-kelet0r

Read the interview here now! click thumbnail for fullsize Also posted and discussed on www.armed-assault-zone.com

Not entirely true, Dragonskin body armor withstands multiple muzzle velocity AP assault rifle hits with minimum trauma to the wearer. If ARMA is in a modern setting, body armor could play a huge role. Think about it, its often one bullet that hits you and kills you in OFP, while the others zoom past, nevertheless, mission failed. Body armor improves your chances drastically. 50% body coverage? That cuts your chances of death and injury in half, if the enemy actually manage to hit you. More often than not a soldier will aim for centre mass, in fact thats how they're all trained, all over the world. Therefore you could quiet safely apply these chance statistics. In summary: Half the lives of your men who would otherwise be dead would be saved if wearing good armor. Body armor is to be taken very seriously, if realism is to be catered for. i've read the marketing blurb besides no army uses that armour yet if ever and I seriously doubt its ability to withstand multiple full metal jacket assault rifle rounds - it might stop one and leave your ribs crushed and your heart and lungs bruised killing you more slowly but stop 2 or more? Not a change so yes I agree it may increase your longetivity ingame somewhat but not by much

nice find NKVD

On the other hand - i'm not sure what good it will do seeing as assault rifle weapons can still defeat all known body armour, maybe not on the first shot but on the second or third they still are only capable of stopping low calibre and pistol rounds so while they increase the chance of saving your life in combat somewhat, in Armed Assault, it will still be a case of 1-2 bullets and you are critically injured and unable to fight/dead as opposed to just being dead in OpF I fail to see how that will affect gameplay at all - the result is still the same the only reason I can see them including it is because body armour makes soldiers look cool and because it is a sim after all

don't know what to make of that after all Cold War NATO battle groups wore flak jackets on exercise and modern soldiers often wear no armour at all.... I'll go under the assumption for the moment that there will be body armour ingame seeing as I would love to see it in Armed Assault

well the Xbox controller works in pcs anyway so just bind the keys you want they might have controller support for vehicles but i doubt it - it would limit the control options you can have too much

And who ever said that making games is a democracy Peoples, as has been said over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over [/Dr Cox Mode] BI will release infos when they are good and ready to release infos. Whining on their forums isnt going to pressure them into releasing anything earlier. no one - we were arguing over the correct use of the phrase i reckon getting back on topic would be a good idea lest placebo wield his banning stick What I want to know is that if BIS didnt take GDC as a serious marketing opportunity, I hope this doesnt bode ill for e3 I would love to see an all out effort

No it doesn't. The voice of God? Are you mad? Political power != the concept of God. vox populi vox dei = the voice of the people is the word of god ie the people are the power, the first tenet of democracy

i think it has been stated that body armour will not be included ingame

I would say that 'Vox populi vox Dei' is the correct phrase on its own - it represents alot of what we believe in today

Well I dont know about you guys but Duke Nukem Forever gets my vote

there's a game that actually turns you into a killer dude are you familiar with the phrase faux pas? - stop digging is my advice There's is just no point arguing with that - i'll just point it out in all its glory/stupidity

lies - Battlefield 2 rocks i envy all you people with your expensive toys

LOMAC rocks I still see them as viable opponents - the fact that they depict modern conflict differently doesnt make them different genres - in fact they would both be placed under the title tactical shooters if they did things the same I would be worried tbh for me it is a tough call - Arma or GRAW for my PC especially as they are both 'due' in May the fact that they are different doesnt help the decision - they are both combat simulations (yes GRAW is a combat simulator and a very good one at that)

You gotta be kidding, that's like saying Ace Combat 5 is a direct competition of Falcon 4.0 Allied Force. It's not. ...is nothing but a few (8?) old screenshots and some year old news for all we know. Sure it could be released spring 2006 but it does seem very unlikely. Even Atari's website has no information what so ever about it though Illusion says Atari will publish it. It might be the same genre as OFP though when it possibly comes someday. I disagree - as an example of next generation advanced urban war it is and will be without parallel for some time, Arma cannot compete on that level at all It alco has so much going for it - the above decent squad AI, Mexico City, the fact that it looks incredible and the realism is a nice blend of realism with fun gameplay If Falcon 4 is the pinnacle of aviation combat simulation than consider GRAW to be Lock On: Modern Air Combat If Arma is delayed which is more than likely (no publisher, little publicity etc.) GRAW will be on my computer very soon

When I saw the title I thought you were going to comment on Armed Assault's direct competitors - Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter which is due May 2006 for PC and has gotten rave reviews on the Xbox360 and looks awesome Enemy in Sight which looks identical to Armed Assault only it doesnt have Operation Flashpoint as a big brother although it is graphically superior to Arma at this stage Quake Wars/Battlefield 2142 while a long shot and not really aiming at the hardcore sim market will draw the more casual gamer away from Armed Assault particularly if their releases coincide Ghost Recon would be the No. 1 contender especially if Arma is released at the rumoured May 2006 date - personally it would be a very tough call even for me seeing as I love OpF, I don't want to choose between them and I'd rather not have to spend €100+ getting both decisions decisions

you have nothing to fear unless you cheat or play like a selfish asshat a server admin can only ban you from his/her server Do I look like someone new to the multiplayer arena?? well i don't know - what do you look like?

you have nothing to fear unless you cheat or play like a selfish asshat a server admin can only ban you from his/her server

75% don't want Steam by itself and most voted blindly ask the question in a new poll - would you be in favour of Arma being digitally distributed alongside the traditional retail distribution? - and the results will speak for themselves although i have to agree with you - its the type of person this forum seems to have attracted over the years and I as a a relative newcomer find disconcertingBIS would do well to distance themselves from the majority views on this forum - many seem to be anti-progress in a very strong way After all as I've said before I was told here by more than a few that Armed Assault being a commercial success in 2006 would be a bad thing boggles the mind

you can never prevent it - just minimise it keygens do go a long way towards preventing warez i suppose the reason for this thread was to find a good compromise that wont hurt the consumer and will minimise loss to the producer

so are you saying that you need only be authorised once and once only? from what you are saying here i think - the unique data is not unique at all and is open to hacking what would work better is to have Arma have a mini program generate a unique code on your computer then when you register the game online you are assigned a new Key by the developer online The 2 - code and key - are irrevocably linked and are confirmed everytime you connect to the multiplayer menu ingame

I dont doubt that for a second but developers feel the need to protect their games in that manner out of fear - it is like their 'shop' is constantly being burgled and you cannot ignore the singleplayer element of the game - i wager that more will play it solely offline than online and that is no idle bet, ut2003 had more offline players than online players when it was an online multiplayer game and having a global key registration as you are promising will not work unless you can one link it to a unique item of information either in the game, the disc or on your computer (an IP wouldnt work) and it is asked for everytime you play online your proposal is incomplete

so you would rather BIS served your every whim at their expense and at the expense of the whole community there is a reason these protection systems aer inplace and why developers feel they have to use Starforce for example

I assume You not read what i wrote in proposal ! ? ... Single player (OFFLINE) = no registration needed for retail box (needed only if You used online download delivery solution) Multi player (ONLINE) = registration needed (best way how fight cheating) that leads to a problem though - operation flashpoint was largely an offline game having no protection whatsoever at that level against warez just doesnt cut it a rethink of that idea is needed maybe access to the first patch and hence no cd needed in the drive would be the incentive required

shame BIS arent oiling the PR hype machine yet - look at Spore or the elder scrolls oblivion the hype about them is no accident - it is all cleverly orchestrated BIS have a game to their credit which is reknowned as one of the best ever made and yet so far their PR has been very haphazard It's not the way I would market a game at all