:uhm: Has anyone played [color=red]BiA[/color] long enough to form an opinion about how it compares to [color=darkgreen]CoD[/color]? By the way, I think [color=red]Brothers in Arms[/color] comes close to evoking a similar atmosphere to [color=green]CoD[/color]'s, even although it's a very different style of gameplay. Having only got halfway through [color=red]BiA[/color] so far, I'd still favour [color=darkgreen]Call of Duty[/color] as the overall better game. And I haven't sampled [color=red]BiA[/color] multiplayer yet either. The server was sparsely populated when I had a peek. What do the rest of you think? Answers on a post card please... :Pc: :beer:
I didn't make it!
this may sound wrong to some of you but i havent played BIA, but my brother has bought it and i have watched him play it over the net and i must say the idea is quite interesting.. .however there are a couple issues that i must comment on. 1. you shoot the enemy 10 times and they run off :confused: 2. the view looks 2 zoomed in 3. horrible blurry iron sights 4. movemet on the iron sights 5. you cant prone :confused: 6. there is a blur around the game, the sun is sorta blurry to everything, (i dont know how to explain) other than that it seems ok :) as for BIA Vs COD..... COD gets my vote
5. you cant prone
Really? wow that sucks.
I would die without GF
29th November 2003
I have played well into single-player and played a couple games of multiplayer. There are two main differences that I can identify between BiA and CoD:
- BiA is much more tactically squad-based - Simulates combat much more realistically
- It is harder to maneuver quickly in BiA - Harder to aim & shoot down the iron sights - You cannot go prone, as mentioned before - Graphics are much more attractive than those in CoD - Easier to switch weapons & carry out other actions in CoD (simpler) - Even Axis soldiers actually seem to display a shred of tactical intelligence in BiA, unlike CoD. - Character movement in BiA is much more realistic.
Overall, I would just say they are different. In terms of raw realism in a war simulation, BiA gets my vote hands down. However, CoD is still a bit easier to play, as the gameplay and controls are more simple...of course, you are also not commanding a squade in CoD.
Played both here, and imo both games aren't my fav. games... I hate the smg's with cod (because I can't shoot with them...) but I like the rifle things, but after some time this is also no fun anymore... So I stopped playing cod, and now atm I play BIA... And I think there are many comparisons with cod, like weapons, the aim stuff and so on. Still bad though that you can't prone with BIA... BIA is imo not as good as I thought, and I think that COD2 will be the same...
1. you shoot the enemy 10 times and they run off When in deep cover, it's very hard to get a clean shot, or your proabably missing due to gunsway. 2. the view looks 2 zoomed in Can't say I've noticed that. 3. horrible blurry iron sights Due to real life, when you look down a garands ironsight, it's blurry. 4. movemet on the iron sights That's gunsway, which is good, stops CS style head shot rampages. 5. you cant prone Gearbox- "Not included in game because it would detract from the idea of flanking and mobile combat" Bull****. Because there aren't enough buttons on the Xbox controller. Or they wanted to stop camping in MP. 6. there is a blur around the game, the sun is sorta blurry to everything I think that's quite a cool graphical effect, makes your men stand out from the dirty backgrounds.
as for BIA Vs COD..... COD gets my vote Overall, CoD is better, even though they're two different games.
Have any of you tried BiA's MP? :confused:
Not yet. But the difference between BIA and COD is that BIA goes for Realism, while COD goes for normal Shoot 'M Up fun.
You guys remember Cod was on the market before Bia. So Bia had the chance to copy and improve was COD had. Like the aiming down the sight.
Of course - but does that mean you still prefer CoD? :naughty: