I'm sorry but it seems that this post has become "flamewars", or in lamemen's terms, simply a way for nay-sayers or fans to throw shit at each other.Īs far as I am concerned, you can not call a verdict on a game you haven't played before. The whole principle and the guns are a lot more believable, mainly the customisation of weapons I mean.Īlso, the UAV, Air-Strike and attack chopper are far more realistic that waves of dogs and such. This is where Call of Duty 4, in my opinion, wins by only a slim margain. I think, in essence, is all boils down to multiplayer. Speaking of sniping, both games have sniper mission as well as normal warfare and vehicle warfare, so again they are equilly matched. I enjoyed storming stalingrad just as much I enjoyed shooting Imran Zakhaev's arm off with a. The gameplay on the campaign or story mode is equally satisfying. To compare the two is like to compare chalk and cheese.Īgreed which is why i posted this thread.īoth games use the same engine and have very similar visual styles and graphical quality, so they are on par with each other there.Īlthough the incorporation of fire physics in WaW was good, but it did lack the realistic propagation.
0 kommentar(er)
