dmakatra

And here I thought musicianship was about melody, harmony, rhythm, feeling and soul. Apparently, it's all about successive hammer-ons! Go figure. Each to their own taste, but to claim that black metal is more music than anything else just because it's technically hard to pull off is just ridiculous!

So you're equalling speed with musicianship? In, that case, Immortal, may very well be the Magnus Opus of the Western Civilisation. Musicianship has nothing to do with technical proficiency.

(Post directed to vilas) I don't agree. Electronic music is just as much music as any other genre. Different tools, different goals, different state of mind, different result. Still music though. I think your perspective vilas is simply a result of not being exposed to any decent electronic music. I'm not really into a lot of electronic music, but here are some examples just to get my point across: http://www.myspace.com/foliemusic http://www.myspace.com/abeautifulplace http://www.myspace.com/slagsmalsklubben http://www.myspace.com/theknife http://www.detsnurrariminskalle.com/ It's not all mindless techno you know. ;)

Don't know about BioWare, haven't played any BioWare game in a while, but definitely agree on Betheseda. What CM did to the Operation Flashpoint-franchise is nothing compared to what Betheseda did to the Fallout-franchise. It's not a question of whether the company is run by British people or whatever Luhgnut is trying to impose, but rather how big the company is. The bigger the company, the bigger the larger audience, the bigger the budget and the larger amount of capital is being invested. More money is spent on PR, more hype is produced. Hype is avoided in Eastern European countries because they are small and can't rely on a big PR machinery and a heavily streamlined product. I'm not defending the hype machinery, but what CM/Molyneux has done is not very uncommon in the business today. And mentioning Betheseda among examples of good and decent gaming companies is just ignorant. You may think whatever you like about their games (hell I like several of Molyneux' games, Dungeon Keeper is brilliant and I wasn't even exposed to any hype that surrounded that game), but they're not really different from any other big player out there.

I reckon it won't. EW is playing off of one of the seven endings in RH. OA could be following an entirely different ending.

Up until about two weeks ago I was still playing with a standard Logitech 2-button 1-mousewheel mechanical mouse. Must've used it for at least 10 years. Worked perfectly, although I had to switch to a more modern one because my new mother board doesn't support PS/2.

I mainly play the guitar, but have a couple of other instruments as well. Good when you have friends over for some improvised jam sessions. I'm awful at writing and recording, but do a bit of guitar tutoring on the side. I'm far from the greatest guitar player in the world, but to me it seems that most guitar tutors don't have any sense of pedagogy. It's a shame really, I think a lot of people would've continued with their chosen instrument if only they had a tutor that wasn't forcing them to do non-developing material. As for violins, I think it's an awesome instrument. I like all the instruments from the violin family. So much that if I ever get a child I'll probably force her/him to play the cello just so I can get my hands on it. :p

Even if you somehow would fit all the controls on the controller, what's the point of porting it? ArmA2 plays better on a PC, just as fighting, driving and platform games plays better on a console. I have played OFP:E, and while it was kind of cool it's nothing compared to the original game. Whether you like it or not, a console version HAS to be streamlined and simplified when it comes to graphics, controls, editor, content sharing, multiplayer hosting, etc. Every platform has it's strength and putting ArmA2 on a console makes no sense at all. Not gameplay wise, nor financially. Very few console players took OFP:E to their heart, and I don't think it's going to be any different with ArmA2:E.

Aren't guided missiles shot on command by the pilot? When it's locked, can't you just click the primary mouse button?

Team mates handle themselves pretty well, although not exceptionally well. They're better at seeking cover the more 'alert' their status are. For this reason, the first thing I do when I stumble upon a contact is to tell everyone to go into Danger mode (7-2 IIRC). They seem to go into Danger mode automatically (or at least some kind of pseudo-Danger mode) nowadays, but I do it anyway just in case. And regarding the threat announcements - I wish they'd bring back the old system from OFP1. It was more efficient in every way. The only thing good with the current system compared to the old one was that the AI can now bundle contacts instead of calling out each one individually.

I just reinstalled the game. I bought it when it came out, but for some reason never really got into it. Does anybody know what role leaders above platoon level play, if any? I haven't really gotten very far yet, but to me they seem rather useless. What about the Company XO?

Yeh. This thing should've been closed a hundred pages ago.

We don't, really. Unfortunately.

I loved the campaign although the last bit was sort of ruined for me because

I think the reason BIS chose the elite Delta Team-approach is of two reasons - the amount of freedom it allows the player and how difficult the game can be made. In the semi-asymmetrical warfare approach that is in the Harvest Red campaign, a regular US Marine would never really face a challenge as the US military is vastly superior to the Chedaki both in terms of amount of personnel and equipment. Neither would you be able to give the same freedom-oriented tasks as you give a Force Recon team in missions such as Manhattan. I liked the CWC-campaign too, it really gave you that feeling of just being a grunt. But the Harvest Red campaign wasn't bad at all (as long as it didn't bug out or started doing High Command stuff which I'm not fond of), it just did something differently. EDIT: As for ArmA1's campaign - that was just shit. Some missions felt like they'd been done on a coffee break or something.

You're telling us ignorant people not to discuss politics when YOU repeatedly bring political issues up by saying some completely ignorant propagandistic bullshit. If you want a realistic modification, the first thing you need to do is drop your black-and-white views at the doorstep. People, at least me, are not pissed off at your mod suggestion, just your interpretation of what a "realistic" modification would mean. EDIT: This was directed at Infiltrator 2K, but Daniel got in before. Just to avoid any misunderstandings.

He also seem to think that it's less realistic if it doesn't simulate the conditions of 'our troops'. Before you spew that imperialistic view of yours, you might want to consider there are other nationalities present on this discussion forum.

Regarding the echelon thingy - to be fair, ArmA2's AI isn't all that great when you leave it on it's own either. No waypoints, no groups, no nothing. I think some people in this thread is just doing an unnecessary amount of badmouthing by not properly handling the AI in their examples. Remember when ArmA2 was released and we went mad because reviewers did 'AI tests' but they didn't set the AI up properly? The exact same thing. That being said, I still think it's a shitty game. Though you could at least try to put the game to it's right context instead of just spreading semi-false propaganda.

How much deeper can you go? The ranks have one task in the game - to establish which units take charge when the leader goes down. The specific soldier names have other tasks - designating their role and threat. The ranks are just generic "main" ranks so that leader responsibilities are properly sorted out. As such, there's no ranks available for gunnery sergeants, PFCs, warrant officers and whatever ranks Russian forces might be using. Just think of the ranks as pay grades rather than real ranks.

The ranks are generic. Who cares anyway? It's not like the OPFOR or Independent side reflects the proper ranks either.

He's not saying ArmA2 isn't a complex game - he's saying it's not a complex game in the RTS area. Which it is not. If you seriously think ArmA2 is even remotely as complex as CMSF when it comes to commanding company sized units I'd recommend you check your head. Two different games in two different genres. Sure, you CAN cross over to CMSF's in ArmA2, but that is not where the strength of ArmA2 lies.

Where'd you find that number? On some loft under a few sci-fi magazines? ;)

I haven't done an extended amount of experiments, but the few that I've done actually confirms the AI reacts differently to what clutter you're moving through. However, if this is removed when the clutter isn't rendered I do not know.

The thing is that the list is just so downright weird. It's not a list composed by a modern gamer without any heritage. It's not a list composed by people who've sat down and tried to choose the most important games in the world. It's not a list of old veterans moaning that games were better before. It's a totally strange mixup of everything. I mean, there are leisure-puzzle games being rated higher than revolutionary games. Half-forgotten ten year old games that weren't so special in the first place and the total absence of other, more important games. The list just confuses me.

They should be open? Maybe you have to select units before they're available?