Summary: Having played the early COD I had these would at least be as good. They are childish, poorly made and completely unrealistic, even for 2003/3 era games. A waste of money for anyone who has played proper FSP games. Sorry but its true
Summary: Bought this after playing COD1 expansion pack online for a few years. 1942 is poor by comparison. Detail is average and gameplay is no where near as good. Was bored after a couple of hours. COD is far better, even the first game, play it online and you'll be hooked.
If you love CALL OF DUTY mulitplayer dont buy this
M. Knight "hapo888", Amazon
22 May 2005
Summary: I know this game has a huge following and i respectfully aknowledge its place in multiplayer history. My first forays into military multiplayer gaming were Call of Duty and its sequel United Offensive.
Summary: Okay....I'll have trouble about what bad quality of the game to address first, but I'll start with the historical accuracy. Start the game as Allies. The fist mission, Operation Battleaxe, is NOT ACCURATE HISTORICALLY AT ALL!!!!
Summary: C'mon. This game has a great interface and all...but a 30 second spawn wait in single player?! That is absurd. The only reason I am giving this two stars is because of the vehicles. You can get in every vehicle. That is the only good point. The AI is awful. They will not even engage in melees.
Summary: Ahh, Battlefield 1942. What postive things have been said about this game that have not already been said? It has already won high praise from many gaming magazines as well as several "Game of the Year" awards.
Summary: Battlefield 1942: Single player: * No gore. A disturbing trend in WW2 games: bloodless war. I guess we can't make our kids think war is cool and send them off to Iraq if we let them see war as hell. * Horrible enemy AI.