Genre: First-Person Shooter

Format: DVD

Developer: Infinity Ward

Mac Publisher: Aspyr Media, Inc.

Minimum System Requirements: Mac OS X v10.3.9, 1.8GHz G5 or Intel chipset, 512MB RAM, 4.0GB free hard disk space, ATI Radeon 9600 or NVidia GeForce FX 5200 with 64MB VRAM, DVD drive, broadband Internet connection for Internet multiplayer

Review Computer: 2GHz 20" iMac, 1GB RAM, 128MB ATI Radeon 9600

Network Feature: Internet (TCP/IP) and LAN (TCP/IP)

Processor Compatibility: Universal

Price: $49.99

ESRB Rating: T (blood, mild language and violence)

Availability: Now

Official Website: callofduty.com/cod2

Mac Demo: macgamefiles.com

I knew this game spelled trouble when the countless press releases from Aspyr all stated, "Beautifully rendered snow, rain, fog and smoke, combined with dynamic lighting and shadows, make this the most intense WWII first person action title yet."

Seriously? That's what makes a war game intense? Snow? Shadows? I get snow and shadows in northeast Ohio, but I don't think I've ever referred to living here as "intense." But then, I also don't have people throwing grenades at me through the snow and the fog anymore, so that may have something to do with it.

Aspyr also claims that Call of Duty 2 (CoD 2) is the sequel to call of Duty, which it isn't. To be a sequel, CoD 2 would have to pick up the story of the original Call of Duty. Seeing that neither of them actually tell a story, this makes it difficult. Rather than give you a character who has to follow a plot set around the events of World War II, the Call of Duty games give you three characters who fight in historic battles. That's all you really need to know. The lives of the three characters don't intertwine, and the battles fought by individual characters don't intertwine. I don't know...maybe this is more like real war. I'm not sure each solider had a story. Many of them probably just went and fought, and either came home or died. Regardless, the closest you'll get to a story here is in the journal entries your characters make while the levels are loading up. Even the cut scenes are more like history lessons than plot elements.

So, no, Call of Duty 2 is no more a sequel to Call of Duty than Super Bowl II was to Super Bowl I. I kind of wish it was a sequel, though, because that would explain why I felt so let down by it; by and large, sequels are never as good as the original.

I absolutely loved the original Call of Duty (5 out of 5), you may recall, and I was blown away by elements of the United Offensive expansion pack (4 out of 5). So, why no love for Call of Duty 2? Quite simply, it's academic. It feels like the type of game where new developers took over a franchise with no idea what made the original so great (I'm looking at you, Myth III). But no, Infinity Ward again handled development, making me wonder if they perhaps were more interested in their graphics engine than they were in creating an engrossing game. How I hate when that happens, especially when said graphics engine will alienate a good number of gamers with its system requirements. It's a disease in the gaming world, and only Nintendo seems to be immune. If any of you out there are willing to run in a race for the cure, I'd happily sponsor you.

But perhaps I'm being a bit harsh. CoD 2 isn't as bad as I'm making it seem. It's certainly as good as most WWII based first-person shooters out there, which makes it better than most first-person shooters of any theme. No bio-mutant zombie Nazis to kill here, just plain old Nazis, and plenty of them. CoD 2 involves plenty of teamwork with some of the best AI soldiers I've ever had the privilege of fighting with.

In nearly every mission, after all, you're part of a squadron. Your fellow soldiers do they're jobs, and you do your job. Sometimes they'll bark orders at you and stay put until you accomplish your task. Other times, they'll handle the dirty work and it'll be up to you to keep them safe as they do. This makes for some excellent gameplay, and gives the game a multiplayer feel without forcing you to find anyone with whom to play. The trouble is, your fellow soldier are expendable. There are so many that you don't usually have to worry about keeping any of them alive. There's no story to offer an incentive, and few of them are so important to the mission that you hurt your chances if they die. It's often easier and more effective to just let your soldiers sacrifice themselves to help you on your way, which, of course, is counter to the whole theme of the game. Nearly every war movie I've ever seen has focused on the camaraderie between soldiers—the "band of brothers"—and this game dive bombs that whole theory. It's all about keeping yourself alive until the next level.

There's a weird way of keeping yourself alive, too. When you've been shot, you don't replenish your health by finding a medic or health packs, you just sit around until you feel better. By that, I mean you find cover. If you continue getting shot, you'll die. But if you can hide behind a wall for a few seconds, you'll regain your full health (provided you're not hit with a grenade, which can kill you in one shot, but the game's interface now points out where grenades are, so it's much easier to get away from them). This makes sense in games such as Halo where you're replenishing your force shield or whatever, but it's usage is odd, here. On the other hand, it allows you to focus on your mission instead of on finding health packs, so that keeps things moving quite well. Just don't be surprised if you need to select a higher difficulty than normal to keep the various levels challenging.

Unfortunately, the levels themselves are also a problem, as they're all basically the same. Throughout the game, you're almost always a foot soldier. Sure, some missions require stealth while others require all-out aggression, but that's merely a variation in tempo. The locations, the weapons and the accents of your fellow soldiers also change, but that's about it. The levels may build in intensity, but they don't build in emotional involvement, and they don't build to a dramatic climax.

On the other hand, they're quite large and open, and they look great. If you've got a higher end Mac that can deal with the hefty system requirements, you're going to be playing one of the best looking games available, and certainly the best looking war game. CoD 2 uses the Mac's power to its advantage, as the aforementioned smoke, fog, shadows, etc. aren't just there to look pretty (although they do), but to offer necessary cover on your missions. There will be many times in the game when getting from point A to point B will be well nigh impossible without first tossing out a smoke grenade to hide your movements from the enemy. It's really pretty cool, and it makes for some great moments, but a game shouldn't have to sell itself on its use of smoke grenades.

There's a multiplayer component, and anyone who's read a review of mine will know how much I care about that; if the game's not designed from scratch for that purpose, than the multiplayer component is usually pretty worthless. Although multiplayer fans will certainly enjoy CoD 2's implementation, it's more pointless than ever. The single player version is a multiplayer game. You're not shouting out orders to your friends, but the game otherwise plays the same. In fact, that's the best comparison I can make. You know the single player version of Unreal Tournament? Call of Duty 2 feels like that. It feels like a single player component tacked on to a multiplayer game. You will have some fun playing it, but after a few levels it'll start to feel more like practice for the multiplayer version. The good news there, by the way, is that the multiplayer version allows for cross-platform Mac to PC play.

And that's my final thought on Call of Duty 2. It's fun, but there has to be something better. It sounds hypocritical, as most of my complaints about this game were present in the first Call of Duty, but this is part two, and I expected more. Hopefully, Infinity Ward is done showing off their graphics engine, and will decide to use it to create more engrossing missions in the expansion pack(s) likely to come. Contrary to popular belief, using a World War II setting isn't enough to make a game interesting. You need a good story and interesting level design, and no amount of visual effects or non-player character AI...or smoke and fog...will compensate for their exclusion.