some point.
- The tank missions (before I got softlocked) made me want to rewatch Girls und Panzer or just finally start watching the Finale movies.
- most of these attempts at finding positive qualities in this game were just me wanting to spend my time watching/playing other, better things. Make of that what you will.


Maybe the only good games in this whole series are MW2 and Black Ops.

I think it's safe to say that there are a lot of Call of Duty games. However, there are few that manage to make a first impression (for me) to the series like the second had managed. It was games like this that are the reason I'm as big of a history buff that I am today, and for good reason. D-Day is a scene that is recreated and reenacted in many forms of media, however Call of Duty 2 manages to make this one daunting and horrifying, all while giving you a slight glimmer of hope that your victory is somehow ensured. While it might not be the most memorable of the COD series, it sure makes its mark on the series.

I remember playing Call of Duty 2 right after it came out and the immense impact it had on me. I’m not sure how many times I started the campaign (never cared much for the multiplayer), but I definitely spent most time in snow covered Stalingrad, mowing down hundreds of Nazis. I can still quote word for word the training Vassilyi receives from Comrade Commissar. I also remember having to quit the game to cool down after clearing the German hideouts in one of the missions in North Africa - that’s how powerful the experience was for me back then. And recently, after going through my Steam library looking for something to play, I stumbled upon this oldie and thought I could give it a go, all these years later.

Alas, some childhood experiences are not meant to be repeated in adulthood. The second installment in one of the biggest gaming franchises in history did not age gracefully. And I’m not even talking about the graphics, although naturally they show their age. The character models hold up pretty well and some of the animations still look decent. The main problem is the levels - most of them look drab and empty, and it’s sometimes difficult to spot any differences in levels across the same campaign - all levels in Stalingrad look alike, same with the deserts of Libya or the villages in France. This is a serious problem that made me feel like I was replaying the same level over and over again until I got to the next campaign.

What exacerbates this feeling of running in circles is mission structure. Throughout all three campaigns - Soviet, American and British - the player is usually given the task of clearing houses/bunkers/fields/whatever of German troops and moving to the next location where he’ll be doing the exact same thing. Sure, there are some variations - shooting down a tank, sniping enemies from a high vantage point, a (very underwhelming) tank battle or some on-rails vehicle sections (which would become a series staple in further installments), but they are mere drops in a sea of mundanity. Yes, the shooting is still quite fun and the weapons feel fine (although I think they could’ve used some more variety), but repetitiveness is still the defining factor of most levels.

What I found most frustrating is the AI on both sides of the conflict. Enemies tend to run out of cover for no good reason and sometimes spawn right behind your back, just when you thought you had cleared the area. Your brothers in arms are even worse, unfortunately. They love to get right in your line of fire, they block hallways and stand on German grenades, waiting for them to explode and end their short lives. I also witnessed the legendary Captain Price throw a grenade right into the wall in front of him and the thing ricocheting back to one of his soldiers, who patiently waited to be blown to pieces (by the way, the game could do with fewer grenades available to your enemies, on Hard difficulty especially, as on some levels I felt like I did more running away from grenades than actual shooting, and in this game you can’t throw them back yet).

And when your companions and enemies meet, miracles happen. There were so many instances of German and Allied soldiers standing right next to each other and not acknowledging each other’s presence simply because the AI was focused on enemies tens of meters away. This obviously kills any sense of immersion, where you’re thrown into an environment where you’re supposed to be fighting for your life but every minute you stumble upon soldiers so stupid you just stop and look in sincere admiration instead. These moments kill the feeling the game tries to create - of facing overwhelming Nazi forces, fighting side by side with your compatriots. Instead, the faulty AI made me feel like I was the only human amongst malfunctioning robots.

There are some interesting ideas regarding AI, e.g. your brothers in arms will often shout the current location of enemy soldiers. This would be useful in a game with more open levels, because apart from some specific scenarios where enemies approach you from all sides this was rather superfluous. On that topic - yes, I realize it’s Call of Duty and it’s expected to be linear, but I felt like some levels were too limiting in where I was allowed to go. There are some levels with opportunities for flanking for example, but there is also a large number of corridors where you’re just supposed to face the enemy head on.

There are some truly amazing moments and I’d like to make it clear. Taking down the first tank in Stalingrad, landing on the beaches of Normandy (yes, ripped straight from ‘Saving Private Ryan’, but still pretty effective), the first level clearing Nazi bunkers in North Africa. But they’re few and far between, and the vast majority of the game is a pretty run of the mill World War 2 era FPS. I found out rather quickly that the game is quite tedious in longer sittings and works best in short, no more than 30 minute sessions.

One quick note - I was taken aback by the choice of quotes that are shown on screen when I died or reached a new level. The game clearly tries to romanticize the conflict it portrays - the score full of pathos, the Hollywood-like last minute rescues, the over the top voice acting (the British sound like caricatures), or the soldiers that are always eager to jump into action to ‘take down some Krauts’ and never express any fear or discomfort. The only level that might be considered an attempt to emulate ‘real’ (very thick quotation marks here) experience is the Normandy landing with its well directed introduction and incessant, deafening artillery strikes (although that might just be the Spielberg influence). Other than that it’s a pretty clean, inoffensive, ‘Greatest Generation casually killing Jerries’ type of narrative that doesn’t have absolutely anything to say. Why the odd choice of quotes, then? There are plenty of examples of lines harshly criticizing war and lamenting the loss of life, which are in stark contrast to the actual game which makes war look fun. Also, I wonder how some historical figures who said those quotes, e.g. Churchill and Zapata, would feel about being placed next to each other. Perhaps I’m reading too much into this and the developers simply looked up ‘quotes about war’, chose some that they thought sounded cool and never thought about it again. All in all, I think that the following Erasmus quote sums up the whole experience and at the same time it’s extremely ironic for having been included in this particular game: "War is delightful to those who have not experienced it."

Mit für damalige Verhältnisse sehr realistischen Raucheffekten bedeckte Schlachtfelder und zerstörte Häuser erzeugen eine dichte Atmosphäre in diesem zweiten Hauptteil der CoD-Reihe. Der recht gute Soundtrack sowie ganz besonders die deutsche Synchro mit den kontextabhängigen Rufen der Soldaten tun ihr Übriges.

Eine kleine, aber feine Neuerung stellt das Schadenskonzept dar, denn das teils nervige Haushalten mit Medipacks wird durch automatisches Heilen beim In-Deckung-Gehen ersetzt – ein erfrischend moderner Gameplay-Aspekt. Auch die aus anderen Shootern seit jeher bekannten explosiven roten Fässer sind nun ebenfalls mit von der Partie.

Ganze vier Kampagnen bietet Call of Duty 2, darunter eine russische, eine britische und zwei amerikanische; diese Einzelgeschichten sind allesamt erstaunlich lang. Lediglich das unnötig patriotische Propaganda-Introvideo der Amerikaner nervt einfach nur. Immerhin gibt es – ähnlich wie im Konsolenableger „Finest Hour“ – mehrere Länder bzw. Kontinente zu sehen und ein wenig zu erkunden, darunter Afrika, Russland, Deutschland und Frankreich. Ganz besonders schön und eindrucksvoll umgesetzt ist die D-Day-Mission, bei der man als Soldat an der Küste zusammen mit unzähligen anderen im Boot ankommt und erstmal per Seil die Steilküste zu den Schlachtplatz-Gräben heraufklettern muss.

An der Panzersteuerung hat sich endlich etwas getan, sodass diese eine für PC-Spieler natürlichere Bewegung ermöglicht. Dank der extrem flüssigen FPS, durch die mein Framerate-Graph zu keiner Zeit auch nur einen Hüpfer gemacht hat, ist das Spielgefühl insgesamt ein sehr gutes.

Das ist übrigens mein dritter COD-Teil.

Gespielte Fassung: Uncut-Windows-Version mit deutscher Synchro unter Linux

Yet another classic shooter. In my opinion this one of the few times this franchise peaked.

(Campaign Only)

-The gameplay is fantastic, basically just CoD1 but they knew exactly what they wanted to improve, what to add, and what to remove. It is obvious there was a passionate team behind this game. Playing it right now might not seem such big deal; because these mechanics are now a norm and in some cases a must, but at the time of release many of them were brand new, or at least not as well done as in this game.

-The campaign is divided into 3 parts; Russian, British, and American. Each of them have their unique atmosphere, and I'm not talking about simple things like the accents. Each campaign has a unique set of guns (except for the Germans, which use the same guns). Other than that each campaign take place in a different place, which makes it hella fun. The Russian campaign is majorly in the snowy Stalingrad (and other parts of Russia), the British campaign is in the deserts of North Africa, and the American campaign takes place in France and Germany. There are also some missions (like controlling a tank) which are a breath of fresh air and makes the game more interesting.

-The graphics are amazing for 2005. First of all, for some reason the game supports up to 4K. And second, the particle effects are amazing; the smoke grenades, the mists, pieces of dirt flying around when a grenade blows up, etc.

-Sound design and voice acting is also great specially considering nobody really took games serious in 2005.

-The only real issue is that there is basically no story.