I just got done with the single player campaign of Call of Duty 2. Man, that game is badass. It has all the historical weapons accurately recreated: the Garand, the Springfield 03A4, the Thompson, the Enfield, the Mosin Nagant, the SVT, Mauser and Gewehr-43, and a large number of others. (It doesn’t even come close to representing the noise and the recoil of a Mosin Nagant or a Mauser - but whatever.) Garand is probably my all around favorite rifle to use, in the American campaign anyway. In the British ones I always swap the Enfield for a German Gewehr-43.
The combat in the game is really great and extremely intense (and I haven’t even tried playing it on anything harder than “regular” - is it even possible to do?!) I also like how you feel like you get to know the characters…even though the same guys with the same names seem to keep popping up even after you just saw them get their heads blown off. I think I’ve seen Pvt. Goldberg, Pvt. Hassell, Pvt. Rodriguez, and the rest of them “reincarnated” about 20 times over. Eh, whatever.
The only thing is, I feel like a little pussy sitting here playing this game when so many actual people had to get blown up and killed in the actual war in real life.
One response. (Thanks, anyway.) Nobody else has any opinions on this game? I realize it’s kind of old by now but still. (This is why the games and sports forums should be separate - this forum always gets totally dominated by “thread games” and now the Olympics…)
I liked CoD II more than CoD III, actually. It’s just… perfect. If I’m remembering the right one, that is. There’s one mission where you have to counter-snipe a sniper and his position is randomized?
That’s CoD II, right?
Great FPS, one of the best IMO. It’s not quite as nifty as something like, say, Perfect Dark Zero, but it was a heck of an enjoyable game.
I’ve been on an ‘old games’ kick, think I might run that puppy again.
“Potato masher!!!”
There are a few things about it that aren’t perfect. One is the repeated phrases, like you mentioned - “Potato Masher!!” over and over again, “New York says Hi!” and “Jerries” etc etc. But of course this is to be expected of any game. CODII is very scripted and people who like more open-ended games probably would get tired of that aspect of it.
I think it was kind of a cop-out for them to not include a German campaign. I mean, they were the enemy, yeah, but it still would have been historically interesting.
I thought COD2 was "THE GREATEST GAME OF ALL TIME!!!"™ until I played COD4. Amazing, exciting single player, and the mutliplayer takes everything awesome and addictive about Counterstrike and ramps it up.
i’m fiftythekid on Steam if anyone’s interested in adding me. I believe my ingame name right now is I R PRONEING
I played COD4 and as far as single player goes anyway, COD2 wins hands down. WWII is way cooler than some made up anti-terrorism conflict in the barren desert, and historical rifles are way more interesting than the same old M16 and AK-47. IMHO.
I’ve played COD II and COD IV, I loved them both. I particularly like the way you feel like you are part of a large group of soldiers just doing your bit but at the same time the whole battle hinges on your actions. If you get bogged down, everyone gets bogged down until you do some small heroic act like making a run from cover under fire and flanking an enemy position which then moves the battle forwards.
Historic nitpick that almost no-one besides me is likely to notice or care about: The Lee-Enfield rifle depicted in CoD II is a No. 4 Mk II rifle; they weren’t introduced until shortly after WWII. The No. 4 Mk I rifle would be the correct rifle, but the differences are minor and irrelevant from a gameplay POV.
Overall, I enjoyed it, but felt it was missing something. I was glad for the desert and Russian campaign settings, because frankly I’m sick of re-fighting WWII from the American perspective. Sorry guys, but I’ve virtually landed at Omaha Beach so often that I reckon I could walk from there to St. Lo in real life without a map or a GPS unit. It’s time for a different aspect of WWII to get some screen-time, IMHO…
I just came in to say that I freaking love COD IV, and while I never played COD II I will consider picking it up because I keep hearing that it is much better than the third one. I’m going to have to start looking for you guys on steam…do most of you play it on a computer or through consoles?
Call of Duty 2 and 3 were both good in their own rights. I prefer Call of Duty 3, myself. Then again, I play a lot of multiplayer. Call of Duty 4 is better than 2 or 3 on all merits, though.
COD2 really was great. COD3 was fun, too, but it just seemed kinda . . . phoned in, like they didn’t put the same level of thought into how the player would interact with the battlefield. I don’t know, whatever it was, 3’s single player wasn’t nearly as interesting to me as 2’s (3’s multiplayer was cool, though).
4 is neat, but I had more fun with 2 and 3. One thing that bugs me about 4 is that there isn’t any variety to the weapons. Not only is there not nearly as much of a gulf between the desirable and undesirable guns, but since you play the whole game as American and British soldiers, the weapons you start a level with are so obviously superior to anything you might pick up from an enemy. Maybe you might want to pick up a different awesome weapon from a fallen comrade, but there are just a handful of guns you might want (or need) to use in the whole game.
I have COD II, and for some reason it runs like absolute crap on my PC, even though my PC meets or exceeds the stated minimum requirements to run it.
I have even tried scaling back the graphics and such and it still runs like shit. Is there a particular setting or option that I can select or deselect that is an enormous resource hog that might help make it run better so I can tolerate playing the damn thing?
I need a new video card and some more RAM, I’m afraid.
FGIE, I strongly recommend you give the United Offensive expansion for COD1 a try if you haven’t yet. It’s available on Steam so you don’t even need to leave the house to get it!
Here are the sysreqs for COD2:
Note that if your HD is partitioned, you need to have 4 gigs free on one partition. 2 from each doesn’t count.
Presumably you did all the obvious stuff, but if you didn’t… shut off all the Windows Services you can (in XP- I assume you can still do that in Vista but I don’t have it so I don’t know), end as many processes as you can in the Task Manager (but unplug your ethernet connection before you shut down Windows Firewall), clear as much HD space as you can, set your swap file to some huge number, etc.
Oh, and download the latest drivers for Win and your graphics card, if you haven’t already. And update to DirectX 9.
It runs flawlessly on my system, which is relatively ancient - Athlon 2600+, Nvidia GeForce FX 5200, 1 gig of RAM. And by flawlessly, I mean I can turn everything all the way up including the resolution and refresh rate and it doesn’t skip a beat.
Back to the game- yeah, it’s awesome. I’m playing it right now, in fact, in honor of not-really-a-hurricane Fay.
Help me do that. By “turning stuff down”, I meant within the game itself. You know, minimizing corpses, shadows, going to bilinear from trilinear, that shit.
I have:
Windows XP Home Edition
HP Pavilion PC a1230
1 GB RAM
Athlon 3700 64bit processor @ approx 2.3gHZ
256MB ATI Radeon Express 200 Series vid card
200GB Hard Drive, of which about 70-80GB is free.
I don’t know about “setting swap files” or what that means.
I also don’t know in XP which processess I can safely end (I used to do this with Win98 and Battlefield 1942).
If you could help me, I would appreciate it. It looks like my system is the equal of yours at least, and there must be something I am not doing to optimize the game.
I was indeed rather surprised that CODII ran so poorly on my machine, given that it and my system are both older.
