Call of Duty 2 XBOX 360 - 94%

[tranCendenZ]

First XBOX 360 review:

http://www.totalgames.net/pma/22280

Interesting snippets:

The first thing to note is that even when the console game is running side by side with a top of the range PC version, outputting in as high-resolution as it can muster, the 360 version has the edge visually. Perhaps this will change as graphics cards evolve, but for now, the console game runs more smoothly, has far quicker load times, and looks generally better than its poor home computer cousin.

Proudly boasting an incredibly solid 60 frames per second, along with all the usual technical refinements that subtly contribute towards making the game as slick as possible (such as anti-aliasing and 720p output), Call of Duty 2 plays like a dream - never skipping to load in the enormous levels, never stuttering during moments of intense combat, and never faltering when all you can see is fire, bullets and blood. Put simply, the look of Call of Duty 2 is flawless.

Is there any slow-down, visual downgrading, or lazy programming moments hidden away in the online portion of the game? Is the multiplayer less polished than the single player campaign? In what can only be described as a breath of fresh air, the answer is a resounding "No"...

As a matter of fact, there really isn't an area of this game that has been weakened to accommodate anything else. Call of Duty 2 has been polished and refined into a fine example of the sort of solid, high-quality game players can start to expect from the next-generation of consoles. It's far more than 'just a PC port' of 'yet-another-WWII-shooter', and in light of this, it could be the best FPS available for the Xbox 360's launch. Duty is calling, and we'd advise you to enlist this winter...

94%

 

[Anthraxxx]

Wow. That' great. It's good to see the X360 getting off to a good start.

 

[Iced_Eagle]

Woot!

 

[DeusExMachina]

Very good.

 

[destrukt]

awesome news, +1 xbox360.

 

[Sparta]

So its the same game but with better graphics?

 

[VirusType2]

My little brother is getting CoD2 and the xbox360 for christmas. I'll be hanging tight with him this season! :thumbs: :thumbs:

If Sony uses their ghey technology to prevent the use of used games:
good thing these aren't PS3 games, I want to borrow this game from him and play it on my Xbox360

 

[Asus]

I can't get used to the controls. IMO mouse+keyboard > game controller for this game.
Although the demo I played looked really really good.

 

[Moto]

The first thing to note is that even when the console game is running side by side with a top of the range PC version, outputting in as high-resolution as it can muster, the 360 version has the edge visually. Perhaps this will change as graphics cards evolve, but for now, the console game runs more smoothly, has far quicker load times, and looks generally better than its poor home computer cousin.

That's bullshit. I played it at EBGames the other day and it looks nowhere near as good as it does on my computer. There are so many jaggies on everything and they made the quality of the textures much lower.

 

[Warbie]

The demo versions are aren't using the finished code.

Seeing as the 360 hardware is better than any pc hardware we can buy, is it really that suprising the game runs and looks better?

(it's not the details/textures etc that i'm excited about, though, it's the thought of a constant high frame rate with no stuttering when loading textures/maps - something even the most powerful pc suffers from)

 

[Gargantou]

Moto-x_Pat, and you're sure they were running it on a HDTV?
Otherwise then it'd somewhat explain the jaggies.

 

[Warbie]

The review mentions that aa is running fine, i'm assuming 4* (which iwas promised a while ago) It's likely the demo version people have played doesn't have aa implemented.

We'll find out as more reviews start to arrive.

 

[VirusType2]

The demo versions are aren't using the finished code.

Seeing as the 360 hardware is better than any pc hardware we can buy, is it really that suprising the game runs and looks better?

(it's not the details/textures etc that i'm excited about, though, it's the thought of a constant high frame rate with no stuttering when loading textures/maps - something even the most powerful pc suffers from)

I didn't realize that but yea i guess thats right becuase the CoD2 demo was the first demo they released to stores.

or at least the first I ever saw of the xbox 360 and it didn't look nearly as good as it does now. I mean. not even close really.


i put a new thread "xbox videos HOT" link to some videos and screenshots of xbox 360 games. definately check out the call of duty2 movies.
I just can't believe the graphics, framerate, presentation. this is high quality by motion picture standards. and 94% first review? That means its fun as shit too.

 

[Warbie]

We'll see. Im not a CoD fan, and will definately wait for a few more reviews before deciding on this one.

I'd also like a few more sources saying aa is present.

 

[-Psy-]

The demo versions are aren't using the finished code.

Seeing as the 360 hardware is better than any pc hardware we can buy, is it really that suprising the game runs and looks better?

(it's not the details/textures etc that i'm excited about, though, it's the thought of a constant high frame rate with no stuttering when loading textures/maps - something even the most powerful pc suffers from)

Lol, honestly though, you have to wait for the final product. If you know anything about games, it's usually the final product which can either be better or worse then demos...

 

[Icarusintel]

ummm... I'm going to take this with a grain of salt, since the site seems to be Xbox fanboys. The game is good, but if you've played COD it's the same gameplay. I loved the game, but even with a slightly improved framerate (not that i experienced any real slowdown with most of the stuff turned up) that doesn;t mean the gameplay gets better. Simply enough it's run and gun, with a couple "defend this position" parts. It's not a very original game and hardly deserves a 94%. Mid-80s is a better evaluation, but that's weighing multiplayer very heavily. No reason to get this for X360 if you have it for PC as far as I can see.

 

[KU_]

I played it at my local Gamestop and it looked on par with my PC. Anyways, I ordered Call of Duty 2 for PC last night!!!!

 

[mortiz]

Argh, another WW2 shooter. People are complaining that games are getting samey and you'd just have to look at MoH and CoD plus their various sequels and expansions to see that they're half right. Yet they still insist on giving a cloned WW2 shooter a high score? They must have based it on graphics it seems.

I'm not buying it on PC or Console.

 

[Freemanator89]

Ah whatever, I can play the demo excellent, no need for an xbox360.

 

[tranCendenZ]

ummm... I'm going to take this with a grain of salt, since the site seems to be Xbox fanboys. The game is good, but if you've played COD it's the same gameplay. I loved the game, but even with a slightly improved framerate (not that i experienced any real slowdown with most of the stuff turned up) that doesn;t mean the gameplay gets better. Simply enough it's run and gun, with a couple "defend this position" parts. It's not a very original game and hardly deserves a 94%. Mid-80s is a better evaluation, but that's weighing multiplayer very heavily. No reason to get this for X360 if you have it for PC as far as I can see.

Looks like the other sites agree...

Graphics
First off, let me just say that Call of Duty 2 on the Xbox 360 is superior to the PC version of this great game. Ask anybody at Infinity Ward and they will tell you the same thing.

Infinity Ward developed this sequel on the PC, yet knew that with the Xbox 360's tech specs, their baby would, at least, run like margarine on the new console. But I refuse to believe that anyone expected Call of Duty 2 to run like absolute butter on the 360. In fact, I'll even go out on a limb and say that, side-by-side, I'll take the 360 version over the PC counterpart. Have I gone mad? Perhaps--but for the price of a rig that you'll need to get the latter up to speed, the former actually somewhat justifies the $300-plus tag on the Xbox 360. And with 720p widescreen support, normal and specular mapping, dynamite particle effects, and lighting-fast load times, you might not even miss your mouse.

Most importantly, though, Call of Duty 2 on the Xbox 360 runs buttery smooth--even smoother than the PC version did for us in a lot of cases. Areas and situations that would cause most PCs to hitch up run perfectly fine on the Xbox 360 version.

 

[SilentKilla]

I played the game today, and I must say, I don't think it looks all that good.

 

[FictiousWill]

I've also played both, on a pc and on a xbox 360 w/hdtv. The pc version is far and away better both visually and in terms of gameplay.

 

[Icarusintel]

Looks like the other sites agree...

wow, they must have been testing it on some shitty computers or something, and how the f*ck did it get a 5/5? It really isn;t that good of a game... i think they were being paid off

 

[Warbie]

I've also played both, on a pc and on a xbox 360 w/hdtv. The pc version is far and away better both visually and in terms of gameplay.

I'm assuming you played it on a demo pod?

Let's wait untill we've seen the finished game running before making judgement.

Every person I know who has seen the pre release demo version has complained of no aa. The reviews of the finished game claim there is aa, and that, on the most part, that the 360 version looks superior.

There's one thing i'm pretty certain of either way - CoD 2 runs like a dog on the pc, regardless of hardware. The loading times are said to be far quicker on the 360, the frame rate to be higher and more constant, and there to be far less/no stutter. These are the important differences, ones that actually affect gameplay.

//Disclaimer - I don't like CoD, think CoD2 looks just as generic, and couldn't give a toss either way

 

[VictimOfScience]

Well, whether its better on the PC or the 360, one has to admit that it looks damn good for a console. I am very excited--not about this game necessarily--but about the potential it reveals for SO MUCH MORE on the consoles in the coming years. If this is the first generation of games and its not even multi-threaded, then we are all in for a serious treat when devs start understanding how to code for the hardware. I don't think any of us can imagine what will be possible this generation. Very exciting indeed.

 

[Fishlore]

It sounds like the game looks nice. That's good. Now all they have to do is turn Call of Duty into a game that is even remotely interesting or fun to play.

 

[FictiousWill]

I played it on a 360. On a hdtv. Me. Played it myself. No great shakes. It was like playing the pc version at 800x600 & 30fps with a controller. I'm sure that once ms starts writing games straight to the 360 hardware then we'll see some nice shit due to pure hardware acceleration - but not yet, and certainly not this game.

 

[gh0st]

looks solid visually but in terms of gameplay i will be saving my grant for something that i like playing more than cod.

 

[OCybrManO]

It was like playing the pc version at 800x600 & 30fps with a controller.

... except for the fact that Xbox 360 games are all supposed to at least support 720p (1280x720) with some allowing 1080i (interlaced 1920x1080)... and that CoD2 runs at 60fps, not 30. Well, at least you got the "with a controller" part right. I, too, have played Call of Duty 2 on the Xbox 360. It looks just as good as on high end PCs (they use the same models and textures) but it's rock-solid, unlike the PC version, and it loads a lot faster.

 

[VirusType2]

I played it on a 360. On a hdtv. Me. Played it myself. No great shakes. It was like playing the pc version at 800x600 & 30fps with a controller. I'm sure that once ms starts writing games straight to the 360 hardware then we'll see some nice shit due to pure hardware acceleration - but not yet, and certainly not this game.

The game system isn't even out yet dude. You played the demo, which is old and crappy--before the game was finished

 

[destrukt]

wow, they must have been testing it on some shitty computers or something, and how the f*ck did it get a 5/5? It really isn;t that good of a game... i think they were being paid off

paranoid/ignorant much ?

 

[Icarusintel]

paranoid/ignorant much ?

have you played COD2? it's ok, but not good enough to get a perfect score, that's for sure, and that's based on gameplay alone

and how do i sound paranoid?

 

[destrukt]

i don't care whether it is good or bad, just it's funny what you said, how they MUST have been playing it on bad computers, or they were being paid off ! it's like you're in denial and can't handle that others [possibly the majority] think it is good or that the x360 can display it as good if not better than a high-end pc.