Brendan Doms

Immersive, but lacking.

Call of Duty 2 got several things right while losing that magic touch that made its prequel and the expansion so much fun. The large battles are amazing: squads of troops and tanks rushing of hills will leave you breathless. This is the first game to ever come out that takes place in a war where I've really been able to say to myself, "Wow, it feels like I'm playing a game that takes place in a war." Think about it; Halo 2 takes place during an intergalactic war, and that game is totally lacking in moments where there are more than a dozen or so enemies on screen at a time (they come in waves...ooo, isn't that nice?). Call of Duty 2 gives a great sense of presence and placement squarely in World War II.

However, it is this immersiveness that is also responsible for the game's biggest downfall. I was left feeling totally impersonal to the events around me upon completing the game. Sure, there were some challenging spots that my squad couldn't have done without me, but it's more than that. Call of Duty and United Offensive had a lot of moments with great dialogue and where I felt my men really depended on me. I felt like each campaign had more of a story. In Call of Duty 2 there are still occasional moments like that, but they don't flow in the natural way the predecessor's do. This certainly isn't aided by the ability to jump around from campaign to campaign on a whim. Despite what critics might be saying about too much linearity in modern games, I'd rather have more of it forced on me if it makes for a more cohesive and compelling story. Call of Duty 2 is still a fun FPS worth the $50 - despite my misgivings about its impersonalness - it just won't be on my top 22 games list next year.