Review: Call of Duty

A lot of excellent World War 2 first person shooters (FPS) have been released recently (Battlefield 1942, Medal of Honor, etc.) Unfortunately, while Call of Duty has a great game engine and good level design, the limited single player campaign is a major dissapointment. I finished the single player game, which I purchased for $49.99 at BestBuy, in 6 hours on Hard difficulty level. I didn’t play any multiplayer yet – perhaps it will be the best multiplayer experience ever, but I doubt it. The Gamespot review (a site that normally does a good job matching my tastes) gives this game a 9 out of 10 – but admits that the single player game is really short. That’s unfortunate, because it shows that they didn’t really care about value for the dollar (after all – they got the game for free.)

Rating: – good graphics and gameplay, it just didn’t last

4 thoughts on “Review: Call of Duty”

  1. Hmmmm that might bump up to a 3 out of 5 for any non-hard-core gamer type. I am thinking 6 hours for Scott probably parlays into 30-40 hours minimum for me. (Parlays? Who talks like that? Beat you to it John!)

  2. I think I will add “parlay” to my Beavis and Butthead word list. Its fits nicely between “package” and “peanuts”.

  3. I finished this one up this week – it was a fun little romp. It is short, but I enjoyed the story angle and the fact they had guys that helped you. The Russian missions alone make it worth playing…

Comments are closed.