Second

Suppression meter could be taken off, made game much more interesting and demanded situational awareness But true. Basically it's chess game (while maps are puzzle-like). It likes to keep player in control of situation, with reactive enemies. But i really like how battles plays out. Lots of powder burned without much results if no opening moves are made.

Hmmm... Nice ghoul. Â Now i'm wondering can i turn into super mutie, they talked about dipping someone in those FEV-virus tanks once when i was visiting in vault where there was "traces" of FEV experimenting. Sadly due plot related reasons i never had change to search more carefully. I once did it in Fallout, but sadly game ended there. So no 'me cusha yo skull wit ma biiig fist'-experience for me.

It's not about opening fire but that they kept steadily walking at spotted enemy. If in 'aware' behaviour mode they should start to use bounding overwatch as combat behaviour .FSM just kicked in (because of spotted enemies). Well maybe BIS has changed something in 1.14. Haven't much played it.

No effect as far as i can tell. Their combat behaviour .FSM overwrites almost anything. And that is one of the problem. Their hiding methods are broken, they speed is defined by .FSM, their overall behaviour is defined by .FSM. Overall they are slaves of that .FSM, and i'd say it's not optimal solution mostly because ti breaks their will to seek cover and remain cover. Which is still one of best parts of OFP's AI (and as far as i can tell broken in ArmA, if 1.14 didn't finally change it). I triggered them to seek cover after certain casuality rate in almost every mission, after that they would move only when they don't see enemy. SLX used that to create (somekind) platoon's internal bounding overwatch behaviour. I dont' understad enough .FSM language to say how the combat .FSM actually works when it comes to small details. The logic how it works is clear to me (you rush i cover, and so on). But i can't tell for example what all affect to speed of manuver (enemy, amount of cover etc), there might be small things which are affected by waypoint-speed, combatmode and so on. Your RAC SF guys probably didn't see the enemy or something else very-very uncommon happened (sure it's possible)... I've never seen anything like that to happen and i've messed with AI quite a deal, to understand how it works and then to be able to mod it. If they are not in stealth or careless and they see enemy they go to combat behaviour and starts their bounding overwatch thingie. If they are at stealth they start to mostly crawl (which makes it uber-combat behaviour!.

Example from Crysis: I was engaging enemy from behind wall, which was next to deep canyon. Basically i would have been screwed in reality as i had no space to move. Enemy could have just surrounded me (=fix me) and let time do the rest or heavy support assets like choppers. Now they did not understand this so they tried to advance at me across corn field, to where i chewed them by pop-up attacks. Now this may would have worked well if they would have been in offense and there fore be forced to act like it, but it was me who was attacker and they were defending their base. I was alone and they had whole island under their command. This is basic example from almost every "open" shooter. Only games i can think as exeption to this are those which are happening in very narrow corridors and/or having very carefully planned situations and missions. Like Brother in Arms (which mission design shows that Gearbox's military advisor had his hand on works and nor just PR-trick)... Or some mission's in Vietcong, in them it's the mission design which defines very strongly what AI will/should do. ArmA won't make into list as most missions used default AI, which was not tweaked according situation. This is one reason why i nowdays dont' see corridor as bad way to develop shooter. They atleast can present "wisely" behaving AI in small unit and situational awareness level, however that is not real AI, but mission design. It would be nice to to able to see more wisely adaptive AI the currently. So my conclusion si that nowdays AI has proper level of individual AI when it comes to use of leans and such techniques as their advantage. Now main thing to focus would be to handle small unit tactics and situational awarness. Games ofcourse have somekind small unit tactical bahaviour coded, but problem is that they are not "creative" they don't analyse terrain or their task or what is best to do to win the situation. They do what coder (or misison designer) says them to do. Here's 2 examples: -passive/reactive AI of Brothers in Arms (expacely Earned in Blood, first BiA was much worse in this), where they usually reacted to flanking enemy (note the word usually, there were situations where player was on reacting side -> Player was defending). As to my mind mission design and campaign's mission is at so good level, it doesnt' bother much (it's usually player who has to keep on pressing forward while enemy is on defence), but basic problem remains: AI can't take control of situation when it is downright creamed at it's face. -Farcry and Crysis in my mind are another thing. AI acts quite actively trying to close-in spotted player and take him out (usually offering just good shooting range experience to player). On some ocations this works, but in other it doesn't. ArmA falls into this class, altough it can be scripted away form this behaciour to some degree... Then again what we are left is maybe even more helpless AI. Thoughts? This popped into my head to me just recently, so i might have some mistakes. I just think that AI-discussion should be made, set some sort common ground for ArmA/OFP-community's talk of AI.

Battlezone in wider sense and happening in ocean. Basically player is carrier commander, which holds allkinds stuff like firghterjets, waterjets and stuff, send those vehicles to missions and can pilot one at the time if wishing. Original game was pretty much just ocean stuff. I dont' know what year was it release year, but very-very early 3d game. Vectors and stuff. Was neat game, even when i was too young to understand it so that it would have sucked me into it. My goofings with the game remained quite short But hey i remember it, unlike most games from those days! That is something... However i really don't even remember was in Commodore 64 (most likely) or Amiga 500 (not likely) game.

Alternative is OFP. I've personally played during this year more OFP than ArmA. With ArmA maybe about 10-20 hours, with OFP atleast twice as much (easily triple or more)... And i'd say quality of time was atleast 1.5 times higher with OFP. Yes, both have been heavily modded. It's nuts as ArmA is superiour to OFP in most technical detail. But that is plain and simple truth when it comes to me: OFP - is - better - game. OFP's HUGE pros -Terrain detail at high or very high -Better feeling and control over character, it's just more fluid Maybe it's these two which counts so much. Ultimately i don't know, and i've been rubbing my head with this quite much.

Might be. It's 100% german, like quest desriptions, so i didn't get much wiser when trying it. And also seems to happen in cultural hole called Cyrodill. Which is major problem to me as Cyrodill sadly is corporative mainstream BS fantasyworld. In this Morrowind remains light years ahead of Oblivion. Bethesda managed to produce such fantasy world that it's and remains unique. I'm not only one saying that when Bethesda corrected mistakes made in Morrowind, like combat and AI, it sadly made mistakes which it managed to evade in Morrowind, mostly dungeon design, world/culture in general. And besides Bethesda did one bad thing: Cyrodill really should have been in middle of a jungle when reading all the books discussing Tamriels geology and regions (and in ESII: Arena) So there. Elitis bastard has spoken offtopic (not to be taken too seriously)

And capitalists r stuuuupiiiddd and igggnoraant

Why after, why 18 days, I don't get it Discounting the hardcore milsim boys, OFP2 will blow ArmA2 out of the water on marketing budget alone. So I'd say release well before, to not lose all sales on the general public. I agree. Either well before OFP2 or then few months after OFP2. Releasing two games to closely together has "killed" another games before, and that another game usually has less PR. But in face of general mainstream players OFP2 ain't ArmA2's only challenger. Basically whole fps front is. So if there is going to be COD5 or something else, i'm sure i takes quite big chunk of sales away from ArmA2. SiC-Disaster: Arma to was released hastly in eastern Europe so that BIS would get more funding (=time) to iron bugs out from ArmA more. So i'd say VBS sales dont' affect much anything, and i believe it has been said too by BIS staff (however i'm not sure, classically). I dont' understand why it would be like this, as it's their engine! BIA can't keep all the money while using BIS's engine! That would be like... wrong. Wouldn't it?

Has to admit that Bethesda is studio which i keep in highest rank of Game devs. I have to buy Fallout 3... Just have to. Hopefully they get same feeling to it which was in Morrowind. God i loved that world and it's rich culture! My dream computer-RPG still is pretty much Morrowind's world put into Oblivion's engine

Why should nuke be blown to train what to do under NBC-attack? Individual soldier can't do much anything else that wear protective gear he has been given and have basic understanding of nuclear weapon's effects. You don'' get shelled by real 155mm barrage when training what to do when shells are landing into you positions... You simulate it at best.

Yeah. Having military exercises should not scare either. It just shows readiness and will to use force (nuclear in this case) if facing threat, to owns and to enemy. Sure in China's or Russia's case it probably would just throw world into new nuclear race because they (China, Russia) might have their own nuclear exercise as response and so on...

There are other opponents. China is potential opponent, Iran is potential opponent, Russia is potential opponent for US. Indeed terrorists are opponents now, but that could change in coming years. Like Sophion-Black said:

Why is my post invisible? I write intelligent and brilliant post which takes half an hour, and it's not there.  I see that i'm last poster, but - i - don't - see - the - #%@$€ - post Huston. I believe we have a problem. EDIT: Ahh now i see it. And i'm filthy triple poster, it seems. Spit on me Â

I don't see reason why blowing something nuclear up would be any different from calling military exercises in face of conflict. Or in world of peacekeeping they use live-fire exercises to demonstrate readiness and willingness to use power if needed. It's called showing power. It has relative big part of evading conflicts/problems... Well wars are hard to prevent due their nature (or atleast it requires more "than last minute's lets have a drill"-power showing). Forexample peacekeepers have had positive results from burning some powder to pop-up targets, violations gets smaller and even ceases completely. Ofcouse nuclear weapons is bit different thing... It might make situation teeny weeny worse than it was at first . But one has to keep in mind that US keeps and has kept nuclear weapons as option and in quite "liberal" fashion infact... i believe OFP's CWC campaign would have resulted to use of (tactical) nuclear weapons when US got kicked to ass quite badly as start. Also even that Cuba was rogue actor with his Scud, but i believe Soviet general would have had same option as well.

PVP (If i go to MP i wish my opponents to be as smart or smarter than me) ... However i believe my kind PVP gameplay has died. There is not "if you die you dont' respawn untill mission is restarted"-type games to be played. ... Then again my kind COOP has died as well from atleast public servers (same death/respawn rule applies to that). So PVP remains my favorite type of game

I infact believe this was already in OFP too. The idea is that when you slaughter enough enemies in some location you might see some absurd things like tanks coming across mountains from directions where they should not because they try to evade that location. I think it does demand Guard-waypoint for unit, otherwise they are slaves of their waypoints. However i'm not sure.

I'd say it more like Boiling Point game  Indeed. I haven't played it but remember review about it. They said that firefights are absolutely golden aspect of it, sadly everything else was still at beta stage. Well lets see what my favorite reviewer has to say about FC2.

I don't see severe problems with Crysis's AI. it's main drawback is blindness which starts from several hunderds of meters. From that distance they can't pinpoint players location anymore even if he fires fixed MG (just hour ago i was in that situation). It's bit like in OFP/ArmA. And like in OFP/ArmA should be correctable with one tweak... Or then not, as i'm not 100% sure. Then again i've had "fun" with Crysis snipers, which are killer spotters. However i believe fps AI has met new requirements now as indivudual AI has reached quite much what we could expect, they use lean and such... Basically use things as their advantage as average gamer would. I shall post new topic conserning it.

Starts to sound bit of a Stalker kind game, which was supposed to have tons of good features and such, but ends up to be medicore or even poor on most aspects.

True it's not sand box in the wideness ArmA/OFP has. Crysis is focused in combat and sneaking in it's own unique (nanosuit) set while modelling it pretty completely. ArmA presents all in bigger sense, but doesn't go to such deep details. Also we can discuss is neither of them a true 'sandbox game' (if comparing to something like GTA or Oblivion). Crysis offers far more detailed terrain. Natrually because of this it can't hadle same kind generic xxx square kilometer landscape as in ArmA can be seen. But then again like in several other games, you find the wholeness in microlevel. You talking about AI activating just near player is just plot related design NOT game mechanic related (see my earlier posts). Same infact happens pretty alot in OFP aswell Because scripted mission and plot is much more story-like and immersive (epic) than dynamic missions. Limiting players move is also plot related. In Arma/OFP we had this as radio message in several mission. If player ignored then it was game over. I dont' know which would be reasonable map size in Crysis. It's combined arms mission offered quite alto of area. I don't know how much but enough to cover usuall ArmA/OFP mission (if not long marches related, or very big mission). EDIT: I agree with Red Kite quite complitely. I didn't mean that Crysis is great game, but it's engine sure turns me on. Hugging ground as trees and bushes are falling from smallarms fire, grenades and sh*t. All-out assaults in jungle. Defence and delay. Recon and sneak. All scifi taken out... Sadly all this spoiled and missed after good promising start.

I dont' know what you've been inhaling but it gotta be strong stuff. Â I personally think that Crysis has best sand-box currently. It's both detailed and serves quite wide landscape.

What basis for comparison are you using? Standarts of OFP era. Look what OFP was and compare it to ArmA. Then take early MOH and compare it to later two MOHs. This is raw sample and should not be taken too seriously, but OFP is far superiour to early MOH, however when comparing ArmA to later MOH i would think that everyone sees the difference... Or then there is difference in point of views (which i think there is). Specification of my point of view: And more specifically AI (as combatant) and overall realism, which includes weapons, combat, immersion in realism sense etc. Gameplay also in some degrees, altough gameplay has been pretty good since days of doom/quake. This things i speak now on as a gaming mechanics. However: In what they have not advanced is the corridors, this sadly remains as chosen standart of business, it's easier to deliver imervise story and events when player can't break them. But it's more plot related really than gaming mechanics (the thing i'm talking about), i'm quite sure that COD4 for example could have been made more dynamic and stuff but dev-team desided otherwise. Yeah. Half-life has good plot and was classic (was better than part 2). But it doesn't set the overall level of industry, i9t just sets pole higher for great games. And besides success of Half-life (it reached status of classic) is more about classical things like plot and place of happening, and not things in gaming mechanics (altough they were advanced at that time, for realism shooter anyways). Plot is something which is thousands of years old, you can't expect great leaps in there. Sometimes someone just hits the homerun. You could also complain that plots haven't improved in movies, books, poems etc in any given decade, century etc. Battlefield, Vietcong and such have set already pole higher from OFP days in gaming mechnics sense, and it just keeps on rising. COD4 for example didn't get great scores in press for nothing, altought it's trendish to bash it. Again gaming mechanics is set and sound, altough it happens in heavily scripted corridor. Granted i felt letdown by it's plot, that is main reason why i didn't buy it (10 € for campaign's hour is bit too much for me). what we have left... Ghost recon is one, some say it has descended when GRAW came out. I don't know. What changed in GRAW again was more plot related. It became more about corridor and less abotu creative thinking. This again is not gaming mechanic related. GRAW delivered much greater/complete/immersive gaming mechanics. I believe you mostly are thinking about corridor (plot related things) and i'm more about gaming mechanics. I just happen to like more about combat in games and usually when reaching for realistic combat action we are limited in certain kind of corridor... Altough usually games tends to make it too narrow.

Stryder: I think he spoke more general about fps-genre (i could be wrong thou)... Yet still he talks BS. Everything is improving. And like i've been saying all along, ArmA will have to compete much more than OFP did (same goes for OFP2). Your mainstream fps-standarts have risen alot, i'd say it's most advacing and improving genre of games. Has been for years. What makes ArmA somewhat unigue is huge enviroment, and in general fps-standarts you could say that it's also ArmA's (OFP2's as well) main weak point. demanding too much resources which could be directed else where, or make objects in world work more complex ways: AI handling enviroment is sub-par in ArmA. We'll see what are overall standarts of fps-games and what ArmA2 and OFP2 reaches at their time of release (and reviewers will tell it to us, with their trained eye). Yes, i've seen one video of ArmA2 in which AI seems to reach some year 2003 standarts (They do finally LEAN!!! OMG!!1!!omgomg!!!11!!1!!11!1)... Don 't color me impressed just yet.  Lets see do they also finally understand that building offers more cover than bush  Ps. This turned more into ArmA/ArmA2, but it's really ment for both. OFP2 in my sight will at it's best have same basic weknesses than ArmA2 has. PPs. What i really like in ArmA and also OFP2 (as it seems) is ability to use mission editor (which in ArmA's case is easy to use). There's games which offers bad/bugged/MP-only mission editors (and alot of those which doesn't present anything). I dont' know if any reaches same easiness of use then ArmA has. I created my first enjoyable simple 20 minutes of pure combat mission in about 8 hours, i havent' faces as easy mission editor in even computer wargames. Right now this is pretty much ONLY feature i'd like to take from ArmA to my "dream game". EDIT: Oh and Baphoment seemed to post before me.