Fractured Reality

Call of Duty 2

I've calmed down a bit since then. It's not a 10/10. In fact, some people didn't even give it a 9. I would. I don't want to review it though. If I did the phrases "like Call of Duty, but prettier", "wonderful smoke effects", "no health packs make things easier" and "way too short" would undoubtedly feature.

Just to clarify one of those points - Call of Duty 2 features no on-screen numerical indicator for your health, nor are there medkits lying around to replenish it. When you are near death your view becomes obscured by blood, which goes away after a period of not being hit. In other words, hiding regenerates health, leaving you able to take damage from your body weight in lead and shrapnel, and still survive. It is a definite minus point for the game, especially since I thought it was such a good idea to begin with.

But it does what Call of Duty did, and on a grander scale. This is what a shooter should look like once all the fat has been boiled away - intense action, very little let-up, swarms of enemies with at least some tactical nous. After completing the Soviet campaign I had to stop, lest my brain burst through my skull or my hand turned completely into jelly. It's not often a game does that to me.

It is, of course, too short. Call of Duty was as well, but its sequel is too too short. 3 Soviet missions, 4 British and 3 American, broken down into 27 sections. It took about 8 hours to complete. There's a difference between leaving your audience wanting more, and not providing them with enough in the first place.

3 Comments

  1. Shame - I played the first one and enjoyed it (while it lasted).

    Comment by Lewis Henson, November 3, 2005 @ 9:21 pm
  2. Why is that a shame? It's still a game you must play.

    Comment by Simon, November 3, 2005 @ 10:29 pm
  3. Cos I was hoping they'd listen to feedback from the first ("It's too short" etc).

    Comment by Lewis Henson, November 3, 2005 @ 10:40 pm

Leave a comment