Zipper5

Seems it can't be done, I'm afraid. It only allows 10 options for me too. Perhaps a poll could be setup on a reliable external website and linked here?

I don't dislike MW3 because it's the 'in' thing to do. I don't dislike MW3 because it's not a simulator. I disliked MW2 and BlOps mainly because PC users were shafted once more, and in the case of BlOps are still left with a broken game unless you're playing on Windows XP. I dislike MW3 because it's unlikely that attitude towards us will change. We are second-rate citizens to our console brethren in Activision's eyes, and they are not getting my money for a second-rate product.

True again, but there are still many great coop missions that are left untouched.

Lol, for a $60 retail price (that hasn't dropped) and the amount of money the game made, if MW2 wasn't magnificent at release, it sure as hell better have become one post release. Did that happen? Nope. It was certainly better than BlOps, but wasn't even close to reaching MW1 standards. It's a sub-par sequel that made more money than the original. Oh, and I like many games other than simulators, especially first person shooters, so that part of your argument is moot. You can do a lot better in the FPS market than MW2 and BlOps (and probably MW3 unless things change). They are not worth $60. Edit: So as to also defeat the idea that I don't know what I'm talking about, even though I'm not proud of it, check out what my most played game on Steam is: http://steamcommunity.com/id/zipper593/games?tab=all

Your problem is with server admins and player habits then (as Defunkt rightly pointed out). Many, many more missions other than Evolution are made, they are just never played. Looks like I'm a poet.

We can make all the modes we want, but it's up to server admins to host them.

Those who say MW2 wasn't worth it. ;) (That would include myself.)

I quite like the questions you've gathered so far. Keep it up! :)

My opinion on the matter: 1: Disagree. 2: Agree. 3: Agree. 4: Agree. 5: Agree. 6: Definitely agree. 7: Agree. Sound mods: many of them are sounds that have copyrights. If BIS were to sell their games with sounds that are copyrighted like that, and they don't have permission, there would be lots of potential for legal trouble. Mods get away with it because they are not making any money. Effects mods: Arma 2's effects were made by Maddmatt I believe, who made the most popular effects mod for Armed Assault. Edit: ST_Dux and I share the same opinion on 1. Keep it in mods.

The "Aftermath" mission left the biggest impression on me, and you don't really do anything in it. :p

We put "No images over 100kb" in the photography thread titles, people still do it. We also put "Pictures only NO comments" and people still comment. In the end, people act before they think. :) ... Or read, in these cases.

blackmamba, now those errors are because you are not using the beta patch correctly. The readme file for each beta points out that you must make the following two changes to your Arma 2 shortcut: Change the path to the .exe from the default one to the beta one, i.e. the new path in your shortcut's target line should read something like: "C:\Program Files\Bohemia Interactive\ArmA 2\Expansion\beta\arma2oa.exe" Add the beta mod parameters to the end of the shortcut's target line, something like this: -mod=Expansion\beta;Expansion\beta\expansion So, in the end, you should end up with your shortcut's target line looking something like this: "C:\Program Files\Bohemia Interactive\ArmA 2\Expansion\beta\arma2oa.exe" -mod=Expansion\beta;Expansion\beta\expansion Or, alternatively, you can go to your C:\Program Files\Bohemia Interactive\ArmA 2 folder and use the "Launch Arma2 OA Beta Patch" shortcut that is created there after installing a beta patch. Sickboy does have a point. Uninstalling and reinstalling the game is a lot more hassle than what you would have had to go through had you read the readme or done a search before taking action. ;)

Merging with the thread that already exists for this.

That's because it isn't coded to take advantage of modern hardware architecture. A better example to use for this would have been the state of OFP at release... Which those who were around at the time, I'd imagine, can testify to perhaps even being worse than Armed Assault's launch state. :o No matter what state BIS' games are at release, you are guaranteed they will support the game many times longer than your average developer these days.

And yet, it has nothing to do with the ARG. ;)

Why are you reinstalling OA? :confused: All you have to do is go to your ArmA 2\Expansions folder and delete the beta folder in there.

It's a damn cool trailer, but unless they decide to treat their PC fans at least equally with our console brethren, I won't buy it.

More questions unrelated to the ARG removed. If you guys want me to, I'd be happy to. It's all up to you. :)

BIS has total control over Sprocket, and they are guaranteed to receive the majority of what you pay for your product over there.

What will BIS do with Sprocket if they started integrating Steamworks? Why would you choose Sprocket over Steam if when you bought their game off Sprocket, you still had to install and use it via Steam to get it to work? That's one of the biggest reasons I really don't see this happening. I'm sure Sprocket brings in a fair amount of revenue for BIS to simply give up in favor of Steam.

A game can't be set in the future and still be realistic? If that were true, BIS wouldn't even attempt it. Yet, here we are. See this thread.

Indeed. I've deleted the posts of non-ARG questions. Please, fellas, only ask questions pertaining to the ARG. :)

Holy crap. How did I not notice that. FPDR

That's the problem with VGChartz - it doesn't track PC game sales. ;) It's a shame people didn't listen to me. :(

Done. Next person to continue this crap here will end up with a post restriction. ;)