Why use nationalities in a video game?

[vilas 473]

Sahrani ?

for me it is stupid that we get in game ONE island

in OFP we had 4 fantastic islands

here BIS gave ONE sense island (i don't count small desert Rahmadi and Porto - one city island)

Sahrani is 2 completly different climate islands

i would like to have 3 islands in game

1) tropic like south and desert

2) like north and Kolguyev/Malden, typical east-north europe, colder area

3) like Everon, meditaranium,

not place where palms, desert are 1 km away from birch, pines

i never liked idea of RACS and SLA

[NoRailgunner 0]

If people have lot of time and passion every scenario they make could be thrilling and amazing. Dont be so "insular" and tied to cold war era. Isn't China, USA, Russia and many other selling/licensing their military stuff all around the world?

[Heatseeker 0]

I guess its like comparing Sahrani and Chernarus, Chernarus is looking far more interesting, because its based and inspired on real world landscape .

Right, but for the sake of correctness i believe to remember that also Sahrani was partially based on real world landscape - at least thats what my gray brain cells remember from ages ago, i could be wrong though....

Geographically but thats about it, Sahrani was eastern EU style mixed with... north Africa? Populated by the "beach boys", using a spanish language that we could tell from the names of the characters and towns but never got to hear ingame... and then the "Armines" VS the SLA and RACS was all very weird .

Arma had updated technology but it didnt have style.

Arma 2 has a more defined style, although its still tied to the OPF one so it looses originality (eastern europe again and again).

If it was me i would have taken Arma II somewhere else.

[steele6 0]

Its more whether you believed the story. the Arma campaign failed to do that for me. It just... I dunno. and the South Sahrani and US desert theme camo didnt create a nice atmosphere, as the camos didnt mix anywhere on the island.

Plus the storyline was poor and the gameplay ( in the camapaign was poor.

I think its true that US and Russia have a different military style that brings a good variation to Arma, and as US is the best military around, everyone would like to play as them and use their tech. I mean, who would want to fight using Zimbabwean equipment? they hardly have a functioning military as they arent even fed in Zim.

US v China would also be a awesome environment playing field.

but the same applies to US v Russia( ie: Russian equipment, not necessarily their actual forces)

Games are also influenced by modern events.

for example somalia 1993 ( Rangers and delta force etc) mods and addons are heavilly present in OFP, where as in Arma, alot of Iraq and insurgents(just look at the different types of insurgents or terrorists around..) are around that have been made by the community.

imagine now the EU goes and invades China.. few years later when Arma3( ) comes around youll c how much eruopean and chinese tech will be made by the community.

[Second 0]

I think its true that US and Russia have a different military style that brings a good variation to Arma, and as US is the best military around, everyone would like to play as them and use their tech. I mean, who would want to fight using Zimbabwean equipment? they hardly have a functioning military as they arent even fed in Zim.

Because having ability to kick US's butt? When my T-55's and T-72 are able to out-smart M1A2s and cut them to pieces i'm quite happy. Much more than using M1A2 to butcher lower tech stuff without thinking.

Well that is another game and another virtual reality.

[Lou Montana 101]

Yes, I 'll add to that that I'm pretty happy in Resistance-like missions where you start with one crappy AK47 for 4 men, 2 kozlices and 2 handguns, and where you have to be faster and smarter than the ones you ambush...

it does feel great, and when running to the last AK (or handgun ! ) mag, you're simply happy you just got down the last guy in front of you, and are released as you can now pick up ammo well earned

(but quickly, reinforcements are on the way...)

[mr.g-c 6]

Yes, I 'll add to that that I'm pretty happy in Resistance-like missions where you start with one crappy AK47 for 4 men, 2 kozlices and 2 handguns, and where you have to be faster and smarter than the ones you ambush...

it does feel great, and when running to the last AK (or handgun ! ) mag, you're simply happy you just got down the last guy in front of you, and are released as you can now pick up ammo well earned  

(but quickly, reinforcements are on the way...)

Exactly!

F**k balancing!!!

Its about how to play you assets well - resistance in OFP was the best example how unneeded "balancing"(making stuff unrealistic) of weapons/gear is and was.

Resistance campaign as well as community made projects (missions+campaigns) were simply amazing/awesome when playing as resistance.

[Second 0]

Its about how to play you assets well - resistance in OFP was the best example how unneeded "balancing"(making stuff unrealistic) of weapons/gear is and was.

Resistance campaign as well as community made projects (missions+campaigns) were simply amazing/awesome when playing as resistance.

Yeah. Resistance had their own T-80 and BMP with green paint-markings. Great example of unbalancing indeed

[subs17 9]

I'm wondering why it's necessary to use actual nationalities at all in the game.(is US vs China , US vs Russia etc. etc.)

Lord only knows that the great military powers (US , Britain , France , China etc.) are more than willing to part with the hardware to almost anyone who can come up with the cash.

The developers could then use 2 bands of mercenaries (that could be from any nation) supplied and equipped by their employers , to set scenarios.

This would do away with any political/national feelings in game as well as give either side the opportunity to utilize whatever hardware the developers inserted into the game without having to "chose a side".

I think it'll be better later on when there is a Global map players can choose what country they are in and which unit. If such a sim were RPG style then players would have to pass online missions in order to participate in online wars. If the enviroment had a artificial political side independent of real world events then you could have some interesting outcomes where neighbouring countrys might join forces to take on bigger countrys as allys and this could be controlled by either the AI, player slot for that role or the Host. Such a world might start off at peace you might fly CAP on the border in F-16s with your neighbouring country before the fight breaks out. If the campaign is Dynamic then player performance will influence future missions and the campaign overall. Certainly kicks the hell out of the fake world pretend army politically correct approach.

[mattxr 9]

Didnt this get answered long before..

They do it for the cash.. If they didnt have the US army in the game its likely it wont do well in the US market. And that would be loosing a lot of cash. Sure there was a topic about this from when Arma was announced.

Got to remember this is a business there trying to make the most cash as possible while make a sucessfull game and story that people will like.

[BeerHunter 0]

They do it for the cash.. If they didnt have the US army in the game its likely it wont do well in the US market. And that would be loosing a lot of cash.

Now that make perfect sense and is probably the primary reason.

[TWCRASH 0]

Are Tom Clancy novels unethical?

Mostly just BAD.

On that topic : I'm looking more forward to the irregular Chernarus rebels and the Chernarus troops than I am to the US or RF ones. But, lucky as we are, we're going to get ALL KINDS, aren't we? So let's all just smile

Regards,

Wolfrug

Thats because you probably have never read one, They are quite entertaining and well written

[CyDoN 0]

Are Tom Clancy novels unethical?

unethical no ridiculous yes