Call of Duty 2 Review

By Kristan Reed Published 2 December, 2005

Finest port?

Version tested: Xbox 360

Playing PC ports on a console is usually a fairly wretched experience that requires huge reserves of forgiveness and goodwill, but not in this case. At least, not when the huge-value system you're playing it on kicks your beige box into next year.

If there's one thing the Xbox 360 is brilliant at doing right now, it's delivering perfect conversions of the most technically demanding first person shooters: the kind of games that demand a graphics card upgrade that (in some cases) cost even more than the Xbox 360. Case in point: Infinity Ward's 'proper' Call of Duty sequel (We say 'proper', as Activision, of course, has another entirely separate line of CoD games out for PS2, Xbox and Cube).

Having enjoyed another bombastic romp through various theatres of war a month ago, its arrival on the 360 is actually far more exciting than we anticipated, and - joy - doesn't require a lengthy install, patches and driver updates.

Spot on

The gameplay content, look and feel is 100 per cent identical to the PC original in every way that matters, and even the controls feel perfectly converted despite lacking the assured precision of the keyboard and mouse. You still fight through 27 missions over three campaigns, taking in the war from the perspective of the Russians, Brits and then eventually the US Army. Along the way you get to fight in a typically diverse set of locales (snowy Russia, the dusty deserts of North Africa, French villages, you know the drill), but all the while sticking it to the Nazis all over again.

'Call of Duty 2' Screenshot 1

Our old friend the exploding barrel helps us on our way again.

As with all the games of this extremely popular sub-genre, every mission follows roughly the same entertaining Nazi-bashing formula. Thrust into the firing line alongside your squad mates, it's a simple case of using cover wisely, patiently taking out waves of enemies, destroying whatever important equipment they happen to have stationed and high-fiving your success. Either that or you'll choke on the blood of bitter defeat and start again from your last checkpoint. It's a hugely cinematic war-time thrill ride that, for the most part, is linear, tightly focused, choreographed to the max and does a great job of delivering the manic intensity of war.

But while the concept is extremely familiar these days (some would argue over familiar), and the gameplay remains as resolutely linear as it ever was, it's difficult to not be impressed with some of the refinements. Going much further than simply cranking up the visual fidelity, IW has taken care to make the game convincing in all manner of subtle ways, such as the squad behaviour, the level of context sensitive buddy chatter, their intelligent path-finding and excellent animation. These all help generate even greater immersion and help keep you in the heat of the battle rather than cringing at technical flaws.

Smokin'

'Call of Duty 2' Screenshot 2

Otherwise known as the back-ache war.

And on top of that, little additions like the ability to lob smoke grenades as a shield between you and the enemy add a new layer of tactical choice and depth to the game, while smarter level design now gives players the ability to tackle tasks in the order of their choosing - as opposed to the traditional on-rails approach that we've grown tired of over the years.

The health and save game systems, meanwhile, have both been completely overhauled from the previous CoD. For a start you can't quicksave your progress, but must rely on regular checkpoints instead - a welcome decision that completely negates the need to constantly worry about diving back to the menu to record your progress every time you've killed an enemy. Tied into this more progress-friendly system is the removal of any kind of health status bar - or health packs for that matter. Somewhat controversially, what you have instead is a sort of visual indictator of 'injury tolerance'. Essentially, when you cop some bullets, you'll know about it instantly, via the beating of your heart, the shallowing of your breath, and the bloody smear around the edges of the screen. At that point, you know that any more damage will cause you to keel over, so your only choice is to crawl off and find the nearest cover point and wait for the pain to subside. You'll know that once your hearing and vision is back to normal that you're good to go again, and as a result the game's a lot easier to make constant progress through. In fact, all 27 levels will be done and dusted in a matter of eight hours or so.

As with the PC original, the same bugbears persist in the 360 port. Enemy AI is still a little on the forgiving side, always giving you way too much opportunity to cap them, even on higher difficulty settings. And despite the big advances in squad AI in CoD's rivals like Brothers In Arms, there's literally no opportunity to order anyone around in any way. With plenty of scope to introduce suppress and flank tactics into the mix, there's never any hint of being able to do anything more than simply run and gun, which feels like a missed opportunity to us. Still, tactical action's not everyone's cuppa.

Fortune favours the brave

'Call of Duty 2' Screenshot 3

Oi, come back with my wheel!

As with all the other 360 games, there are a number of Game Achievements for the taking (13 in this case), which help towards boosting your GamerScore. In CoD2 you'll get awarded points for anything from completing the training to finishing the game on various difficulty levels. It also encourages players to try the ultimate Veteran difficulty level by awarding points for finishing missions at that level. The odd thing, though, is Veteran isn't actually as hard as you might imagine. Sure, enemies are a little more unforgiving and, yes, you die more easily, but you can still rely on the regular checkpoints and are still able to constantly recharge your health. Do yourself a favour: play it on Veteran from the start if you really want to get the most out of CoD2. It's a far tenser, more engaging experience in all sorts of ways and will mean the game lasts longer, and you'll unlock a shedload of Game Achievements into the bargain.

The multiplayer, though, is a little underwhelming. Unlike, say, Perfect Dark Zero, you gain literally no achievements for playing the various multiplayer modes - an odd decision when you consider the emphasis Microsoft places on Live. Although it has exactly the same modes as the PC version, the number of players is bizarrely capped for Live play at just eight players (PD Zero, for example, supports up to 32 players, has bots and will eventually support 50 player matches). There's 16 player support for System Link (and four player split screen), but the logistics of getting that many Xboxen in one room is barely worth thinking about.

Nevertheless, there are the usual crowd-pleasers, all of which can be played ranked or unranked. So, step forward out old pals Deathmatch, Team Deathmatch, and Capture the Flag modes. On top of these staples there's the team-based defend or attack Search and Destroy mode, and the sole new mode Headquarters, where the idea is to set up and control your HQ in one of two randomly designated areas on a map. The idea is to score more than your opponent by trying to over-run their HQ, with a new HQ spawning randomly once the round's over. Definitely a lot of fun

As ever, a plethora of customisation options lets you tailor the game just so and even despite being limited to eight players (including spectator mode, if that floats your boat) it's still a lot of fun, but you'll be spitting mad that IW didn’t go the whole hog and do the job properly. It's not as if the 360 can't handle it.

While controversy will doubtlessly rage over the neutered online mode (and accounts for the lower score than the PC version), the single player campaign's easily strong enough on its own to carry the game. As an instantly enjoyable shooter it's right up there with the very best; the cinematic intensity makes for a wonderfully immersive experience that makes you forget just how much depth it lacks elsewhere. Of the shooters available on the 360 at launch, Call of Duty 2 is easily the most accessible and consistently entertaining single player offering, but if online is your thing you're better off considering what Rare has to offer.

7 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Kristan.

About Kristan Reed

Kristan is a former editor of Eurogamer, dad, Stone Roses bore and Norwich City supporter who sometimes mutters optimistically about Team Silent getting back together.

Read more articles from Kristan by visiting the Kristan Reed archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (100) Latest comment 6 years ago

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

  • Tomo #1 6 years ago

    Blimey, I have to say I'm a bit miffed by these EG X360 reviews.

    Sorry, not trolling. Will write something more constructive later if I get round to it.
    Edited by 1 at 02/12/05 @ 09:35

  • andrewfromdoncaster #2 6 years ago

    Yeah i expected higher actually. But then I'd rather they weren't hyped scores, to only find that in 3 weeks time it is actually shit.

  • gypsumfantastic #3 6 years ago

    Aww, have a hug.

    I mean, it's not as if you didn't expect the Dreamcast 360's launch to be anything other than an unmitigated cavalcade of mediocrity and PC ports.

    Martin

  • Furbs #4 6 years ago

    Well like she says in the last paragraph - its not as good as the PC version due to the online mode so should be slightly lower scored.

    7 is not a bad score, but lets be honest, are any of the titles at launch truely groundbreaking? From what I've seen/read they arent. They are just decent, solid games, which is exactly what a 7/10 grade implies.

  • HarryB #5 6 years ago

    fuck off, i didnt get one, ok!?

  • Eldritch #6 6 years ago

    Only 2% of all Xbox owners play on Xbox Live.

    Why do you put such an emphasis on the multi-player part then?

  • gypsumfantastic #7 6 years ago

    HarryB,

    In a year, the price will be halved, there will be a few games worth having, and you won't need a liquid nitrogen rig for the powerblock.

    That will be the moment to buy one. Provided you have enough cash left from buying a PS3 and a Revolution.
    Edited by 1 at 02/12/05 @ 13:28

  • gypsumfantastic #8 6 years ago

    Eldritch:

    "Why do you put such an emphasis on the multi-player part then?"

    Because, taking away XBox live you have: an underpriced, overheating PC.

    Martin

  • Furbs #9 6 years ago

    Erm, maybe because Live is central to Microsofts strategy for this generation?
    Bearing in mind that 100% of broadband equipped owners will be able to play on Live at no extra cost, I can see the number who use it skyrocket.
    Edited by 1 at 02/12/05 @ 09:47

  • Tiiti #10 6 years ago

    Only 2% of all Xbox owners play on Xbox Live.

    How did you work that out then? Last I heard they had over 2m subs and about 23m consoles sold. Thats more like 9-10% :p
    Edited by 1 at 02/12/05 @ 09:49

  • Talha #11 6 years ago

    Oh dear, I was expecting a better review for this one, being one of my favorite PC games. Got to read the review to find what went wrong. ;-)

    By the way, I am a little wary of all this emphasis on multiplayer - mainly because I don't have a friggin' broadband connection! Even if I did, i think games should be given merit according to their SINGLE PLAYER campaign, unless they are multiplayer-specific like Battlefield 2.

  • tiddles #12 6 years ago

    Score seems on the low side - this is an excellent game. Aren't PC players striking because the multiplayer is ruined by cheating? This might be something in the X360 version's favour... :)

  • Tonka #13 6 years ago

    Bearing in mind that 100% of broadband equipped owners will be able to play on Live at no extra cost

    Is playing free? I thought it was just the comparestats/chat/paymoney for santa suites that was free.

  • oceanmotion #14 6 years ago

    The dev reallt screwed up the multiplayer from what I have read from peoples impressions. The single player is the exact same as the PC and with no slowdowns. Pity the dev could'nt get more out of the online. Better luck next time.

    Considering the PC version got an 8 this is a spot on score since the multiplayer is not what it should of been

  • Furbs #15 6 years ago

    You can play for free at the weekends. Unless they've changed something since I last looked.

  • Tonka #16 6 years ago

    That's great. Maybe I should have invested in a 360 afterall.

    /looks at bank account
    /maybe not

  • octo #17 6 years ago

    A frankly bewildering decision to limit the game to eight players online and one that will hopefully come back to bite IW in the arse.

  • smelly #18 6 years ago

    Im not suprised by these scores at all. The 360 launch seemed rushed to me, just to be "first" and out for christmas (look at shortages for example).

    sony and nintendo seem to be taking their time. So if those two launch with lacklusture games, i'll be muchly upset.

  • MrAtheist #19 6 years ago

    Furbs, Im pretty sure the weekend thing is something planned for later on - sort of like when FilmFour has a free weekend a couple of times a year. Try to entice the subscribers in and all that.

    You got to pay to play online.

  • smelly #20 6 years ago

    Only 2% of all Xbox owners play on Xbox Live.

    Why do you put such an emphasis on the multi-player part then?


    Because those 2% (I think it's more like 12% actually) buy more games than the others put together.

    Therefor, in answer to your question -> money.

  • gerald #21 6 years ago

    Nice Review. Haven't played this (lacking a x360), but the score seems fair: Looks an plays perfect, -1 for uninspired multiplayer (especially considering the short singleplayer), -2 for complete lack of innovation.

    Sad I lost interest in WW2-shooters years ago.

  • Furbs #22 6 years ago

    Ah thanks MrAtheist. I stand humbly corrected :)

  • Eldritch #23 6 years ago

    Okay, sorry, I stand corrected:

    10% of Xbox owners are Live subscribers

    Still, do those 2 million actually use that service? How many people actually use their gym subscription?

  • Stickman #24 6 years ago

    What the bejeesus is Big_Bad_Blonde's post?!

  • Eldritch #25 6 years ago

    disc: True enough, mate. (C:

    I'd still like to know how much emphasis EG puts on the multi-player part.

  • Darkedge #26 6 years ago

    Played it this morning.

    one main work JAGGIES bad jaggies.. needs lots of AA to stop it looking like arse - which it's supposed to have but somehow COD2 doesn't use.
    Looks worse than the PC version easily , controls horrible. Avoid.

  • space_ace #27 6 years ago

    delivering perfect conversions of the most technically demanding first person shooters

    i was under the impression that quake 4x360 is far from perfect?

  • oceanmotion #28 6 years ago

    Darkedge, stop talking out of you arse. You just made that up. Stop trolling.

  • Tiiti #29 6 years ago

    Darkedge did you play it on a normal CRT TV because I don't have that problem on HDTV?

  • Eldritch #30 6 years ago

    space ace: Use "ignore poster" like everybody else.

  • MoFo #31 6 years ago

    Since this is a website gaming site I suspect a large proportion of people coming here have access to the internet (?!?!) Hence they are able to play games online. Hence putting an emphasis on the score based on the game's multiplayer aspect is perfectly acceptable.

    Maybe only 10% of XBOX 360 owners have Live but I'm willing to put money on the fact that of the 360 owners visiting this site more like 70% of them play games online.

  • kaosridder #32 6 years ago

    darkedge - simply not true. I played the demo and it was awesome! Didnt notice any jaggies. Quit trolling!

  • Darkedge #33 6 years ago

    HDTV which was a samsung - similar to the ones they use for demo pods.
    I'm not trolling you fools - just an opinion on the game. Sorry if you don't agree with my feelings on the game. Very dissapointed
    Edited by 1 at 02/12/05 @ 10:49

  • Talha #34 6 years ago

    So Mofo, you are saying that people who just have access to the internet without the previlege of broadband and consequently, ability to play online, should not be catered to by EG, when we often rely on EG reviews?

    After all, the online experience of a game stems from the single player experience, and more often than not much more effort of a dev(-eleoper, nor -il) goes into the SP campaign. As a compromise, I think there should be a separate rating for online component of a game.
    Edited by 1 at 02/12/05 @ 10:49

  • Wrobel #35 6 years ago

    So is COD2 big red one, the different version for consoles a better game, as EG gave it a 9 on the Xbox 160?

  • Furbs #36 6 years ago

    Why complicate things like that? Next it'll be a seperate mark for if its being played in HiDef or not, then if you are playing it on Thursday or a Friday...it's never ending...

    Mofo is right - I bet nearly everyone here who buys a 360, either at launch or otherwise buys the the HDD to go with it (either in pack or otherwise).

  • tengu #37 6 years ago

    "So is COD2 big red one, the different version for consoles a better game, as EG gave it a 9 on the Xbox 160?"

    Xbox 180 you mean? ;)

    I have to say, of all the 360 games I've played (Not many like, but...) this was by far the most impressive, and if I had got a console today, it would have been top of my list probably.
    Edited by 1 at 02/12/05 @ 10:54

  • weaselrat #38 6 years ago

    Got my 360 this morning with most of the games and this one is wicked.
    for anyone who loves playing with thereselves.......................? this rocks. Yes it does not have all the online options of PD0 but it's still fantastic.
    From what I have played of my games so far it just goes to show that it's all down to self preference because I think they are damn good.
    even though FIFA looks like the players are a bit wet they still look class and all the extra touches in the games add that extra appeal its definitly the most responsive version so far. Still not a pro evo beater though.
    Don't slate the reviews on this site, just test them for your own preference.
    Edited by 1 at 02/12/05 @ 11:02

  • PearOfAnguish #39 6 years ago

    one main work JAGGIES bad jaggies.. needs lots of AA to stop it looking like arse - which it's supposed to have but somehow COD2 doesn't use.
    Looks worse than the PC version easily , controls horrible. Avoid.

    I'm not the only one then. Just completed it on PC, tried it on a 360 (hi-def) and yes, it's jaggy-central. FPS on a pad is teh suck anyway.

  • neon #40 6 years ago

    'A fleet of branded Mini-Coopers convoyed past the queue'

    No expense spared there then ;)
    Isn't branding something they do to animals?

  • Talha #41 6 years ago

    @Furbs: For the simple reason that a game's single player experience and MP experience are totally different. That is NOT the case with high-def and non-high-def, or playing it on different days of the week. Surely it is easy to understand?

    Multiplayer is a totally different game , usually focusing just on the action aspects of a game and doing away with all the stage setting or story elements. IMHO bifurcating evaluation of a game on this basis will not only make things clearer but will be fairer to the devs as well.

    Otherwise, not too far in the future games without an online component will be scoring 0's.

  • Dizzy #42 6 years ago

    >one main work JAGGIES bad jaggies.. needs lots of AA to stop it looking like arse - which it's supposed to have but somehow COD2 doesn't use.
    Looks worse than the PC version easily , controls horrible. Avoid.

    Hehe.. why am I even replying to this.

    Anyway.. totally bullocks. Looks better than PC version. Nuff said.

  • Furbs #43 6 years ago

    No because you address the game as a whole package - thats what you're paying for. HiDef does make a difference, its more immersive, you may be able to shoot people more accuratly at range and so on.

    Once again it goes back to people reading the review, not just looking at the score. If its a decent review, it'll cover it, which this one seems to have.

  • Talha #44 6 years ago

    @Furbs: I agree with your point about people actually reading the review - that will do away with all such problems. In that 'package' context, it makes perfect sense why CoD2 X360 scores a 7 versus 8 for the PC.

    Trouble is, very few people actually read the whole review, and more importantly, DIG into its tone and use of adjectives, before jumping to conclusions about reviewer's bias/ignorance. Guess there is no way around that.

    Edit: typos central
    Edited by 1 at 02/12/05 @ 11:21

  • Tomo #45 6 years ago

    Yeah, I think I'd agree with the score now I've thunked about it. I thought the PC version got a 9, but it got an 8, so this is fair.

    I think I was initially miffed because this is the same as PDZ, but then the one player isn't as good as this from what I read, so again - fair enough.

    The launch just seems very underwhelming. I REALLY wanted PDZ to be amazing, and it looks it to me, but then I haven't played it.

    I suppose it's a good thing tho really! Now I don't feel like I'm missing anything by not getting a 360.

    Good reviewing guys, keep it going.

  • Furbs #46 6 years ago

    Well I'd rather EG not pander to the people who DONT read the review and just look at the score to be honest. They have Gamerankings to look at. Plus, if you add two scores, it'll just be double the bitching...

  • MoFo #47 6 years ago

    I don't have an issue with the reviewer's score, but I played this for an hour at a mate's last night and it was bloody good fun. We didn't try multiplayer and seeing as it's only 8 player I'd only try it if they had a co-op mode. If I had my own 360 then from the games I've seen so far this would be the only one I'd bother with. Oh and so far the arcade games you can download with Live are much more fun than the big ole commercial studio ones.

  • Tweakmonkey #48 6 years ago

    I'm curious as to how some people say it has jaggies and others swear it hasn't. What is going on? I've seen the demo pod and thought it looked class, but I didn't really study it and I haven't seen the PC version running either so I can't say. Is somebody else qualified to give the definitive answer to this?

  • Talha #49 6 years ago

    @Furbs: Again, I agree fully. Two scores=more trouble. But EG sure shouldn't care, should they? OK let's settle this: EG should print a warning before every review: 'Since we are reviewing it, the game sucks. If you want a better review, head over to the official [XBox/PS2/Ninty] site. If you are one of the X360 devotees, be informed that we have an axe to grind with you and don't expect any pleasantries. If you just looked at the score and think it's unfair, buy the game and learn the hard way smartass. Frankly, my dear, we don't give a damn'

    I guess that should satisfy everyone ;-)

  • MrGrumpy.au #50 6 years ago

    smelly, I guess I'm an exception to the rule then with 26 games and no XB-Live (I have a large majority of Live enabled games but don't feel the need to go online).

    Also are they using the 3 month subscriptions to get to the magical 12% or is a legit paying only users, but I guess Sony do this too with their online numbers and for example would count both of my PS2s Central Station Accounts (6 Users in all) and add them to the overall total.

    Anyhow the EG 360 reviews have all been quite good, I'd rather have someones honest opinion of a game than a review thats so full of rubbish (i.e. it soooo perfect my mind exploded) and scores a 9-10/10 so you don't know whether to trust it or not.

    One more thing for EG remove the User Game Ratings it's just fanboy v fanboy (you score it a 1 then I'll give it a 10 and tell my mates to do the same), I like the idea of it but it's just being abused. Argh!


    Well it's time to get back to playing my all time XBOX favourite game Outrun 2 (SEGA you have outdone yourself, this is seriously an amazing arcade port!). I've been lucky to have owned it since release and I still cannot stop playing it. /shrugs

    Cheers
    Edited by 2 at 02/12/05 @ 12:02

  • Calgon #51 6 years ago

    gypsumfantastic please stop talking out of your ass troll... even if the power brick is replaced by a smaller one the power consumption will be the same as it is now around 203watts compare this to the original Xbox(200watts) and it makes you look like a trolling fanboy(on EG? surely not!). Also the PS3 is going to be much more prone to overheating since It has the cell(may turn out to be a big waste of energy if its all hype and no grunt... Emotion Engine2?) and basicaly a PC GPU thats tailored for a console(unlike Xenos which ATI and MS actually thought about power consumption and heat whilst designing it specifically for a console... perhaps you could read up on the the subject at hand before spouting complete nonsense)

    The review was a good read by itself... but I guess people who didnt get caught up in the next gen hype at E3 can add a point to most of the scores being given out(oooo fancy sony tech demos and complete bullshit promises... shame on you EG, it will be your own fault when your dissapointed come the launch of the other consoles).

    Aside from the way Xbox fans are treated here(its a wonder you have any to be honest) it's better to find out a game is better than you expected than buying a game in the good faith of that a glowing review you read and wishing you hadnt paid full price. Its just that there shouldnt be double standards for the other consoles either... yes I realise they are not out yet Im just wondering if EG will have the balls to do it. Im actually looking forward to hearing more about the revoloution too but the PS3 wont be missed at all(have no faith in Sony what soever... what good have they ever done in all honesty? all they do is tell gamers what they want to hear and never deliver).
    Edited by 5 at 02/12/05 @ 13:00

  • Talha #52 6 years ago

    @Calgon : Obviously Sony has not given a single thought on the power consumption or heating of PS3, since I use my PS2 to make tea. And obviously its GPU will be off-the-shelf 7800 GTX with absolutely no modifications. The console will melt on its first bootup, so games don't matter anyway and Sony will be able to sell more PS3's

    /couldn't resist

  • Talha #53 6 years ago

    @disc: If you read the last four-five posts from me or Furbs, actually the issue is not two reviews, but multiple scores based on the same review (one for online and one for SP).

  • Calgon #54 6 years ago

    Talha: Oh the PS2 makes good tea I know that the heat is only because of the uber powerfull missile launching Emotion Engine. It was ahead of PC hardware at launch and continued to be so years after launch just like they promised. Oh and the RSX was always planned they certainly didnt fuck up on the Cell and realize it wasnt going to be good enough to do all they had planned with it. Yeah maybe the PS3 wont melt this is Sony we are talking about(certainly wont be hearing of any faults then) so what if theyve crammed so much into the box its new unproven hardware made by japanese people.
    Edited by 1 at 02/12/05 @ 12:37

  • Talha #55 6 years ago

    @Calgon: That was totally irrelevant and not even funny. Go vent on official XBox forums or something. This is a discussion of an X360 game remember? And I agree with you because every electronics firm releases its hardware completely without testing - that is why your PC, TV, fridge etc don't even work.
    Edited by 1 at 02/12/05 @ 12:28

  • erp #56 6 years ago

    i've not read the whole thread, but i'm with talha on the multi-score thing. i'm not really interested in multi-player games, so i'm dismayed to see this marked down for not having a good one, and for PD0 being marked up despite having an apprently lame single player campaign.

    but then maybe that's just me.

    of course, if the scores weren't there then it'd probably be even better - because in both cases the text has admirably explained the situation. the scores just end up being misleading really.

  • Tomo #57 6 years ago

    I do wonder about The Chronicles of Riddick now tho. It's a great game, but has no multiplayer, yet scored a 9 on both the Xbox and PC. You could argue: that was last year so multiplayer may not have been so necessary. But then, plenty of other games had multiplayer back then. And... it was a pretty amazing feat for the XBox.

    Whatever! I'm rambling.

  • Soul_quake #58 6 years ago

    am I the only one that doesn't mind if a game has jaggies but is still fun to play?

    Also as I bought this for my PC it was the only game excepting oblivion that I wanted at launch.

    With regards to the Xbox Live service - I have only recently (1 month ago) been able to connect to broadband in Ireland. This means that I have only started playing online in the last month. I also couldn't jusitfy to the missus spending extra money on a online xbox service when I buy and play the game on my PC (if said machine is up to spec and ping isn't too high etc). But as many others have stated I do believe for me the most important aspect of the review is what the single player content is. That said should I ever be able to join Live I would indeed place more value in multiplayer content.

    Likewise I wish to agree with the sentiments of many that COD2 on the Xbox 360 looked absoultely gorgeous on the HDTV at my local store. But then I often play FPS on my PC running at 20fps :)

  • Stickman #59 6 years ago

    The solution to this endless argument is to just stop putting a mark out of ten at the end of a review. Then every tard and his dog would actually have to read and digest the actual thoughts and points of the reviewer, and base their own thoughts on that instead of an arbitary number.

    Plus it might skim the scum who can't actually read from the surface of the beautiful EG lake.

  • Calgon #60 6 years ago

    Talha I know what this discussion is about thankyou very much I was just adressing the nonsense posted by one of the trolls here which it seems happens in every thread here(and is strangly considered acceptable by the looks of things).
    Edited by 1 at 02/12/05 @ 12:56

  • Talha #61 6 years ago

    @Calgon : Welcome to Land of the Trolls, then :-).

    And in responding to that particular troll (whoever that is), must you troll yourself or post nonsense in return?

  • Calgon #62 6 years ago

    Talha its you whos dragging this out... I was simply debunking his nonsense statements. I didnt post any nonsense in the original post it was all pretty reasonable if you have any understanding of the subject.

  • Talha #63 6 years ago

    The one where you implied that Sony are going to release PS3 in prototype form and use customers as beta testers? Or about how Sony just never deliver, implying that a 100 million PS2's were bought by ignorant fools?

    Sure, that was philospohical analysis of the highest degree!

    EDIT: I have no interest in dragging this out, since I have another, MEANINGFUL discussion going on this thread. I am just having fun.
    Edited by 2 at 02/12/05 @ 13:17

  • Calgon #64 6 years ago

    Talha I dare you to back that up... if you are implying this is the case with the 360. Have a look around and you'll see the Xbox360 was tested ages ago by one of the worlds leading hardware testers(hint they are a German firm). Customers as beta testers? You are totally clueless and I suggest you stop before you embarrass yourself further. Also the majority of CASUAL GAMERS are ignorrant IMO of course this is why EA are still the worlds top publisher, this is where the majority of the PS2 sales came from. For me Sony did not deliver on the promises made which is why I went elsewhere after the original PS(i got bored of that soon enough too).
    Edited by 2 at 02/12/05 @ 13:24

  • gypsumfantastic #65 6 years ago

    But Calgon:

    Surely even you have realised that the Dreamcast 360 is famously the most bugged console release ever!

    It's certainly not worth the 500 quid they want for it. You can get three PS2s for that money.

  • Talha #66 6 years ago

    Calgon: Can you read English? When in HELL did I say XB360 is not tested, or is a weak product? JUST WHEN? Back what up? I can't believe you are getting all worked up just for the sake of it! Are you saying that my reply to your sarcastic remarks about PS3 was in any way detrimental to X360? For heaven's sake re-read the comments, and then come back. Or please, DON'T.

    Please keep your charming sentiments attributing PS2's success to EA games to yourself, it just shows your ignorance of the obvious fact that EA games are also available for EVERY OTHER PLATFORM. If you got bored with PS or PS2, that is your problem - I guess it is impossible to get bored of ANY console these days, because so many good games exist for each. Do you need me to translate that?

    As for embarrassing myself, I am certainly doing that by answering your posts on this thread. So I better stop.
    Edited by 2 at 02/12/05 @ 13:28

  • Calgon #67 6 years ago

    Talha if you werent implying that then where did you get this from "The one where you implied that Sony are going to release PS3 in prototype form and use customers as beta testers? " doesnt make sense.

  • tengu #68 6 years ago

    Talha, don't feed the trolls. Hit ignore and you'll feel better.

  • Talha #69 6 years ago

    @tengu: Guess you are right man. But I hope you found some merit in my posts. Trouble is, I don't feel good about ignoring anybody.

  • botherer #70 6 years ago

    Oh, I can't just sit and watch it all crashing.

    Calgon: you misunderstood that someone was being sarcastic. And most everything else.

    Talha: you have credited Calgon with having understood that sarcasm, and having been sarcastic himself.

    Gypsum: you are a god amongst mortal men.
    Edited by 2 at 02/12/05 @ 13:34

  • Calgon #71 6 years ago

    gypsumfantastic

    Again bullshit you cant even begin to back that up... what bugs you moron? Its 500times more efficent and better designed than the PS2 was at launch and most likely than the PS3 can ever hope to be(like the dreamcast was), Why would I want 1 PS2? let alone 5 is beyond me.

    Also why are you even part of this discussion or any Xbox360 discussion?
    Edited by 3 at 02/12/05 @ 13:58

  • Talha #72 6 years ago

    @botherer: thanks man - you are a knight in shining armor! But I never credited poor Calgon with understanding my posts, hence my allusions to English reading and translations! So your charge is baseless.

    EDIT: Watch out - more comedy gold from you-know-who. Keep your eyes peeled to this page.
    Edited by 1 at 02/12/05 @ 13:36

  • MJ #73 6 years ago

    Is Calgon a dick or what?

  • Stickman #74 6 years ago

    /sings

    "Pointless debates live longer with Calgon!"

  • Calgon #75 6 years ago

    Talha fair enough but if youd actually read the trolls remarks you could see where I was coming from and why I jumped to conclusions about some of things said in your posts(it did appear that way to me). I notice he's back... and quite frankly I see now that even you must realise he's nothing but that... a retarded troll armed with nothing but false information and biased reasoning. So perhaps I didnt need to waste my time pointing that out so much :)

    edit: Can we just ban some of the trolls who do nothing but bash the console in every thread... I neednt get into these arguements then and we can get on with talking about Xbox360 games and the reviews, instead of my console is better than yours bollocks.
    Edited by 2 at 02/12/05 @ 13:56

  • Perry #76 6 years ago

    Am I the only one that thinks 7 is a good score and would buy this if I had an Xbox 360?

    If most of the guys that whinge about reviews (& indeed each console e.g. Talha, Colgon or whatever you're called) are over 12 I'd be amazed.

    Grow up

    Added: Calgon, but you are in these arguments quite constantly (I think anyway), as is Talha. Your latest post makes you sound intelligent enough, just don't take the bait. It really is not that hard!
    Edited by 2 at 02/12/05 @ 14:10

  • MJ #77 6 years ago

    > Is Calgon a dick or what?

    Calgon, i apologise for this statement in light of your most recent post. Try not to let people wind you up. I know it is hard :)

  • Feanor #78 6 years ago

    "In fact, all 27 levels will be done and dusted in a matter of eight hours or so."

    It's that short even on the two hardest difficulty settings?

  • Feanor #79 6 years ago

    "The solution to this endless argument is to just stop putting a mark out of ten at the end of a review. Then every tard and his dog would actually have to read and digest the actual thoughts and points of the reviewer, and base their own thoughts on that instead of an arbitary number"

    Of course, the actual thoughts and points of the reviewer often don't tell you exactly what they thought of the game overall because it's easier to write about the negatives in a game. Take the PES 5 review for the PSP. Most of the review is somewhat negative sounding, but that's because the reviewer needs to compare the first handheld PES game to its PS2 big brother. You need the 8/10 score at the end to say that despite its faults, this is a very good PSP game.
    Edited by 1 at 02/12/05 @ 14:44

  • Stickman #80 6 years ago

    I suppose so Feanor, or the reviewer could just write something about it being a good game despite it's faults. I don't know what the answer is really, it's just these comments always seem to get bogged down in 'this is a 7.5 not a 7' verbals recently.

  • PearOfAnguish #81 6 years ago

    If EG removes the scores they won't get listed on sites like metacritic, reducing the number of visitors. Advertisers like scores too, they can use them on game covers.

  • BartonFink #82 6 years ago

    Gah scores read the fn review.

  • IronGiant #83 6 years ago

    Wonder how many people who actually want to play games have bought them.. there's an insane amount for sale on ebay.

  • WhyNot #84 6 years ago

    Finest port?

    Exactly. One of the strongest games in the X360 launch is but a stripped down PC port. What does that say about the rest of the launch lineup? Just look at the Eurogamer reviews, as they appear to be the only site not buying into the Microsoft hype-machine.

    I'm think I'll wait for the 'Real Next Generation'.

    So long Microsoft.

  • bootsy_NL_30 #85 6 years ago

    nice review, a little bit harsh with the score but nicely written review

  • sibod1 #86 6 years ago

    Bizzarre. You knock down a point for only 8 players yet isnt it the case that more players does not always equate a better experience?

    Frankly I find 8 Players max an advantage as It's often confusing when you have 32 players bouncing around an arena.

    Once again Eurogamer's anti-xbox bias shows it's head.

    And what is it with these trolls posting 1/10 ratings for games clearly deserving of more??


  • Furbs #87 6 years ago

    Its to counter out idiots who accuse EG of having an anti Xbox bias.

    Maybe people should reflect that alot of people think the 8 this got on the PC was considered generous by some...?

  • tengu #88 6 years ago

    It's arnie again I think Furbs.

  • Furbs #89 6 years ago

    Ohhhh I seeeeee...
    If anything was going to put me off buying one of these it was him. Thankfully I'd forgotten about him :p

  • Derblington #90 6 years ago

    I'm fairly sure it's not him.

  • PearOfAnguish #91 6 years ago

    Maybe people should reflect that alot of people think the 8 this got on the PC was considered generous by some...?

    I was one of them. I've played it to completion; looks great, nice presentation, some genuinely exciting moments, but it's the same thing we've been playing since Medal of Honour on the Playstation. It's a 7 because it's so much fun (and that's the point, right kids?) but doesn't try anything new.

    Repeat after me: 7/10 is not a bad score, 7/10 is not a bad score.

  • Bumbuliuz #92 6 years ago

    I must admit I am suprised at the reviews here of all the 360 games. You a scoring theese games wery low scores. This is the first time since starting to read Eurogamer I am debating wether to keep reading. But I probaly will. I know many sites like Ign give out to high scores. Thast why we have sites like Gamespot to even it out. But you are giving out lower scores than them. Giving Kameo a 5 is just rubbish. Fifa on the other hand deserved a low score. It is strange that you give a game like Call Of Cuthulu for the xbox a 8 and Kameo and Cod2 a 7. I love Chutulu, but it is a flawed game, and it is recieving a higher score. So I ask; are Sony sliping some 100 pound notes under your door???

  • Vin #93 6 years ago

    "I'm not the only one then. Just completed it on PC, tried it on a 360 (hi-def) and yes, it's jaggy-central. FPS on a pad is teh suck anyway."

    You don't half talk some shite.

  • krudster #94 6 years ago

    Yes, don't listen to this utter nonsense.

  • alpha-0ne #95 6 years ago

    hmm i have this game cant comment on the score as ive only just started playing but there are no jaggies when i play using a vga cable on my 720p lcd tv...

  • Stickman #96 6 years ago

    Bumbuliuz, welcome to the site.

    Now, be quiet.

  • Vinny67 #97 6 years ago

    Call Of Duty 2 - 7/10, Condemned - 7/10, Kameo - 5/10.
    I was always a fan of this site until all everyone donned their 'Sony goggles'.
    The slating the 360 received prior to launch was absurd, combined with the d*ck sucking Sony got for the in game movies they showed (anyone remember the fuss made about the Bouncer on PS2) for the PS3 really p*ssed me off.
    This latest set of reviews has only convinced me to delete this website from my favourites list and go to somewhere (anywhere) more objective. Somewhere that the reviewers don't have their d*cks so far up Sony's marketting a*se.

  • Talha #98 6 years ago

    "If most of the guys that whinge about reviews (& indeed each console e.g. Talha, Colgon or whatever you're called) are over 12 I'd be amazed. "

    @Perry: If you read whole threads and whole posts before jumping to conclusions and grouping widely different posters into one category, I'd be amazed.

  • Balfa #99 6 years ago

    This is nowhere near the graphics you'd find a PC. No antialiasing at all and no anisotropic filter. Not much creative use of pixel shaders. The whole thing doesn't look significantly better than medal of honour allied assault!
    Even a mid spec PC would blow this away right now. What's the point in an xbox 360?

  • Furbs #100 6 years ago

    Hahahaha thats funny :)

    Do you get your TV licence cheaper?

  • reality_cheque #101 6 years ago

    Well the 360 is a damn cheap media centre, allowing you to have access to your MP3s while the missus is glued to Sims :p

    Call of Duty 2 is bloody awesome. Even if it did take me 2 hours last night to progress one checkpoint.

  • miiiguel #102 6 years ago

    reality_cheque: you must be the worst FPS player of the world. CoD only fault (in my opinion) is beeing a litle too easy.
    Anyway this game's is the best X360 lauch title, for me, well above PDZ.
    By the way, do you guys use EG as a source for you game choices ? I mean, they seem a bit old-timers..., they disliked Amped3 soundtrack, and aesthetics, game 5/10 to Kameo..., their credibility score in my agenda is pretty low by now.
    Balfa: the difference is well explained in the review: you just put the DVD inside, sit back on the couch, turn the big screen on, as well the livingroom 5.1 soundsystem, and enjoy. Or go to the PC, put a patch, the a driver, then do the tunning to match the fps rate that you videoboard can cope with, then..., it's a huge differece, mainly if you're a computer engineer and you're waiting for an Oracle import at 21:00 at work in front of a PC.
    Edited by 1 at 13/01/06 @ 21:20