Metascore
91

Universal acclaim - based on 44 Critics What's this?

User Score
8.4

Generally favorable reviews- based on 425 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Summary: Call of Duty delivers the gritty realism and cinematic intensity of World War II's epic battlefield moments like never before - through the eyes of citizen soldiers and unsung heroes from an alliance of countries who together helped shape the course of modern history. Play through the chaos of battle as part of a well-trained squad, that lays down covering fire and pulls its wounded to safety. In addition to authentic squad movements and tactics, each soldier's distinct personality and training comes out on the battlefield. No one soldier or nation single-handedly won the war. For the first time, Call of Duty captures the war from multiple perspectives, through the eyes of American, British and Russian soldiers. Battle through 24 missions spanning 4 interconnected historical campaigns. Take on mission objectives ranging from sabotage and all-out assault to stealth, vehicle combat and rescue. Authentic weapons, locations, vehicles and sounds of war all contribute to the realism. [Activision] Expand
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 41 out of 44
  2. Negative: 0 out of 44
  1. Call of Duty can be summed up in one word. Intense. Yes, lots of shooters have provided many, many hours of intense situations before but none, including crowded games like "Battlefield 1942," have ever made me feel the insignificance and fear a soldier must feel while watching the slaughter of hundreds of his countrymen.
  2. No game puts you closer to being on a field of battle in World War II than Call of Duty.
  3. 95
    A brilliant action game from beginning to end, and is packed with so many amazing moments that it's my leading candidate for the best PC game of 2003, and there's a good argument to be made that's it's the best WWII shooter ever.
  4. With such simple and smart gameplay, Call of Duty rocks in all the right ways. It looks outstanding and plays well without any needed patches. The single-player is very engrossing, really the best thing since "MOH:AA."
  5. 90
    As close to artery clearing, frantic action movie warfare as we've yet come.
  6. A cinematic and thrilling experience. The ability to take part in the last century’s most defining and destructive war through the perspective of three different sides is quite engaging.
  7. One of the game's greatest achievements is in how the heavily scripted action manages to escape the feeling of linearity that blighted MOH. Most probably due to the sheer intensity and urgent pacing of proceedings, it feels surprisingly fitting for players to be swept along at the mercy of the situation. [Christmas 2003, p.110]

See all 44 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 92 out of 106
  2. Negative: 7 out of 106
  1. Dec 10, 2011
    10
    The first ever Call of Duty has many elements which the newer CoD games keep coming back to, or just simply lost. The graphics might not look appealing today, and the AIs might look stupid, but this is where it all started, and look at how many good aspects of the game were simply lost as they kept making new games. For example, consider the battle of Starlinglad from the Russian campaign. Do we have that 'Victory or Death' charge with epic music in modern CoDs? No. Or the health pack system? No, these days you're an invincible sponge capable of soaking up millions of rounds. In terms of gameplay, this first CoD is still comparable or significantly better than the newer CoDs. Just play it if you haven't done so yet. Expand
  2. Jan 8, 2014
    10
    Except for graphics and seutorieul can not believe that 2003 production of the game! This was the beginning of it is just the best FPS games. It was really funny gamer living in Korea. Expand
  3. Feb 19, 2014
    10
    Intense, awesome OST, original elements which make this game became a good old COD, rather than COD Ghost which make feel frustrated because of its ridiculous Sys req and boring campaign Expand
  4. Nov 2, 2011
    9
    This is where it all started folks! Though the aging stalwart may not have the narrative drive or epic setpieces of more modern COD games, that does nothing to take away the fact that Call of Duty is a slick and awsome thrill ride start to finish. The campaign throws the player into just about every scenario you could hope for; with a simple and fun multiplayer to accompany it that is sure to keep you engaged for ages. Expand
  5. Dec 7, 2012
    9
    This game is very good and well done compared to Modern Warfare 3 and the new Call of Duty games in general. You really do need to but this game. Like now. Expand
  6. Feb 28, 2012
    9
    Many people try to compare this to the super-modern versions of Call of Duty. However, this game is a definite must-have. The characters are genius- you take them seriously and you can imagine them to be real. The weapons (although not a great range of them) are operated very realistically and are highly detailed* to the flash and even the sound. The battles are very close to real historical battles (e.g: Battle of Stalingrad) and they develop very interestingly. The graphics are convincing as well as the storyline. The multiplayer is not as strong as the singleplayer campaign although still thouroughly enjoyable. It is now a bit scarcely played throughout the world so you will have to compete against computerised bots quite a lot. The maps are diverse as well as the types of play.

    *Except for the Sten MK2 which is very plain.
    Expand
  7. May 14, 2012
    2
    Single player is rubbish.
    Multiplayer is rubbish.
    Graphics for 2003 game: oh my god how bad they are. Half life 2 and Doom 3 came half year
    later, look their graphics.
    So: sp 2/10 mp 2/10 graphics: 1/10 sound 2/10 musics 5/10
    Sorry CoD fans.
    Expand

See all 106 User Reviews