Call of Duty® (2003)

---{ Graphics }--- ☑ You forget what reality is ☐ Beautiful ☐ Good ☐ Decent ☐ Bad ☐ Don‘t look too long at it ☐ MS-DOS ---{ Gameplay }--- ☑ Very good ☐ Good ☐ It's just gameplay ☐ Mehh ☐ Watch paint dry instead ☐ Just don't ---{ Audio }--- ☐ Eargasm ☑ Very good ☐ Good ☐ Not too bad ☐ Bad ☐ I'm now deaf ---{ Audience }--- ☐ Kids ☐ Teens ☑ Adults ☐ Grandma ---{ PC Requirements }--- ☐ Check if you can run paint ☐ Potato ☐ Decent ☐ Fast ☐ Rich boi ☑ Ask NASA if they have a spare computer ---{ Game Size }--- ☐ Floppy Disk ☐ Old Fashioned ☐ Workable ☐ Big ☐ Will eat 15% of your 1TB hard drive ☐ You will want an entire hard drive to hold it ☑ You will need to invest in a black hole to hold all the data ---{ Difficulty }--- ☐ Just press 'W' ☐ Easy ☑ Easy to learn / Hard to master ☐ Significant brain usage ☐ Difficult ☐ Dark Souls ---{ Grind }--- ☐ Nothing to grind ☐ Only if u care about leaderboards/ranks ☐ Isn't necessary to progress ☑ Average grind level ☐ Too much grind ☐ You'll need a second life for grinding ---{ Story }--- ☐ No Story ☐ Some lore ☐ Average ☐ Good ☐ Lovely ☑ It'll replace your life ---{ Game Time }--- ☐ Long enough for a cup of coffee ☐ Short ☐ Average ☐ Long ☑ To infinity and beyond ---{ Price }--- ☐ It's free! ☑ Worth the price ☐ If it's on sale ☐ If u have some spare money left ☐ Not recommended ☐ You could also just burn your money ---{ Bugs }--- ☑ Never heard of ☐ Minor bugs ☐ Can get annoying ☐ ARK: Survival Evolved ☐ The game itself is a big terrarium for bugs ---{ ? / 10 }--- ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ 6 ☐ 7 ☐ 8 ☐ 9 ☑ 10 ---{ Author }--- ☑ https://vojtastruhar.github.io/steam-review-template

El mejor juego de toda mi vida <3

Als 2003 das erste Call of Duty erschien, ahnte ganz sicher niemand, dass hiermit eine der erfolgreichsten, prägendsten und schließlich am meisten ausgeschöpften Shooter-Reihen der Videospielgeschichte ihren Anfang nahm. Call of Duty setzte neue Maßstäbe in Sachen Inszenierung und Teamgefühl und hob den Weltkriegs-Shooter auf ein ganz neues Level. Der Singleplayer war für mich immer das Herzstück des ersten Call of Duty und unterschied sich stark von seinen Genre-Konkurrenten. Man erlebt den Zweiten Weltkrieg aus drei verschiedenen Blickwinkeln. Man spielt als amerikanischer Fallschirmjäger (101st Airborne), als britischer SAS-Soldat und als sowjetischer Rotarmist. Diese drei Perspektiven gaben dem Spiel eine filmische Breite, die damals einzigartig war. Viele Einsätze orientierten sich direkt an bekannten Ereignissen des Zweiten Weltkriegs, von der Landung in der Normandie über den Häuserkampf in Stalingrad bis hin zu Kommandounternehmen hinter feindlichen Linien. Besonders die sowjetische Kampagne ist in Erinnerung geblieben: Ohne Gewehr, nur mit einem Magazin, rennt man über den Wolgadamm in Stalingrad, während MG-Feuer einschlägt und die Kommissare die eigene Truppe in den Tod treiben. Diese Szene war damals revolutionär in ihrer Intensität. Schon hier zeigte sich der Grundstein für das, wofür Call of Duty später berühmt wurde. Skriptlastige, filmische Inszenierung. Explosionen, Funksprüche, KI-Kameraden, usw. Alles wirkte wie eine interaktive Kriegs-Dokumentation. Das Spiel selbst basierte noch auf der id Tech 3 Engine (bekannt durch Quake III), wurde aber stark modifiziert, um größere Schlachtfelder, mehr Gegner und spektakuläre Skriptsequenzen darzustellen. Gegner suchten Deckung, Kameraden riefen Befehle, Granaten können zurückgeworfen werden. Im Gegensatz zu späteren Teilen gab es noch klassische Medipacks, ein Relikt der damaligen Zeit. Das sorgte für Spannung, wenn man mit nur noch 10 HP versuchte, die nächste Deckung zu erreichen. Das erste Call of Duty ist nicht nur der Beginn einer gewaltigen Spielereihe, sondern auch ein wichtiger Meilenstein in der Entwicklung von Militär-Shootern. Während Spiele wie Wolfenstein den Spieler oft als übermächtigen Einzelkämpfer inszenierten, stellte Call of Duty das Gefühl einer Truppe ins Zentrum. Diese Idee prägte fortan viele andere Militär-Shooter. Man war Teil einer Einheit, kämpfte Seite an Seite mit KI-Kameraden, erhielt Befehle und Deckung. Dieses „Band of Brothers“-Gefühl wurde später auch in Spielen wie Brothers in Arms weiter vermittelt. Niemand ist "der Held". Niemand ist besonders. Der Spieler ist nur einer von vielen Soldaten, die im Krieg dienen. Call of Duty legte das Fundament für eine Marke, die über die nächsten Jahrzehnte zur größten Shooter-Serie der Welt anwachsen sollte. Doch gerade das erste Spiel bleibt durch seinen ernsteren, nüchternen Ton eine Besonderheit. Ohne Superhelden-Momente, sondern mit Fokus auf den Krieg als kollektives Erlebnis. Aber auch wenn die Inszenierung stark ist, sind die Levels strikt linear und bieten kaum Freiheit. Die Kampagne ist zudem recht kurz und kann in etwa 6–8 Stunden beendet werden. Grafisch ist das Spiel natürlich auch sehr veraltet und sollte daher mit Mods gespielt werden. Auch die KI ist aus heutiger Sicht recht eingeschränkt. Doch der historische Wert bleibt trotz allem bestehen. Call of Duty (2003) ist ein Klassiker, der nicht nur eine Spielereihe begründete, sondern auch das Genre der Militär-Shooter nachhaltig prägte. Für Spieler von damals war es ein Meilenstein. Die Intensität, das Teamgefühl, die verschiedenen Perspektiven fühlten sich alle neu und bahnbrechend an. Aus heutiger Sicht natürlich nichts beonderes mehr. Für heutige Spieler ist es aber vor allem ein Stück Spielegeschichte, weniger poliert als moderne Titel, aber dafür ehrlicher, fokussierter und näher an der Vision, den Schrecken des Zweiten Weltkriegs interaktiv zu vermitteln. Wer sich also für die Wurzeln von Call of Duty interessiert, sollte dieses Spiel unbedingt nachholen, sei es nun aus historischem Interesse oder einfach um zu sehen, wie alles begann. Ohne dieses Spiel gäbe es diese Mega-Franchise nicht und ich würde mich riesig über ein Remaster oder sogar ein Remake freuen.

first: i love this game. it's a classic, that i pretty much played when it came out first and long before the franchise became the over-hyped dlc fest we know today. but: WHY can i not play the english original? WHY do i have to accept the german localisation? as well, activision could have treated us to modern screen resolutions as, at least full HD. particularly with this price tag for a nearly quarter of a century old title, that would have been a nice move. sorry, but this is a disappointment. not accepting it.

10 yaşlarındayken gece gündüz oynadığım, defalarca bitirdiğim ve bana göre o dönem dünyanın en iyi oyunu olan Call of Duty'nin hala oynanabilir olması ve grafikler harici savaş mekaniklerinin sırıtmaması takdire şayan. COD 2003'ün en büyük artısı, oyunu oynadığınızda Modern Warfare (COD4)'ün neler yapmış olduğunu, neleri başarmış olduğunu net bir şekilde anlıyorsunuz. İyi Yönleri + Adamların 23 sene önce çıkardığı şu oyunda vuruş hissi hala iyi hissettiriyor. + Oyunda bir kaç bölüm hariç her bölüm birbirinden farklı hissettiriyor. Adamlar taa 23 sene öncesinde her ne kadar ara sahne ve sinematik oyuna koymasa da oyun içinde aksiyona ve holywood tarzı sahneler tasarlamaya özen göstermiş. + Oyunun süresi de tam olması gerektiği gibi. Ortalama 4 - 5 saatte bitiyor. Haliyle sizi sıkmıyor. + Oyun günümüz işletim sistemlerinde de sorunsuz çalışmakta. Yani COD Advanced Warfare'nin doğru düzgün çalışmamasını göz önünde bulundurduğumuzda bu durum şaşırtıcı geliyor. Kötü Yanları - Oyunun kötü yanı kesinlikle fiyatı... Yani Activision'un 23 senelik oyunu bu fiyatlarda satması şaka gibi. Zamanında 13 liraya almış olmasam muhtemelen almazdım. - Oyunda ufak tefek buglar olabiliyor. Misal bazukalar tankların içinden geçebiliyor. Ama oynanışınızı bozacak bir durum değil.

over 20 years old an its miles better than bo7, trying not to sound like an anti woke nonce but yeah cod was better when it focused on gritty war rather than collabs, battlepasses and multiplayer. The game is still very dated and i wouldnt mind them delayed a new release to remaster this game. Obviously you cant play on controller despite in being an fps and glitches are common e.g some guns just refuse to reload and you get shot through walls. Despite aging problems its a very enjoyable past time and compared to black slop 7 its way way cheaper and has a far better story with a £0.03 budget compared to the 700 ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ MILLION budget of bo7. Definitely give it a go if you have a few hours of spare time. 7/10

The newer titles have nothing on this. Played on normal and had an absolute blast. Really hope that they release big red one on steam but thats never gonna happen.

When game devs aren't queers and LQGBT++ tards you could get a game like this

[h1] Call of Duty - an unpolished diamond [/h1] [b]Prelude[/b] The first Call of Duty is undoubtedly an FPS classic which, along with the Medal of Honor series, gave rise to the subgenre of games with more cinematic campaigns, grounded stories about war or special ops – rarely going beyond the modern era, nearby future or WWII, only occasionally stepping into sci-fi territory. Speaking of the gameplay aspects of this subgenre, these shooters share some usual traits: usually 2-3 weapon types instead of a full arsenal; a small variety of enemies, typically limited to different types of soldiers; linear levels where exploration ends with a couple of tiny side alleys; HP regeneration or lots of medkits; checkpoints, etc. The list could go on. I’m not insisting on this categorisation as final – as in any art form, genres blend, and CoD-like FPS games may borrow something from retro shooters (hello F.E.A.R., RAGE). Long story short: compared to what came before it, Call of Duty revolutionised the genre – whether for better or worse is a matter of taste, but as the fact it must be acknowledged. Now all that’s left is to examine the game itself: did it manage to pull this off on the first try? [b]Review[/b] Short answer: yes, it succeeded, but with some rough edges The first thing that catches the eye is the graphics. Unfortunately, even at its 2003 release, the graphics didn’t produce much of a wow effect. Enemy models, by the standards of the time, look somewhat more detailed in comparison to RTCW: characters actually have polygonal pockets, folds and little bumps on their uniforms, but the textures drag down the overall impression. The weapon models are quite decent, though the iron sights are too thick and not really comfortable to use. The levels range from «wow, that’s impressive», like the unique german battleship or the dam, to generic villages with identical house interiors that often repeat themselves (some locations are reused for two missions, day/night). The soviet campaign with its gray ruined walls and snowy forests ending can make you feel upset too. As for gameplay, the gunplay is very pleasant and not very realistic, but reasonably accessible. It’s hard to say there’s a great variety of guns: most missions are completed either with your standard issued kit or the MP-40 & Kar98k combo. Still, it’s always exciting to pick up an FG-42 or StG-44 though you’ll rarely find much ammo for them. As already mentioned, the game’s key feature is its cinematic nature. Every mission feels like «Saving Private Ryan», where you feel your involvement, your role in the operation. The levels are full of military bravado – there’s no room for deep reflection here, but that is Call of Duty, and that is why we do love it. There are chases on car, stealth infiltrations, dangerous landings, assaults. And the defence of Pavlov’s House alone is worth mentioning – the best and the hardest level in the game. Overall, it’s a real thrill-ride. However, there are a few things that personally disappoint me. Some levels are repeated and it’s understandable that reusing a map with different lighting is easier than building a new one, so this isn’t a critical issue. The biggest drawback for me are the stationary weapon sections, where you don't have an opportunity to hide, and the first enemy can shoot your entire face off with a couple of accurate hits – leaving you stuck like that unless you restart the level. I understand it probably has to do with AI behaviour and the lack of health regeneration. The developers just threw in a few medkits, but once you use them up, the enemies can just blast you again in the same way. Speaking of AI: the machine gunners are extremely annoying. They instantly switch focus to you and suppress you with heavy fire. If you’ve run out of health and medkits, you’re forced into pure save-scum process and boring peeking from a cover, waiting for enemies to “forget” you. And sometimes friendly fire happens – but that’s a minor issue :D The absence of health regeneration. The developers added it only in the second game, and it was a great change, it made the gameplay much smoother and eliminated the need for save-scumming when medkits were gone. And one more minor drawback about the graphics: this is the only FPS where I genuinely struggle to distinguish enemy silhouettes. I don’t know why, but the camouflage here blends with the environment a little too well. [b]Epilogue[/b] The first Call of Duty is definitely a good, though not perfect, game, and many of its rough edges can be forgiven, considering it was an experiment. Is it worth playing at least once? Definitely yes. I’ve replayed it many times, and every time, the game delivers enjoyment. This is one of those cases where an old game can truly be called a classic – not outdated junk. 7 Captain Price moustaches out of 10.