Garcia

I would really like to see how you fight inside a house if you actually sprint from door to door In all of those examples it would be very unnatural to sprint, therefor, if someone are stupid enough to sprint, they bloody well deserve not having their rifle pointing the right direction. This is about sprinting and shooting, not walking and shooting. If you sprint, the enemy is most likely further away than 30-40 m, and then the chance of hitting that enemy while sprinting is almost equal to 0. And yes, keeping your rifle pointing forward while sprinting is possible, but I'm quite sure it'll slow you down, and I'm quite sure soldiers don't sprint with their rifle pointing forward. They might run with it pointing forward, but not sprint. Why? Because if you sprint you do it to move from one spot to another as fast as possible, like when you want to move from one cover to another. I'd liked very much to see you run as fast as you possibly can and keep a rifle pointing forward at all time. If you manage that and keep the same speed over a larger distance as you do with the rifle pointing to the side, then you're either really good or running very slow. It would be much more natural to keep it pointing to the side, since then you would have a much easier time holding on to it than if it was to be pointed forward.

And where have anyone stated that Finland, Vietnam or North Korea would want to invade USA, China or Russia/Soviet? There's a tad bit difference here. South Korea isn't USA, contrary to what you seem to suggest...USA doesn't have their whole army stationed in South Korea. North Vietnam managed successfully to invade South Vietnam and fight off USA. North Korea could get themself into the same situations as Finland during WWII and North Vietnam if they invaded and did it the right way, and thereby fight more of a defensive war than a offensive war. That I belive, was the meaning behind the examples. To show that a superpower can lose a war against a much weaker part.

It's not about wether or not you are to be able to shoot, it's the "Oh I want the guy to have the gun pointing straight forward when running" thing. When you run at full speed you don't give a shit about keeping you gun pointing forward. And the "supressive fire while moving" is just...stupid (IMO). I for one wouldn't feel very supressed if some stupid guy were running towards me while shooting. Just think about it for one second. What would be best for someone to do: a) Feel supressed by a person charging you while shooting his gun with 0.01% accuracy, and then put your head down so the guy can come close to you and pop a bullet in your brain...or b) Realise that the chances of him hitting you are slim therefor calmly taking your time to put a bullet in his head. It's like feeling supressed by a suicide bomber, and instead of shooting him you let him get up close so he can blow you to pieces... Good logic feeling supressed by someone with nearly 0% accuracy

And I would expect there to be something like this in MP for campaigns at least, seeing that you can play the SP one in MP too. Either that or they've just stuffed the SP campaign missions into MP where you can choose to start the last missions without playing the first one...which I hope they haven't.

But Duke Nuke'em is such revolutionary game. They're going ways nobody else has gone before them and such...not like Game2...been there done that... Just as a note for whoever may not have seen it...that was 110% sarcasm Lets look at another example too. The new Sam & Max game. There's, as far as I know, nothing you've never seen before in that game when it comes to technology and such. The game was still pushed back...a lot...think it was on the verge of being cancelled, even though it apparently wasn't too far from being finished. I think it was a few month ago that I read it was soon done...again...and this was about a year since I read it was possibly being cancelled. I don't know why it happened, but it just shows that the gaming industry isn't something that goes as planned every time. Factors you can't control can appear and mess up a lot.

But you criticize US, but have no mention of NK's hypocrisy. That's because I was commenting on your comment to PainDealers comment about judging. I don't really care too much about the North Korean policy, therefor I don't know in what way they are hypocritical, if they even are. Mainly they're just a bunch of people lead by a small, fat, crazy guy. So if your country is threatened you should just let it happen? If USA started doing same thing its critics do, US gets comdemnation while others get a pass. For example, NK has been making counterfeit US bills and send them out. If US did that except change it to Euro, you'd be looking at international outcry. Yes of course it goes both ways. USA can get condemned for something while others don't get condemned for doing the same thing, just like USA can do quite much that other countries can't even try to do without being condemned...what a wonderful world... And what would that circumstance be? I doubt current situation is that special circumstance. I wasn't talking about this situation. I was commenting on how nuclear weapons can lead to peace, in certain situations under certain circumstances. I've never said this is such a situation. Indeed. I guess that depends. If that was true, wouldn't USA be a bad guy along with North Korea now after Iraq? Anyway, of course North Korea isn't exactly a nice, peaceful country that should be let loose and allowed to do what they want. However, this still doesn't change the fact that (I fell) it's somewhat hypocritical of certain nations/people to condemn them and sanction them for getting something they themself have and defend their own right to having it.

I honestly have to second that one

Or, as I would have liked most, up to the mission designer or server. You could limit the amount of saves, maybe add some time delay between the saves? I.e you have a timer that is started when you start/loads/saves a mission, and then you have to wait some time before you can save again.

So how about we give nukes to AQ and let them blow up Europe and US? That's not wrong since US has nukes. Or better give some to Chechens and bomb Moscow. That's ok, right? Although it may be hypocritical, the problem is that NK has a HISTORY of commiting acts against SK. But I guess it's ok to criticize US but not NK. It's ok to criticize both USA and North Korea. I've never said it's ok to criticize USA and I've never said it's wrong to criticize North Korea. What I find stupid and hypocritical is to criticize North Korea for getting nukes while not criticizing USA (or even defend USAs right to have nukes). And then you got people, as said above, that defend USAs right to have nclear weapons, but at the same time whine every time a nation they find threatening mention the word "nuclear". I never said that only one side having leads that side to actually using the nukes when they go to war. I said that in certain situations under certain circumstances only one side having nukes can be worse than if both sides had nukes. And if South Korea got nukes, who would care? Nobody. As long as they are part of the people who's labeled as the "good guys" by the western world, there's no problem. And now we're back to being hypocritical. You got countries labeled as bad, and countires labeled as good. Good ones can do whatever they like without anyone giving a flying fart about it, bad ones get condemned if they just mention it so the good guys can hear it.

They are discussing wether or not development of ArmA caused delay to Game2... 1: As DM said (and I choose to belive him) it was delayed so Marek/Suma can make it the way they want it. Do you think you can have islands on 195724252795279552 square km, AI that behaves just like humans, millions of soldiers/vehicles/etc, etc etc with current technology? There's no point in developing and releasing a game nobody can run is there? There is no point in releasing a game that haven't reached it's full potential because some people want to buy the game that they can't run because it demands too much from the computers 99% of the people have? 2: They don't release any information because there's not any information that people need to know. The game i 2 years into the future, what information should they release? Information about how the game is ATM so people can whine all day long that they want all kinds of stupid features and because they find the early alpha-stage screenshots not to fulfill their demands...? I honestly don't see what more information they can release about the game ATM. They've said what date they think the game might be out at ATM, if everything goes as planned (which doesn't happen often), they've told what to expect from the game, they've released some screenshots of the game...what more is there to give of information?

Did you see the release date for ArmA? Do you think they will take suggestions and implement them at this stage of the development?

How long do you think you would stay alive in a CTI if you just left the game to live its own life for an hour or five? I'd say it's a fair guess your base would be fucked by the time you got back.

So if your wife cheats on you it is ok for you to cheat on her? You're asking the totally wrong question. The question you have to ask is: If your wife cheats on you, is it ok for your wife to start whining and judging you if you cheat on her? It might not be ok for North Korea to get nukes, but it's just hypocritical of countries sitting on their piles of nukes while waving their finger in the face of North Korea saying nono. Problem is it goes the other way around. People cares much less about USA threatening someone with their nukes than they care about North Korea even mentioning the word. And if only one side had them, they could be sure they wouldn't be nuked back if they used their nukes on the opposite side. If both sides have nukes you might be "safer" than if only one side had nukes. Many historians means that the cold war would have turned into WWIII without nukes, but then again, WWIII with nukes was pretty close several times only because of the nukes and both sides wanting to launch all their nukes at the other side at any sign of the other side fireing on them...

And that is totally irrelevant. The coalition forces are usually lead by USA, and most of the forces are still from the western world. And still, people who's already pissed off on the western world for other reasons probably blame the western world for everything the coalition forces do. I never said that nobody have been manipulated and fed propaganda. The point is, if the western worlds behaviour would be just cherry pie and all good, less people would give in for the propaganda because they wouldn't have any problem with the west. Prolbem is, the west doesn't behave like an angel, therefor people already have bad thoughts about the west, and when this is then used by exstemists to manipulate people, they get a much easier time doing it. I've never said I don't like democracy, I've said that maybe not everyone likes it. But obviously you seem to have a problem realising that not every single person in this world have to fancy everything that americans do... Oh, oh...I got it, I got it! Can you tell me why the fuck USA would split up the sum and call one part a sum that was gonna be given for technology, and then they magically call the other part "military aid"? Was it too dull to call it all funding for technology? I'll give you the answer to the question above. No I'm not. You are, and you are arrogant too. Obviously you think the situation in Iraq is all good and that the american soldiers are just cruising on a wave of local support. I wonder why they keep coming back dead then? Because some of your friends say so doesn't make it true. Norway was just labeled as the most Israel-hostile country in the western world (or the world...heard both, I'll take my chance that it was the western world). If I go out on the street and ask 5 persons if about how they feel about Israel, does it make the statement true if all 5 says they hate Israel? Will it make it false if they all say they love Israel? Neither will, because I might be so lucky that I 5 crazy people or 5 people from "Israels friend". I don't know where your sources have been in Iraq, but I highly doubt their information can paint a good picture of how the situation is in the whole of Iraq. So I am naive because numerous trustable news source says Iraq isn't a crowd of happy chaps loving the changes, while you are not naive because you mean you've got a a totally clear picture of the situation in Iraq from information from 4 US soldiers?

Are you on drugs or something? I think that was refering to that the war in afganistan wasn't because of religion...and if he was or not is really irrelevant, because in that case you managed to say exactly the same thing as he did, since he said "nothing religious", which would mean "religion not being forced upon anyone", in which case your reply to his statement was totally unnecessary, and there was especially no point in making the already unnecessary reply somewhat cocky. Therefor, the combination of a reply that was either a) a reply to something that was never claimed or b) a cocky forumlated reply that said exactly the same as the original statement, lead me to wondering what the reply really was about. And SHOUTING and using A LOT of !?!?!?!?!?!11111||| doesn't prove any point. And it still doesn't change the fact that some people will feel oppressed and feel that the western world is shuving their opinions of what's best for muslims down their throat. Some people will keep on living their life, while for others this may just increase the disgust they already feel towards the western world because of other factors...if I'm convinced I'm better off with a monkey and a wolf in charge of my country, I'd probably give jack shit about wether or not I may or may not realise that I'm better of with someone/something else in charge... No, but I'm starting to look at you that way Yes it's a known thing that politicians say lots of crap and lie and lie and lie and then lie a bit more, but honestly, I don't think Bush would have lied about supporting Israel. He loves Israel as much as his own dick. At least it seems to. And I don't know what you consider "military aid" to be, but I consider it to be economical support to Israel. Oh and yes, is that based on the same utter bullshit like "Oh the Iraqis will welcome us when we go there. We'll have no problems. Just a quick trip in, take out Saddam and his hard core followers, and then we'll have a easy time establishing our goverment system. We'll be out in no time!"...cause if I remember correctly, Bush was quite sure something like that was gonna happen. And tell me, is there suicide bombers there every day because the Iraqis simply love blowing themself up to show their joy about the changes? Is/(was) Iraq on the verge of civil war simply because they found the changes to be so perfect that they just had to find something to do to make it a bit less perfect? You talk about being naive? Through numerous medias I haven't really seen anything that points in the direction that a vast majority of the Iraqi population welcomes the changes. Most information I've seen (much from US medias) suggest the opposite. And how come your news sources are so much better? You got some secret universially true media that always tells the truth?

and just what was the dominant religion for the USSR? Atheism? What does the dominant religion in USSR have to do with the war in afghanistan? Wether or not christianity or atheism or any other religion was dominant doesn't change the fact that USSR didn't attack afghanistan because of religion. Mainly goverment system. To me it seems that the western world means every country, that doesn't have the same goverment system, got a crappy goverment system, and that the western world are doing them a favor by busting in and changing it to the way they (the western world) mean is best. So Bush lied before the election? I'm quite sure I read a statement by him where he said something like "As long as I am the president, we will continue to support our friends (refering to Israel) economically"...of course that's just by memory, so I won't say it's 100% accurate... And seeing that according to the article bogo linked to, I think the the non-funding by USA is quite busted by that 500 million boost.

Why? because they see an American in their back yard and automatically think he's a christian? That their religion is under siege because of a stereotype!? What about the Pakistanis? The Thai? The Japanese? The South Koreans? Not all of these people in Iraq and Afghanistan are Christians!!! So they think that because ONE American is there they will force them to convert to Christianity. But yet the Hindus, or the Buddhists, or the Chinese (having their own religion) will not try to convert them? Or that they just don't matter enought to listen so they will force thier religion on them after a while!? ARE YOU INSANE!?!?!?!? No, you are insane... Who's is fronting the wars in the muslim counties? Mainly USA, and after that western world countries. I never said I mean the western world is oppressing muslim countries and forcing our way of life on them, I said many muslims probably feel that way. And if you actually mean that only way of forcing our way/(oppressing?) of life on muslims is to convert them to christianity, then I suggest you go think about what role christianity really plays in the modern western society... Mainly because the western world is stronger than the muslims countries, and therefor are able to decide the "rules". If Iran bombs a US embassy, it's terror because the western world says so. If USA bombs a Iranian embassy, it's a military operation/faulty bomb/whatever sucky excuse. If USA has nukes, it's because USA is the good side, and they won't use nukes to anything bad, while if Iran even thinks about touching anything that's close to nukes, the western world crys out because the western world means Iran is the bad guy etc etc. In short, the western world (with USA in front) decides what's right and what's wrong, who's bad, who's good etc. Also, you got the thing some time back when the western world was sitting down there controlling most of that area, and such situations as "Fuck you, I'll bomb you to the stone-age if you don't do what I tell you to..." (and if people didn't understand that, refering to the claimed threats against pakistan).

And add the feeling of being oppressed by the western world, and the feeling that the western world is forcing our way of life on them...

You just have to pop in a negative comment about Islam every time you get the chance, don't you? You have to force your silly hate towards Islam into every little thing.

Doesn't make much sence to me...and a finger animation will make the game more realistic, but I highly doubt people will notice it unless it's used in a cutscene, therefor it won't matter if there is no finger animation in there. In the 5 years I've played OFP, I've never, not once, thought about "damn, it would be cool if the units had a finger animation when shooting"...

What about helicopters? Â What about planes? Peace, DreDay What about planes? What about helicopters? None of them target by eye. They got computers and all kinds of shit doing it for them, which is simulated with the radar thingy OFP had in the upper part of the screen. Planes got a inteface where you get a neat square box thats your target. Often you don't see the target when you fire at it. If you want realistic targeting for choppers and planes, don't talk about VD, talk about computer systems. Then you need screens and interfaces and stuff like that, not a VD that lets you see a black dot which may be a tank, or may be a rock... Shall we have VD on 500 km if there is a rocket that can move that distance?

Shoelaces could hook themself onto something and you could trip...if you tied you shoelaces bad you could lose your shoe during combat. Those are more important than a triggerfinger moving or not. But do we need them? No. Will we notice the them missing? In most situations, no. Is it worth waiting longer for the game just to have these features? No. Of course, the ability to let a smelly fart loose in a truck with all your mates during a MP game would be rather funny, but I don't want BIS spening time to implement it. I could come up with a rather long list of things that would be more useful than a triggerfinger animation, but that still doesn't really add too much to the game, except in certain situations.

Yes and I hope BIS adds VD on 90.5 lightyears, so I can look for life on mars and defend myself against the alien invasion from out neightbour galaxy...insanely high VD is good, I want to be able to set the game to use CPU on things I can't possibly see... Besides, Game2 is out in 6 years...hopefully... You get my point, and i bet you know i'm right. No need to be sarcastic :P (and besides, maybe some freaks do want to see the life on Mars with their 300 000 teraherz uber-tune computers  , it would suck if they COULDN'T ) Yes I get your point...just felt in a sarcastic mood Anyway, the point is, in most terrain you don't get any use for VD > 5000...and even that is pushing it. 10 km VD, sure, should be ok...but more than 10 km is just a waste, IMO.

i dont believe that bis will keep the finger like that. With all realism and nice animations we seen so far im preaty sure they will make that finger move  whats the big deal if bis makes that animation. I think its kinda important. And its preaty stupid if they dont make that animation. If they were thinking to not use that animation they had put the finger close to the trigger so we will not notice  Why is it stupid if BIS makes that animation or not? Imagine how many animations there needs to played when being in the vicinity of your squad and you engage the enemy... Hope you guys have alot of CPU power For me it would be pretty stupid to implement such a crappy animation that you can't even use for anything, and you won't notice it in a firefight anyhow... What use is it for? Let them work on more important stuff, such as the partly invisibility soldiers when laying in grass... Cheers in that line of thinking why we have moving trees? why we have moving water? what the forck we need those animations for? why the wild life? why smoke? and so on.. if they do something, make them do it good! Because when you move around on the battlefield, without being in a firefight, such things would be noticed and would look good, but in a firefight you're either busy shooting or you are stupid enough to be looking around to see the others trigger-finger move...if the latter, you deserve being killed while looking for something that isn't in the game If we're going to have trigger-finger moving, why not add shoelaces moving...and the ability to tie them properly...what about a watch on most units...that works. Eyelashes moving in the wind? Lets animate units package (read...umm...penis ) moving while running. On female models, how about their breasts moving up and down while running? Now in these bling-bling times, how about having big fake diamond rings on some civilians? But what I want most is being able to fart...and then I want other units around me to make a silly face when they smell my fart... How many of those things would be useful? Some people would maybe find them useful, but for most they would only drain CPU...just like a moving trigger-finger...

Yes and I hope BIS adds VD on 90.5 lightyears, so I can look for life on mars and defend myself against the alien invasion from out neightbour galaxy...insanely high VD is good, I want to be able to set the game to use CPU on things I can't possibly see... Besides, Game2 is out in 6 years...hopefully...