Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

ebns72

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    974

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by ebns72

  1. Posted

    Have it, been playing it, been loving it smile_o.gif Definitely going to buy it.

    Even for a beta, it is very polished, stable, runs great on a low-midrage system, and most of all, fun. Also, the destructibility of the environments with deformable terrain is very entertaining. pistols.gif

    Also, unlike most games, teamwork is the absolute key to winning in this game. Every single time I've been on a losing team, people weren't paying attention to each other's requests, focusing on their own personal score, etc, while on a winning team every single time it's because of good cooperation.

  3. Posted

    After enjoying the first trailer, I'm disappointed with the second. Still no physics/ragdoll effects, and the few gameplay shots looked identical to all other COD games (I was hoping they'd maybe be a little diff this time around...)

    Also, that stupid strings whining used in every single hollywood trailer nowadays pisses me the hell off.

    EDIT: Just watched the sniper one, and that looked really cool.

  5. Posted

    Sigma said earlier:

    Quote[/b] ]At the moment, I'm envisioning this as a large piece of movable scenery more than as anything for use as a focal point in missions.

    Anyway, as cool as it would be to have SEAL missions, I'm not really sure if Arma has advanced all that much in terms of AI and the player interacting on objects with proper roadway LODs, etc.

  6. Posted

    Are there still limits in Arma with collision detection when it comes to large objects?

    I remember an LSD for flashpoint that had a really nice and complete interior, except it was 50% unaccessible due to engine limits and AI....well...didn't do anything at all.

  7. Posted

    I'd assume a better Idea would be to have a large armoured,tracked, Box like contraption that uses arms to move the person into its armored shell.

    In development, actually. I saw it on futureweapons. Its a small unmanned APC-like vehicle probably the size of a powerwheels jeep that carrier injured personnell away.

  8. Posted

    I never understood the conceptof humanoid robots. They seem so impractical to me, with legs like that. A self-powered rolling stretcher would be much more useful.

  9. Posted

    Have any of you actually played the game? RO has far better ballistics simulation than even OFP. I don't know what everyone is complaining about ballistics for - they are definately there, and they are excellently modeled as far as I can see. Ricochets, trajectory, the whole nine yards.

    Tank armor ballistics are the best I've ever seen in a game. The round's effectiveness and penetration depends on the angle you shoot it at and the armor thickness; you can often see your own tank rounds deflect or bounce off the armor if you have poor aim.

  12. Posted

    I thought the trailer was cool - it was exactly what I expected.

    You can't expect anything realistic, just visuals and a hollywood-like feel that makes you go "Cool!"

    That's what this trailer certainly did for me.

    My gripes are: Still no physics apparent

    Characters still look like midets, and for me this detracts from the hollywood feel a great deal.

  13. Posted

    I'm slightly enthusiastic.

    I remember even before the first one was released, they said they might expand it into different time periods.

    IMO, COD is all about cinematic experience, not so much realism; I think it would be really cool to see very cinematic action in Iraq or Afghanistan, maybe a lot more gritty though and less hollywood. I trust infinity knows what they're doing, however; it will probably be made such that it looks like the various firefight videos we see over the internet and the news.

  16. Posted

    Arcade wOOt! crazy_o.gif

    I bet if they are going to big maps (which I doubt) you would need to load between areas. yay.gif

    Sorry to be a prick here, but this just pisses me off. This community, has yet to see nothing but a render, and we're already assuming that it is going to be a steaming pile of crap that will be arcade in nature.

    OFP2 certainly could be, but this community has far more fanbois and elitists than ANY of the "inferior" arcade games that are so shunned here. This community is just as bad if not worse offender of what so many of you accuse.

  19. Posted

    It is my greatest fear in competition is that it could cause a very damaging community split if it is as good/better than ArmA.

    I heard "all consoles" but will it be on PC?

    Also, considering Arma was generally the same flashpoint in a new shell, I think the general populous is going to be swaying toward codie's game.

    Personally, judging by the style, I am looking more forward to this than I was armed assault. (I was looking way more forward to Game 2, which we haven't heard from in ages) I trust that codemasters know what fans loved in the original FP and won't screw it up. I can't wait to see some gameplay footage. Also, while it may not be in game, these renders usually display a general style/feel the developers are going for. For me, atmosphere is a big part of the game, so I am looking forward to this. Arma felt really bland to me with little atmosphere.

    EDIT: BTW, that armor I believe is "dragon skin." It's one of those things where it's so ridiculously effective that it can just be assumed to be in service by all branches within the next 20 years. That's why they have those GRAW-style vests.

  21. Posted

    We've heard so far that there will be randomly generated missions, and that the player will have an effect on the game world and his squadmates.

    I'm wondering though if it would be possible to have entirely dynamic campaigns as seen in some flight sims.

    It seems like right now BIS is leaning toward a more pre-set campaign progression with the player merely taking part in it. However, I would love to see a completely fluid, dynamic campaign where the door could swing both ways. Every single time you play, a town may be captured, another time it may be lost - maybe sometime it won't be assaulted altogether. It should be also very possible to lose; if a side loses too many men in combat, it will have less to defend its cities and thus will be pushed back until defeat.

    By doing this, the game could contain a few more RTS elements. If a supply depot gets bombed, the soldiers on the front will have less ammo. A town falls, the tactical AI now has a new staging point for more assaults on the player.

    Perhaps, if the player gets promoted to the rank of colonel, the game could transform into a field RTS - now that would be an impressive display of engine flexibility IMO, considering all the mechanics are in the current flashpoint engine*; all that would be needed is an interface to select and move troops to waypoints. As a general, one could work on a larger scale, choosing which towns to hold or attack.

    *Ever think how easily the game would work as a tactical RTS? AI is already there, the battles currently play out very tactically depending on squad positions and the like; all that would be needed is an interface to have completely control over a battlefield, assigning waypoints and targets to tanks, infantry, and helicopters.

    Also, I think other soldier simulation should be extremely in-depth; with the possibility to skip over the more mundane things. One of my favorite things about other sims like silent hunter III is the possibility of "living the boredom" so to speak - it is very immersive, but after maybe about 5 minutes of doing mundane tasks you can hit time compression and skip to action. IMO, that would work very well in this game.

    I think it would be fun and immersive, personally, to set up field camp, create fortifications, and have a chow-time discussion with your fellow soldiers in between action.

    Speaking of chow, I would like to see eating and sleeping modeled in the game - the player should not be able to die from lack of either, but rather have stamina penalities applied. On a tactical scale, this would simulate the idea of sieges well; draining the enemy of provisions and morale and attacking when they are weak and at the end of their rope.

    Again, though, all of it could be skipped if the player desires to, to cater to the wide ranging tastes of players that will play the game.

    So what do you think?

  22. Posted

    IMO, as a soldier, I think it would be really cool if sleep and food were added to the equation. We've heard this will be sort of an ultimate soldier sim, so why not? It could possible even offer an excuse for retrying after a death ("it was all a dream").

    For example, if you are trapped on the frontlines for awhile with supply cutoff, your stamina will decrease due to hunger (but it should be made so you can't die of hunger, just penalities will be applied)

  23. Posted

    I'm going to butt in this thread again that once again I think you guys have little understanding of what SL is.

    It's hardly an alternate reality - most other mmos are for more alternate realities than this one. This contains close to no relation to real life.

    Second Life is a lot more a online MMO 3D modeler than any sort of alternate life. Star Wars Galaxies, a game I played for many years, far more resembled a "second life" than this - second life is more utility than living.

    I know this because I have been playing the game occasionally for many years.

  24. Posted

    I'd disagree that the majority of americans are ignorant. Again, America is very diverse, so it may vary depending on region and the school systems in that region - however where I live the large majority of people are greatly interested in politics and are pretty intelligent. There's only a couple of people that are really like as portrayed in this interview.

  25. Posted

    As an American, both I and my fellow americans watch these programs and can't believe the absolutely stupidity of the people that live in our country. While there certainly are a lot of people like that, I'm sure the people that made this program were problably selective in showing what segments to show on television - the really stupid ones.

    Also, the "coalition of the willing" IMO is a stupid question, because here in the U.S. it is ALWAYS just refered to as "The coalition" or "coalition forces." You could have no idea what they were talking about but still know the multinational forces involved in Iraq.

    Also, in America there is this gameshow called "cash cab" where random people in a taxi are asked somewhat difficult (not general knowledge) questions in order to win money - and many of them do fairly well, only a few don't know any of them. So all and all I'm not sure if this would be all that accurate of a depiction of the average american.

×