"; if(is_file("header.php")) include "header.php"; else include "../header.php"; ?>

Nice! If you like first-person shooters set in World War II, then you'll probably like Call of Duty. It has very nice graphics, good squad combat, good level design, and runs well if you have an upper-midrange system like mine. And-oh yes-it's much like Medal of Honor. If you've played Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, then you should have a good idea what Call of Duty is like. I would say that overall, though, Call of Duty is better because it doesn't have those ludicrously difficult sniper levels in Medal of Honor. Call of Duty lets you choose the difficulty level, and the easy setting IS easy as it should be. I'm impressed with the graphics and level design in Call of Duty. The levels are laid out in such a way as to enhance combat and allow a bit of interesting exploration. Moreover. The levels have a lot of detail, and yet the game runs smoothly even at the highest screen resolution. Well, it'll run smoothly if your system is at least as good as mine, and my computer is configured with a 3 GHz Pentium 4, 512 MB RAM, and a 128 MB ATI Radeon 9800 Pro graphics card. If your system is not so well endowed, then don't give up. You could easily set the graphics settings at lower levels to get smooth frame rates. So why not five stars? My only beef with this game is that it's rather derivative of older games. There's not a whole lot here that other shooters haven't offered before. But that's not too bad because Call of Duty takes what came before it and refines it. To sum it up, Call of Duty is a very good game that deserves a try from any shooter fan. I gave it a try, and I'm glad I did.