xawery

I think your impression can be attributed to your oft-displayed unwillingness to actually read what is being written. I believe that the whole discussion about the resemblence between your "burn Gaza to the ground" quote and Nazi-tactics has proven that quite nicely... I would be really, REALLY impressed if you would manage to produce a single quote from these forums which condones Hezbollah's actions. You won't. No one approves of terrorism here. Allow me to explain it in your terms: Hezbollah killing civilians = wrong Hamas killing civilians = wrong IDF killing civilans = wrong The salient difference lies in the fact that Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorist organisations fed by hate and religious fanaticism, while the IDF is the military arm of a modern, democratic state. We are repeteadly being told that terrorists are the scum of the earth, while Isreal is portrayed as a civilised, morally superior state simply defending itself. In the mean time, Israel continues to perform "surgical strikes" and "eliminations" which inevitably result in civilian casualties. These casualties are consequently bagatellised with such hollow phrases as "the terrorists shouldn't have been driving through a busy street", "war is hell", "collateral damage" etc. etc., and then it's back to normal. Time for another strike, knowing that firing missiles into a busy street WILL get civilians killed. To make matters worse, these are not the actions of a fanatical terrorist cell or desperate people who lost their relatives. No, this is institutionalised violence. These actions have the support of military commanders, the government, and apparently the people who put these politician in power. Otherwise they would not take place. Can you see now that it is very hard to approve of Israel's actions, let alone believe that it has the moral high ground? Your most likely response to this post will be something along the lines of "should we do nothing then?". Allow me to launch a pre-emptive reply: no. Most certainly not. There is a lot to be done, but lowering yourself to the terrorists' standards is not going to get you anywhere. If the aggressive methods employed by Israel were truly effective, don't you think that the Al-Aqsa brigades and Hamas would be crushed by now? Just to make things perfectly clear for you: I am not accusing Isreal of being the sole bad guy in this conflict. In my opinion, the surrounding countries and the palestinian terrorists are at least as responsible for this mess. The difference is, Isreal is a modern, democratic state, and should be held to higher standards accordingly.

It appears that Romano Prodi has relayed a cease-fire proposal from Israel to the Lebanese government. The Isrealis have offered to cease all hostilities, in return for the kidnapped soldiers and the withdrawal of Hezbollah fighters behind the Litani river. The Lebanese minister of information has confirmed this. I wonder why people expect that Hezbollah will be willing to release the kidnapped soldiers, if it wasn't before. I fear that if anything, the Israeli attacks will only fuel Hezbollah's hatred and determination...

Well, it has finally gotten dark around here. Time to fire up OFP and play The Forest THE FOLLOWING TEXT MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS! Excellent, excellent work Mandoble. Truly outstanding! The atmosphere that you have managed to create is fantastic. And those creaters... Black wraiths gliding over the ground, followed by an entourage of colourful lights... Strange beasts lurking in the shadows, ready to drag you away... And those sounds! Great stuff. Still, I think voiceovers wouldn't be a bad idea, especially if they would substitute the subtitles. The Forest is a very dark mission (literally, I mean), and those bright white subtitles really make it difficult for the eyes to adapt to that darkness. But that's just an afterthought, the mission is extremely enjoyable as is! Oh, and about that fountain: I've played the WGL version, and all you need to do is 'clip' through the outer edge of the fountain. This will bring up the 'drink' option. Regards, X.

Hi Mandoble, I used the "ghost/zombie/monsters" qualification as a reference to the general category of horror missions, which I believe your mission is a part of (though I haven't even played it yet ). It's good to hear that it's going to differ from the rest! I love games/films/books where the tension is created by leaving things out, rather than throwing dozens of burning dogs at the player. Gah, can't the sun go under any sooner?! As to the voiceovers - I can see how having three different language versions can complicate things, but if you use subtitles it shouldn't be a problem, right? It worked quite well for the excellent Retaliation campaign. Voice acting adds (IMO) a lot the immersion, and that's what tense missions are all about! Can't wait to try it! Regards, X.

Downloading now, sounds great! There's tons of ghost/zombie/monsters missions for OFP, but very few of those come with an interesting, well-written plot. Judging by the comments, this is one of those rare missions! One question though: does the dialogue come with voice-overs? If not, I'd be willing to contribute. I (and a few friends) have experience in voice acting, as well as access to professional-grade recording equipment.

Gentlemen, will you be playing tonight, as per usual? Now that I have some spare time on my hands, I would definitely like to hop in a game with you fellows. The AAR's that have been posted in this thread sure sound like fun. I have all the necessary addons and I got TS to work, so I'm ready to follow orders Regards, X.

...and let's not forget Combat Missions: From Barbarossa to Berlin. For those who enjoy truly hardcore tactical combat...

Looks kinda fun, but why ALL bullets and grenades leave tracers is beyond me. And the sniper rifle fires like a rail gun... Shame, because the other aspects of the game appear to be quite promising.

Sorry for the senseless post, but this is what I'm going to call Balschoiw from now on /edit: Let's make this post a little less off-topic: Wow. That's quite a statement you just made there. If I understand this correctly, you're saying that Blasowich disagrees with your views and Israeli policies because he's German? Why would his ethnicity be relevant? Wait, I get it! Because the Nazi party tried to exterminate the Jews! And the Nazi's were German! Ok, I think I see what you're saying here. Obviously, the actions of the German elite in the second quarter of the twentieth century are hereditery, and thus apply to all the following generations of Germans. How ironic! This train of thought falls squarly within the bounds of Nazi and Communist ideology. Perhaps you are not aware of this, but one of the arguments used against the Jews both by the Nazi's and the Communists was that they killed our Lord Jesus Christ 2000 years ago. The hereditary nature of experiences was even formalised in an official theory in Soviet Russia, called Lysenkoism. Congratulations! You've just managed to manouever yourself into the category of the worst scum our fantastic human race has managed to produce. Aren't you proud?

HERE BE SPOILERS! I downloaded the demo yesterday. I was actually quite surprised about how well the game ran on my crappy AMD 2200. While the premise of the game seems rather cliche (ooh, abduction by aliens, how terribly original! I must say that the execution of the idea is very good. The first scene was excellent, I really felt like I was in a run-down bar. The antagonist is also quite original; a native american who has become out of touch with his roots. Not exactly the most common recipe for a hero, eh? The abduction scene itself was very cool as well. The alien ship was very well done. Again, the idea of 'harvesting humans' is hardly original, but it is very well executed. Something similar appeared in Quake II, but that was little more than soldier models getting reduced to gibs. In Prey, the first few moments on the ship (where you are tied down and transported into the ship's innards) is just sooo cool. Very atmospheric. Sadly, there are plenty of things I didn't like. The Doom engine is very versatile, as has been demonstrated by the EXCELLENT Chronicles Of Riddick. Alas, the developers of Prey failed to learn from that experience. Your character is a floating camera; you can't see your own body. That doesn't help the immersion much. In Riddick, getting punched shook your POV and really made you feel that haymaker. In Prey, all you see is a red 'attack indicator', kind of like in Half Life. And the weapons... Well, they just don't feel 'solid'. Sure, they kill the enemies like they're supposed to, but they don't really seem to deliver a true 'punch'. Which is a shame. Still, it's a demo, right? I certainly hope that the end result will improve these points. I do think they have a very solid story, and that's good enough for me. Good plots are kind of a rarity nowadays...

Avon, your remarks left me rather speechless. Your suggestions of using massive airstrikes fall squarly into the category "if at first you don't succeed, use a bigger hammer". It's funny how right-wingers claim to be realists, as opposed to the weak-willed, naive left-wingers. However, when they are faced with the failure of their heavy-handed policies, their only response is: "we need to strike harder". So who is naive? I am no pacificist and I believe that armed conflict is sometimes the only solution, but if it's clear that a show of force is not generating results one must consider other options. I admit, peaceful negations aren't as spectacular and 'decisive' as airstrikes on busy streets and markets, so I can see where you're coming from... With regard to the 87% figure Nemesis mentioned... Quicksand beat me to it, but if you actually take a look at the details you will see that the survey has been held amongst the amazing amount of 327 people. In a single town. Golly, isn't that representative! Furthermore, a search on palestine-info.com yields no results. On a last note: I wouldn't exactly call freerepublic.com an unbiased source. Check their mission statement...

Hello all, allow me to start with the obvious: what an excellent mod I wasn't a great fan (to say the least) of the previous versions of WGL, mostly due to the unreasonable amount of bullets it took to take out an enemy. I see that it still is a feature, but at least now the AI is affected by wounds in the same way as the players. This really extends the firefights and makes them far more intense. Last night I was playing a coop with a friend of mine. We were investigating a car crash when suddenly enemy troops were upon us. I took the first bullet and landed on the ground, paralysed and whiting out. All I could see was my teammate, desperately trying to pump the enemy full of lead. Great stuff I do have a few gripes though. The running animations have already been mentioned; they look kinda funky indeed. Still, I think Sanctuary is responsible for those? Also, when I fire some AT weapons, they turn greyish blue. Very strange. The same thing happened to the notebook once or twice when I was messing around in the editor. The third problem concerns the mortars. I love 'em, they are the best WGL feature in my opinion. Nothing is more fun than playing an FPS with a calculator next to your keyboard However, it has happened to me a couple of times that the mortar simply refuses to work after firing off a couple of shells. I try to load another shell, but no animation or loading sound occurs. When I tell the AI to load a shell, I get an error message (I'll try to take a screenshot next time; something about the AI not having that particular shell, while the inventory screen states the opposite...). Any idea what is causing this? I should add that I've followed all the instructions, the game logic and the relevant mortars are in place etc. Other than that, an excellent mod gentlemen! Congrats!

Sure! Just let them shoot all they want from behind civilian cover. After a while, they'll get bored and stop. You really have the terrorist mind psychie down pat! Thanks for all you help. I'll pass your advice to my country's top brass. They haven't a clue. Maybe they'll sign you on. I'm sure there's an armchair available here somewhere. Aah, yes, the infamous 'armchair' argument. If someone's reasoning doesn't stroke with your own views, dismiss it as ignorant. For the sake of the discussion, I will ignore the form of your supposedly witty reply and concentrate on the substance. Do you REALLY believe that systematically killing/wounding terrorists as well as civilians helps quell the violence against Israel? Can't you see the hysterical masses vowing revenge after another airstrike resulted in civilian casualties? For every terrorist that you kill, three others are born. Devastated brothers, sisters, fathers who may not have been extremist up to that point. Please, prove me wrong. Show me that Isreali retaliatory actions are inversly correlated to Palestinian terrorist attacks. Oh, and for the record: I am not saying that doing nothing is the only alternative. Israel has every right to eliminate terrorists. I just don't think that firing missiles into a crowd is the best way to do it.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. You're criticising Israel for accidentally killing/wounding civilians. Yet when Hizbullah does it on purpose you don't criticise them at all. Yeah, you mentioned it, and that's just about it. You're looking the other way. You didn't scold them for it, you didn't even mention that you disagreed with their policy of doing that. All you did was mention that it happened. That's what I call looking the other way. On an internet forum criticising is just about all we can do about it, and you're not even willing to do that. FSPilot, I don't think you will find anyone on this forum who condones the actions of terrorists. So don't be surprised that people do not write lengthy posts about how despicable the terrorists are. It's pretty much self-explanatory! Terrorists are desperate lunatics, and the insanity of their actions is apparent. However, when a civilised, democratic country decides decides to employ methods which they know will result in civilian casualties, THAT'S when one should raise one's eyebrow. What's the point of firing missiles at targets surrounded by civilians if a) it is not going to deter any other terrorists; b) it's going to damage Isreal's reputation? Such retaliations are simply counter-productive. Killing civilians, as unintentional as it may be, will only push more moderate palestinians into the arms of extremists.

Oh dear... I was really hoping to score some MP missions. Any other place where I could get these?

Two words: Elysian Fields. Not the metal band, but the indy rock band with Jennifer Charles as the vocaliste. If you like Aimee Mann and Fiona Apple, this is bound to appeal to your taste.

As extraordinary as it may seem, I will have to side with Avon on this one. Considering all the other issues in Iraq and the rest of the world I think people are devoting too much attention to this failed attempt at creativity. What did you expect from someone in a line of work where the job description can be summarised as "kill the other fellow before he kills you"? People don't join the Marines because of their poetic prowess or cultural sensitivity. In an environment where the enemy is commonly referred to as "rugheads" and "sandniggers" this rhyme is hardly surprising... This is not to say that this little incident won't have repercussions for the image of the US military. In light of the alleged Haditha killings such a song is hardly welcome... Still, this doesn't make Cpl Belile's song any more surprising.

Pragmatism is not some mechanistic way of looking at life in terms of "one less". It certainly does take circumstances into account. In your example, the situation clearly isn't the same, because a) two different people die, and b) either a felon or an innocent person dies. In the Al-Zarqawi incident things are different. I am not trying to absolve the soldiers, but being outraged at Al-Z being kicked to death seems rather ironic to me, in the light of the common agreement that dropping a bomb on his noggin is a-ok. But yes, I am arguing just for the sake of it What you say is certainly true. For a state that sees itself as the epitome of freedom, justice, democracy, sugar, spice and everything nice, it certainly has a funky way of dealing with its (would be) prisoners, and even the people they supposedly came to liberate. Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Haditha and now this are prime examples of the differences between theory and practice.

You may accuse me of arguing for the sake of arguing. I see the difference between the two examples I gave, but whether this difference is significant depends on what kind of moral framework you choose to employ. If you view the situation from a deontological point of view (especially in Kant's interpretation), the soldiers' actions are cleary wrong. I doubt anyone would have wanted to see their behaviour instituted as a universal law. However, if you choose the pragmatic view (i.e. Dewey/James), you will say that the soldiers' actions were no more wrong than the initial bombing. Both resulted, or were supposed to result in Al-Zarqawi's demise. You don't drop a bomb on someone because you want to take him alive. Of course, one could say that if the soldiers had not kicked him to death, perhaps he could have been reanimated and later 'questioned', possibly revealing vital information. However, this is a practical consideration, not a moral one.

I, in turn, disagree with you Znashin You are quite right in saying that real soldiers on a real battlefield won't shout '3, target MACHINE GUN!, 5 o' clock' but communicate like normal human beings. Still, implementing this in a game is only possible with pre-recorded conversations. The comms system in OFP and ArmA is a dynamic, modular system. It is not suited for recreating life-like conversations, and thus sounds fairly robotic. It did bother me somewhat when playing OFP, but I always said to myself that the soldiers are trying to make their statements as concise as possible to avoid cluttering the comms (kind of like in fire missions). Adding THAT to such a system is certainly not going to make it sound less artificial and robotic, it only makes it seem unprofessional.

Yep, seems like it... While kicking a wounded man to death may seem despicable, who can blame them? Al-Zarqawi has consistently been portrayed as the epitome of evil, so it wouldn't surprise me if the soldiers really reacted that way. I can imagine that this incident won't do the US army's image any good, but isn't dropping a bomb on someone also an act of violence the target can't defend himself against?

Great stuff mr. McDonald! I always thought the AI chatter was one of the best ECP features. I understand you were very careful in choosing only the most appropriate samples. Nevertheless, rather absurd situations have occurd I was testing the DSAI using the classic Battlefields missions: dozens of AI are bound to say a lot of things. At first, the atmosphere was great, and the troops went bananas when they spotted armour. Then, the fighting commenced: grenades landing everywhere, bullets whizzing by, whiteouts caused by shock; seriously intense stuff. All the while the soldiers are shouting and complaining as they would in real life. Suddenly, our M2A2 was taken out by an enemy BMP2. BOOOOM! The blast threw me off my feet, debris was everywhere... Burning crewmen bailed out, screaming as if that would help douse the flames. Nothing would be wrong with that, except that at the exact same moment the medic lying next to me uttered these eternal words: "Shh... I think I hear something." I just couldn't stop laughing. "

The article on the Spiegel site has one sentence similar in content, but quite different in tone to the sentence Nemesis posted. I'm not one to bagatellise Ahmadinejad nutiness, but this sounds quite different than "obey, or suffer the consequences!". The funny thing is, Jpost was quoting an article from SPIEGEL, not the other way around. Obviously they chose to give the already threatening statement some extra spin by using the word 'consequences'. There is no truth in this world, only semantics

I wasn't referring to this particular post by Avon, but rather to her whole 'oeuvre' (I wonder what Foucault would have said about this sentence;) ). But for the sake of the argument, let me rephrase that: Avon Lady seems hell-bent on portraying Arabs and other Islamic people possibly 'hostile' towards Israel as irrational, thin-skinned, riot-thirsty clouts. Wait, hang on, there are some Christians in Iran, does that invalidate my point in your eyes? Please refrain from such ad hominem attacks Nemesis6, especially if the point of my statement is clear. You don't see me shifting the attention to your poor syntax, do you?

I'm sorry, I don't see how you can compare the two. The Azeri's were rioting because the official, state-run Iranian paper compared their whole ethnic group to vermin. That's something different than being insulted because some columnist wrote his pseudonym with a capital. Avon, we all know you are hell-bent on portraying Arabs as irrational, thin-skinned, riot-thirsty clouts, but this 'example' does not hold up. Actually, I was rather surprised to see that some of the readers' comments were quite sensible, like this one: The Goeree Overfakkee incident is completely different. These people are living in a free, democratic country, where their religious freedoms are protected by the constitution. They are not a minority, they are not being discriminated against. There is no civil unrest boiling under the surface. No, they're just religious kooks (though that may be a pleonasm). Nothing new about that, but it just goes to show how eager we are to label others as religious fanatics while the same idiots are living in our midst.