Maddmatt

That's sheer ignorance. Nobody was whining for bunny hopping. Nothing wrong with the animations themselves. It's the animation system and its inability to transition between certain animations. Animation systems directly affect gameplay. Render-to-texture doesn't affect it as drastically but realistic 3D scopes, mirrors, and working monitors in vehicles provide a major boost to immersion.

Being able to hide behind a wall, and using a 3rd person view to magically see around the corner without exposing yourself, is not realistic at all.

They're not feasible for most people. Expensive to build, maintain, and re-fuel. And they would be nothing like the ones in the movies. Not to mention the danger. You can barely trust people with normal cars. An engine problem no longer just means being stranded, it mean crashing to the ground and dying in a great ball of fire. Possibly killing people on the ground or in a building you hit.

With ArmA 3 having a much larger number of vehicles than TOH, I don't think it's fair to expect the same level of fidelity in both. It wouldn't make sense to spend time making full-sim helicopters, while planes, tanks, cars and boats are simple. Consistency is important in a well designed game. Each vehicle type should receive a similar amount of attention. Helicopters in BIS games are not the only vehicle type that could use more realism.

And now I just got an email from Epic games, they have been hit too.

They made OFP for Xbox years ago. *facepalm*

Well it took them two tries. Not that I'm complaining, hope it encourages more games to add some actual depth to the gameplay.

They ran it on PC because that was how they chose to demonstrate it. So what? How does that disprove what I said? I'm talking about how game developers develop multi-platform games. If you think you know better then how about you explain how game development works? WTF has that got to do with a game being a port or not? Or are you just trolling for fun? People throw around the word "port" without knowing what it means. Porting is covering a game to another platform AFTER is has been made for the original platform(s).

That's just the crap they talk to appease fans. In reality most multi-platform games are developed for all platforms at once. There is no "porting". The development tools scale down textures and models for the console versions, and certain things are made separately (like adding graphics options to the PC version).

I enjoyed ME2, but I think it was way overrated. I guess it was because I was hoping for something closer to Deus Ex. Great story and cinematic feel, but the combat gameplay is little more than every other 3rd person cover-system-based shooter with gimmicks and less convincing combat. Go into a room, trigger a group of enemies to appear nearby. Repeat 10 times until level is over so you can go back to long-winded conversations and walking around uninteresting levels where people do nothing but stand around until you talk to them.

That's a problem caused by playing with random strangers on the internet. What do you expect the game to do? Flash a giant "FRIENDLY" sign above your tank? If people are going to be morons, you can't do much about it without holding their hands.

That's a good point. Scaling for consoles is possible but maybe not worth the effort for this game. They would need to use a DX9 renderer, reduce the detail of everything, reduce the complexity of missions, viewdistance ect. In fact if you look at Carrier Command, it looks a lot easier to scale to consoles. The viewdistance is nowhere near ArmA 3, the map is less complex (no cities or anything too complex shown in previews). Linda is a tool for modelling vegetation, not an engine. It can be used to create models for any engine, even CGI renders and movies...

I don't see a huge benefit with GPU accelerated physics anyway. Because then the GPU has less processing power to spend on graphics. So it's really a case of which component you want to put the strain on. I think PhysX was intentionality (or due to poor programming) made to perform poorly when run on the CPU, because Havok and others apparently are more efficient. Hopefully that has been addressed, BangTail's post indicates it has. Personally I tend to go for AMD hardware because of value for money. Don't care for Nvidia's GPU PhysX, it has only been used as a gimmick and will stay that way as developers wont waste too much time on a feature that only benefits a tiny portion of their customers. They want gameplay to be the same for all customers after all.

I remember ages ago, I think it was Suma that said it's an entirely new engine but it will use some techniques from RV. ArmA 3 is an updated RV engine. It makes me wonder why they are different engines, they're both similar types of games in terms of game mechanics and what the engine needs to do. Maybe the engines share large amounts of code, but do certain things like terrain rendering differently. It will be interesting to see how this works.

Just saw the trailer. Looking forward to this game, it looks awesome :) I wonder how much tech this and ArmA 3 share?

Wow, didn't know that :cool: Ok forgive me, just prey that whoever got their hands on the BIA franchise stays the hell away from Assassins Creed...

That trailer was removed. Found another here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBtsSJKlMJk If the game has hand-to-hand combat like that I'll be impressed, but I doubt it.

The E3 gameplay video for AC Revelations had Ezio destroying ships with a mounted flamethrower. It's probably better that the company dies before it ruins that series in the same way :butbut:

That got a real LOL from me, brilliant :D

My list: Deus Ex ArmA 3 Deus Ex Deus Ex Oh and did I mention Deus Ex :D Yes I want it that bad.

The comments here made me expect more dumbed down crap, so I though I knew what I was going to see in the video. But holy shit it actually surprised me. Ubisoft must be run by the biggest morons in the industry :butbut: This company has to die before they take human evolution backwards.

I'll admit this has impressed me. If it's not just a lame 6 hour MP I might get it, looks fun. For multiplayer, I'd rather play ArmA 3. Call of Duty on the other hand, well that turned into a joke a long time ago. Which is sad since the first two were pretty good for the time. Oh well, for that I blame humanity which seems to prefer mindless crap.

So agree with that. While graphics have moved forwards, sound went backwards :( Some games have decent software sound engines, but mostly they just suck.

Agreed, Blood Money was pretty damn accessible and pretty easy on the lower difficulty settings. You could just gun down everyone easily. They must be designing it with retards in mind this time :butbut: Well hopefully they don't sacrifice anything on the higher settings. I'll keep an eye on it but anyone who implies Blood Money was't accessible has me concerned, there was nothing complicated about that game.

That's the thing, they don't give problems and "just work" for virtually everyone. Creative's stuff on the other hand can be a pain. Creative killed hardware sound with greed and stupidity. Hope they come to their senses this time