News Ticker

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 Comments 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…

  4. “Romp” is another word that should be on my list.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: