Call of Duty

 PC
User Score
8.4

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1329 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1,080 out of 1329
  2. Mixed: 202 out of 1329
  3. Negative: 47 out of 1329
Buy Now
Buy on

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. DeaconB.
    Feb 4, 2004
    6
    The single play was brilliant, I loved it, but it was way too short. The multiplayer could possibly be good if there was a way to get rid of all the cheating scum.
  2. Jackie_Jackson
    May 26, 2022
    7
    А что писать то Я же её почти не помню это было примерно двадцать лет назад лол
  3. WillS.
    Mar 21, 2004
    6
    For good graphics, decent storyline and a good flow to gameplay in single player mode, Call of Duty is a slightly better game than 1942 in that the characters and situations seem more real given AI and ambient graphics and sound. If you want an better all-round experience, including a very well developed multi-player function and replay-ability, Battlefield 1942 is a better bet. Call of For good graphics, decent storyline and a good flow to gameplay in single player mode, Call of Duty is a slightly better game than 1942 in that the characters and situations seem more real given AI and ambient graphics and sound. If you want an better all-round experience, including a very well developed multi-player function and replay-ability, Battlefield 1942 is a better bet. Call of Duty would rate much higher if it did not seem too short and if the multi-player was not so bad, which is a tremendous oversight in a new game. Still, Call of Duty mostly fulfills its promise of putting you in the middle of intense WWII action in very well designed environments.… Expand
  4. JonesR
    Dec 1, 2011
    6
    It's an ok shooter. I found it to be a cross between Return to Castle Wolfenstein and Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, both of which provided a much better gameplay experience. Fighting as the Russians was the highlight of CoD which provided a hint of originality. Beyond that, there was nothing that jumped out as an experience worth remembering.
  5. Kurtz
    Dec 22, 2011
    6
    Smooth controls, animations and gameplay are the good things about this game. Bad things- multiplayer is without substance and non cheaters. Single player got so boring I literally forced myself through it. A waste of time. If you want a WWII shooter CoD2 or BF1942 are the way to go.
  6. Alien2436
    May 9, 2019
    7
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  7. DavidR.
    Nov 5, 2003
    7
    It's a very good game, but, coming after Max Payne 2, I want something more. The entire game feels scripted to death, and a lot of the time is spent just holding down the fire button and waving the mouse wildly. I like it a LOT, but it kinda gives me the sh.ts. If you know what I mean. newfers
  8. MartijnvandeV.
    Sep 5, 2004
    7
    Nice story, good grapics, ok online mode. Bad A.I. and the single-player mode is just to short...
  9. MikeR.
    Oct 1, 2007
    7
    This game really needs two ratings: one for its singleplayer and another for its multiplayer. I would give its singleplayer a 9 because it was really well done and overall really well done (with the exception of the Stalingrad part, where the only research done was watching Enemy at the Gates). The storming of the Reichstag was a lot of fun and overall a really great ending for the game. This game really needs two ratings: one for its singleplayer and another for its multiplayer. I would give its singleplayer a 9 because it was really well done and overall really well done (with the exception of the Stalingrad part, where the only research done was watching Enemy at the Gates). The storming of the Reichstag was a lot of fun and overall a really great ending for the game. As for the multiplayer, I would rate it a five since it's not horrible, but really bland. However, it should be noted that the expansion fixes this and makes it a lot of fun. Overall, a great game.… Expand
  10. Jok`RdeMo
    Nov 4, 2003
    7
    It is sad, that I cant play for Germans. I don't like Russians and I dont wanna play for them :( thats why only 7.
  11. J.J.
    Nov 5, 2003
    7
    Pretty decent game, a little on the short side only 7 hours to beat and that included alot of mucking around. Also there wasn't much of a story line. Also i would have liked to have seen stats after i had beaten the game, enemy's killed, accuracy, dmg given/taken etc..
  12. MattG.
    Sep 16, 2004
    7
    The game is good no doubt....but the problem is that it's to LINEAR! Plus the MP sucks.
  13. DaveN.
    Nov 10, 2003
    7
    Fun game, but not the end-all be-all that everyone is making it out to be. The whole thing is over in about 6 hours for one thing. More than half of the levels are just going room to room killing guys who are standing around waiting for you to get there. There are some great levels, but the game on the whole is only so-so.
  14. GuidoL.
    Nov 30, 2003
    5
    Don't believe the hype! The Sp is extremely short while the Mp is ridiculous due to the suckers who like to jump like bunnies to avoid the bullets they deserve. It lacks realism and it's not worth ur money.
  15. ChrisT.
    Jan 24, 2004
    6
    I still like MOH:AA better, the movement and feeling is more realistic. What makes COD excelent is its sound and graphics, but still I don't feel as good as mohaa, I passed the stalingrad level, that's the only level I felt intense, before and after that just shallow and boring feeling.
  16. Joe
    Nov 17, 2003
    5
    The claim to fame of this game is supposed to be immersiveness and adrenaline-pumping action. While it provides the latter, immersive it is not, especially at the higher difficulty levels. I spent far too many levels saving the game every 1-2 minutes, along with constant reloads due to repetitive trial and error. That type of gaming doesn't tend to be very immersive. This game had The claim to fame of this game is supposed to be immersiveness and adrenaline-pumping action. While it provides the latter, immersive it is not, especially at the higher difficulty levels. I spent far too many levels saving the game every 1-2 minutes, along with constant reloads due to repetitive trial and error. That type of gaming doesn't tend to be very immersive. This game had major potential, but I think it's telling that I was EXCITED when the game was finally over. … Expand
  17. Creepy_kelly
    Oct 20, 2011
    7
    I remember when this was the best graphics and gameplay ... Almost started crying when i saw the old details. I really love this game. But i think the new games are lowsey, and only a money machine.

    -Anders
  18. Cmmcfreire
    May 12, 2020
    6
    Story - 6/10
    Gameplay - 7/10
    Graphics - 6/10
    Soundtrack - 6/10
    Levels - 6/10
    Replay value - 5/10
  19. BogdanMarica
    Sep 10, 2016
    7
    it was the first Call of Duty i ever played. For his time, was the gratest shooter i ever palyed and the first shooter. After this game i enjoyed FPS games and i learn how to shoot in games. This game is a must play for no questions. Single player campaign made this game.
  20. Demon2017
    Jun 19, 2022
    7
    Игра, давшая начало великой серии, которая сейчас на нереальном подъёме. Но сама игра типичный шутерок тех лет, хотя некоторые уровни в нём очень эпичные.
  21. hiltong55
    Jul 2, 2018
    7
    Still a fun single player experience even by today's standards. The story feels fairly dated but that is to be expected. I would say if you can pick this up on sale for about $10 it is definitely worth the 7 hrs or so it will take you. The story is a bit dated but not cringe-worthy. Aiming and shooting still feel great.
  22. Sylictic
    Jul 8, 2023
    5
    Where it all began, and it plays like a completely different game.
    Much more of a medal of honor clone than a new take on the historical first person shooter, Activisions first attempt with call of duty falls flat amidst a sea of much better games of its own genre.
  23. mr-NachoMen
    Mar 24, 2020
    6
    After playing the first Call of Duty I've come to appreciate even more the modern and lates COD titles.
    So... COD was developed by a new studio (back in that day) called Infinity Ward, formed by developers who previously worked on Medal of Honor, an extremely WWII shooter before cod. Back in 2003 COD got released on the market published by Activision and somehow it became more popular    After playing the first Call of Duty I've come to appreciate even more the modern and lates COD titles.
    So... COD was developed by a new studio (back in that day) called Infinity Ward, formed by developers who previously worked on Medal of Honor, an extremely WWII shooter before cod. Back in 2003 COD got released on the market published by Activision and somehow it became more popular than Medal of Honor.
    COD 1 is way too generic!!!! even more than MOH... you got no interesting battles, no memorable characters... nothing.
    The level design is repetitive and so unimaginative... it just have no creative structure.
    The game is divided on 3 campaigns, The American, the British and the Russian... only the Russian campaign is really worth it and the best part of the whole game.
    Visually... it came back in 2003, but there were other games released during that time or even before that look way better than this one, it just... didn't age well, and if you really look at it... it looks really amateur.
    Still... this is the game that started it all, and an important peace of gaming history.    … Expand
  24. Balcetus
    Dec 16, 2020
    7
    Believe it or not, this is the only Call of Duty game I haven't played yet. I went in and was immediately surprised by how well it looked, for a 2003 game my mind was blown. The game lets you play 3 major Allied Powers (US, Britain, and Soviet Russia) and you kill a whole lot of Nazis. The shooting holds up really well, the sound design is amazing, the music was the best part of this gameBelieve it or not, this is the only Call of Duty game I haven't played yet. I went in and was immediately surprised by how well it looked, for a 2003 game my mind was blown. The game lets you play 3 major Allied Powers (US, Britain, and Soviet Russia) and you kill a whole lot of Nazis. The shooting holds up really well, the sound design is amazing, the music was the best part of this game (especially during the last mission). Now to talk about the negatives, The story is pretty much non-existent with immemorable characters and no cutscenes. Friendly AI is the most **** AI I've ever witnessed, they have no idea where to position themselves when the game gives them that freedom. They seriously lack aim training. I played this game on Veteran difficulty from start to finish, and let me tell you... It's hard, but not in a fun way. The game has no health packs on Veteran, so you mostly get stuck with 1 HP for the rest of the mission until you beat it and it resets. I get making it challenging, but no health packs make the experience unfun and super annoying especially when you get hit by friendly fire. The level design is amazing but it comes with shortcomings and really questionable choices, there are times where you have to infiltrate whole enemy bases and for some dumb reason you're sent alone with no backup... Are we playing as Rambo or something? On other levels you start off with friendlies that all of a sudden disappear and don't follow you so once again you have to kill over 100 soldiers by yourself, the game really takes you out of the immersion at times, which is disappointing in a World War 2 game. Oh, and there is no sprinting which makes it really awkward when the commander shouts at you to RUN RUN and you just casually walk as 10 Machine guns spray at you. Overall, it's a mixed bag, If you wanna play it, don't do it on Veteran difficulty. The game is really short, I beat it in about 5 hours with all the restarts. Lower difficulties would probably be able to beat it in 3 hours.… Expand
  25. Dperks
    Mar 28, 2021
    6
    I've played most of the Call of Duty campaigns at this point and I got to say after playing the first title it's perfectly okay. The visuals are alright considering this came out in 03 and the sound design on weapons' and sound effects are nice and punchy. Like most of the old CODs there's 3 different campaigns with American, British and Soviet theaters of war. Although it can be kind ofI've played most of the Call of Duty campaigns at this point and I got to say after playing the first title it's perfectly okay. The visuals are alright considering this came out in 03 and the sound design on weapons' and sound effects are nice and punchy. Like most of the old CODs there's 3 different campaigns with American, British and Soviet theaters of war. Although it can be kind of jarring in this one because there's no heads up you just kinda swap in between the campaigns. If I had to pick one as my favorite it would be the Soviet campaign with it's opening crossing the river at Stalingrad to the attack on the Reichstag. It feels grand in a way even though later titles would do most of these battles way better it still does a good enough job making you feel like a solider in these battles. At least compared to the other allied campaigns that after a few missions helping the battle of D day as paratroopers will right after send you and your squad on these secret special missions which feel a lot like later Call of duty gamers. Foe example one of the US missions has a part straight out of Indiana Jones 3 with a secret fire place revealing a coms room. Which leads me to believe that COD has always been kinda stupid and that later titles simply cranked up the ridiculous factor to 11. I also find that more of the western theater levels are more frustrating although one of the soviet levels also was really annoying. But in total something like half the levels either had parts that were really annoying or frustration or the entire level was frustrating. And the gunplay is fine it's nothing really spectacular but it does the job for what it is. Overall I don't hate the game it has some really good moments I just think that most of the real good parts it has have been done much better in later titles and that it suffers from alot annoying crap in much of the game. Such as poor level design and having just way to many enemy's coming at you at points. Overall not terrible but not really exceptionable by todays standards so it's okay worth maybe a play through but I don't see my self returning to this one when I need a Call of duty fix.

    Also side note there's no shotguns in this game which meant there's only rifles, machine guns and side arms you'll never use. And I don't know if this meant that the multiplayer was the best ever or the worst ever in the series. I guess that's a matter of opinion on if you enjoy using shotguns in COD games more then you hate getting destroyed by them or not.    … Expand
  26. BeboFett
    Dec 19, 2018
    7
    The first presentation of Call of Duty is a very entertaining experience, focused on the action (and not like its counterpart Medal of Honor). With a campaign divided into different characters from three different countries. Simple stories, and great sequences and a basic but fun gameplay.
  27. sebastianali
    Jul 14, 2019
    7
    El juego tiene un realismo muy intenso, sin embargo el no poder subirse a los vehiculos, la dificultad desbalanceada, la historia con varios personajes y encima mala y mal contada, la falta de rejugabilidad y la falta de desbloqueables lo critico.
  28. Zeratex
    Feb 11, 2019
    7
    The first Call of Duty game which is the only one i liked in the whole franchise, after it they kept coming back to its core mechanics.
    From its Technical and graphics stand point the game was impressive when i played it in 2003, the gameplay and controls were tight and cool, you will feel that you are fighting in the WW2 era.
    Story wise there is nothing since its your average war games    The first Call of Duty game which is the only one i liked in the whole franchise, after it they kept coming back to its core mechanics.
    From its Technical and graphics stand point the game was impressive when i played it in 2003, the gameplay and controls were tight and cool, you will feel that you are fighting in the WW2 era.
    Story wise there is nothing since its your average war games where you shoot the enemy till they die and proceed to the next level.

    7/10 Best one in the series.    … Expand
  29. DrawidsAR
    Oct 28, 2019
    7
    Игра 2003 года!!! ШОК!!! Но энивей, сейчас есть более лучшие альтернативы, только одна механика - стрельба. Очень интересно показан Советский союз. Залез на рейхстаг.
  30. r03vg
    Oct 15, 2021
    5
    Очевидно, игра устарела и сейчас представляет собой тир, довольно бессмысленный. Однако, я был приятно удивлён. Она легко запускается, да и графически выглядит очень даже хорошо.
  31. Nekellor_Met
    Jul 5, 2020
    5
    Проверку временем не проходит совсем. Стрельба и прочие механики на сегодня выглядят довольно скудно.
  32. Prans
    Oct 15, 2021
    7
    Call of Duty was one of the best FPS games of all time, till now. Highly recommend to play this game, one of the best old school games way back 2003
    (Gameplay)
    If we go back at around the year of 2003, the gameplay in this game is one of the best, you can feel like you're inside of the game. (Story) The story is great and you're not just playing at a single character's story, there are    Call of Duty was one of the best FPS games of all time, till now. Highly recommend to play this game, one of the best old school games way back 2003
    (Gameplay)
    If we go back at around the year of 2003, the gameplay in this game is one of the best, you can feel like you're inside of the game.
    (Story)
    The story is great and you're not just playing at a single character's story, there are others story too, that gives a different taste and gameplay of it.
    (Sound)
    This is one of the best sound/soundtrack I have ever heard way back the old days at 2003, it's just way too good, but there are times that will cut off suddenly and whenever you're at the next level, you can see your teammates and enemies fighting but there are no sounds playing.
    (Details)
    Details is good at this game way back 2003 but whenever you killed someone near at a balcony, they will just sometimes run through the balcony and just fells off, I know what are the plans of Infinity Ward here, but that's just a weird thing, anyways, way back before is just wasn't that good but still, details at this game are perfect way back 2003
    ===
    (AI)
    AI on this game is kinda annoying, teammates keeps on blocking you and sometimes, they threw a grenade near at you
    (Regular Veteran)
    I do not know but the regular difficulty seems goes to veteran at a certain point, whenever you peek, a sudden headshot    … Expand
  33. Antontavrin
    Jan 11, 2023
    5
    jfhmfvkuzfhntd kj,jhugztders jbhgtfvbhjvmjb cthrcjhgjhvhvm n. dsg jkguzv ghdhg
  34. WhiteBoa11
    Mar 9, 2022
    7
    Very good game and definitly worth buying but be warned the game is pretty difficult the health pickups are pretty rare making you go most of the game being able to get 1 shotted. So watch out but if you`re already familiar with fps games then go ahead and enjoy. Also pretty short don`t expect an amazing story but expect fantastic gameplay.
  35. kjaroslaw
    Nov 17, 2022
    5
    Good CoD and that's all. Game had fine singleplayer. Nowaday playing in CoD1 is just ok, better play CoD2.

Awards & Rankings

5
#5 Best PC Game of 2003
5
#5 Most Discussed PC Game of 2003
13
#13 Most Shared PC Game of 2003

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
91

Universal acclaim - based on 44 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 41 out of 44
  2. Mixed: 3 out of 44
  3. Negative: 0 out of 44
  1. PC Arena
    90
    However, taking away all the glamour, polish and hype this title has, what you’ll be presented with is rather linear game with fairly limited replay ability. We did however find the single player campaigns surprisingly short.
    Read full review
  2. Computer Games Magazine
    90
    Call of Duty is going to turn heads. It looks amazing, the action is fierce, and the multiplayer game is balanced, with plenty of diverse settings. [Jan 2004, p.58]
  3. GameBiz
    97
    The most intensive war action first person shooter combat title yet. I have not played a single-player experience that is as immersive and intense as the one in Call of Duty.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »