Maddmatt

Says who? What bullshit. Whether a game is good or not is opinion. No matter how much you come here to preach how awesome it is you're not going to make a person like it. The first COD was awesome. Now it's just rehashed big-budget crap made to milk the name.

So I'm not the only one. I was wondering why I remembered them fondly while the newer ones just didn't have the same effect... Mainstream games just get dumber and dumber. Even though they can have an age restriction of 18 they are designed with ADD children in mind. Although the first two COD games didn't have much realism, they weren't so ridiculous either. The first COD was so much fun to play through, it's still the best in the series. Well there's still some good games on the way. Hope isn't lost yet :)

Well of course it would be ridiculous to try making a game like ArmA in that engine. But it sure is possible to make a game with a good level of realism on a smaller scale. Some examples are given above. I downloaded the kit myself. Need to learn how to use it though :o Comes with some good example stuff, including the UT3 demo content. It has some limitations. No dedicated servers, and no mid-level load/save features. I don't know if it's possible for these to be added in somehow. Maybe a dedicated server is possible by making a modified version of the game and somehow disabling the 3D graphics so it doesn't require a graphics card. Save/load, maybe can be done with the scripting engine? Need to remember that you can't touch the source code, so some limitations you'll be stuck with.

So some people blame all the hate on the "fact" that we're expecting a mil-sim here? Rubbish. COD1 and 2 were good games for the time, giving something fresh and I enjoyed them very much. Now it's just gone downhill. 100$NZ for 6 hours or so of entertainment that basically involves the same repetitive crap as MW1? No thanks. Shoot several enemies, hide to heal, repeat. Is it just me or the way the levels were in the first two COD games made them more fun and interesting? They just didn't feel as ridiculous as they do in MW. Maybe because the action was broken up a bit more and they were based on reality. I admit the spec-ops mode sounds fun. If you have a good friend to play that through with then it could be worthwhile. But the SP just isn't worth it and it wasn't in MW1 either.

Sounds like the SP is fun, and that's the only reason I'd get it. But it's not worth the price. Maybe when it's cheap someday, although I'm still waiting for World at War to be cheap. I don't get all the fuss over shooting civilians. I've had fun shooting them in all the GTA games. I can only laugh at people that are happy to play a game about shooting people then suddenly get all upset if they are civilians. Anyway, you're apparently playing undercover and trying to infiltrate the terrorists at that stage. And you don't even have to shoot them.You can skip that level entirely, the game gives you a choice. So if you have a problem with it, nobody cares.

Ok, looks like the difference it would make is bigger than I thought :o

Great news. To be honest though, I see no point in making two versions. I don't think CWR will lose anything by taking the more realistic approach of ArmA 2 and making the weapons like the Carl Gustov work like the real ones. I feel that it is a waste of time and effort to bring back the oddities of the original OFP. The difference in gameplay is not enough to break missions or bring a major change to balance. And I think just about everybody will go for "CWR Pro" if you make two versions. Anyway, I'm looking forward to it. Especially the Resistance campaign :)

Only way to play is to get a new graphics card. But if the rest of your PC is just as dated then you probably need a new one.

I never even considered that Rage would have MP. It only looks interesting to me for the potentially awesome SP. I don't see it bringing anything special for MP.

That is very possible. But then with the relatively small extra effort to release a PC version and get some guaranteed extra cash it would be foolish of them. But they wouldn't be the first.

I'm not saying you have to mod. Just saying it's rude to go out and say the mod "sucked" so publicly when it's something that was given for free and nobody got paid to work on it. People only have so much free time and motivation to work on these things. Having their work trashed sure doesn't help with the motivation. Anyway, it's not like CRW development has stopped. Bringing back an old game to a new engine and bringing it up to modern standards is a lot of work, especially with an investment of $0.

Pretty damn low to insult people who work in their free time and provide you with free content. Mod teams are also made up of people with full time jobs and study, so you excuse of "I have a job" is a load of crap. It's more like "I want free shit but I don't care to respect the people who give it to me". People don't get paid to mod. If everyone had you attitude nobody would want to mod. After all, who wants to spend their free time trying to satisfy some selfish *******.

Slug rounds, and clearly shown as such if I remember correctly. Buck shot would be useless in this game anyway due to short range and ineffectiveness against body armour. ACE mod for ArmA 1 had buckshot, so I guess you can expect the same in ACE2. Done via scripting of course.

Rubbish, people overestimate the graphics settings they can play on. I played ArmA 2 on a PC that only just met the minimum specs. ArmA 2 can play on medium to high on a PC that meets the reccomended specs, judging by other people's feedback. I've even played games on rigs below their minimum specs, GTA4 became perfectly playable on my old rig after a couple of patches, despite it not meeting the requirements ;) Those requirements are worked out after heavy testing with all but the most incompetent developers. Anyway, I would be surprised if the game didn't look as good as that video on a PC that meets those recommended specs. Besides some fancy shader effects and lighting it doesn't look all that demanding. Maybe the environment has plenty of destructibility or something . It's hard to see what requires so much CPU power.

Good point. But I thought that would be obvious. Would actually be useful if it made the choppers land though...

I didn't look for that. Probably still there though. I think it's just a limitation of the way the game handles shadows. Yes well you have an Nvidia card. For some reason ArmA 2 just kills ATI cards when it comes to AA. 125% 3D res gives just a little bit less of an FPS hit than low AA + transparency AA on multisampling. So even though my card is supposed to be way more powerful than your 8800, I can't get decent performance with anything more than low AA. Maybe I could disable transparency AA but then it just looks terrible and I'd rather use 3D res at 125%. I guess it's not a major complaint. The game still looks and runs great, but I do wish I could use proper AA just to have it look and run a bit better.

Looking at the video, it's hard to see why the recommended specs are so high. It still looks good though. But it's in space and the environment isn't exactly massive and detailed, or at least doesn't seem that way in the video. Anyway, those specs will probably be standard in a few months. At this stage they ought to be using DX11 though.

The view over the ocean during the opening menu cutscene is perfectly smooth again. Still find it strange how 2xAA is more demanding than setting my 3D resolution to 125%, even though turning up the 3D res does a much better job at making vegetation look better. I guess turning off transparency AA would change that, but it mostly defeats the point as vegetation, especially grass, will look bad. ATI HD4870 1GB. Is transparency AA really so bad that increasing the resolution is more efficient? :( This is with transparency AA on "multi-sampling". I guess I can forget about super-sampling because that would surely be worse. So due to the strange performance hit of AA I disable it and use 125% 3D res instead. But for non-transparent edges it doesn't look quite as good.

Razor team faces are tied to their specific model, whereas most units use a standard head model which can be assigned a random/chosen face texture. So the answer is no, unless you make your own addon and map Razor teams' faces to them.

I believe that all changed after he played the game and realised it wasn't what he had hoped for. Disappointed just like many of us.

That would not solve the problem. The soldiers would still be visible if you weren't zoomed in enough to display the grass. Grass in scope is more of a visual issue, while this grass layer system addresses a gameplay issue.

I believe they're about 25% faster than real life. Varies of course since not everyone runs at the same speed. At least I have a vague memory of a develper saying that. If you have a look at how fast they run you can see it. I think the 5 times was just an exaggeration. I don't get why people exaggerate things like that though....

It's not about "minimum effort". It's about focusing that effort on where the money is, which is the consoles when it comes to arcade action games.

Sure rapidshare is great for the uploaders. It's the ones that have to download from that horrible site that suffer. Do they still make downloaders sit through that countdown? And I just don't get the logic of uploading to a site that expects downloaders to pay for decent speeds and service when there are other sites that do that for free. I understand filehosting has costs for the owners but when there are people that provide it for free without being annoying like rapidshare, we may as well take advantage of it :)