hund

Pussymode, eh? I guess that makes me the pussymeister, which is not at all a bad vocation! Tunnelview pertains to your field of view, not to any rigidity of the shoulders and neck region. Put a box on your head and look around; you are now looking around with tunnelview. :D

But still theres a shitload of testing and tweaking for pc's because of differing system specs and hardware issues. I think that more than makes up for the ground gained during initial development. Then again I know fuck-all about games development. :)

According to wikipedia, the combined sales for pc and wii make up four percent of the total, the rest being PS3 and Xbox 360. If that lovely little bit of stat is correct, why the hell go through all the trouble of making it for the pc and wii in the first place, is what I am thinking. I suppose every penny counts. Nope, we are not getting anywhere nearer a more innovative gaming industry as long as regurgitated sequels sell nine times what OFP sold (of the course of its lifespan) in one fucking day. My hopes lie with the indie companies... Speaking of which - an FPS without the S: http://defiantdev.com/warco/

So by that definition a simulation game is a very difficult game? http://www.addictinggames.com/action-games/theworldshardestgame.jsp Damn, that makes the above a simulation (of what, I don't know). ;D I guess you can call Arma a combined arms simulation without going too far, but I still don't get the importance of getting into fights over semantics time and time again? On topic, I don't give a hoot if people lose limbs and heads and small intestines. End result is we will all go "ooooh" for fifteen minutes and then ignore it forever after. Not worth the effort.

Yup, leave it to Ubisoft to put a damn cover system into a game about storming rooms...

Yes, hence why I compared it to an action movie, you see? :D As for hating the game, I am just being honest about what I think of the product, no hate is involved - although maybe a little bit of lament that they don't make games like I want them to anymore. I fully understand and do not judge people who do like BF3 and games like it, I just don't.

I played through the whole SP campaign and have played MP for about five hours. The campaign doesn't bother me at all, it may be be hollywoody, but all in all I enjoyed it much as I would enjoy an action flick, so no problem there. My problem is with MP mainly. Everything happens at 120 mph and there are no breaks whatsover. Of course you can wander off and take a break, the maps are large enough for that, but that is only to the detriment of your team as they have one less guy charging headlong into the fray in the hope of getting a few kills before he is cut down in a glorious hail of fire. Any judgement you make is largely based on reflex and instinct, and little planning goes into the fight. What teamwork there is happens kind of randomly, as in you cooperate with whoever is around and spawn on the guys in your squad. There are no front, no lefts or rights, just people milling around everywhere trying to get some. In the end I think it just me getting old and not being able to comprehend what the hell these kids get out of running, gunning and dying, repeat ad vomitum, round in and round out. I would be much happier if there was a little bit of thinking involved, rather than just acting. But judging by the sales numbers of these titles, it is what the kids want, and that is fine by me. It isn't so much that I paid to play this monstrosity, it is that I feel ashamed for finacially supporing the company that produced it. That said, they did make a spectacular game, technically speaking. The visuals, the audio and the core mechanics are spot on. I just think the gameplay stinks.

Well, I tried out BF3 now, and I have to say that I think it is utter shit. There is no cognitive thought process involved anywhere, just run-gun-die gameplay, rinse and repeat. What the hell happened to the gaming industry while I wasn't looking? Thank fucking god for Arma. :D

It gives you situational awareness because you can see, as opposed to feel, what is going on in the area around you, and you can see at exactly what your craft is doing, be it your average aircraft your own hot body. The viewcone does increase a little, but the effects are minimal as your say. Machineguns become a whole lot more effective in grassy environments, because they can use 3rd and tracers to somewhat effectively engage the enemy. You might be a special case Gustaffa, but for me 3rd person increases my awareness a lot, and with awareness comes mobility. That is probably the reason why I only like 3rd person for dudes, not for vehicles. Firstly, vehicles don't tend to have that many cool animations so theres little to look at. Secondly, the behaviour of vehicles with only first becomes a lot more realistic suddenly when they can't see in 3rd. ACE made a little addon that disables 3rd except for vehicles and that's exactly what I want, just completely the other way around! As long as you don't have a full pressure suit or a hydraulic cockpit to play around in, I fear that abstractions (3rd view among them) will have to make up for what you're missing. I was thinking about something Mr Serf said above; about 3rd having no place in a simulation game. It struck me that although we bought the same product, Mr Serf and I play two different games. He plays a "military simulation" and I play a "war game", so there is bound to be some friction of opinions on these matters. It's a testament to the versatility of Arma, I suppose. :)

While I haven't read the statements of the aforementioned helicopter pilot, my best guess would be that he felt that 3rd gives you a better sense or feeling for your craft, just as you would have in real life. So it's not only about being able to see your helicopter from behind, at least in the case of flying vehicles. I guess it comes down to one camp thinking that everything should look like it does in real life, at the cost of realism (because the platform is limited, and can't properly simulate real life consitions, so you end up simulating a slightly retarded person with a cardboard box on his head), and another camp that believes that you have to cut some corners to achieve realism through abstraction (3rd person is one of those abstractions, audio-visual suppression is another). I use 3rd whenever I can because I like looking at my cool little green dude as he does cool shit in the game. And although I couldn't give a toss about being realistic, some would argue that your situational awareness is closer to realistic values in 3rd person (looking around corners and above walls is another matter though). So call me a nooberito with training wheels if you must, I can live with that. I'd be rather pleased if they expanded upon the third person part of the game, since the current system is a bit bare-bones, but that is hardly going to happen.

Well gents, that looks mighty good! Malden always was my favorite.

Main character seems to be an SBS dude, which is kinda like a SEAL who speaks proper english :D . So I guess that is close enough.

Seriously, is this what we have been reduced to? At least you guys do make a few pretend arguments before you start flinging poo all over the place. :D

Wasn't the armoury meant as a way to ease new players into the game? I put my 7 year-old nephew in front of the game some time back, and showed him how to move around and get a new armoury mission and so on. The little noobster picked it up fairly fast, and that was his first FPS.

Very nice! Replacement config: http://pastebin.com/gXnRLESC Prolly not perfect, but who is?

I've seen suppression that worked in VBS, or at least I've convinced myself that was what the whole blinky effect was for, so it should be doable within the engine. However all the fan-based systems I've tried haven't really been able to do a proper job of it, so I am hoping that BIS might this time around. It is very important, y'know? :D

I'd like to be able to properly suppress the AI (and in turn be properly suppressed myself). There ain't much fire-and-movement gameplay when one half of the cornerstone of modern warfare tactics is woefully underdone. In fact, it feels more like aggro-and-movement tactics to me: You don't shoot so they'll keep their heads down, you shoot so they'll focus on you and not the poor sod legging it across open ground.

Now that we are talking mission design, and what we don't like. I am kinda with Mr. Wiggum, at least half the way. I like what others in this community would call easy missions, because overall the risk of you getting shot, maimed or blowed the hell up are small, if you don't make any mistakes. However, I'd like to see the mission outcome dictated by different parameters than simply using the pyrrhic approach that seems prevailant. Losing you own men is justv as bad as killing the enemy is good. There are more considerations than just doing your job, no matter the cost. Mission makers tend to make their creations more challenging by setting up these crazy scenarios that I wouldn't have gone near with a ten-foot pole when I was a soldier. To me, the mission outcome should be determined by the use of tactics, objective completion, casualty prevention, timing, casualty infliction and similar topics. Taking the hill with your platoon, but being the only guy left standing at the end of it, should not be be called a victory. And please don't tell me to go play something else - it is such a poor man's argument. :D EDIT: I like the victory system they have in the oterwise rather bland Combat Mission series. It uses several parameters to give you an outcome. http://lh4.ggpht.com/-V4p0oI34A1U/Tenwn7b_rdI/AAAAAAAAAmE/j6aPYCV08Dk/CM%252520Shock%252520Force%2525202011-06-04%25252010-16-05-14%25255B5%25255D.jpg

A wise man right there, with wise words to share. At the end of the day we are talking about a game here, and how people think it should be played. It is not the end all, be all of the world, so why don't you guys take it down a notch and agree to disagree? Or even better, put forth some valid arguments instead of insulting each other? It is very disparaging how partisan the gaming world has become, and nowadays it is not the MMO crowd vs the shooter crowd, but the shooter crowd versus itself. Everyone is convinced that everyone else is in his early teens - it just gets silly after a while. EDIT: Or just listen to the moderator who just ninja'd me... :D

I think it is mildly amusing that everyone is recommending other games. There's no reason why you can't have immediate action gameplay using the arma engine, if that is what you want. The question really is whether such gameplay should come out of the box, and I think most people around here don't think that's a good idea. A "action arma" mod wouldn't be a half bad idea, actually. I can't say that I've ever seen such a thing done before. Hells, I'd play it, if only to get a moment of peace from the anal retentive milsim enthusiasts! :D

Neither option works?

I hope that dude turns out to be right, because I've had my fill of the grandiose graphics and shockingly bad gameplay that pervades the industry nowadays. Give us back the right to choose and to act within the game, and leave the movie making to the movie makers.

Mr. Bullet, I suspect the reason why BIS puts in so much sneaking (I'd call it manouvering, but any word will do) is to be realistic, and I think most of the people prefer a bit of manouvering before getting into the sharp end of business. However, I do see you point that anything can be overdone, and sometimes it is nice to just get straight into it. I don't think it is something BIS should be overly involved in, as community mission makers can cater for that specific niche of gaming. As I remember it, the BIS quick mission templates put you straight (or as near as can be) into the action. One of the things that keep BIS in business is their ability of differentiate themselves from the "mainstream" military shooters such as the games you mentioned above. And while those games are in themselves very fun to play, BIS would be hard-pressed to match the same blockbuster feeling that pervades the mainstream genre using the real virtuality engine, and with a fraction of the money and manpower that EA or DICE can bring to bear. They play to their strengths, and in doing so they make a different kind of war game instead of another mainstream clone.

The folder structure should be like this: @mymod folder -- addons folder ---- pbo files I've never used a steam version of arma, so I can't help ya there, sorry.

If I need to change a units side in a mission, I do one of two things: A) put down a dude from the appropriate side and group him with my PLA, make sure he is a colonel and that his probability of presence is 0%. Voila, instant side change for that group. B) Go into your mission.sqm, find the units in question and manually change the side there (WEST becomes GUER, etc). Bear in mind that you can not open up the units dialog for that unit after doing this, as it will revert the unit back to the nearest normal unit of that side (ie a blufor rifleman). Hope it helps.