Ezekiel

I think one of the features mentioned for Game 2 (Arma 2 now) was encumbrance, i.e. stamina based on weight of equipment. Perhaps some of the restrictions on carrying equipment will be relaxed. After all, the limit of one assault rifle + optional AT4 was put in place to encourage realism. Often in ArmA your actions are restricted not out of lack of decent programming or coding, but to prevent unrealistic behaviour. If it were possible to carry two rifles, then everyone would be doing it (I can just see the Evolution games now, with everyone running around with an M24 and M4/MP5 combo). If there were an obvious disadvantage to carry a second or even third rifle on your shoulder (such as faster tiring or decreased accuracy) then it'd be something only done when necessary. EDIT: ^ He has a point, when someone said 'show me a game with adjustable scopes' I instantly thought back to the original Delta Force (and its many offspring). Hell, in a way that game was very similar in concept to OFP.

Bravo Walker, very nicely put. I have a question tho... could the AI be taught to recognise a wall/tree/bush/building using someone sort of 'sonar' echo laser rangefinder type thing? That way, if they enter a 'take cover' state in their FSM and this cover is close enough, they can be scripted to move towards it. If they can triangulate where the cover and where the enemy is (only x and y axis are needed, height isn't relevant since MOST things are cover if you can go prone behind them), they can move in such a way as to keep the cover directly between them and the enemy (or as many enemies as possible if there are many). Then they can be scripted to move towards the cover until they are against it, all the while assessing whether the cover is still between them and the enemy. Then i gets more complicated, cos they need to be able to move (either by changing stance or walking/crawling) in such a way as to get an enemy in their LOS, otherwise they'd just play hide and seek with you. Surely they can just use trial and error? Go from prone to crouch, look in direction of where enemy was last seen. If enemy is visible, shoot, if not move. If they're taught to move along the edge of a wall, surely the can be taught to keep going until an enemy unit is spotted? Just a shot in the dark, I'd like to learn more about how AI works.

Well I've only played COD 1 and 3 on the Wii but from what I can see, EVERYthing they do is scripted. Its a case of spawn here (just out of sight) move to there and take cover behind this wall, and proceed to pop up and down firing shots (moving up and down the cover occassionally. Admittedly if you put ArmA AI in the same CQB situation as the AI in COD you wouldn't be able to get them to act the same even with uber heavy scripting, cos they refuse to recognise cover they can crouch behind and shoot (ruins missions where you want them to use a row of sandbags as cover I've discovered, they just go prone and hide). On the subject of S.T.A.L.K.E.R., I've actually played that game quite a lot and the AI isn't THAT impressive (although it is fun to play against). The trees are mostly set up with the bushy parts high up, which IMO would be something BIS should try out. Means they can use the trunks as (semi) hard cover intelligently, without getting confused by all the bushiness. But the AI in Stalker really isn't that smart, their idea of engaging you is to run to cover, follow the edge of it until they emerge and then charge out into the open firing at you madly until they run out of ammo, and then running back to cover whilst reloading (hilarious to watch when they have a double barrel shotgun with only 2 rounds loaded, 9 times out of 10 you end up shooting them in the back as they run for cover). They can't go prone, which reduces complication, they can't use grenades, can't heal, can't recognise dynamically created cover, and they're mindlessly suicidal. Like I said, they're fun to play against but hardly realistic. I've never been in combat but I imagine the first priority is staying alive. If there's a squad coming at you down a road and you start shooting at them, the first thing they're going to think is 'my god we're being attacked', they don't know its just one person it could be a whole platoon with armoured support, so cover should take priority over being the first one to fire his rifle.

*sigh* I don't know about anyone else but when someone swears at and insults me, I don't feel inclined to do what they ask. If. You. Don't. Like. The. Game. Then. Take. It. Back. For. A. Refund. This is a forum for the community. You (Blackwater) are not a part of this community, so just do everyone a favour and don't post here. Thankyou.

I vote ArmA 2 all the way.... As a few ppl have pointed out, its not just a case of fixing a few little bits n bobs in the engine. There are certain things that need a complete overhaul, and to expect them to put the time and money into doing this stuff only to release it as a free ArmA patch is asking too much (even if some ppl believe we deserve it, it still aint gonna happen). My first experience of ArmA (after reading a few good reviews) was rather disappointing. After knocking all the GFX settings down to low/v low, I finally got it running smooth - there's a bit of confusing speech in your hummer (I let it go, nothing new), the hummer starts motoring down a road, and literally within a minute of starting the first mission it completely randomly swerves off the road and crashes headlong into a wall. Wow! I think. We must be coming under fire, or this is some sort of scripted accident (what a way to start a game off eh? Your mission - stand at the side of the road and wait for a repair truck to tow your HMMWV away!. But no, the idiot driver reverses the vehicle (shattered windscreen and all) back on the road, and carries on like nothing happened. When that happened I instantly knew ArmA wasn't going to be the 'big OFP sequel' I was looking forward to. I'm not desperately disappointed, its still given me many hours of fun (except for the MP game I played last night where some hacker bombed our base and sniped ppl with a minigun for an hour, that needs fixing ASAP). Bring on Game 2 I say! Also they should scrap the crappy ArmA name and just call it Game 2. I think the fans would see the funny side of that.

Meh, I don't mind em using the same model or texture for the M4, I can't see how it could get much better without something else like improved lighting effects (which Arm2 seems to have anyway ). Besides maybe its just a placeholder. Would be cool to see diff textures for the arms though.

Um, doesn't it have to be an island....?

Um, doesn't it have to be an island....?

I think he was cracking a joke about how similar the two games will be. Almost as similar as the original screens of ArmA are to the finished product right? *sigh* He does have a point tho, I'm a little incredulous that BIS haven't released at least a snippet of the features list, they must have known this would happen if they announce the game with nothing more than a rough plot and a few screens...

I think he was cracking a joke about how similar the two games will be. Almost as similar as the original screens of ArmA are to the finished product right? *sigh* He does have a point tho, I'm a little incredulous that BIS haven't released at least a snippet of the features list, they must have known this would happen if they announce the game with nothing more than a rough plot and a few screens...

Everyone seems to have this bizzare preconception of what 'next generation' means. I've looked at the screens - the textures, lighting, particle effect etc all look pretty stunning, I sure as hell know that wouldn't run on MY computer looking like that. In fact the only thing I can see which is less that gorgeous is the dodgy burnt out vehicle skin and the fire effect. Next generation doesn't mean 'as good as this game wot came out on teh Xbox', it means better than the last one... And I'm still holding out that it'll be better than the last one, methinks BIS have released this stuff so early cos they want to remind everyone bitching about ArmA that ArmA 2 was always meant to be 'the big one'. And I'll pre-empt the 'yeah but ArmA said it was amazing and new and I feel scammed' by pointing out that personally, most PC games I buy end up getting shelved and start gathering dust shortly after I complete them on the hardest setting (which is usually the first and only setting I play). I've gotten many, many, many hours of enjoyment out of ArmA, so in my books I've already got my 30 quids worth.

Everyone seems to have this bizzare preconception of what 'next generation' means. I've looked at the screens - the textures, lighting, particle effect etc all look pretty stunning, I sure as hell know that wouldn't run on MY computer looking like that. In fact the only thing I can see which is less that gorgeous is the dodgy burnt out vehicle skin and the fire effect. Next generation doesn't mean 'as good as this game wot came out on teh Xbox', it means better than the last one... And I'm still holding out that it'll be better than the last one, methinks BIS have released this stuff so early cos they want to remind everyone bitching about ArmA that ArmA 2 was always meant to be 'the big one'. And I'll pre-empt the 'yeah but ArmA said it was amazing and new and I feel scammed' by pointing out that personally, most PC games I buy end up getting shelved and start gathering dust shortly after I complete them on the hardest setting (which is usually the first and only setting I play). I've gotten many, many, many hours of enjoyment out of ArmA, so in my books I've already got my 30 quids worth.

Did he just call us parasites...?

Guys, Codemasters are using a DRIVING SIM engine! I know its just MHO but I'm thinking they've latched onto the whole 'wow big landscapes, planes, helicopters AND tanks! And you can even play on foot!' idea. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out a bit like mercenaries but with a soldiery theme and Flashpoint style plot. EDIT: Not that I'm saying that's a bad thing n all, I'd prolly go out and buy it if it got good reviews. Just saying, it won't have the OFP flavour to it. No detailed radio command system, no float zone, no obsession with realism..

i think hes dragging a soldier to cover. i've seen this in a pic in this forum.. i asked, but i got no answer.. i bet we will be able to drag wounded soldiers.. Sry I mean the other pic, dude with his gun held up. I remember first noticing this sort of feature in... Nocturne. Came out 8 years ago. So I'm not THAT excited, but it does bode well if it means the cover system is improved. Oh and wasn't there an OFP mod that allowed you to drag injured ppl? Still, if ArmA 2 lives up to their hype then bring it on, sooner the better. Anyone who's seen VBS2 already knows they're capable of much more, hell if they released THAT as ArmA 2 I'd run out n buy it in a flash.

i think hes dragging a soldier to cover. i've seen this in a pic in this forum.. i asked, but i got no answer.. i bet we will be able to drag wounded soldiers.. Sry I mean the other pic, dude with his gun held up. I remember first noticing this sort of feature in... Nocturne. Came out 8 years ago. So I'm not THAT excited, but it does bode well if it means the cover system is improved. Oh and wasn't there an OFP mod that allowed you to drag injured ppl? Still, if ArmA 2 lives up to their hype then bring it on, sooner the better. Anyone who's seen VBS2 already knows they're capable of much more, hell if they released THAT as ArmA 2 I'd run out n buy it in a flash.

I'm just gonna hold fire until we actually hear some ACTUAL information that isn't plot or eye candy. So far all the difference I can see is that soldier taking cover behind the burnt out vehicle (is he leaning too..?).

I'm just gonna hold fire until we actually hear some ACTUAL information that isn't plot or eye candy. So far all the difference I can see is that soldier taking cover behind the burnt out vehicle (is he leaning too..?).

Politics wise its Korea all over...

It's all a conspiracy! Teh government is paying BIS to train us into ruthless killing machines!

The only thing that would stop BIS from getting the job done would be running out of money. The only thing that will stop BIS from making money is people not buying the expansion packs. Go figure..

They do just what you tell them. They return to formation. It´s not their fault if you are not able to select an appropriate formation first. User error, not game bug. The problem with this is 'how does the AI know whether or not you want them to swim?'. For all they know, you could be planning on crossing a river and to have them refusing to swim when you tell em to return to formation would be a nightmare... Personally I think there should be 2 distinct conditions for AI - crossing water and crossing bridges. That way you can order them to cross either at a certain point (presumably their AI is smart enough to work out the rest). Even if you don't order them to cross, the AI needs to have a clearly defined sense of 'this is how to cross a bridge/river' and 'I am crossing a bridge/river'. I'm no code guru but I think its plain that the AI currently doesn't make enough of a distinction between normal terrain, water and bridges. Strangely they can recognise roads and factor THEM into the their path finding well enough..

Hehe, I can see why there aren't any rivers on Sahrani... Thing is most of the AI was developed on the basis of the original OFP environments, which were nice big open fields and whatnot. Nothing complicated like bridges, large towns, swimming etc to get in their way. Now what BIS has done is introduce all these things and adapted the AI to fit them, with some rather peculiar results. I'm not sure if a lot of this stuff is even fixable without rewriting some of the core foundations of the engine (not just the AI), I'm assuming it is and I'm assuming it can only get better..

Eek, Foxtrot most of what you've written there has nothing to do with the actual game, just how one particular mission was made. You're better of going into the custom missions section and listing complaints there. Only exceptions are the AI probs you mentioned, such as the pinpoint accuracy shooting through bushes and the ropey landing/targeting skills. Though I must warn you, prepare to be ridiculed if you're relying on your AI to fly you, if you're playing Evolution you're better off learning to fly yourself or waiting for someone to give you a lift...

Hmm, something interesting I was thinking the other night - I keep seeing posts saying 'BIS is only a small company, tiny team, give them slack' etc. I'm not sure anyone's pointed it out - but what really matters is how many actual man hours do they put into the game per pound that you pay. The fact is they have less people to pay, so 40 developers working for 3 years in theory costs about as much as 120 developers working for 1 year. Obviously that's not precisely accurate as they'll be running up bills and additional costs every hour, but that's one of the reasons WHY companies strive to grow bigger. Now I'm not knocking BIS, I think the day small developers are driven out of business by the giants of industry will be a sad day, as all the niche products (which OFP/ArmA undeniably is) will cease to exist in favour of satisfying the masses (ala Holywood). I'm gonna buy QG whatever, just cos I'd hate to see all the dedication and love BIS (and the community) put into their games go to waste. Still, I don't think that's an excuse for substandard quality, especially if it has a long term impact on the fan base. Personally I'd rather wait a bit longer and get something substantial like the Resistance expansion, but if they think throwing out a quick cheap addon is gonna tide them over long enough to release something more groundbreaking, so be it. Still, it'd be nice if they'd hurry up and release something groundbreaking soon...