Released 1.5 years after Medal
Of Honor and on the same engine and almost the
same settings, it's easy to draw comparisons
between the two. Most players seem to prefer
Call Of Duty, and I agree, but only by a small
margin.
In fact, they could almost
be the same epic long game, there's not much
difference. The level design is good, but not
particularly fantastic. The levels are fairly
standard fare; either cross-country with some
average looking greenery, or destroyed towns.
The highlight is the final level and the level
which takes place at a dam that you have to
sabotage. Ultimately, the level design is an
improvement over Medal of Honor, as there were
no downright boring levels as MOH had.
The gameplay is all enjoyable,
again the same as you would expect from this
genre. High speed guns mixed with plenty of
sniping means you won't get sick of the gameplay.
What makes COD unique is that 90% of the game
your fighting alongside computer controlled
teammates. Fortunately, they're not complete
morons and don't get in your way. They also
don't take over the game and leave you with
nothing to kill. It stills feels like your playing
your own mission, but with a little help and
company here and there. It was certainly a unique
and satisfying feature.
The major problem with COD
was it's length. I played the entire game within
a day; in two sittings, and could easily have
done in one sitting. This is a very short game,
perhaps around seven hours. For a full game,
this just doesn't cut it. I complained about
MOH being so short, but this COD is much shorter.
At least there is an addon pack which I'll be
playing next.
So overall, Call Of Duty was
a blast. Good level design, fun gameplay, not
overly difficult or frustrating in any way.
It's certainly the best WW2 based game thus
far, despite the short length.
