I'm feeling less stable.


CRank: 22Score: 0

User Review : Call of Duty: Classic

  • Great challenge
  • Smooth gameplay
  • Varied levels
  • No formidable changes
  • 1200 MS points ($15)

Was Call of Duty Classic Best Left in the Videogame History Books?

Around 7+ years have passed since Call of Duty (PC) made its 2003 debut receiving a nice share of GOTY awards. Now, the game has been released as arcade games through PSN and XBLA. The only question that remains is whether it should've stayed back on PC or if the console adaptations could bring a refreshing experience.

The setting of CoD (Call of Duty) is the World War II front. With multiple areas being played by various campaigns: American, Russian, and British, you'll defiantly find a great level of variation between missions. For one moment you could be trying to hold a town from enemy forces and the next mission, you may be evading Nazis in an automobile (riding shotgun, mind you) the next.

Before starting each mission, you're greeted with a 2-page diary entry for each soldier you play as your loading screen. These play as simple loading screen but also help give you a indication as to what your mission may revolve around. Basically of the missions cover real missions from WWII such as: the taking of Berlin, Airborne on D-Day, and others.

Since this is the first Call of Duty, your controls revolve around a more "primitive" base then what you're used to if you've played a more recent Call of Duty entry. You have your assortment of weapons, strafing, and other basic FPS controls. The most noticeable change, which was personally a warm welcome, compared to CoD sequels is you have healthpacks, not regenerative health. With Veteran difficulty not allowing health packs, Veteran can offer an amazing challenge while allowing fairness when it comes to checkpoints.

When it comes to the graphics and presentation side of things, it does hold its own but nothing really beyond that. The technical side does look like a maxed out PC with 60 fps, but it still seems like polishing up things would've been welcomed to see. The sounds are still something to marvel at for that time though. The variation in sound for games back then can sound muffled, but they're good for the most part.

Overall, Call of Duty Classic is a formidable game in the arcade market but at too much expense. For an arcade game that COULD'VE been for the fans, Call of Duty Arcade really just cleans up the graphics with 60 fps and calls it a day after that. I'd certainly recommend it for the FPS fan who'd like a challenge, but other than that I'd recommend steering clear of this title or waiting until a price drop.

coolbeans' *Fresh Re-makE* badge

Call of Duty on PC (released in 2003): 8.8 w/ coolbeans' *FresH* badge

the most part, the graphics look the same but with 60 fps. Explosions still look great-with all things considered.
The plethora of different gun sounds make the game feel more satisfying and intense.
The challenge is amazing, with AI that's quite tough (sometimes unfair). I've noticed certain glitches that change the game from challenging to unfair on veteran difficulty.
Fun Factor
While an enjoyable ride, what really got to me was this feeling that the game was just thrown together with better graphics and 60 fps
It'll feel mostly familiar if you've played CoD2, but Call of Duty's online is certainly not generic.
The story is too old to be commented.
coolbeans2606d ago

If you think you've seen this review before, you probably have. I just put it under the wrong category because I never saw Call of Duty: Classic when I initially wrote this review. If a mod could delete my approved review, and count this one instead it would be greatly appreciated.

fooxy2604d ago (Edited 2604d ago )

XBLA version is a waste of time and money, for $20 you can get vanilla game with United Offensive Expansion Pack for PC ! Where there are thousands of servers with players custom maps and all kinda mods compared to XBLA where nobody plays this abomination at all. Its a sloppy port for fast cash grab and you cant see it by playing levels like Stalingrad where tons of textures simply don't load leaving enemies and surroundings as bare 3d models.

coolbeans2604d ago

I agree to a certain degree, which is why I gave is a Certified Rotten remake badge. It's certainly nice for those who hadn't played Call of Duty on PC, but not at that price point.

coolbeans2577d ago

Changed to just being a Fresh badge since the it's still an early IW Call of Duty game.

LightofDarkness2604d ago

Did you just completely rip-off the rotten tomatoes rating system? (Certified Fresh/Rotten)

coolbeans2604d ago (Edited 2604d ago )

I'd like to say my badges are homage to rottentomatoes ("rip-off" seems like such a harsh word). It's fairly close to the same principal:

Certified Rotten: I think the vast majority of fans of said genre (in this case FPS) will not enjoy their experience b/c of *listed reasons*

Rotten: I don't think the majority of said genre will enjoy this game.

Fresh: I think the majority of fans of said genre will like this game, but not the vast majority

Certified Fresh: I'm confident that the vast majority will like this game.

I was more inspired by the idea of seeing Editor's Choice badges being given out to only 9.0+ games. I differ from this because I've found plenty of games that break new molds also have some noticeable flaws.

KillerPwned2604d ago

It may be $15 but this game is one of the most amazing WWII games I have ever played. Try playing it on a 7.1 surround sound it just blows you away. If anyone is looking to get this just get it on PC along with the expansion pack. You can get them both for around the same price. Now if for some god odd reason you only wanna get it for console then go buy it now!!!!

I remember my parents getting me this game for Christmas. I could not wait the demo I played like crazy but the full game is one of my favorite games of all time.

TravUK2604d ago

The first two CoD games are far better than anything that has come after them.