Printable View
Recently I purchased Iron Front - Liberation 1944. After playing it for few hours I found that IFL is very similar to the RO2 in terms of graphics. However the gameplay is completely different from RO2, in fact it is quite similar to RO1. If you are big fond of RO1 then I would recommend to play IFL, since it has better graphics and same gameplay as that of RO1. Let me know what do you feel about the same.
Usually I love to play game with classic equipments. Hence I would like to play IFL. There are lots of things which I really liked and am sure you will also get impressed with the same, such as Tank combat. It is very nice, the main map is large enough and all the details on the map are furnished very nicely. Quite similar to WWII and inclusion of Dog Fights.
I do agree that RO1 was nice game. but there was huge disappointed for RO2. Even there was no clan support in RO2. Though IFL is a nice game but there is need of multiplayer mode and I am hoping the developer of the game would provide the same as early as possible.
I think the game developer has converted ARMA II and released the same with new name called IFL 1944. :bleh: I do agree that there are many things seems enhanced as compared to ARMA II, such as bigger and highly detailed MAP. Even the game is developed on same game engine. There are number of games coming in the market which using existing game engine to reduce development cost. People who did not played any other Arma title would not like new game in my opinion.
If we consider IFL as polished version of ARMA II , then it is likely to have same bugs , as it has been already well known that both the games are developed on the same gameengine. When I played this particular game, I concluded the game was not ready for releasing actually. In fact the they developer supposed to work on it before releasing. Even I am wondering that ARMA2 add-ons would not work on IFL since there are lots of changes to be made on the same as well. players who did play ARMA II would not like IFL at all.