HellToupee

basically these guys got pissed of all the US games where u the hero go around slaughtering arabs and other groups like in delta force, now these guys went and made a game where its the other way around whats wrong with that, now that it puts the good guys on the side you hate it makes you feel bad dosnt it, and you call them terrorists and otehr such things.

my friends think itsgreat ntill you get to the multi player, and mention no JIP(they really hate that), small mp community as in only expect games of 20 ppl once a week etc, they arnt sp fans.

the interesting point will be MP will it have massive games like df2 which were sum of the best ive played, it vs ofp isnt as good, it dose urban combat alot better and sum other things but overall ofp lasts longer. But mp will be intresting to see if tis anything like df2 it would be awsome, ofp jus donst get the sorta human vs human mp i like(short small games with few numbers is ofps way).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ April 08 2003,09:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (the_unknown_one @ April 07 2003,21:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">where would it go if it was too weird for offtopic?<span id='postcolor'> The bin Now back on topic <span id='postcolor'> but when its on topic it shouldnt be in offtopic

im sayin that korea is A) a bigger threat than iraq b) admitted to WMDs c) threatened to use WMDs iraq has a) used WMDS about 20 years ago with US support b) done nothing the past 12 years c) poses no threat, and has lotas oil so = easy target with lots to gain.

the right war?, sure it would be right if saddiam and his buddies were to fight because apparnty the war is about removing saddiam, but the regualr army is as innocent as the civis just doign there job defending there country, apparnty its ok to see 2000 iraq soldiers killed today. There are other ways, fact is bush gave no room for a dipolmatic solution. Accuses iraq of having WMDs links to terrorests etc and just being bad, while north korea admits to making nukes threatens the US with preemptive strike yet what is Bush doing about it nothing he decides to pick on the little players.

what bout a spitfire/seafire they wernt so much in the pacfic but where fighting the japs in asia.

hell if i owned a server would be great no waits ever jus logon and reassign.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (benreeper @ April 04 2003,11:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It was basically a list of the games that alot of companies make these days that I loathe. Also I have both SSams and the reasons for the lack of slowdown in gameplay when there are alot of units present is: 1. Although large, the gaming environment is smaller with ALOT less destructrable items. Everything in OFP can be destroyed. 2. The lack of AI. SS has no real AI to speak of all they do is run right at ya. The wheels are turning alot more in OFP, and all projectiles are really in the game. I would say for the same amount of units on the screen, OFP has 10 times the amount of things going on. Ben<span id='postcolor'> not everying can be destroyed and when it dose it generally jus deforms or falls over.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (benreeper @ April 04 2003,11:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It was basically a list of the games that alot of companies make these days that I loathe. Also I have both SSams and the reasons for the lack of slowdown in gameplay when there are alot of units present is: 1. Although large, the gaming environment is smaller with ALOT less destructrable items. Everything in OFP can be destroyed. 2. The lack of AI. SS has no real AI to speak of all they do is run right at ya. The wheels are turning alot more in OFP, and all projectiles are really in the game. I would say for the same amount of units on the screen, OFP has 10 times the amount of things going on. Ben<span id='postcolor'> not everying can be destroyed and when it dose it generally jus deforms or falls over.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 03 2003,19:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 03 2003,07:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One could argue that no more Soviet Union is a bad thing, as with no counter superpower to balance it, America can pretty much do whatever the hell it pleases (as witnessed in recent events).<span id='postcolor'> Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, up to this point. And another way of stating it is that America can pretty much do whatever the hell none of the other want do or are capable of doing. Obviously it depends on 1) your point of view and 2) If the US will or will not become a greedy and ruthless superpower.<span id='postcolor'> well i dont know the comment about capable of doing, iraqs army isnt much of a threat, europe could easly take him on on their own, just a matter of money. Its a bad thing because this war on iraq confilcts with world interests if the US thinks what its doing is right and the world thinks its wrong which one is right? The US should of done what the UN said to be right, if they base a war on iraq breaking UN rules then why the hell can you then ignore UN decisions and wage war on a country that 1. is no threat 2. no evidence of WMDs terrorests etc found or given time to be found The US expected this to be a short war where in 30 days they have iraq and get right into pumping that oil, on the TV they are making every effort to capture oil fields and refineries.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ Mar. 31 2003,16:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tora @ Mar. 31 2003,041)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yup - They'd be safer. Just hang out at the WTC....Uhh... hmmm.... That's right, we all seem to have forgotten that there are Al Quada ties to the Iraqi regime...<span id='postcolor'> Ah, those would be the ties that there is no proof of? Can you get it through your heads, S11 was not the fault of Iraq and everyone else in the middle east, but a small group of radicals.<span id='postcolor'> u forget they are muslim that automatically makes them all terrorests in the eyes of the US.

hackers a good thing to be a cracker is not, as for these anti war crackers, the pro war crackers have already struck first.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 29 2003,11:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"they didnt take the initiative back i nthe last 2 world wars." No, but they were forced into those conflicts. They never had a choice. At one point or another they would have to get involved.<span id='postcolor'> im willing to bet if japan didnt get involved the US would have don nothing as britian fell, and ither germany takes over russia or russia takes over germany and rest of europe.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 29 2003,09:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"But if there's an war issue,they always come to us first.No one like cops until it helps them.They don't like speeding tickets because it hurts them.But when they need help their be calling 911(america) ." In my experience, America often takes the initiative. Rarely has anyone asked America to go to war with another country.<span id='postcolor'> they didnt take the initiative back i nthe last 2 world wars.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC Mongoose @ Mar. 28 2003,18:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Mar. 28 2003,06:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 28 2003,13:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joltan @ Mar. 28 2003,05:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">~You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb the world to peace~<span id='postcolor'> Live under a murderous tyrannical dictator for your whole life, then try to say that.<span id='postcolor'> ill call up m iraqi friend and ask him to say it.<span id='postcolor'> I think History proves that sometimes, Diplomacy fails,and Force is neccessary to accomplish a task. I find it terribly sad, but quite true. I'm not saying Saddam is Hitler, though, the similarities HAVE been pointed out, but do you think Hitler could have been stopped from his plans for a Thousand Year Reich by Diplomacy? It may have been possible, but it's very hard to speculate now. Even Canada, who treasures peace and tends to despise war, has a history of sending its sons and daughters to wars it deemed neccessary (which is why I'm slightly frsutrated that Chretien has taken his 'U.N. or nothing' stance, but that's really my own personal view.)<span id='postcolor'> jus taht iraq is a war deemed not nesscary by the majorty of the world, why do u think the UN was against it, the UN worked but the US showed y it dosnt work by ignoreing it, they wont let it work unless its working for them. UN or nothing is the only way to go.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 28 2003,13:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (joltan @ Mar. 28 2003,05:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">~You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb the world to peace~<span id='postcolor'> Live under a murderous tyrannical dictator for your whole life, then try to say that.<span id='postcolor'> ill call up m iraqi friend and ask him to say it.

yea that ones been round a while its a goodin

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (762WorldOrder @ Mar. 27 2003,08:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">By far the most annoying part of OFP MP is that I can barely ever play it online anymore. Every goddamn server has it's own special missions that require new soldier units, new vehicles, textures, islands, whatever. Most of the time the servers don't even bother telling you what you need or where to get it, so I'm stuck. I can never play on pub servers anymore because of this, and I only know one other person who likes Flashpoint (my brother), so the LAN option is out. Clans take too much time and many are filled with immature morons who usually aren't very good at OFP anyway. Releasing Oxygen was a bad idea, and for exactly the reason Bohmeia initially declined to release it: TOO MANY ADDONS. Yes, it's cool to have units from every goddamn army on planet earth (even if the difference is nothing more than a shitty retexturing job with the appropriate army insignia), and more islands, vehicles and weapons are cool and all, but the flood is so overwhelming no one can possibly keep up with it, and as a result it has totally fragmented the multiplayer aspect of OFP. I go on All-Seeing Eye and see about 1500 Flashpoint servers, 95% of which have no one playing. Why? Because apparently no one else can be bothered to track down every stupid custom unit either.<span id='postcolor'> um 1500 hundred servers? i see only a few hundred.

3--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC Mongoose @ Mar. 27 2003,183)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The U.S. Coalition may be an invading force, but do they actually consider them the worse of two evils?<span id='postcolor'> the russians fought against the germans under stalin, o and the germans against the russians.

sum one plz pm me the logon stuff, im tired my brain isnt working, il2fb has been stealling large amounts of my worthless time....

well its easyer said than done, if u dont get both write u dont know if yr gettin the username write or wrong

I found the guy by accedent but cant crack the pw and user name plz pm me. Thats a very sneaky place to hide a link .

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 25 2003,11:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Mar. 24 2003,23:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir, One of my friends, who was adamantly against the war, changed his opinion once he saw the pictures of the POW's. just FYI<span id='postcolor'> As I said, I do believe that it gives more short term support. I personally don't know what was so shocking about the POW interviews. The seemed pretty much alive and in good shape so I don't see what people are complaining about. The dead soldiers on the other hand is a completely different story. It's devastating for morale to see 18 year old Joe Average from Montana with bullet wounds and torn limbs.<span id='postcolor'> not nice to see 18 year old iraqis dead to, my friend i know from iraq would be in its army now if he was there its compulsary, article in the paper of a women contacting relatives in baghdad to fine 2 of her relatives sons dead from cruse missle attacks, they were in the army.

il say install in windows and make a few "changes" and then try and run in linux