For me it’s difficult to imagine a time before Call of Duty. Whilst I hadn't played any entries prior to 2007’s Call of Duty 4 until recently, I was aware of the conflict between it and EA’s Medal of Honor series during the series' early years. Considering how popular Call of Duty is, and how long the series has been running, to think that the original game is now twenty years old is still quite surprising to me.
Having never played the original game I felt compelled to go back and look at what it established, to see just how much of the original game’s design is still present in the modern releases. So, let’s take a look back at 2003’s Call of Duty.
I want to make clear that I’m actually playing the 2009 console release, Call of Duty Classic, so there may be some minor differences between what I played and the original PC exclusive game, but from what I understand the two titles are for the most part identical.
Following the success of the Steven Spielberg led Medal of Honor at EA, a number of developers from MoH dev 2015, Inc. left the studio to branch out on their own to create a WWII shooter that was more grounded in reality than what EA had allowed for Medal of Honor. Those talented few created Infinity Ward, a developer that would unknowingly be responsible for some of the most important first-person shooters since DOOM in the mid 90’s.
Infinity Ward wanted Call of Duty to be less about grand set pieces and Hollywood style action, and more about placing the player into a realistic recreation of various real-life battles. It was always designed around the intention of you never being able to do the one-man army kind of thing that Hollywood and the Medal of Honor series often glamorised, you would need to work alongside a team of intelligent A.I squad members in order to progress against aggressive, tactically advantaged enemy soldiers.
Having never played the original game I felt compelled to go back and look at what it established, to see just how much of the original game’s design is still present in the modern releases. So, let’s take a look back at 2003’s Call of Duty.
I want to make clear that I’m actually playing the 2009 console release, Call of Duty Classic, so there may be some minor differences between what I played and the original PC exclusive game, but from what I understand the two titles are for the most part identical.
Following the success of the Steven Spielberg led Medal of Honor at EA, a number of developers from MoH dev 2015, Inc. left the studio to branch out on their own to create a WWII shooter that was more grounded in reality than what EA had allowed for Medal of Honor. Those talented few created Infinity Ward, a developer that would unknowingly be responsible for some of the most important first-person shooters since DOOM in the mid 90’s.
Infinity Ward wanted Call of Duty to be less about grand set pieces and Hollywood style action, and more about placing the player into a realistic recreation of various real-life battles. It was always designed around the intention of you never being able to do the one-man army kind of thing that Hollywood and the Medal of Honor series often glamorised, you would need to work alongside a team of intelligent A.I squad members in order to progress against aggressive, tactically advantaged enemy soldiers.
In Call of Duty, you play as three different soldiers, each playing a different role within the war against the Nazi’s. First you have Private Martin of the U.S. 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, who assists in preparations for Operation Overlord, the events of D-Day, and is also tasked with rescuing some high value British operatives who have been captured by the Nazi’s.
Then you have Sergeant Evans of the British 6th Airborne Division and eventually the SAS. Evans partakes in various infiltration style operations to reduce the hold that Germany has on key locations in Western Europe, as well as destroying weapons of mass destruction that the Nazi’s have saved in case of emergency.
Finally, there’s Corporal Voronin of the Soviet Army. Voronin plays a role in retaking key locations throughout Russia and Germany to weaken the Nazi’s hold throughout Northern Europe and ultimately allowing Berlin to fall, leading to the end of the war.
Call of Duty’s campaign is less about telling a story and more about highlighting how some of the major WWII events came to happen. About how the allied forces attacking German occupied territory from all sides led to the Nazi empire losing its grip on Europe, and their eventual defeat. It’s quite interesting to learn about how some of these operations played out, and how sometimes seemingly small victories turned the tide in a war that the Nazi’s seemed to be winning.
I was surprised to find that the core gameplay of Call of Duty has remained largely unchanged from this game all the way through to the most recent entries. Whilst refinements have certainly been made over the years, playing Call of Duty Classic in 2023 felt very similar to playing Modern Warfare II. This is something the series has always been criticised for, its inability to meaningfully evolve the gameplay, but something certainly has to be said about how timeless the mechanics feel. Prior to this, shooters had been either complex squad-based titles such as Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six, or glorified blockbuster films like Medal of Honor. Call of Duty manages to create this new middle ground where you’re required to be considerably more tactical than you would be in a game like Medal of Honor, but without all the complexities involved with squad management in a title like Rainbow Six.
Missions are varied in structure and will see you tacking different kinds of objectives on a regular basis. Some missions see you defending an area of tactical advantage, some see you infiltrating a key location, some see you simply clearing out Nazi’s in an occupied area. Some missions are on rails shooting, some missions have you drive vehicles, and some have you destroying various weapons or equipment the Nazi’s are using to gain an advantage over the allies.
However, I often found that the game falsely promised the not being a one-man army premise. I started the game on Veteran difficulty but quickly found that it’s actually stupid hard in places. After finding that Regular difficulty still provided a fairly respectable challenge in many points of the game, I often found that my A.I squad mates would be killed off within a few minutes, leaving it down to me to solo the area; or that very frequently my squad would not progress forwards, or attack, until I had cleared the area of hostiles by myself. This was often very challenging due to the game relying on a health bar and medkits rather than regenerating health as the series would popularise in its subsequent sequels.
For a game that was so proud of the fact that it took things more seriously and you needed to work with the A.I to survive, I was surprised by just how often the game forced me to go out on my own and face seemingly endless waves of enemy soldiers. There were also a number of missions where I had no A.I teammates and so needed to face overwhelming odds by myself anyway.
Perhaps in 2003 the squad A.I was far beyond the capabilities of anything else at the time; but looking at the game now it almost feels like false advertising because of how often you are often required to be a one-man army and face off against the German army seemingly single handed.
Then you have Sergeant Evans of the British 6th Airborne Division and eventually the SAS. Evans partakes in various infiltration style operations to reduce the hold that Germany has on key locations in Western Europe, as well as destroying weapons of mass destruction that the Nazi’s have saved in case of emergency.
Finally, there’s Corporal Voronin of the Soviet Army. Voronin plays a role in retaking key locations throughout Russia and Germany to weaken the Nazi’s hold throughout Northern Europe and ultimately allowing Berlin to fall, leading to the end of the war.
Call of Duty’s campaign is less about telling a story and more about highlighting how some of the major WWII events came to happen. About how the allied forces attacking German occupied territory from all sides led to the Nazi empire losing its grip on Europe, and their eventual defeat. It’s quite interesting to learn about how some of these operations played out, and how sometimes seemingly small victories turned the tide in a war that the Nazi’s seemed to be winning.
I was surprised to find that the core gameplay of Call of Duty has remained largely unchanged from this game all the way through to the most recent entries. Whilst refinements have certainly been made over the years, playing Call of Duty Classic in 2023 felt very similar to playing Modern Warfare II. This is something the series has always been criticised for, its inability to meaningfully evolve the gameplay, but something certainly has to be said about how timeless the mechanics feel. Prior to this, shooters had been either complex squad-based titles such as Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six, or glorified blockbuster films like Medal of Honor. Call of Duty manages to create this new middle ground where you’re required to be considerably more tactical than you would be in a game like Medal of Honor, but without all the complexities involved with squad management in a title like Rainbow Six.
Missions are varied in structure and will see you tacking different kinds of objectives on a regular basis. Some missions see you defending an area of tactical advantage, some see you infiltrating a key location, some see you simply clearing out Nazi’s in an occupied area. Some missions are on rails shooting, some missions have you drive vehicles, and some have you destroying various weapons or equipment the Nazi’s are using to gain an advantage over the allies.
However, I often found that the game falsely promised the not being a one-man army premise. I started the game on Veteran difficulty but quickly found that it’s actually stupid hard in places. After finding that Regular difficulty still provided a fairly respectable challenge in many points of the game, I often found that my A.I squad mates would be killed off within a few minutes, leaving it down to me to solo the area; or that very frequently my squad would not progress forwards, or attack, until I had cleared the area of hostiles by myself. This was often very challenging due to the game relying on a health bar and medkits rather than regenerating health as the series would popularise in its subsequent sequels.
For a game that was so proud of the fact that it took things more seriously and you needed to work with the A.I to survive, I was surprised by just how often the game forced me to go out on my own and face seemingly endless waves of enemy soldiers. There were also a number of missions where I had no A.I teammates and so needed to face overwhelming odds by myself anyway.
Perhaps in 2003 the squad A.I was far beyond the capabilities of anything else at the time; but looking at the game now it almost feels like false advertising because of how often you are often required to be a one-man army and face off against the German army seemingly single handed.
Call of Duty’s multiplayer is how the series has maintained its popularity over the years. So how did it all start out? Surprisingly simple actually. The game plays similarly to titles like Quake, were all players start out on a level playing field and must acquire more powerful weapons throughout the match. There’s no ranking system, and there’s no weapon class systems. Admittedly those were all new ideas brought forward by Call of Duty 4 in 2007, but it’s something so synonymous with the series that it feels strange without them. There’s a variety of different game modes on offer, some more objective based than others, but it lacks the variety of more modern entries in the series.
Visually the game holds up reasonably well. Whilst there’s certainly something to be said about how bland the textures look today, for 2003 standards the game looks pretty great. The version I’m playing does include HD textures natively which the original PC version does not, so how the game looks may differ depending on whether you play the console version or the PC original. There’s also a lot going on at times, most memorably sequences like the Battle of Stalingrad where there are dozens of friendly and enemy soldiers on screen at any one time, as well as overheard air battles and set pieces. It all manages to maintain a relatively stable 60 FPS on PS3, but there can be frequent dips in the busiest parts of the game. Call of Duty made its name upon stable frame rates, especially once it made the transition to consoles with the sequel, but it was far and above the performance seen in its competitors allowing for smooth gameplay.
The sound also is great, it’s extremely punchy and realistic. The series has had its ups and downs with sound quality, but the original game sounds incredible, and match that with the empowering score that plays in the background and you’re in for great sounding game.
I’m impressed with how well Call of Duty holds up after all this time. Whilst some mechanics are certainly a little dated, such as not having a sprint function, for the most part the game you’re playing is almost the same the most recent entries at a fundamental level. The campaign is well paced, exciting, and memorable; and whilst I do feel like Infinity Ward have overplayed the importance of your A.I squad, it does feel more like being part of an army than when you compare it to its contemporaries. There’s a reason why the series went on to do so well, and it’s because of all the groundwork laid out in this stellar first outing
Visually the game holds up reasonably well. Whilst there’s certainly something to be said about how bland the textures look today, for 2003 standards the game looks pretty great. The version I’m playing does include HD textures natively which the original PC version does not, so how the game looks may differ depending on whether you play the console version or the PC original. There’s also a lot going on at times, most memorably sequences like the Battle of Stalingrad where there are dozens of friendly and enemy soldiers on screen at any one time, as well as overheard air battles and set pieces. It all manages to maintain a relatively stable 60 FPS on PS3, but there can be frequent dips in the busiest parts of the game. Call of Duty made its name upon stable frame rates, especially once it made the transition to consoles with the sequel, but it was far and above the performance seen in its competitors allowing for smooth gameplay.
The sound also is great, it’s extremely punchy and realistic. The series has had its ups and downs with sound quality, but the original game sounds incredible, and match that with the empowering score that plays in the background and you’re in for great sounding game.
I’m impressed with how well Call of Duty holds up after all this time. Whilst some mechanics are certainly a little dated, such as not having a sprint function, for the most part the game you’re playing is almost the same the most recent entries at a fundamental level. The campaign is well paced, exciting, and memorable; and whilst I do feel like Infinity Ward have overplayed the importance of your A.I squad, it does feel more like being part of an army than when you compare it to its contemporaries. There’s a reason why the series went on to do so well, and it’s because of all the groundwork laid out in this stellar first outing