Story:
Call of Duty’s story is still today one of the best in the WW2 genre. Unlike its counterparts CoD’s story had 3 protagonists which at the time was very refreshing and even today I prefer this approach to war games (If only we could play as the enemy as well). You get thrown in the boots of American Pvt. Martin, Englishmen Sgt. Evans and Ruskie Pvt. Voronin. These 3 men will bring you through epic battles like D-Day, Operation Tonga and the Battle of Stalingrad.
Gameplay:
This is where CoD controls all got started and boy are/were they ever good. Of course they weren’t groundbreaking seeing that MoH has very similar controls but whenever I think about making the perfect fps CoD’s controls are always up there. No health regeneration! This is where the newer CoD’s have messed up, we are not Master Chief we’re just simple humans we can’t regenerate health by ourselves almost instantly. This also adds a higher level of dificulty, if you think CoD 4’s veteran mode was hard try playing CoD Classic’s veteran.
Graphics:
For 2003 CoD had great visuals, but of course they don’t even hold a candle to this gens games. I really feel that Infinity Ward could of updated the visuals just a little bit for the sake of more picky gamers who are anal about graphics and it would also give a little more eye candy to the gamers who think gameplay>visuals.
Sound:
CoD’s sound is superb, it even outclasses some current gen games. Michael Giacchino composed the score and does a brilliant job, you might be familiar with his work via the newest Star Trek movie.
Multiplayer:
This is where it all began, CoD’s multiplayer is first class and still is better then 2/3’s of current gen multiplayer games. CoD’s multiplayer holds some features that I wish Infinity Ward would of stuck with, which is no perks and no health regeneration. The maps are also some of the best CoD has to offer, and I wouldn’t be suprised to see them re-packaged in a newer iteration. The only negative in the mulitplayer is that the old lobby system doesn’t really work well in today’s generation and 8 players max? Come on they could of added 4 more players, I’m not a game developer but I doubt that’s a hard task.
In conclusion Call of Duty Classic is in fact that a classic and should be played by anyone who is a fan of the WW2 genre. With no updated graphics, great sound, multiplayer that stands the test of time and one of the best storys in the ww2 genre; Call of Duty Classic earns a 4.5 out of 5.
(4.5/5)
Gamer Grammar:
CoD: Call of duty
MoH: Medal of Honor
FPS: First Person Shooter
Military Grammar:
Pvt: Private
Sgt: Sergeant
Solid review good sir. I don’t understand the scale used but I usually ignore the arbitrary numerical value attached at the end and get what I need from the actual review itself.
.5-disgusting 1-horrible 1.5- shameful 2-bad 2.5-below average 3-average 3.5-ok 4-good 4.5-great 5-excellent. There you go sir, at lest that’s what I think when I grade games with this scale.
good review, i have it & the game skipped a trophy in the 3rd mission Im not gonna spoil it & im currently in the 5 mission i got the trophies for completing them but seroisly why the fuk did the game the 3rd mission trophy lol.
To be honest i felt this game is way better than call of duty 3 in single player wise, IW sure knows how to play the game & Tyfukin reck….fuk u for making call of duty 3 the worst call of duty’s of all time.
Treyarch made CoD: W@W which was good and had co-op. MW2 doesn’t even do that. Food for thought.
Yeah i know I’m just talking about the classic call of duty’s, call of duty 3 shouldn’t even been on ps3 and 360 it should of been only on ps2 it doesn’t deserve to be in next gen consoles but the past is a history and the future is a mystery Treyarch are improving as they learn from their mistakes
It would be hard for me to give this game anything over 3-3.5. The ai seems braindead all the time. Not to mention that they are charging $15.00. For 15.00 you would be better off buying so many others on PSN/XBL.
I think establishing a brand new A.I would of been more work then polishing the graphics, if we go back to 2003 we wouldn’t of said the A.I is brain dead cause we were use to A.I like this. CoD is still a 5/5 to me but because of the little online issues and the fact that they didn’t polish the graphics I gave it a 4.5/5 because don’t re-release a classic with out changes, If we want to play the exact original game we could get it online for 2$ and every PC today can just about handle the game.
I totally agree with what you said. Just like dj hero i think price is an important factor in scoring a game. COD classic is a good game and I think a better price margin would have been at 7.99.
for some people the $15 is worth the platinum
although i got it for free
@ Spencer,
Which console is this game review for?
Is the frame rate a solid 60? Resolution?
A few more details if you don’t mind…
I bought CoD on PC many many years ago after the success that was the original MoH and those guys left to start up Infinity Ward. I remember playing through CoD and thinking it was great for the most part, though I didn’t like the switching between characters much (and still don’t). Good to see you liked the game on console Spencer… Worth a punt then…!
After playing through PixelJunk Shooter today (pretty good old skool type game) I think I might need something else to play on PS3 over Chrimbo!
There wasn’t any frame rate issues, it ran smooth. I played it for 360, so I wouldn’t be able to say the resolution cause the 360 runs at whatever setting you put it at all the time.I played it for PC in 03 as well loved it there, the attraction to buying the console iteration is the online play, but from what I’ve experienced so far the community isn’t big. So I would only really recommend this to people who haven’t experienced the game before.
That final point is well made – thanks!