Which is more realistic?

Which is more realistic?

  • INS

    Points: 34 85.0%
  • COD4

    Points: 6 15.0%

  • Total voters
    40
Lets just say i played COD first before ever knowing about INS. I was in love with the realism, and then i found battlefield 2 only to look for a similar game on steam,, and then HALLEUUUYAYYAYAYAYA!!! INS !!!

Now look at what it has done to me,, i play this over doing my school papers and belong to a great community! :P awwww *Blush* i just want to make out with eGO! lol
 
Arma II, INS, CoD4? Please, everyone knows Halo 3 is as real as it gets.

Oh, yes, please ask for some flame with that troll. Everyone knows the real military doesn't use M16s or crap that shoots bullets. Needlers are where it's at. And frag grenades? Psh, that's n00b talk. We need some glowing blue sticky nades. It's true, I've seen the marines use them in Iraq! :chair:
 
INS hands down but until i can shoot someone in the head and completly obliterate it tear down a building with an m60 or blow the crap out of someone with anti tank missle then its not realistic. But in terms of the gameplay ins is an fps/rts in my opinion to capture a base the person capturing must be protected by good cover fire from positions unexpected to pick the marines/insurgents off as the pour into the base.
 
INS hands down but until i can shoot someone in the head and completly obliterate it tear down a building with an m60 or blow the crap out of someone with anti tank missle then its not realistic. But in terms of the gameplay ins is an fps/rts in my opinion to capture a base the person capturing must be protected by good cover fire from positions unexpected to pick the marines/insurgents off as the pour into the base.

Signs of SCRIM TEAM MEMBER! :P:scared:
 
Oh, yes, please ask for some flame with that troll. Everyone knows the real military doesn't use M16s or crap that shoots bullets. Needlers are where it's at. And frag grenades? Psh, that's n00b talk. We need some glowing blue sticky nades. It's true, I've seen the marines use them in Iraq! :chair:

blah quake and unreal games are where it's at for realism

than you got the arcade shooters like insurgency and AA2
 
blah quake and unreal games are where it's at for realism

than you got the arcade shooters like insurgency and AA2

:cursing::cursing::cursing::cursing::cursing::cursing::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::confused1::confused1::confused1::confused1:
 
Really, no game is realistic, after all it's a GAME. However, I did vote for INS because it is more realistic than COD4. The reason it is more realistic is because in order to become a valuable player, you must become a team player. I often go rounds with getting only a handful of kills, but that's because I was guarding the back entrance or something, so I had fewer encounters. Also, in COD4, I don't care if I get killed, but in INS the penalty for dying is amplified. Lately my challenge has changed from getting a good ratio, and helping my team win, to surviving while remaining an effective "soldier." It's been a lot of fun. I played 1 Almaden 8v8 where i went 11-0 in a round. Plus 3 caps. It was great.
 
Ins is more realistic, but I still like CoD 4 a little more.

Ins is still uber uber leet tho.
 
yeah CoD is a cute lil fps game, but if you want realism(take it from a real soldier) ins is where the money is at.
 
Want realism, join the armed forces.

They're both pretty "realistic" in their own way. I actually voted for COD :scared: only because I think they have more realistic features in the game vs Insurgency. But INS wins my heart because it requires a lot more teamwork when COD4 seems to be more of a solo vs all approach, not very much team work atleast as far as radio chatter.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top