Call of Duty PC

User Score
8.5

Generally favorable reviews- based on 667 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 27 out of 667
Buy On

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. DeaconB.
    Feb 4, 2004
    6
    The single play was brilliant, I loved it, but it was way too short. The multiplayer could possibly be good if there was a way to get rid of all the cheating scum.
  2. WillS.
    Mar 21, 2004
    6
    For good graphics, decent storyline and a good flow to gameplay in single player mode, Call of Duty is a slightly better game than 1942 in that the characters and situations seem more real given AI and ambient graphics and sound. If you want an better all-round experience, including a very well developed multi-player function and replay-ability, Battlefield 1942 is a better bet. Call of For good graphics, decent storyline and a good flow to gameplay in single player mode, Call of Duty is a slightly better game than 1942 in that the characters and situations seem more real given AI and ambient graphics and sound. If you want an better all-round experience, including a very well developed multi-player function and replay-ability, Battlefield 1942 is a better bet. Call of Duty would rate much higher if it did not seem too short and if the multi-player was not so bad, which is a tremendous oversight in a new game. Still, Call of Duty mostly fulfills its promise of putting you in the middle of intense WWII action in very well designed environments. Expand
  3. Dec 1, 2011
    6
    It's an ok shooter. I found it to be a cross between Return to Castle Wolfenstein and Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, both of which provided a much better gameplay experience. Fighting as the Russians was the highlight of CoD which provided a hint of originality. Beyond that, there was nothing that jumped out as an experience worth remembering.
  4. Dec 22, 2011
    6
    Smooth controls, animations and gameplay are the good things about this game. Bad things- multiplayer is without substance and non cheaters. Single player got so boring I literally forced myself through it. A waste of time. If you want a WWII shooter CoD2 or BF1942 are the way to go.
  5. DavidR.
    Nov 5, 2003
    7
    It's a very good game, but, coming after Max Payne 2, I want something more. The entire game feels scripted to death, and a lot of the time is spent just holding down the fire button and waving the mouse wildly. I like it a LOT, but it kinda gives me the sh.ts. If you know what I mean. newfers
  6. MartijnvandeV.
    Sep 5, 2004
    7
    Nice story, good grapics, ok online mode. Bad A.I. and the single-player mode is just to short...
  7. MikeR.
    Oct 1, 2007
    7
    This game really needs two ratings: one for its singleplayer and another for its multiplayer. I would give its singleplayer a 9 because it was really well done and overall really well done (with the exception of the Stalingrad part, where the only research done was watching Enemy at the Gates). The storming of the Reichstag was a lot of fun and overall a really great ending for the game. This game really needs two ratings: one for its singleplayer and another for its multiplayer. I would give its singleplayer a 9 because it was really well done and overall really well done (with the exception of the Stalingrad part, where the only research done was watching Enemy at the Gates). The storming of the Reichstag was a lot of fun and overall a really great ending for the game. As for the multiplayer, I would rate it a five since it's not horrible, but really bland. However, it should be noted that the expansion fixes this and makes it a lot of fun. Overall, a great game. Expand
  8. Jok`RdeMo
    Nov 4, 2003
    7
    It is sad, that I cant play for Germans. I don't like Russians and I dont wanna play for them :( thats why only 7.
  9. J.J.
    Nov 5, 2003
    7
    Pretty decent game, a little on the short side only 7 hours to beat and that included alot of mucking around. Also there wasn't much of a story line. Also i would have liked to have seen stats after i had beaten the game, enemy's killed, accuracy, dmg given/taken etc..
  10. MattG.
    Sep 16, 2004
    7
    The game is good no doubt....but the problem is that it's to LINEAR! Plus the MP sucks.
  11. DaveN.
    Nov 10, 2003
    7
    Fun game, but not the end-all be-all that everyone is making it out to be. The whole thing is over in about 6 hours for one thing. More than half of the levels are just going room to room killing guys who are standing around waiting for you to get there. There are some great levels, but the game on the whole is only so-so.
  12. GuidoL.
    Nov 30, 2003
    5
    Don't believe the hype! The Sp is extremely short while the Mp is ridiculous due to the suckers who like to jump like bunnies to avoid the bullets they deserve. It lacks realism and it's not worth ur money.
  13. ChrisT.
    Jan 24, 2004
    6
    I still like MOH:AA better, the movement and feeling is more realistic. What makes COD excelent is its sound and graphics, but still I don't feel as good as mohaa, I passed the stalingrad level, that's the only level I felt intense, before and after that just shallow and boring feeling.
  14. Joe
    Nov 17, 2003
    5
    The claim to fame of this game is supposed to be immersiveness and adrenaline-pumping action. While it provides the latter, immersive it is not, especially at the higher difficulty levels. I spent far too many levels saving the game every 1-2 minutes, along with constant reloads due to repetitive trial and error. That type of gaming doesn't tend to be very immersive. This game had The claim to fame of this game is supposed to be immersiveness and adrenaline-pumping action. While it provides the latter, immersive it is not, especially at the higher difficulty levels. I spent far too many levels saving the game every 1-2 minutes, along with constant reloads due to repetitive trial and error. That type of gaming doesn't tend to be very immersive. This game had major potential, but I think it's telling that I was EXCITED when the game was finally over. Expand
  15. Oct 20, 2011
    7
    I remember when this was the best graphics and gameplay ... Almost started crying when i saw the old details. I really love this game. But i think the new games are lowsey, and only a money machine.

    -Anders
  16. Feb 29, 2016
    7
    There was still lot to improve but first Call of Duty make us able to play in 3d war world for the first time and it was very successful experience. We shouldn't complain then.
  17. Sep 10, 2016
    7
    it was the first Call of Duty i ever played. For his time, was the gratest shooter i ever palyed and the first shooter. After this game i enjoyed FPS games and i learn how to shoot in games. This game is a must play for no questions. Single player campaign made this game.
Metascore
91

Universal acclaim - based on 44 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 41 out of 44
  2. Negative: 0 out of 44
  1. However, taking away all the glamour, polish and hype this title has, what you’ll be presented with is rather linear game with fairly limited replay ability. We did however find the single player campaigns surprisingly short.
  2. Computer Games Magazine
    90
    Call of Duty is going to turn heads. It looks amazing, the action is fierce, and the multiplayer game is balanced, with plenty of diverse settings. [Jan 2004, p.58]
  3. 97
    The most intensive war action first person shooter combat title yet. I have not played a single-player experience that is as immersive and intense as the one in Call of Duty.