IvanF's Cut and Paste, No-Name, Nintendo Gamecube Reviews of Activision's Call of Duty 2: Big Red One and Ubisoft's Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory 2006...

- NoName.Mycrowsoft.com -
"Where do you want to Crow today?"

- IvanF's Mycrowsoft Noname Brand Website -
- noname writing online since May 2002 -

IvanF's Cut and Paste, No-Name, Nintendo Gamecube Reviews of
Activision's / Treyarch's Call of Duty 2: Big Red One and
Ubisoft's / Ubisoft Montreal's Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory 2005

Activision's / Gray Matter Studios' / Treyarch's Call of Duty 2: Big Red One

Well, here I have the usual IvanFian conundrum... as in, I have yet to play Call of Duty 2 for the Nintendo Gamecube...

But I have played it for both the Xbox and Xbox 360. That should count for something, shouldn't it?...

Nah. GRAW... If IGN or some "reputable" (and I say that loosely) video gaming review site had admitted the same, they'd be chastised and Fidel castrated for their stupidity...

But of course, I am the noname nobody... and I am hoping to pick up Call of Duty 2 for the Gamecube sometime...

So why not just copy and paste my review of the Xbox version down below in the meantime while I'm waiting?...

"Has it become the duty of every single goddam game developer out there, to produce a World War 2 FPS or some crap like that?...

If Call of Duty 2 had simply come out in 2004 rather than 2005, I seriously would've hailed it as the best WWII FPS of this generation of gaming. Because honestly, what else came out before it that was any damn decent in the first place?... The Medal of Honor series had become a complete running joke after its first incarnation, and what else was there? Does Battlefield 1942 even count as a real World War 2 game?...

... and it's not like the first Call of Duty, for both the PC and its neutered version for consoles, was any goddam better either...

Factoring in all this shit, then yes, Call of Duty 2: Big Red One can really be considered the best first person shooter of the WWII epic ages. The only real problem is, it ain't 2004 anymore... It's 2005, soon to be 2006 actually. And I have played Ubisoft's Brothers in Arms series, don't you know...

It's not that Call of Duty 2: Big Red One is particularly bad or anything. It just pales in comparison to just how ungodly good the Brothers in Arms series was to me... Afterall, in Ubisoft's game? I was able to control the fates of two squads with my every command and action, and I was able to use flanking strategies on every single enemy rather than just relying on the twitch of my goddam aiming finger... Something was just satisfying about all that, as the controls and epic atmosphere of those two Brothers in Arms games were amongst the absolute best of all games this year, US BAR none...

Now, don't get me wrong. Call of Duty 2 is definitely a step up from the original Call of Duty for consoles, as Activision had a complete brain fart when they cooked up that first piece of shit. The original Xbox Call of Duty had the most ridiculous auto-aiming I had seen in a game before, had some of the most floaty controls I've ever felt, and some of the most ADD-suped up, sped-up animations I had ever witnessed in my goddam life...

Call of Duty 2 still suffers from their whole attention deficit disorder shit, in the sense that reload and death animations are done so damn quickly that it almost feels like you're watching a damn cartoon at times. But the introduction of your Big Red squadmates and the fact that aiming (while still ridiculously babied thanks to the auto-aim) is a hell more satisfying than it was before, ensures that this game at least won't be going to the bottom of the bargain basement bin within the next couple months or so...

Activision has followed the Halo FPS genre example, so to speak. While every other company these days seems to be stealing the shield idea from Bungie, Call of Duty 2 was intelligent enough to strip the AI squadmate stuff instead... As a result, it's pretty cool to go headfirst into enemy fire with a whole wave of disposable human shields. For the most part, you play through each and every stage with a hell of a lot of generic red shirts who get gunned down just as easily as the goddam enemy. And while obviously they don't help you out in missions very much, at least the red shirts do make for a pretty damn decent atmosphere when push comes to shove...

Then you have the actual Big Red infantry squad that you're part of. Those guys are practically goddam invincible, pulling a Sarge as if this was Halo 2. And for the most part, they're not so bad to play with, if only to use as a human shield and simply stay behind when the going gets rough...

Problem is, Call of Duty 2 ends up being completely the opposite of Brothers in Arms to me in the end because of this. While in Brothers in Arms I was leading my troops, what the fuck am I supposed to do in Call of Duty 2? Not only am I a lowly private in the squad, but I take less hits before keeling over in death than my goddam squadmates do? So in essence, I have to always follow their lead and stay behind their asses, just to survive? WTF?...

The original Call of Duty, both for the PC and for consoles, was heavily scripted to the point where I almost felt like it was an on-rails shooter. But at least back then, I could choose which direction I could head off to... But in the sequel, WTF did Activision and Treyarch and whoever else really do? You can't even seem to venture off to wherever you want anymore, as invisible barriers and doors you can't open blockade your freedom every chance you get (ironic then... America, war and freedom?... oh, nevermind...). Instead, you're forced to always rely on and follow your squadmates, as only they can open doors and only they can initiate all the endless goddam scripted events you encounter througout the goddam game...

Still, while I'm certainly far more of a fan of the Brothers in Arms series than I am of Call of Duty 2, that's not to say the latter is completely void of any sort of decency... I may absolutely hate the physics in the game, as the ragdoll shit is way overdone to the point of being comical. But there certainly are a few nice touches, like shots to the kneecaps and lovely animations when you snipe some German motherfucker in the head...

I'm not a fan of the preset control scheme that Call of Duty 2 has, as I keep fucking chucking grenades rather than manage to reload my Carbine in the heat of combat. But eventually I got used to the system, before going back to my trusty Kar98 in Brothers in Arms that is... The weapons are decent in Call of Duty 2, notably the automatics which are somehow more fucking accurate than even the goddam rifles in the game. Sure, it ruins the epic WW2 feel of the game to run and gun, but it does make Call of Duty 2 into a much less frustrating experience than the first game in the series ever was...

Like I said earlier, the auto-aiming is ridiculous at times as well, as I can even fuck some Kraut over dead centre in the helmet with even a fucking heavy, suppression machine gun from a mile away. But at least I actually have to aim in the general direction of the guy unlike the previous Call of Duty, and at least it makes the stages somewhat more bearable challenge-wise in the end...

Sound wise, I miss all the epic music I experienced from Brothers in Arms. That's not to say that Call of Duty 2 doesn't hold its own, even though it reminds me more of a mix of Medal of Honor and Godsmack than it does of war-time hymns and tunes... Sound effects are clear as daylight, as I can hear every voice shouted and every line muttered. I just wish there was some decent dialogue in the game though, you know?... Somehow, random Big Red morons conversing about killing random Germans in generic ways, is just not the same as hearing about the Brothers in Arms guys comparing Batman to Superman while they're offing some Krauts on the goddam toilet...

Now, it's hard for me to talk about the graphics about Call of Duty 2 for the Xbox, when I've already played through a lot of the game on the Xbox 360 as well. Though basically, I can see why Call of Duty 2 was the best selling (and only decent selling) game for the Xbox Three-Shitty... First reason out of all, I sadly do know quite a few casuals who think that the CG Call of Duty 2 commercial is actually real gameplay. And second, because COD2 really is the most beautiful overall game on the next generation system...

On the Samsung 20" HDTV kiosks (which Microsoft sent to almost every store) set to a picture perfect 720p, I just absolutely love the resolution on Call of Duty 2 for the 360. The smoke effects from your grenades in particular are jaw-dropping, as I don't think I've ever seen effects like that on a high end PC just quite yet... and they absolutely put the original Xbox to shame, in that one regard at least...

Of course, the sad thing is, I've seen Call of Duty 2 for the Xbox 360 on a standard SDTV set as well. And let me just tell you, it looks almost goddam identical to the same game on the ol' Xbox itself. Hell, it's not like the 720p version of the game is that much better either, besides the added particle effects I mean... Sure, the framerate is smoother to a small degree, the textures are definitely higher res but not by a large margin, and the added resolution helps out when it comes to aiming in normally-muddy-looking buildings. But besides all that and a flock of seagulls, is there really anything to give two or three-sixty shits about?...

Granted, I definitely would've preferred to pick up the game for the Xbox 360 rather than the Xbox, but I don't have a three-shitty just quite yet... In comparison, the low resolution of the Xbox version does look like shit in comparison, considering every building looks washed out in colour and I can barely even differentiate uniform colours between Germans and my own goddam squadmates... But truth be told, after popping back in Brothers in Arms? Not only does that Ubisoft game ironically look comparable to Call of Duty 2 on the Xbox 360, but it just completely shames the COD2 on the Xbox in terms of both bloom lighting and nitty, gritty World War 2 graphical atmosphere...

I'd even go so far as to claim that Activision purposely made the Xbox version of the game look like shit just to contrast how damn sharp and bright the Xbox 360 version is... Why else would Call of Duty 2 have worse particle effects, worse physics, and worse death animations than even the first Call of Duty for the Xbox, while all of the above are perfectly good and high res on the next generation system?...

Bah, whatever... Surprisingly, the gameplay is better on the Xbox controller than the Xbox 360 one, as I'm far more used to the black and white buttons than the L1 and L2, PS2-copied ones on the new white pad... and somehow, the 360 analog sticks are just too flimsy and perhaps too GC-like for their own goddam good (though that could be from the kiosks I've tried)...

... and surprisingly, my brother just absolutely loves Call of Duty 2, while he just can't get into Brothers in Arms whatsoever... go figure...

He loves on the on-rails shooter gimmick sort of thing, as he doesn't need to ever think about where to go. He loves to run and gun and mindlessly aim at Krauts rather than strategize, because if it wasn't for Goldeneye? Then I'm sure he would've turned into some PC FPS nutjob rather than the Xbox-Halo whore he eventually became...

And yes, despite all my apprehensions, Call of Duty 2 is definitely a serviceable game. And not that damn bad of a tribute to the war-time service either... but still, it's just that?...

... while Brothers in Arms is the goddam, honoured and revered lieutenant in charge of the best damn WW2 series this generation of gaming?...

Game Design - 7.5
Enjoyment Factor - 7.0
Overall (not an average) - 7.0

Because besides fucking Jurassic Park milking the film franchise for all its worth?...

Ubisoft (along with EA and Naughty Dog) has seemed to be the biggest damn milkers of this generation of gaming...

How many fucking Splinter Cell games can they produce for one single console? And then factor in all the Ghost Recons and Prince of Persias and Far Crys and whatever else they're cooking up... and then suddenly you have a fucking farm full of goat cheese and milk...

Of course, just like I always say when it comes to Nintendo, what difference does milking make, if a game is good?

... and quite frankly, Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow was absolutely the shittiest shit of yesterday...

The thing is, I had bought the original SC for the Nintendo Gamecube and enjoyed the stealth premise for what it was. Back then, I didn't have an Xbox yet, so I felt kind of left out after hearing about just how amazing the game looked and felt and controlled on the actual system it was intended for. Not only were all the FMV choppy and grainy as hell on my Gamecube, but levels had been confined and even shortened due to the lack of RAM on the system in comparison to the original Xbox version...

So I eventually bought Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow for the Xbox, only to find out it was absolute shit. And not only did it play like shit, thanks to absolutely some of the worst fucking controls with the Xbox S Controller and analog sticks possible, but it even looked like shit. WTF?...

What the fuck is the point of bump mapping and high res textures, if the colour schemes and backgrounds in the game look absolutely atrocious compared to the concept art? If anything, I think the confined areas and reduced graphical prowess of the Gamecube version actually hid a lot of the faults and shittyness that the Xbox versions seemed to display (as I noticed the same kind of crap after trying the original Splinter Cell for the Xbox as well)...

So short story short, in a fit of nostalgia, I bought Splinter Cell 3: Chaos Theory for the Nintendo Gamecube rather than the Xbox, despite all the usual warnings of compressed videos, confined areas, bad controls, and horrible GBA-link additions... And a short story even shorter? I now notice far more of the problems that I didn't before. Even with two discs, I can't take how grainy and low res all the FMVs are, and the game itself doesn't even seem to have half the kickness lighting that the original Xbox version did (and maybe even the GC one too)...

And yet for the most part, I still prefer Chaos Theory on the GC over the Xbox. I've tried both, and still quite frankly find the controls to be a hell of a lot more accurate and a hell of a lot more tight somehow, with the GC analog sticks over the Xbox ones... I don't really get why...

Maybe it's just because the actual gameplay of the series returned back to its original roots, rather than the shit it had become in Pandora Tomorrow?...

In Pandora, the game forced you to use stealth at every turn. Obviously, Ubisoft had gotten pissed off at gamers like me, who simply barged their way through the original Splinter Cell using pure force and semi-automatic shots with the SC2K. I treated it like an action game, and obviously that didn't work with Pandora, where guards were grossly overpowered over your dinky little weapons... Constant alarms and AI that instantly knew where you were in Pandora Tomorrow, ruined whatever fun I had with the series. I no longer had a choice of how to get through the stages...

Thankfully, Ubisoft Montreal and the original gameplay roots of the series made a return for Chaos Theory, as now you can even select what weapons you want to take into the mission. While shooting your way through corridors is still not as easy as it was in the original, at least now it's actually possible... I even like the "break door down" or whatever option there is now. It reminds me a lot more of Rainbow Six, where you have a lot of choices of how to take out the terrorists. As long as you don't fail, freedom wins, and everyone's happy...

Sam Fisher has a few new moves now, namely something about flipping upside down and slashing some bad guy's throat. I never cared for these stupid ass, uber-Jack-Bauer moves or anything in the first two games, so why care now?... I never used the splits before, I never really even hid in the shadows. While the knife is definitely a kickass weapon in Chaos Theory (reminds me a bit of Resident Evil 4, somehow...), I'm just happy that I had a choice in the game whether to use it or not... I chose not to use it, obviously. I just blared through with guns and roses blazing, and was all the merrier for it...

Let's face facts. I'm a simple North American guy, and I like my simple North American shooters... To be honest? I don't give a damn how much a company milks great first person shooters like Perfect Dark (the original, not the shitty ass sequel, that is) or Halo. I just want comfortable controls and great, immersive gameplay experience, that's all...

That's exactly what the Gamecube version of Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory afforded me in the end. Somehow, even using the C-stick in Splinter Cell feels more than adequate for the tasks at hand. And as long as I got to kill a whole bunch of fucking terrorist pansies here without even thinking twice on what to do, then all is simply good in the world...

It does feel like more of the same from the original Splinter Cell, simply because that's the way I'm choosing to play it. And if anything, Chaos Theory gets an extra thumbs up from me, if only because of the addition of some decent co-op multiplayer stages (though I have yet to try this aspect of the game)...

Chaos Theory is inferior to the original SC, but way better than Pandora Tomorrow...

While obviously, I'm sure I'd get sick of Splinter Cell games soon enough (if I haven't already)?...

Well, if Ubisoft keeps producing them at least at the quality that Chaos Theory is?...

Game Design - 7.5
Enjoyment Factor - 7.5
Overall (not an average) - 7.5