[h1]Review of Call of Duty 2[/h1]
With the success of the first game, it was a no brainer that a sequel would be greenlit and ship under two years later. Being a fair improvement on just about everything that original title did, from better visuals to more variety in its retellings of notable World War 2 battles.
Much like with many other series' out there, this one has its dedicated fans who swear by it, and it's not hard to see why. I firmly believe that Call of Duty 2 is the better of the two original games, but there's no reason you can't play and enjoy both of them.
[u]Establishing Call of Duty as a Franchise[/u]
Going from the first game to the second feels so natural. Like you've stepped into more of what made the original so likeable. Merely with higher quality. Once again, historical events are remade with some flare for the sake of gameplay. Missions are similarly opened with journal entries from the playable characters, and preceded with real footage of World War 2. However, instead of retreading the same grounds with the conflicts showcased, we focus on new perspectives and battles not shared in the first game. I must make it clear though, that I do not mind game sequels that keep an established formula.
Where both the first & second titles are most similar, is the way the game is structured. This was clearly what they intended to stick with for a while, as quite a few of the old school CoD games did this. There's a total of 10 playable missions, split between three unique nation's campaigns. This time beginning in the shoes of a conscript of the Soviet Union in the Hellish Winter on the Eastern Front (Primarily Stalingrad), followed by the British story that sees you spending most of your time in Northern Africa. Then finally, invading France with a company of United States Army Rangers as you push towards the Rhine on the Western Front of the European Theatre. The game remains episodic in format, from the early 1940's to 1945. If you're a fan of film, you'll notice plenty of references, just like the original game.
One of the things I enjoyed a lot about Call of Duty 2 was the battles depicted in the campaign. Don't get me wrong, I would gladly charge the beaches of Omaha a thousand times in a thousand different games. To me that will never get old, but it's always really nice to see other parts of the war shown off. For example, instead of the iconic Omaha beach landings, we get to see the lesser known scaling of the cliffs in Pointe du Hoc. Grapnels were fired from landing craft up 100+ feet sheer cliffs, then climbed by soldiers to take the ridge and push inland. It was nowhere near as bloody as Omaha, but everybody's efforts were critical, and I'm so happy to see more of these depictions. It's genuinely difficult to pick a favorite mission, as many of them are fantastic. I love the British mission in Eygpt, one where you're surrounded on all sides and watch as German troops pour over the sand dunes with trucks & tanks to support. Climbing, taking, and then holding Hill 400 is an absolute highlight for me as well.
[u]Gameplay & Criticisms[/u]
If you've played the first game, you'll slip right into this. As it's practically identical. Some of the weapons that are in both games have changed slightly, but movement & gunplay feels the same. The roster of useable weaponry is relatively similar to the previous game. With some differences. For example, the FG42 doesn't reappear here, which is sad. However, plenty of the other iconic firearms from the PPSh to the MP/StG-44 return. According to the wiki, Call of Duty 2 actually has more guns. However, I've actually been unable to find some of these guns.. maybe they're just for the multiplayer? Like the M3 Grease Gun or the Trench Gun. The biggest change this game made though, is removing finite health. Instead of health pickups, you now regenerate health over time when not receiving damage. I don't mind this feature, but I feel like it lead to some rebalancing in the combat I could have done without.
There's no shortage of variety in missions and objectives again. It's easy to see some staples forming. We get another vehicle mission, but this time controlling a British Crusader in North Africa. Being able to take control of infamous 88mm gun emplacements and use them against enemy armor, or choose to flank them and place explosive charges. One interesting feature is that you can either choose to immobilize the tank to make it easier to flank, or just destroy it outright.
I'm almost positive that the AI must be the same between this and the first game. Squads still follow you around during objective missions. Naturally taking cover, and helping in combat. They're fully capable of taking down enemies without much issue. Which is GREAT. I can't stress enough how much that helps immerse me. Unfortunately though, this means that your squad mates still bunch up and block your path. It's a minor issue.
Okay, so for my main issues with the gameplay. These do not by any means ruin the game for me. By far the greatest problem I have is the grenades. What in the living Hell is up with grenades in this game. There's more being thrown than there's bullets being fired. It's clear that it's meant to flush you out of cover for gameplay reasons, but it just feels a little too over tuned. Press the crouch button? Here's three grenades for you. Take cover behind one singular sandbag? Here's two more grenades. Stop moving for 2 nanoseconds? A box of grenades for you. Scripted grenades too? Got you covered! I thought World at War was cursed with this, but apparently it was born here. It would help if enemies weren't perfectly accurate with them (Sometimes they'll be facing away from you, but still toss a grenade backwards right to your feet). Beyond this though, I really didn't have too many other annoyances that got on my nerves. Mission checkpoints are forgiving, so dying isn't too much of a setback.
The last thing I would say felt a little off, was the campaign pacing. Missions are broken into different parts separated by loading screens. The 3 Soviet missions are over in an hour or less, and then the first two US missions seem to go on for three times the length of the entire Soviet campaign. Only to end with the "Crossing the Rhine" mission which is like 10-15 minutes to complete.
This game supports a multiplayer mode too.
[u]Visuals[/u]
I think one of the standout parts of the sequel was its jump in visual quality. The game is "larger" in the sense that mission areas have far more detail and props. Textures & lighting are improved, and effects from explosions and debris are impressive compared to the original.
The game is also far more cinematic than the first. The opening to the mission in El Daba, is probably one of the best examples. The emotional music, with the city under siege in the distance. As bombers roar over head with British fighters hot on their tails, while your convoy slowly approaches.
[h1]Conclusion (Pros & Cons)[/h1]
I know World War 2 games of this era became "over saturated" and a lot of people lost interest in them. I've never found that an issue personally, and could endlessly enjoy great games based on the largest Human conflict to date. Call of Duty 2 is a great sequel to an already great game. It's pretty short, but still a good time. I'd give anything to see my first CoD game, Big Red One, come to PC some day.
[b]Pros:[/b]
+Great Sequel
+Smooth gameplay
+Expanded battle variety
[b]Neutral:[/b]
~Some annoying AI
[b]Cons:[/b]
-Grenade Hell
[h1]Disclaimer[/h1]
Thank you for taking the time to read my review. Please remember, that this is just my opinion. We don't have to agree, one thing I love you may hate, and one thing I hate you may love. Hopefully this gave you an idea of what to expect.
[b]Review lengths have been greatly compressed due to the character limit.[/b]
01/05/2026
