Call of Duty 2 Review

By Kristan Reed Published 3 November, 2005

A bridge too far for the WW2 FPS?

Version tested: PC

There are only a couple of things you ever need to know about the arrival of another World War II shooter: is it an improvement on what's gone before, and is there anything remotely original about it? Well, in this case the answer is - slightly predictably - yes and no.

Without the merest flicker of a doubt, Infinity Ward knows how to make cinematic wartime shooters better than anyone else. Just like the 'original' (and we use that term in the loosest sense of the word), it's epic, bombastic, thrilling, exceptionally polished, well-realised and by the end of the 27 missions (over three campaigns, again) it's every bit as entertaining as you'd hope. Not-at-all-shockingly, it's also just as much of a retread as you might fear; maybe that's exactly what you wanted it to be? This is, after all, one of the best-selling styles of game in the world, and tinkering with successful formulas isn't something that billion-dollar publishers are renowned for.

So, what does it improve upon? Lots of things in lots of incremental ways; that is to say the visuals, the audio and a few tweaks to your mission goals, but nothing that changes the gameplay to any great extent. During E3, Infinity Ward went to great lengths to explain how it had improved the AI and the degree of freedom offered to players, adding how much more convincing and immersive the whole experience was. But perhaps the most significant changes have been the little things; for example, the controversial decision to remove health-packs and the quick-save function - regular staples of almost every FPS since id drew up The Rules in 1992.

Diplomatic immunity (to bullets)

Slightly bizarrely, CoD2 has no health status bar, and at no stage will you ever encounter one of those 'oh-so-handily-placed' medipacks to patch up your shredded torso. In a Halo-meets-The Getaway system of recharging health, if you cop some flak, or take a bullet between your eyes, it's not a problem. You can simply wipe the blood from your eyes, breathe deeply for a few seconds and all is well again. It's ludicrous, incredibly unrealistic, and almost farcical when you consider how much lead you'll withstand during the course of just a few minutes on the battlefield, but in the context of it being an entertaining videogame, it keeps things flowing like almost no other FPS.

As a result of this cheating approach to health, you're the Terminator of the fight against the Nazis, and can often last entire levels without dying by simply running off for a quiet breather between being shot. Copped a face full of grenade shards? Been caught in the nads by a stray bullet? Had your hand shot off? No problem, just hide in a quiet corner and it'll all be okay.

But, mocking aside, it's actually quite a good idea in practice, because - for once - you're not forced to rely on hitting the wretched quick-save key to bail you out of those tight spots (or to negotiate a woefully-judged difficulty spike, more like). It's actually far more enjoyable - and therefore more immersive - to play the game as part of a flowing set of actions than constantly saving, re-loading and replaying small sections while you work out which set of pixels the sniper's bullets are emanating from. It's a much fairer game because of it, and actually checkpoints your progress at very regular intervals anyway. Even if you do get a bit gung-ho, the autosaves are exceptionally well judged, and frustration is kept to a minimum throughout.

The house of funnel

'Call of Duty 2' Screenshot scale

Now scale that. While Germans are shooting you.

As for the much-vaunted other 'improvements', it's highly contentious whether most of them make a significant difference, to be frank. Chief of these is the alleged freedom players are given within each mission to approach them however they see fit. We say 'alleged' because there's no doubt that Call of Duty 2 still funnels the player towards a predetermined resolution just as it - and Medal of Honor - always did, always have done, and probably always will do. On a few (and we're talking about three) notable occasions in the entire game you're given the freedom to tackle objectives in the order of your choosing, but these are generally limited to deciding which building to clear out first. It's not exactly revolutionary in that respect, so don't get too excited.

For the vast majority of the time you'll be doing those old, familiar tasks: clearing bunkers, running in and out of half-demolished houses, taking out emplacements, flanking, planting explosives on moving tanks, crawling through trenches, and killing a whole infantry of Nazis.

Now and then, Call of Duty 2 mixes things up a little, throwing in the odd on-rails section here, and a time-limited sniping foray there. Alongside these familiar interludes is a tank-driving section (short-lived, but fun), as well as a frantic scenario where you must use your binoculars to pinpoint advancing artillery. Nothing radically new or innovative, but certainly welcome in terms of breaking up the run and gun slog.

Chaos engine

'Call of Duty 2' Screenshot cig

The Nazis were renowned for their fondness of cigarettes. A bit of a giveaway, really.

While all of this incendiary chaos is going on, the incredible illusion of an immense battle rages around you - one area Infinity Ward deserves massive credit for, and arguably of one the chief reasons you will want to immerse yourself in The Same Old Battle all over again.

Using a vastly improved engine, literally everything's been overhauled to the extent that - at times - it looks as stunning as anything we've seen on the PC. On a decent set-up, with the detail levels whacked up, and (better still) played out on a big widescreen monitor, there are few games that come close to looking as majestic.

At least once every level, something breathtakingly spectacular happens, like tanks rolling literally over your head, or crawling through a giant metal pipe and being shot at from below, or setting explosive charges on a building and seeing it reduced to rubble, or climbing up a cliff-face while being shot at from above. Cut together (as the intro movie does very nicely), such moments really help elevate the whole cinematic experience to another level. It's these moments that keep dragging your through the game.

Purdy please

'Call of Duty 2' Screenshot bump

Bump map-a-go-go: war has never looked so good.

Even under the closest scrutiny, everything in Call of Duty 2 simply looks more realistic than it ever used to, and it has genuinely almost got to the stage where your degree of immersion and sense of disbelief isn't shattered by technical foibles and borked AI. Whichever angle you look at it, from a visual perspective, it just works. At times it's simply spectacular.

But it's not just the bombastic one-off moments that we liked. One small thing Infinity Ward has used to impressive effect is the use of smoke, which now plays a key part in the heat of battles - just as it should. The team was always good at explosions in previous efforts, but this time has gone one step further by providing players with smoke grenades - meaning you can now set up your own tactical shields to work your way through otherwise impassable blockades. And not only does it make for a thrilling and useful new addition, but it looks fantastic too - expect to see this becoming a standard addition in shooters from now on.

Meanwhile, your squad mates don't just look detailed and realistic, but move with fluidity and with a degree of purpose and intelligence that gives the whole experience a much more convincing feel. For example, you never see soldiers doing dumb things like running repeatedly into walls with their legs still moving anymore. Faced with a low wall, they'll vault it. Faced with an open window, they'll climb through it; the general path-finding is excellent. But it goes further than these little cosmetic animations - your buddies actually respond to your initiative. Should you decide to brave an enemy-packed house or bunker, they'll wait tentatively outside, each taking the best position they can manage. As soon as enemies start pouring out, they'll instantly react, and prove to be an effective accompaniment, joining you inside and taking the stragglers out for you.

Say what?

'Call of Duty 2' Screenshot knee

Everyone should wear knee-high socks.

All the while, they'll bark instructions and updates regarding enemy positions, but never the same stock phrases like most games. A lot of the time you won't even be able to hear them over the din of gunfire, grenades and mortar shells, but that's undoubtedly what these men faced in these immensely challenging conditions. It's an assault on your senses.

Meanwhile, enemies won't just stand there and get shot either, but take evasive action of their own when things are going against them. They'll use the environment to their advantage, finding cover when needed, and also take every opportunity to try and flush you from your cover points out with aggressive tactics of their own. It's one thing being able to outflank enemies and lob cooked grenades at their feet, but when it happens to you on a regular basis, it makes for some thrilling and unique encounters.

It's not always so thrilling, though - especially on the Regular difficulty. Much like Quake 4, you're far better off ignoring the first two insultingly easy skill levels, or else you'll romp through the entire single-player game in less than a day. For the record, there's nothing really that satisfying about wiping out an enemy if all they do is rush towards you. The latter difficulty settings don't really solve that issue, though (as ever, it's more of a health-related challenge than anything that intrinsically alters the game), but you'll spend a lot more time peeking out and taking your chances than you will in the easier settings. Be warned: if you want to get the most out of Call of Duty 2, do yourself a favour and make it challenging.

Who are you, again?

'Call of Duty 2' Screenshot shadow

Truly the best shadows we've ever seen. Geeky, but true.

Another slight minus point about Call of Duty 2 is the complete lack of attachment you'll feel to any of your squad buddies. They're replaceable cannon fodder, and although they work with you, there's always an invisible regeneration going on behind the scenes to make sure that your buddy AI contingent are replenished once they're required. You won't really care when they die, either, and it never counts against you.

Unlike the more progressive Brothers In Arms, it's just you against the Nazi war machine. There's literally no squad management whatsoever, not even a sniff of it, and everyone just goes about their convincing-looking business without you. As enjoyable as it is, as immersive as some of the sections are, it's unquestionably a sub-genre that's so done to death that we need a little bit more than a bunch of sub-objectives and a wonderful engine to really get us excited. We know the start, the middle and the ending, and it's a genre so stale that even the mould has got bored with it. But maybe that's a problem unique to the likes of us that have stuck with the genre ever since it emerged. If you're new to this style of game, we'll say this: lucky you.

So, once you've romped through the freezing Russian campaign, licked the Brit battles against the Afrika Corps, and fought them on the French beaches as the Yanks, what's left? It's certainly not the longest of games, that's for sure, clocking in at around 10 hours (or more, difficulty dependent). Multiplayer mayhem is assured, though, if you're fond of being shot on the online battlefield.

Multiplier

'Call of Duty 2' Screenshot cool

Looking cool. Literally.

The old standards make their perennial appearance, so yes, that means Deathmatch, Team Deathmatch, Capture the Flag modes, in addition to the defend or attack premise of Search and Destroy, and the new Headquarters mode - each with a whole array of settings to customise at your leisure. The latter team-based mode doubtlessly needs a little more explanation; the idea here is to set up and control your HQ in one of two randomly designated areas on a map, with the general idea being to score more points than the opposition. To do so means trying to over-run the opposition to stop them racking up points, and once you've succeeded (or not), the HQ points spawn elsewhere and the whole thing starts over. Definitely worth investigating out of all the modes for its unpredictability - which can't really be said for all the other well-worn staples.

So, here we are. It's that time of year again, it's that bloody war again, and yet somehow we're not cursing with utter boredom. Despite the crushing familiarity of the subject matter, and the game-by-numbers formulaic approach, Call of Duty 2 succeeds in just about enough areas, and moves things forward enough of an increment to make it appeal to even those of us that are completely exasperated with the ongoing WW2 obsession.

Justified cynicism aside, Infinity Ward's latest effort unquestionably refines the cinematic World War II shooter genre to new giddy heights of bombastic brilliance. Taken in isolation, it's a thrilling demonstration of how far the genre has come in delivering compelling combat and wrapping that in the most cinematic and immersive fashion we've seen. If only Infinity Ward wasn't so content to trip on the bootlaces of its own lack of gameplay ambition we'd be more excited.

8 / 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 (90) Latest comment 6 years ago

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

  • JackThompsonsAnArse #1 6 years ago

    Cool, hope this is as good on the 360. I liked the way (in the preview vids) there's lots of communication from people etc. The first CoD I didn't really get on with, seemed like I was being forced into set pieces too much.

    As for the ridiculous health-gain-by-resting-for-a-minute, is this REALLY any more ludicrous than picking up a health kit? Games aren't realistic with regards to mortality - who'd want a game you couldn't play anymore if you 'died'?

  • Dizzy #2 6 years ago

    > Cool, hope this is as good on the 360

    A lot of people seem to suggest the 360 version is even better.... I will be picking this up if PD0 doesn't get good reviews.

  • Artemus #3 6 years ago

    I'd imagine the 360 port will be the same as playing the game in Extra settings (the highest). And it'll suposedly be running at a constant 60FPS. Something which only the beefiest rigs can manage at the mo (eg a 7800GT SLI).

  • Jman #4 6 years ago

    Nice review although something should be mentioned about the DirectX9 mode. It needs some work in regards to optimisation, runs like a dog on anything other than a X2 or equiv. DirectX7 mode is better but without the shading model.

  • UncleLou #5 6 years ago

    The first CoD I didn't really get on with, seemed like I was being forced into set pieces too much.


    I am afraid you might be in for a disappointment then, as the reviews and the demo suggest nothing in that respect has changed (which i don't mind).

  • oerhoert #6 6 years ago

    The review didn't quite read like an 8/10, though... Seemed it wasn't actually very much more than going through the motions, registering that all (read: graphics/sound) was well.

    Are there any description somewhere that outlines what's needed for a game to receive an 8/10, for example? Would have been interesting to learn a bit more about EG's requirements for this.

  • Furbs #7 6 years ago

    Another nail in the coffin for PC Gaming I guess...
    Like FEAR, Civ4, Quake 4, X3 and AoM3 have been, and GT Legends no doubt will be.

    PC Gaming - dead and loving it! \o/

  • Eldritch #8 6 years ago

    "Another nail in the coffin for PC Gaming"

    FPS with a gamepad sucks though.

  • Jman #9 6 years ago

    why would this be another nail furbs? I mean the gameplay is the same on all formats.

  • Cheezit #10 6 years ago

    "PC Gaming - dead and loving it! \o/"

    Agreed. BF2 is the only PC game that I've enjoyed this year. Although I'm sure several million WoW players would beg to differ, PC gaming's going nowhere right now. Having said that, I'll probably buy this.

  • Furbs #11 6 years ago

    Sorry, there was alot of sarcasm in my last post (hence the quality titles I listed!). I just meant its a great time to be a PC gamer, even though some people insist on saying its a dying format...

  • Jman #12 6 years ago

    I'm a PC man myself although I would consider buying a 360 if you could get a mouse for it. Other than that I'll stick to my PC's thx.

  • Jman #13 6 years ago

    LoL Furbs ;)

  • kars #14 6 years ago

    Thought the review was a bit generous, score-wise. It's basically the same as CoD1 with nicer (and horribly slow running) graphics. I'd even go so far as to say it's actually worse than the first one, since there were more "famous battles" than in the sequel. And by the way, doesn't anyone else find it a bit odd that all this "you're in the war", "super-realistic graphics" and "Squads, no single supersoldiers" is coupled with the most arcadey gameplay of all WW2 shooters? Infinite spawns, big bright cartoony name subtitles, and rather silly rush and spray tactics seems a bit off in a WW2 game...

  • Mr_Sleep #15 6 years ago

    I agree really, the idea of pickign up a health pack and suddenly being restored is ridiculous, Max Payne's painkiller thing was an interesting change but he'd have definitely died of blood loss. I think it's only Splinter Cell and the like that would feesibly work without some kind of health replenishment system though

  • Artemus #16 6 years ago

    Nice review although something should be mentioned about the DirectX9 mode. It needs some work in regards to optimisation, runs like a dog on anything other than a X2 or equiv. DirectX7 mode is better but without the shading model.

    Defo. I can get around 40 FPS highest. Drops even more during combat. Out of FEAR and Quake 4 this runs the worst.

  • thegamesthething #17 6 years ago

    furbs i though the sarcasm was perfectly obvious :) - nonetheless, although all the titles you listed are no doubt of a high quality, the fact remains that as a whole they are a bit low on originality

    as to the score, seems perfectly reasonable - a quality title, beautifully done, in a genre lots of people love, lacking only in bringing something significantly new to the party - sounds like 8/10 to me

    and yeah, i hope the 360 version is just as good, controller or not
    Edited by 2 at 03/11/05 @ 15:48

  • space_ace #18 6 years ago

    i think the texture detail here is phenomenal.

  • kangarootoo #19 6 years ago

    @kars and Mr Sleep.

    Its a game. And isn't it being fun to play the most important thing?

    It sounds to me like they made the health pack change because they thought that would provide a more rewarding combat experience over the old system. You could probably make a list of "unrealistic content when compared to real WW2 combat" as long as your arm, but does that really make the game any worse?

    Pretty much every game takes liberties in that way, whether it uses a real world setting or a fantasy one. I don't see anyone complaining that a WW2 flying game was crap because they didn't crash 12 times in a row trying to take off (as would likely be the case if you have no pilot training).

  • space_ace #20 6 years ago

    but i prefer cod1 because it's less noisy and more concentrated.

  • octo #21 6 years ago

    re - the health pack / shield recharge thing.

    Couldn't you solve this by having medics on the battlefield?

  • Freek #22 6 years ago

    Becuase the character you are playing is a pilot so it makes sense that he can fly the plane, part of his skills.
    Invinciblity makes less sense. It solves a gamplay problem but takes away from the believablity. It's not a major issue though, certainly not a deal breaker for me.
    Edited by 1 at 03/11/05 @ 15:56

  • Furbs #23 6 years ago

    thegamesthething - I'll take a decent enjoyable game over originality and innovation every time to be honest!

  • thegamesthething #24 6 years ago

    @ octo - that was the OFP solution but still not entirely realistic - if your health is down to 10% then youd have to be pretty badly injured - it would only be realistic if the medic carted you off for several months recuperation and probably a discharge from the army - wouldnt make for much of a game

    @ furbs yeah dude i couldnt agree more, am looking forward to PGR3 more than anything at the moment and if its PGR2 in prettier clothes that will do me fine. its just that for gaming in the longer term originality needs serious support too, becuase COD2 might be very cool but im not sure COD6 would be if its still more of the same. i think thats where the worries about the future of PC gaming come from, and all gaming for that matter
    Edited by 3 at 03/11/05 @ 16:04

  • octo #25 6 years ago

    @thegamesthething - it's the balance between authenticity and playability isn't it? I'd argue that a small bit of face to face with a medic administering drugs a'la Riddick "fits" into the gameworld. Even though the medic thing would be a bit silly, it's just not quite as silly as stopping to have a rest for a bit.

  • Freek #26 6 years ago

    There's a difference between completly realistic and just throwing everything out the window and going for recharging bionic man.
    You strike a balance to make it more believable and incorporate the risk of injury into the gameplay. Medics and health packs is more believable way of doing that instead of a recharging shield ala Halo. Wich works for Halo since it's a sci fi game staring a cyborg super soldier.

    edit; beat me too it.
    Edited by 1 at 03/11/05 @ 16:06

  • thegamesthething #27 6 years ago

    yeah i agree - think the halo thing works very well, just not that many personal force fields around in WW2, mores the pity

    edit - ditto :)
    Edited by 1 at 03/11/05 @ 16:06

  • kangarootoo #28 6 years ago

    On the controller front, I have a question? What is it people used to the keyboard/mouse combo actually object to when playing on sticks? This isn't a pointed question or a challenge, I am simply interested and it might even prove useful one day to hear your answers.

    Here is a selection of what I see as potential issues poeple may experience.

    1. Its simply uncomfortable. My hands ache after 30 mins of play.
    2. I simply can't get the hang of the two stick method. I end up looking at the floor when I try to walk.
    3. The acceleration of the sticks is all wrong. I just keep overshooting with my crosshair when I try and aim quickly.
    4. The crosshair moves too slowly, I can't turn around fast enough.
    5. The auto aim is bloody awful. It keeps snapping to the body when I try headshots, it keeps shooting the wrong enemy, etc.

    Let your thoughts spilleth over.

  • UncleLou #29 6 years ago

    Pretty much a combination of all of your points, kangaroo. It just doesn't feel natural to me, and still didn't after years of using my PS2. I don't like having to hold my hands so close together for a long time, I don't like having to press combinations of buttons for simple tasks, I don't like the lack of accuracy with the analogue sticks, I hate navigating menus without a mouse. :)

  • thegamesthething #30 6 years ago

    2 reasons for me

    1 - accuracy - simply not as accurate as a mouse pointer

    2 - configuration - i use the halo legacy system, which basically comes from goldeneye (strafing with the right stick, yellow buttons on the n64) and not all games have the option - there have been a couple of console shooters ive not played for just that reason, though it should be easily solved
    Edited by 1 at 03/11/05 @ 16:15

  • Furbs #31 6 years ago

    Number 2 for me kanga. I just cant use both thumbs at the same time. Its like patting your head and rubbing your....tummy.

    Edit: @ Fluffy - yeah Goldeneye sucked :p
    Edited by 1 at 03/11/05 @ 16:15

  • Freek #32 6 years ago

    It's the reversal for me. I like aiming with the mouse, feels natural but movement with a keyboard just doesn't work for me that well. And it gets worse when they start to introduce platformy bitts into FPS games. I considered getting a controller for the PC to play Half Life 1, seriously.

    If I get an X360 i'm definetly getting a wired pad aswell, that dual compatiblity MS has done is briliant if you ask me.

    Although the aching hands bitt strikes me as odd. As far as ergonomics are concered the keyboard and mouse are an RSI dissaster waiting to happen, much more so then a modern controller.
    Edited by 2 at 03/11/05 @ 16:20

  • Strabo #33 6 years ago

    PCGaming: No originality?

    Can anyone say Perimiter, Darwinia, Farenhight, King Kong, Rise Of Nation: Rise of Legends and DROD.

    There are plenty of iriginal games out there. Go play them and stop complaining that all the ones advertised heavily are unoriginal.

  • kewny #34 6 years ago

    @kangarootoo: I am pretty used to both but I think the accuracy you have with aiming on the mouse is far superior (and intuitive) than with a pad. The problem with the pad for me is that it seems easy to overaim, so then you reduce the sensitivity resulting in you turning like the titanic. Halo got the aiming more or less spot on IMOH but they did have a f'#king massive aiming reticule !! ;)

    Then again the keyboard can get a bit of a pain sometimes esp when you have loads of buttons to press !!

    I suppose for someone being so used to PC FPS game controls, a pad is completely unnatural to switch to. I have seen this happen watchin my friends play with a pad. It means I can beat them at multiplayer though !!

  • thegamesthething #35 6 years ago

    @ strabo - dont think anyone said no originality - just not as much as would be ideal in the higher selling games
    Edited by 1 at 03/11/05 @ 16:21

  • kangarootoo #36 6 years ago

    @FluffyTucker

    " 6. FPS on a pad is shite"

    /slap

    Come on, you can better than that ;) Thanks everyone else for your handy comments.

  • djchump #37 6 years ago

    There is a fundamental difference between moving an aiming reticle with a mouse and moving an aiming reticle by pushing a stick in a direction.

    Think about when laptops had that little nub instead of a trackpad - you push it and your cursor starts to move in that direction, as opposed to a mouse where you move the mouse, and the cursor get's moved to where the mouse moved to. It's the extra layer of abstraction between the controller and the on-screen action that means a joypad just isn't as immediate and accurate/precise a method of control as a mouse.

  • Artemus #38 6 years ago

    Surely it should be 'gaming in general: no originality'? In fact I'd argue it's far worse on consoles.

  • kangarootoo #39 6 years ago

    @Freek
    "Although the aching hands bitt strikes me as odd"

    Hehe, I just threw that one in on the off chance, but I do actually think that soe people find it more comfortable to support their wrists at shoulder width apart rather than sit woth their shoulders turned inwards for long periods.

  • Furbs #40 6 years ago

    Freek, afaik, the dual compatability thing with the 360 pads is out the window now. MS sell a USB version for PC's and the 360 one has the new Xbox connection.

  • JackThompsonsAnArse #41 6 years ago

    Assuming these are 'general' issues regarding the FPS genre using console / controllers as a whole, here's my take on those:

    1. Its simply uncomfortable. My hands ache after 30 mins of play.
    Badly designed button configuration, or lack of user's experience with the controller. Some controllers are hideous ergonomically, too. Not an actual overall flaw in the way the control method *as a whole* works.

    2. I simply can't get the hang of the two stick method. I end up looking at the floor when I try to walk.
    I had similar issues with the first mouse 'n' keyboard FPSes I played, and then with the console controls, too. Suggest this is also lack of experience / bad implementation of controller.

    3. The acceleration of the sticks is all wrong. I just keep overshooting with my crosshair when I try and aim quickly.
    4. The crosshair moves too slowly, I can't turn around fast enough.
    5. The auto aim is bloody awful. It keeps snapping to the body when I try headshots, it keeps shooting the wrong enemy, etc.
    Bad implementation of the controller.

    I think the key aspect here, isn't the worthiness (or otherwise) of a controller as an input medium to playing games, it's the implementation of the control system for each individual game.

    Halo works best out of all the FPSes on a console, regarding input control. Is the fact that this is one of the few FPSes that were designed solely for a console first, rather than becoming a port from the PC, related to this I wonder?

  • Freek #42 6 years ago

    Wait, diden't the X360 also use USB? They scrapped that? Oh for fucks sake, way to ruin a good thing MS.
    Edited by 1 at 03/11/05 @ 16:24

  • Furbs #43 6 years ago

    Re:Halo - Um no cos it was designed for the PC and Mac first :)
    Edited by 1 at 03/11/05 @ 16:25

  • kangarootoo #44 6 years ago

    @kewny
    "Halo got the aiming more or less spot on IMOH but they did have a f'#king massive aiming reticule !! ;)"

    Too right. Bungie did a lot of great work on their aiming system. There is an article out there about it somewhere but I forget where. The issue you describe with the crosshair movement either being too slow or too twitchy can be avoided by employing a decent acceleration system. If your crosshair movement speed is simply proportional to the angle of stick movement you will never fix this problem, and this has been a blight on otherwise fantastic games such as MoH and Farcry on consoles. The Halo crosshair accelerates to its maximum speed, and it is the stick angle that governs the that maximum. This means that slight movements are accurate but large movements ina short period of time are also possible.

  • Furbs #45 6 years ago

    This aim assist thing. Maybe its why I dont enjoy console FPS's too much. I always aim to make sure my cursor is lined up correctly before opening fire, as I would on the PC and I find it frustating I cant do it accurately enough. Obviously it depends on the game, but are you saying you can get away with actually missing the target?

    God if thats the case, I'm not sure if thats better or worse.

  • Artemus #46 6 years ago

    I'd say aiming on a vertical plane is the biggest problem with console FPS controls. One of the reasons you hardly have any areas that require it and/or autoaim.

  • Dizzy #47 6 years ago

    >Consoles use aim assist which doesn't feel right, nothing on a consoel can recreate the feeling of aiming your own perfect headshot in BF2 with an assault weapon from 40 yards :-)

    Yeah.. try doing that in real life.

    Mouse and pads..... the discussion will never stop. Both are just tools... I dunno about you guys but my brain has evolved to use both. Pads are in a way more realistic for shooting and less realistic for moving while a mouse is the opposite. Who knows.. maybe the rev "wand" will combine both.

  • kangarootoo #48 6 years ago

    How many people here have played Halo on XB with auto aim turned off?

    Their auto aim is the best there is IMO, but I would also suggest that with a little practice their unassisted aiming system is good enough (if not better) in trained hands.

    EDIT: I'm not sponsored by Bungie BTW, just always dead impressed when something is done well.
    Edited by 1 at 03/11/05 @ 16:30

  • thegamesthething #49 6 years ago

    @fluffy - having played the demo of BF2:MC on the xbox, theres no need to use aim assist on that (if it even has it, not sure), and i can assure you headshots are just as satisfying :)

  • urban #50 6 years ago

    werent you guys just saying how much you loved ww2 games?

    oh right...when they sponsor you :)

  • kewny #51 6 years ago

    Exactly kangarootoo. Halo played ace. Not many people can deny that. I also found that a lot of console ubisoft FPS games have aiming problems. I remember getting XIII and my aim was pants. As you say acceleration is the key !! Saying that, I think ubisoft FPS aiming has improved a bit lately. Heres hoping that COD for X360 plays OK (as well as all the others coming out for launch ;)).

    Or within the launch window.........
    Edited by 1 at 03/11/05 @ 16:34

  • JackThompsonsAnArse #52 6 years ago

    Re:Halo - Um no cos it was designed for the PC and Mac first :)

    I knew a smartarse would say that ;)

    Anyway, you know what I mean. It was solely developed for Xbox, tested using Xbox controllers, etc etc etc

  • PearOfAnguish #53 6 years ago

    War has never been so SHINY.

    I hate that bump-mapping.

  • Furbs #54 6 years ago

    I'll tell you one system I've used on the console that I REALLY liked. Russia With Love. You actually lock on to your target so to be honest theres not a great deal of skill other than selecting the right person. However, you can mode where although you're still locked on, you can choose to aim whereever you want. Means you get to do a satisfying headshot or aim for a body part. Dont know if it would lend itself to an FPS though.

  • Jman #55 6 years ago

    @PearOfAnguish. It does look a bit un-natural on the clothing, a little too 'stiff'

  • kangarootoo #56 6 years ago

    I think the shininess is more down to specular lighting. Bump mapping is a showdowing effect and shouldn't increase brightness. Let me find some technical links about it all.

  • octo #57 6 years ago

    specularity channels deal with brightness within reflections and transparency.
    Edited by 1 at 03/11/05 @ 16:49

  • kangarootoo #58 6 years ago

    Good old wikipedia.

    http://en.w ikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_mapping

    Hmm, not so succinct for specular lighting.

    h ttp://bcchang.com/immersive/ygbasics/lighting.html

  • kangarootoo #59 6 years ago

    " specularity channels deal with reflections"

    I thought that was what was creating the shiny effect in the screens.

  • NAC #60 6 years ago

    Spot on kangarootoo not many people noticed Halo was a very clever game it used little tricks like aiming acceleration and a aiming reticule to make up for the lack of range analogue stick have.

    Consider Targeting in Halo
    The turning speed was slow at first, which is good as small movement is needed for precision shooting. But if the analogue was held down longer the rotation speed increased, if the player was holding the stick down for longer its because the enemy is further away. So the acceleration aids the player at precision targeting and speeds up for quick run and gun shooting or turning on the spot quickly.

    Most game designers are only now starting to realise this and implement it correctly when halo had it years ago. And I think its why for so many people halo "just feels right".

  • NAC #61 6 years ago

    Considering the Keyboard and Mouse/Joy Pad situation.

    IMO The mouse is more accurate is because you can use your whole arm/wrist to move to a target. This is quicker and requires *less* co ordination than moving both thumbs in different directions at the same time. That’s why players new to console FPS always end up looking at the floor.

    Now please don't flame me elite PC peeps cause I think console FPS require more Mad Skillz.

    The Revolution controller will be interesting because it requires arm movement just like a mouse, and seems just like the natural extension of the mouse concept into 3D.

  • PearOfAnguish #62 6 years ago

    Bump mapping, specular lighting - whatever it is, It looks rubbish. That Gears of War looks the same, like everyone had a bath in varnish.

  • kangarootoo #63 6 years ago

    "That’s why players new to console FPS always end up looking at the floor. "

    I think someone else mentioned finding this to be the case when first using a mouse to control FPS games. I was all over the place when I first moved from keys to keys/mouse. I guess to some degree it is that a lot of people are just more practiced at using a mouse and so even if the stick system they try next is very good, they still aren't quite as sharp.

    I hear tell (though I am happy to be corrected) that one of the main reasons behind the aiming system in Metroid Prime was because Japanese gamers simply don't like the "western twin stick FPS system". I wonder if that was part of the thinking behind the lack of strafe in ResE4 (though the devs did say it was to maintain tension and control pace, so I am probably off the mark on that one).

    I think it s a real pity that more console FPS games don't put enough work into their aiming system (or at least study Halo and pinch its system, as I am always suggesting). The control system is one of the most important parts of game development IMHO. It it works, you don't notice (and I could ramble on for a page or two on my thoughts regarding control systems as barriers rather than tools) and if it doesn't work it drives you mad and probably kills the game (with most games falling somewhere in the middle I guess).

  • kangarootoo #64 6 years ago

    "like everyone had a bath in varnish."

    I agree. The rainy areas at the start of Splinter Cell 4 looked the same, except it was pissing down with rain and was therefore appropriate, but it does seem to be getting overused in a few recent titles.

  • Jman #65 6 years ago

    "like everyone had a bath in varnish."

    PMSL

  • BravoGolf #66 6 years ago

    So when is this out?

  • Shyvah #67 6 years ago

    @Furbs "Freek, afaik, the dual compatability thing with the 360 pads is out the window now. MS sell a USB version for PC's and the 360 one has the new Xbox connection."

    Care to back that up with a link? The new Xbox connection is USB.

  • Xerx3s #68 6 years ago

    needs more salt.

  • BBIAJ #69 6 years ago

    @oerhört

    Are there any description somewhere that outlines what's needed for a game to receive an 8/10, for example? Would have been interesting to learn a bit more about EG's requirements for this.

    Eurogamer.net Review Score Guide

  • Furbs #70 6 years ago

    Shyvah, you're spot on. I checked the original story I got the idea from and it is all due to some rumour about there being two SKUs with a different price point and meant the site I initially read it from assumed that meant two versions for PC and Xbox. EG's article in the PC section confirms it'll work on both.

    In my defence I've not been paying too much attention to the 360 :p

  • ali-uk #71 6 years ago

    Definitely seems like the review score is justified - however will definitely pick this up. Loved the first one, glad they're not messing with the formula.

  • beep #72 6 years ago

    Are there any AGP cards that handle this game well?

  • ClansOfIntrigue #73 6 years ago

    Those graphics are genuinely incredible (if a little shiny, I suppose) But there's no way in hell I'm going to play a WW2 shooter no matter how good it looks.

    Anyway - err, Quote: "Most game designers are only now starting to realise this and implement it correctly when halo had it years ago." (re acceleration on aiming speed).

    This has been standard practise for *decades*! (at least one, anyway). since ye days of digital controller pads in fact, where it was a must. Bungie may have done it well (dunno, I played Halo on PC), but it certainly wasn't an original idea.

  • admir #74 6 years ago

    I have played COD2 on the Xbox 360 it looks good ( just like the PC version) and i am realy starting to get tierd of WW2 games they are all the same

  • Freek #75 6 years ago

    re: the controllers.
    Ah, well sweet then :D

  • sir_tripod #76 6 years ago

    Got this for PC yesterday. It's a great game. There are some REALLY intense moments. Well worth a buy.

  • UncleLou #77 6 years ago

    Got it yesterday, and I don't find it anywhere near as hardware-hungry as FEAR, and it's much better scaleable, too.

    Only played the beginning, and so far, so good. Feels more like the original CoD than the less than great addon.

  • kangarootoo #78 6 years ago

    @ClansOfIntrigue

    "Bungie may have done it well (dunno, I played Halo on PC), but it certainly wasn't an original idea. "

    I don't think whether it is a new idea or not is really the point. If it isn't being done well in most console FPS games then thats a problem right?

    I'm not saying Bungie were the first company to say "hey, lets make our aiming system not shit", I'm just saying that they showed what could be achieved when the proper amount of priority was given to a core mechanic like the control system.

    There are some big hitters out there (are you litening Ubisoft) who are releasing FPS games on console platforms with sub standard aiming systems. Its not helping them, or FPS games on consoles, or us as gamers.

    Best practice and all that. Find a system that works, find out how it works, nick it, use the same code in every FPS you make (as licensing and IP allows). There we go, I've saved the future with my visionary wisdom ;)

  • RedPanda #79 6 years ago

    Post deleted at 14:31:59 28-01-2012

  • tiddles #80 6 years ago

    Unoriginal as **** but I loved the first game (and the expansion pack), loved the demo and... er, will be buying this today :)

  • djchump #81 6 years ago

    I've been playing FEAR and CoD2 and I've found CoD2 to be much more enjoyable. CoD2 scales great and is very playable on my ageing PC (Athlon 1800+, GF4 Ti), whereas with FEAR I had to turn pretty much all the shiny graphics effects off and when I did, there didn't seem to be much game left :-/ In comparison, CoD2 looks fantastic, which was a nice surprise as I thought my PC was gonna have to be retired from gaming when BF2 wouldn't work on it (I need a DX9 graphics card)!

    NB - I may be being a tad harsh on FEAR as I haven't finished it yet - I've heard the final level is really good - but the first 6 levels seemed really dull and uninspired on my PC.

    Although CoD2 goes down the very linear scripted levels path, I found this highly enjoyable as it gives the chance for the very competent designers to put really standout moments into their levels.
    I've come to hate mid-level non-interactive cutscenes in PC FPSs, as they break up the play and I think it's kinda lazy of developers to rely on these to squeeze in the "narrative" and "story". I think CoD2 does really well to have the intro cutscenes that set the mood, and then all of the narrative occurs as events in the game, although this doesn't seem to be narrative in sense of an overarcing story, but more as in "game events" so I admit it is quite different in a game based on disparate missions to a game based on an on-running story.

  • ClansOfIntrigue #82 6 years ago

    Quote: "I'm just saying that they showed what could be achieved when the proper amount of priority was given to a core mechanic like the control system."

    Indeed - it doesn't matter how nice everything else in the game is if the basic bridge between the player and the game makes the player feel like they're fighting the controller (Rockstar North, I'm looking at you!)

  • Feanor #83 6 years ago

    "Best practice and all that. Find a system that works, find out how it works, nick it, use the same code in every FPS you make (as licensing and IP allows). There we go, I've saved the future with my visionary wisdom ;)"

    Doesn't hurt that the Xbox pad's sticks are much better for precise aiming than the Dual Shock's sticks. Sony, please, don't have big-ass dead zones on the sticks on the PS3 controller.

  • oldboy jenny #84 6 years ago

    Is the 'Kill Cam' still optional in multiplay? Now that was an innovation I'd love to see elsewhere.

  • tiddles #85 6 years ago

    "Potato-massshhheeerrrr!"

    Very good so far - looks bloody amazing and plays well too - smoke grenades are fun, especially when you run into an enemy machine gun nest and get utterly disorientated!

    Loved the North Africa "defend the village" mission - you look out into the distance and think, "there can't really be that many Germans coming towards me, can there?" Kind of like Stalingrad in reverse... :)

  • Mashum #86 6 years ago

    > Doesn't hurt that the Xbox pad's sticks are much better for precise aiming than the Dual Shock's sticks.

    That's bang on, unfortunately no amount of clever programming can compensate for the shoddy engineering of the PS2 controller's sticks - I don't know if it's the dead zone size, the slightly awkward positioning, the lack of springyness or what. Another reason why the PS2 is the Argos sovereign ring of consoles. Fingers crossed that they make amends in the PS3.

  • tiddles #87 6 years ago

    as for difficulty, i've started out on 'veteran' and got killed quite a bunch of times (mostly from overseen grenades), so i think it's also a bit more difficult than the first one (albeit that might be, because i haven't been playing it for years)


    I started out on Hardened, switched to Veteran for a few levels, and now I'm back on Hardened. Veteran in Stalingrad was quite enjoyably challenging, but it didn't suit the more run'n'gun sections in North Africa for me - too many restarts were spoiling the flow and the faster pace of the street-by-street battles. God knows how you're supposed to survive the beginning of the last North Africa mission on Veteran, though - I must have had to restart about 15 times just on Hardened...

  • tiddles #88 6 years ago

    Hardened does seem to offer a really nice balance. You can go all gung-ho every now and then with the Thompson or the Sten gun, but go round a corner into somebody's field of fire when you're not expecting it and you'll be cut to pieces in no time.

    If you've got the PC and the card to do it justice, this is an awesome-looking game. If they don't fluff the conversion, Xbox 360 owners are in for a real treat.

  • caboosemoose #89 6 years ago

    I hate to troll, but i played the first three or four levels and sorry, but this game is a piece of crap. The graphics are demanding but look pretty poor on the whole and run dog slow (I ran it on a radeon x1800 xt and it doesnt even run great on that - there are plenty of games with much better graphics that run faster than cod2). The gameplay is dumbed down and arcadey. The original game was easily superior in that regard - it had a sense of adventure that this game doesnt come close to. In short, while i didnt love cod1, it was just fun enough to motivate me to finish the game. I shall not be going back to cod2 to complete it. 8 out of 10 is a ridiculously high score for a game that fails to satisfy on any level. When will games journos realise how pants shooters ahve become. There's so little progress in the gameplay department, this is just another tedious shooting gallery. Even Half Life 2 only scratched the surface of what a really good shooter should be trying to do.

  • Spanker #90 6 years ago

    Just picked this up and I find Multiplayer very arcadey. People can jump and get one shot kills with bolt-action rifles.. I last 3 seconds. it's Quake in WW2 - a twitch gamer's delight. Almost zero thought required. Disappointed after BF2..