Call of Duty Classic Review

By Dan Whitehead Published 7 December, 2009

Rewind and re-enlist.

Version tested: Xbox 360

It's strange to think that a game which came out six years ago is now considered a retro release, but that's the situation Call of Duty finds itself in for this celebratory digital airing of the first game in the series. Showered with slobbery kisses back in 2003, and squashed under a ton of Game of the Year awards, it arrives in 2009 looking surprisingly outdated for a game so young - though no less entertaining for its premature ageing.

What's most apparent is how little the Call of Duty series has actually changed over its five subsequent iterations. Almost every element is already in place here, from the fondness for bombastic set-pieces to the rather pompous quotes propping up the loading screens. This is not a game of great narrative depth or insight, only really a few beats away from the daft run-and-gun action of Wolfenstein, so these snatches of war-related wisdom from Churchill, Hemingway and Voltaire seem even more incongruous.

There are three tales, following US, British and Soviet forces, but these play out one after another rather than being shuffled up like later titles in the series. As always, these stories are little more than an excuse to drop you into short, sharp encounters with numerous enemies. It's lighter on the first-person situational gimmickry than we're now used to - there are no sections where you have to shoot enemies with a crossbow while riding on a jet-ski inside a blimp that's crashing into a volcano, for instance.

'Call of Duty Classic' Screenshot 1

The hunt for Vladimir's lost contact lens provided a welcome distraction from the brutality of war.

But it's easy to see why it so bowled people over six years ago. An early car chase is exhilarating (if hampered by the way your soldier can still rotate through a complete circle while leaning out of the window - perhaps he's just a torso on a turntable) while story sections use the first-person view to put you in high-concept scenarios like a glider crash-landing behind enemy lines or bluffing your way aboard a German battleship.

The giddy core of the game is right there from the start. This isn't a series that evolved into a blockbuster - it was born with explosions and blood and oh my god that plane crashed right next to me; thrill-seeking already thrashing around in its DNA. The upside to this is that Call of Duty Classic is still an absolute blast to play, albeit one with a lot more rough edges than you might expect.

It's nothing special graphically, and often looks downright ugly. Character models are bloaty and unconvincing, and the rudimentary AI is even more transparent than in its current ancestors. Race ahead of the game's crude signposting and you can find NPCs standing rigidly waiting to be activated by the presence of someone else or, worse, find empty areas that magically fill with enemies when the correct trigger point is hit.

In the first real story level, for example, you can dash across the first field without waiting for your fellow paratroopers to land. Do this, and you can reach the house at the end and lob grenades through the window before the German machine-gunners even exist, let alone get a chance to shoot you.

The Call of Duty games have always been rail-bound carnival rides, but recent incarnations have become adept at masking their mechanisms behind smoke and mirrors (well, okay, mostly smoke). Playing the first entry, in all its slightly crude glory, feels like you're going through the same carnival ride but now all the lights have been switched on, and you can see the wires and pulleys that make the plastic skeletons fly overhead. It's fun, but hardly immersive.

This means that a lot of the recurring complaints about the COD template are even more relevant. Enemies tend to either pop in and out of cover like whack-a-mole puppets, or run towards your location in a suicidal manner. Too many encounters can be survived simply by waiting in a room for enemies to run through the door, one after another. Allied AI isn't much better, with squad mates wandering in front of you (friendly fire is an instant "game over") or squatting on top of grenades.

The game predates the era of rechargeable health, so medical kits litter the ground - at least on the lower difficulty levels. Veteran, as is traditional, is brutal, frustrating and often blatantly unfair. With no quicksave, no way of regaining lost health, some horribly spaced checkpoints and enemies that can kill with one shot, it's the sort of experience that will reduce those weaned on the comparatively cuddly Modern Warfare to a gibbering mess.

If you picked up Classic for free as a thank-you for buying Modern Warfare 2 in some fancy pants special edition then it's an interesting history lesson. If you're paying 1200 Microsoft Points (£10.20 / €14.40) for the privilege, however, it's harder to make an emphatic recommendation.

'Call of Duty Classic' Screenshot 2

Er, guys? Behind you.

First-person shooters are a little like supermodels, in that they're swiftly shunted aside when a younger, fitter alternative comes along to do exactly the same thing. The existence of Super Mario Galaxy doesn't impact on the genius of Super Mario Bros 3, but Call of Duty Classic is, in most aspects, simply a clunkier version of what you can now do in Modern Warfare 2 (or, if you want to be pedantic, World at War) with a lot more polish and audacity.

The multiplayer, for instance, offers six modes and apart from the crude lobby system is a compelling part of the package. But... who is seriously going to invest the hours when Modern Warfare 2 is beckoning with its longevity, depth and fiercely committed community?

All of which leaves this exhumed Call of Duty in a weirdly redundant position. It's a very good game, and the "classic" tag is deserved. As the reviewer's cliché goes, if you like Call of Duty, you'll like this. How could you not? It's the same game you've already played in its more advanced form, making this more of an academic exercise in gaming genealogy.

An important game then, though perhaps more so for Activision's accountants than the FPS genre itself, and one that fans won't regret experiencing again. Just don't feel like you're missing out on anything too essential if you decide to stick with Soap, Roach and friends.

7 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Dan.

About Dan Whitehead

Dan has been writing for Eurogamer since 2006 and specialises in RPGs, shooters and games for children. His bestest game ever is Julian Gollop's Chaos.

Read more articles from Dan by visiting the Dan Whitehead archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (54) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • harzo #1 2 years ago

    I have been waiting on a review of this - 800 points and it would have been a must buy but I am still quite tempted!

  • HermitArcader #2 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • Darren #3 2 years ago

    @Vertical Stand - No, Call of Duty is NOT crap, the review text and that 7/10 score clearly contradict that claim (since an EG 7 is a GOOD score). No, Call of Duty is a classic alright, it's just a bit dated that's all.

  • HermitArcader #4 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • HuggyAtHome #5 2 years ago

    Not sure I can justify the spend on something already compleetd when the backlog of recent titles to finish is so long. Also, just got hold of Crackdown for a similar price and for me that is money far better spent.

    Smacks a little of blatant cash-in really.

  • swissorc #6 2 years ago

    PLayed the demo on live and unless you sit in a pitch black room you can't see jack in the level following the tutorial so I gave up.

  • siro #7 2 years ago

    Hmm, I played the demo and was quite surprised how badly this has aged.

    I love retro games, but just having finished MW2 the day before (first of the modern CODs for me) this was just to bad. Worst aspect were the controls (would have been ok with a mouse I guess).

    4/10

    Swissorc: You need to fix your monitor settings.

  • djed #8 2 years ago



    Unlike in MW, where something like suddenly losing control over your playing character to endure another pointless "look mom, im blinking" scripted event is not noticeable at all. This game is the real carnival, every iteration after has been the distorted memories of a bunch of old blokes reminiscing about THE GOOD OLD DAYS.

    Also, is there a reason for this receiving a score and also not being in the retro section?

  • matrim83 #9 2 years ago

    It's strange to think that a game which came out six years ago is now considered a retro release

    If you consider sequels as a frame of time instead of time itself CoD1 might as well be an SNES game. :p

  • tossetaz #10 2 years ago

    @dai_bonehead I would like to think a couple of other fps' were as great as those you mention. The half-life series comes to mind - and if the talk is on being different I think far cry 2 should be mentioned for doing a decent job at that.

    On the topic of MW2 I have nothing to add, your absolutely right.
    Edited by 1 at 07/12/09 @ 09:23

  • metallicorphan #11 2 years ago

    i played the trial....needs a sprint button,i kept on pressing down on the analogue stick expecting to start running,instead he just took his sweet time :(

  • DFawkes #12 2 years ago

    I'm quite enjoying the campaign mode, it's every bit as good as I remember. It's the leap back to having a health bar that took me by surprise most, and the treks back to health kits when I make stupid mistakes. Forgot how useful the lean is too - it's still quite sweet peaking out and lining up a good old headshot before peaking back in.

    Not a big fan of the multiplayer, but mostly because I'm super awful at it and it has no deathstreak bonuses :p

  • paketep #13 2 years ago

    Snifff. To think that IW used to make fantastic games..

  • kipper #14 2 years ago

    Is the game in HD?
    Yes, but the graphics are identical to the original version.

    & does it have achivements / throphies?
    Yes

    ..Also, Is CoD a 7/10 or a 9/10 then?
    7/10 in 2009, 9/10 in 2003.

  • Whizzo #15 2 years ago

    tbh the first COD was neither grounbreaking or very polished in 2003

    The original CoD was, and still is, great. I'm disappointed with the console port though, it does seem to be rather dark in places and considering the graphics capabilities of the modern console why it's not got tons of anti-aliasing to help it out (the barbed wire you crawl under in training is a perfect example) is a bit strange.

  • quolema #16 2 years ago

    So... worse than Halo?

  • uglygamer #17 2 years ago

    Is anyone else bored of Modern Warfare 2 already?

  • D_arkTrooper #18 2 years ago

    And the lack of rumble in the PS3 version is.....well......

  • Benno #19 2 years ago

    Better than MW2

  • Mongoose #20 2 years ago

    Got this for the multiplayer but the fact that it's only 8 players (though still hard to find full games) and the lobby system is useless (you get kicked at the end of every game; come on this is 2009!) means I would not recommend that side of it. Buy the PC version again I would suggest!

  • Skurmedel #21 2 years ago

    The first Call of Duty is the one that is good, but I think it's at its best on the Eastern Front, which actually felt like large battle in the game. The US campaign is sometimes a carbon copy of Saving Private Ryan, it's not quite as original.

    I think MP in this one is horrible though, with the moving spawnpoints in team deathmatch, it allows for some pretty ridiculous kills when a enemy just spawns in front of you. Then again, I think MP in CoD 4 was pretty shit as well.
    Edited by 2 at 07/12/09 @ 11:26

  • DUFFKING #22 2 years ago

    The MP is still my favourite of the CoD games. So much more tactical and skill-based than the most recent iterations.

    I don't recommend this though, the controls are horrible. Something just feels completely wrong with the aiming.

  • sneetch #23 2 years ago

    @Skurmedel
    The first Call of Duty is the one that is good, but I think it's at its best on the Eastern Front, which actually felt like large battle in the game. The US campaign is sometimes a carbon copy of Saving Private Ryan, it's not quite as original.

    Yeah, the Soviet campaign is the best (although in turn a lot of it is a straight knock off of Enemy at the Gates). Loved the sniping. Still love this game, first game I played where it felt as if you were part of a team and it wasn't just you as Joe "Ironballs" McDeathski going to go shove his boot so far up Hitler's ass that he'll taste American leather (or whatever).

    Plus I love the ping noise when a Garand clip ejects.

  • Monkey_Puncher #24 2 years ago

    Part of me would like to see Infinity Ward go back to World War 2. I know I'm most definitely in the minority when I say this, but there's just something about the bolt action rifles and the historical settings that I find more appealing to tactical nukes and machine guns.

    Give me CoD 2 multiplayer with perks and online match making and I'd be a very happy bunny! (please don't suggest that tosh by Treyarch)
    Edited by 1 at 07/12/09 @ 12:07

  • marcgiu #25 2 years ago

    has it become fashionable already to start slating MW2 ?

  • makeamazing #26 2 years ago

    has it become fashionable already to start slating MW2 ?

    Well I will slate it because MW2 was abysmal not because of it being apparently fashionable.. its only the second game Ive brought that I have traded in.. the other was Resistance 2 which was also dire.

    The Call of Duty classic games may be graphically poor by todays standards, but the story and the way the levels were put together were just brilliant...Something that is sadly missing from MW2.

  • ignatiusjreilly #27 2 years ago

    Why is it so many people can see the problems with MW/MW2, but I've yet to find a reviewer who even mentions them?

    It's like GTAIV and Spore, gets mixed reviews in public but there seems to be total agreement among the official reviews.

  • Tetsuo_Shima #28 2 years ago

    What! I played CoD1 multi on the PC last night, and I have to say that it hasn't aged one single itty bit. If anything, going back to the old way - where firing guns fully automatic would have you staring at the sky, having no hit indicators to show you hitting people through walls/smoke, no shoddy heartbeat sensors or claymores or any of that bumff - shows up MW2 for the nub friendly point-and-click adventure it really is. It doesn't even look that bad!
    Don't get me wrong, MW2 is great in it's own little techno-terrorism way, but CoD1 is nothing but an absolute classic. Absolute! They havent had to change the aiming mechanics at all over the course of 4 sequels because it was so damn flawless the first time around. A complete gem.

  • SpaceMidget75 Verified Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #29 2 years ago

    Another 1200 game. :(

    When you look at some of the games you can get on Steam for a tenner it boggles the mind that MS/Publishers are getting away with this.

    Some games are clearly worth 1200 points though (BF1943, Shadow Complex etc)

  • sneetch #30 2 years ago

    @ignatiusjreilly
    Why is it so many people can see the problems with MW/MW2, but I've yet to find a reviewer who even mentions them?

    It's like GTAIV and Spore, gets mixed reviews in public but there seems to be total agreement among the official reviews.

    It's odd alright. I disliked GTAIV, I was completely sold by the rave reviews and was hugely disappointed. I tried to like it, I went back a few times to try to see what I was missing but I just don't like it.

    The irony is that in the past I've been accused of jumping on some "hater" bandwagon because I didn't like it, surely the "lover" bandwagon is just obvious?

  • neems #31 2 years ago

    I'll always remember this for the opening Russian level (battle of Stalingrad I guess?), first the boat trip and then you get given a clip of bullets and are told to follow the guy with the rifle.

    It was awesome at the time, although the multiplayer could never distract me from Day of Defeat.

  • FooAtari #32 2 years ago

    Can get CoD and the Expansion on the PC for £4. Controls better as well. Seems this has been poorly ported.

  • Sarlix #33 2 years ago

    Are they talking about the PC or console version? because original COD for the PC had some of the best multi-player maps ever. Last time I played it the servers were still going strong, which suggests it has something going for it.

  • tesodosbichos #34 2 years ago

    I love how it is now the vogue thing for faux gamers to criticise MW2, IW and now, by extension, the original COD. They think it makes them look like gaming connoisseurs to go against the grain. The reality of the situation is a lot more tragic. As for this port it is poorly done and does not do the original PC game justice. If anyone wants to revisit it or see where it all began then get the PC version. It is not only better but cheaper. I am not surprised by the review score because practically every game will drop a notch or two when you return to it particularly considering the length of time and number of sequels in this case. It was great in its time but is now dated and the genre has moved on.

  • dingo75 #35 2 years ago

    I started to play COD + expansion shortly before MW2 came out.
    The Russian missions were really intense and enjoyable.
    After having played MW2 I think COD was made me feeling much more "insecure" than MW2 covering and hoping no grenades would fly my way. The "Duck and recover health" is making this too easy nowadays.

    Game was fine for me and I had no problems with the aged and yes at time pretty ugly graphics.
    It crashed a few times on my system though.
    Currently I'm stuck at the "Kursk" level in the expansion on highest difficulty and it's nearly impossible to do.

  • ignatiusjreilly #36 2 years ago

    has it become fashionable already to start slating MW2 ?

    I love how it is now the vogue thing for faux gamers to criticise MW2

    Question: do you really think that MW2 is so good that any criticism is impossible? If not, then what you are saying is no different than me saying you only pretend to like the game because you got sucked in by the advertising.

  • iago71 #37 2 years ago

    I would have to agree with the people saying theyd like a return to WW2. Also, for the record I do like MW 1/2 though admittedly am shit at the MP ( regardless of whether I enjoy it).

    It'd be great to see a return to something more historical. But taking all the stuff that theyve added since and refining it into a new title with all the perks and so on.

    What about WW1 ? Thats not really been covered as far as I can remember. I guess it would just be lots of whistles blowing and people running over the top into a barrage of enemy lead!!!! Maybe it wouldnt work. :(

  • monkeywithnoeyes #38 2 years ago

    strange how they dont mention the terrible framerate..which is enough to denie me being able to recommend this to even the most servere bored.

    A lazy rushed port of a game thats a classic and could of been well suited amongst the arcade games

  • man.the.king #39 2 years ago

    I look forward to 2015 when Dan Whitehead gives a 7/10 retro-review to Modern Warfare 2 for appearing dated compared to the latest FPS blockbuster of the time.
    Edited by 1 at 07/12/09 @ 18:39

  • davisorle #40 2 years ago

    I just find it odd reviewing old games. Its not remade or anything so it should keep a score that it would have gotten when it was made. CoD was awesome back in the days but so outdated that even if I own it I know for a fact I wont be able to play it all over again now. I just cant play somethign that looks "nasty" anymore even if I found badasss back then.

  • Sharzam #41 2 years ago

    Dumb question, why not get the PC version ? It surely will work on majority of modern pcs and laptops i bet. By sounds of the review and these comments its a sloppy port anyway.

  • arcam #42 2 years ago

    Has anyone actually checked the original CoD review? 7/10. http://ww w.eurogamer.net/articles/r_call...

    I know opinion is opinion, but I think giving a 7 to Call of Duty in 2003 and a 9 to MW2 in 2009 might actually be a criminal offence.

    Edited by 2 at 07/12/09 @ 19:38

  • FooAtari #43 2 years ago

    I just find it odd reviewing old games. Its not remade or anything so it should keep a score that it would have gotten when it was made.

    I agree with this. Your basically marking down a six year old game, for being six years old. Which is a bit unfair. Should have just waited and did the retrospective you did a few weeks ago, now. There shouldn't be a score attached to this.

  • Whizzo #44 2 years ago

    arcam, the original CoD was one of the rare games that had a double review, Krudster gave it 7/10, Shinji 9/10. I'm with Shinji on this one.

  • Rodchenko #45 2 years ago

    MW2 is a good multiplayer, but the SP is a disaster.

    Horses for courses. I don't play MP, but I actually like MW2's campaign much better than MWs, with the scenario around 'Second Sun' and 'Whiskey Hotel' being amongst my favorite FPS levels so far, mostly for the lighting effects. And the Spec-Ops missions are rather addictive as well.

    I am looking forward to IWs offerings 6 years from now, when MW2 will look as dated as COD looks now.
    Edited by 1 at 07/12/09 @ 20:12

  • offside5 #46 2 years ago

    Bought this last week, really enjoyed playing it both single player and multiplayer. The multiplayer maps are great

  • miiiguel #47 2 years ago

    I bought the game, been playing it on Vet for a ridiculous amount of hours now, as it is bloody hard, no heatlh-regen no med packs... now, that's hardcore.
    I disagree the claim that this is worth just as an academic/historical material. Yes, it's worth because of that, but not only, it is a good game. It was in 2003, and it is today. It has tension, it has historical accuracy, it's not "stupid". Also can't agree with the "too scripted" complain about IW games. Well, they are scripted - and not only by means on pseudo-cut scenes - all their games are scripted, enemies go always to same place, spawn from the same doors when one passes an invisible line. One thing is liking another aproach on games, another is saying that this is a flaw, is not, it is what it is, it's like a play, and you have your role. It's like the antithesis of Halo, where everything plays diferent each time, every time. Just diferent. IW make good games, too bad for the "hip factor" if they sell shit loads, I'm not jumping into that train, I rather play the games.
    Agree, though, that this is not a very good port. My fellow pc gamers have to agree with me but this has too much a "PC/raw feeling", it lacks the polish of console games, and it even crashed once.
    8/10
    That's my opinion.
    Edited by 3 at 07/12/09 @ 20:56

  • IronCladChicken #48 2 years ago

    @FooAtari
    I'd guess this is becasue of the XBox live re-release... For people who haven't played the game before and can see it advertised in the Game Marketplace?

  • Skurmedel #49 2 years ago

    Anyway you must judge the games based on the current standard. That's what somebody new to the game is gonna do. The rest of us already know what we think.

    I don't see how factoring in the age is in anyway better. Would you give Galaga 10/10 just because it was awesome back in the days?
    Edited by 2 at 07/12/09 @ 21:55

  • FooAtari #50 2 years ago

    @IronCladChicken

    Well why haven't EG reviewed the Xbox classic games that are available on live?

    I just don't think re-releases should be reviewed in the same way new games are. A score should not be attached for a start.

    @skurmedel
    Would you give Galaga 10/10 just because it was awesome back in the days?

    No, I wouldn't give it a score at all.
    Edited by 1 at 07/12/09 @ 22:21

  • Skurmedel #51 2 years ago

    But if Galaga was released on Live?

  • dsmx #52 2 years ago

    I'd give galaga a 10 regardless of when it was releaed. It was and still is a fantastic game, getting the double ship was a great feeling and heartbreaking when you got hit and lost it.

  • Skurmedel #53 2 years ago

    Yes that's all fine, but that kind of escapes my point.

  • FooAtari #54 2 years ago

    As I said, have EG reviewed the Xbox classic games released on Live such as Halo or Fable?