Reviews written by registered user
nichtaufgeben1994

Send an IMDb private message to this author or view their message board profile.

4 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
This is good, 26 December 2004

This game is quite good. It has amazing graphics like the original, and it has the same amazing sound. The only downfall is that the Battle of the Bulge has already been featured in other games. The addition of the flamethrower is, what I find a good addition. Even the Battle of the Bulge has already been played, I think, like the original Call of Duty, the American campaign, out of all of them, is the best.

It also seems to have more of that jaw-dropping effect than the original Call of Duty had, obviously because of the more advanced graphics and sound(its amazing what 1 year can change!!).The Battle of the Bulge has already been played in Medal of Honor Allied Assault spearhead.

About jinjiana's mistakes, 26 December 2004

1.The Americans technically did not paratroop with the British, but they sometimes got mixed up.

2.Barnes in Berlin is an OSS agent (whom you may have heard of in MOHAA), and is there only for the documents that are contained in the safe.

3.There were both Rangers in and 101st guys at Bastagone! 4. Glenn Brody is right in every aspect!

The PIR landed with the Americans.

The Americans frequently got mixed up.

The British fought alongside the Americans on D-day

Call of Duty (2003) (VG)
3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Call of Duty is a classic, 26 December 2004

Compared with Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, Call of Duty is just a little bit better. Both games are fantastic, and Call of Duty is the most accurate depiction of war during 1944-1945 I have ever seen.

The graphics and sound are through the roof, definitely surpassing Medal of Honor in sound and graphics. But the only silly thing is what is it with always having to blow up something with explosives? It is like you take out one flak gun and there is ''2 remaining'', and so on.

Anyway, this is probably the best WWII first-person shooter since MOHAA,and MOHAA spearhead.

The American Campaign is the best, but the British campaign is not fun because there is not enough bullets flying, or tanks rumbling, or maybe it does not have the jaw-dropping theme that the American campaign had.

The Russian campaign is probably the hardest, and I died 8,9,10 times throughout the Russian campaign.

I love the American car ride level. It is very hectic, and it just adds to the fun of it.I finished the game in about 4 days, and I found it kind of short for a first-person shooter.

Anyway, Call of Duty remains one of the most accurate and overall just plain GREAT games.

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
All in all pretty good, 26 December 2004
8/10

This movie is quite good, but it lacks some historical reality. One mistake is that the movie says the Russian Vassili Zaitzev poached wolves in the Ural foothills. The truth is that he hunted deer.

A second mistake is that they say the German Major's(although he was really a colonel)name was Konig. His real name was colonel Heinz Thorwald.

But there is some truth in the movie. For example, he was accompanied by a political instructor/officer named Danilov, and the German was hiding under a sheet of metal.

8 out of ten