Call of duty 2 stalingrad series#

As you progress in each campaign, youвЂ™ll even participate in historical events like the Battle of Stalingrad, the Second Battle of El Alamein, or the capture of Pointe du Hoc. American forces take part in the Normandy D-Day landings before pushing into Nazi Germany. A British sergeant and a tank commander take turns securing control of North Africa. A Russian private defends Moscow before taking the fight to the Nazis in Stalingrad. But at the same time, itвЂ™s so well-crafted that I was having too much fun to care about any faults.Д¬all of Duty 2вЂs campaign вЂ“ or rather campaigns вЂ“ follows individual soldiers opposing the German army on all fronts.

If released today, would it attract the same audiences who buy up Call of Duty sequels every year? Probably not вЂ“ while the game still plays wonderfully, it lacks much of the substance and polish that made Modern Warfare a brand name. In that spirit, it seems appropriate to review Call of Duty 2, the most successful game from ActivisionвЂ™s original World War II line. Or at the very least, the opportunity to revisit an old one.

Call of duty 2 stalingrad series#

Even if you like Black Ops III, itвЂ™s pretty clear the series needs a new direction. But today we have the exact opposite problem: Eight of the twelve core Call of Duty games are modern or near-future shooters.

To its credit, MW was a refreshing change of pace and an undeniable hit that changed the industry.

Activision produced another two Nazi-gunfest sequels (three if you count World at War) before switching gears completely with CoD 4: Modern Warfare. When the series first launched in 2003, it sat among the countless WWII shooters that dominated store shelves. But this time around, IвЂ™ve been considering another angle: вЂњShould Call of Duty revisit World War II?вЂќ Last week brought us a new Call of Duty game, prompting the usual annual discussion about whether the series is still worth playing.