mach2infinity

Off-topic The only reason the Taliban are still in business is because of an insatiable demand for heroin, derived from their poppy plantations. In addition, Iran has been shipping weapons to the Taliban. A shipment was seized by "British special forces" according to Sky News today. Afghanistan is just another proxy war between Iran and NATO/U.S.

The AA guns used by the rebels such as the ZU-23, is their range too short to hit the Libyan fighter jets at their operational altitude?

Thank you guys. I imagine that when people refer to 'hydrogen' power vehicles, they mean hydrogen fuel cells? In such a case, isn't hydrogen stored in liquid format as of course it would be highly combustible in a gaseous state? What are the other alternative fuel sources one can use in the forseeable future? Bio-fuel? Ethanol? Vegetable oil - if possible? I think one way which will alleviate the 'energy' crisis at home is to adopt renewable energies as is feasible. For instance, there are communities in the U.K which use solar panels to generate their own power. Any excess energy is then stored at home or shared with an electricity supplier. I think in the case of a latter, a rebate of sorts is available? I know there's been a long-running discussion and it's interesting to read but there's no need to make snide digs at each other guys. You both seem reasonable. :)

The mention of hydrogen fuelled vehicles has piqued my interest. How far off are we from having cars which will run on hydrogen at an affordable cost? Another thing, if hydrogen fuel cells are the future as I hope it will be. Will this severly dent the wealth of oil-rich countries who rely on the sale of crude oil? Hydrogen fuelled vehicles would change things in the UK dramatically. We're an island nation so we'd simply extract our fuel from the surrounding sea. I know such a process would be expensive but then it would be self-sustaining from the sale of a hydrogen based fuel source surely? I'd imagine the by-product of such a process would be oxygen which has its uses.

I'll agree that on the surface, it may seem quite heavy on the action and visual effects element. I think the SFX guys have done a great job in visualising the invasion and there's plenty of stunning imagery to accompany it. Such as the CH-47 Sea Knights flying amidst the backdrop of the aliens's landing craft. I think the challenge is to give enough focus on each character without leaving anyone out and without giving too shallow a focus. As I've said earlier, this caveat applies with any ensemble film. I think how "Black Hawk Down" did it was to pick out key characters for a particular story strand and then use them as a focal point with the supporting characters of course helping out. You basically had the story move between the Rangers, Delta Force and of course the command staff. So you had a complete picture of what was going on. I thought the film moved amongst them quite well without seeming as if it was rushed or doing it 'by the numbers'. My guess is this film will only focus on the Marine platoon and from there, you're going to have a core group of characters which will be the main focus. There's also a bunch of civilians so how they're going to fit in is interesting. I think this is the first time that an alien invasion film has been done from the point of view of a grunt filmed in a cinema vérité style manner. It's bold stuff and I hope it all comes off. By the way froggyluv, Christian Bale is on excellent form in "The Fighter". I think he's back on form and the way in which he immersed himself in character is great to watch. I'm not talking about the changes in his appearance but his voice, his mannerisms and just his presence in the film. You actually get to see the real Dicky Ecklund at the end of the film, he's just like him. I think Mark Wahlberg gives an understated performance and he does anchor the film and is the film's emotional core because he's surrounded by a few livewires!

Hello froggyluv I actually like the western genre. For instance I'm very fond of "Open Range" and "Tombstone". I responded to the characters and story in those films. Frankly, it's ridiculous for someone to turn around and tell me I can't hack a good plot and decent acting. Simply because I didn't like a film that has been commercially and critically lauded. "Open Range" is a slow-burner of a film and it's only at the end when things heat up. Which is the point of it because the tensions simmers to boiling point. I enjoyed the acting, cinematography and the intimate character moments between the two leads. What do you make of the trailers and teasers for "Battle LA"?

It's a question of taste, not everyone will like the same kind of films. further still, not all those who wouldn't have liked the film only subscribe to films of a cheap calibre. A big sweeping generalisation. That's why if you go on IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes or wherever. You will find a varied body of opinion. Usually the bulk of it will favour one side or the other. The mature crowd will simply agree to disagree. You put yourself in a position to judge because you're narrow-minded. If someone says to another person "your taste in films is poor because you didn't like 'X'" then there's something wrong with that person. I think here, it's merely a case of misplaced arrogance. Furthermore, I don't judge a film on whether the majority liked it or not. Jog on. No, it's just being precise and there's no semantics. Traditionally, one would say a "good movie" consists of solid script-writing, direction, acting, cinematography etc. Good script-writing was certainly not evident in the film for example; which is why I didn't say it was a "good film". It's an entertaining film sure. Is it film that I would recommend as a "good film"? No because it has certain failings. One could term it as a "guilty pleasure". Not at all. I found it plodding and languid. I could barely understand the slurring of Jeff Bridges's character which I think was his way of trying to distance himself from the John Wayne interpretation. If you have a slow-burning drama you must engage the viewer all the way through with good dialogue and characterisation. I didn't find that with my experience, if others did then good for them. The girl was an obnoxious snot too. It's art for christ sake, what works for one person doesn't do it for someone else. In that regards, should we all like the same sculpture or painting? You obviously cannot understand context. The film I mentioned was merely used as an example to prove where your theory could be wrong. I didn't solicit an opinion nor did I pose a question. So it's bizarre how you suddenly chirp in with "I didn't like it because...". Please elaborate on where I've proven you right? You made a number of erroneous assertions: You indicate that it is an unavoidable part of 'cinemagoing' that one has to spend between "20-60 bucks". I showed you how I did it for £9. Once more, using that parameter. I should not have enjoyed "The Fighter" or let's say another film such as "Crazy Heart". Where it comes from is irrelevent nor whether one has drafted up some stupid ratio on the quality of films released. The quality of each film will be different and so in one year we may see a number of good films from Hollywood, another year there may be none. Both had visual effects and a lot of action. Which you've idenitified as components for a bad film. You make it sound as if I'm beasting you. I haven't gone on about the film at all. I've posted clips and put forth my thoughts about them. The point of which is stimulate interest and discussion for the film. Furthermore, this is a thread regarding the film's trailer and by extension discussion relating to the film. Badmouthing a film before you've even seen it is idiotic and very petty. If you feel so aggrieved by it then go elsewhere and vent. Stop polluting this thread unless you have something to contribute towards discussion of the film. I've at least made an attempt to move it away but if you persist then you're only going to make yourself look an idiot. Once a review thread for the film is up then by all means slate it to your heart's content if you didn't like it. Otherwise do us all a favour and go take out your inadequacies on someone who gives a toss. ----------------------------------------------------------- Check the trailer for the console game here: Game There's a tab on the right for it. It looks all right at the moment. Not sure what features it'll have. Such as squad control, whether there'll be any real-time strategy element to it.

I believe you, I was just curious to know what you had found out about Germany. It seems Germany is the country which is keeping many afloat in the E.U. I think they have the right balance. They manufacture quite a bit, the auto-industry and weapons being obvious ones. I think they export a fair bit too. Do you think the E.U needs to be reformed? In terms of devolving law-making powers to its member states and just have a very basic writ of essential rights and then leave the rest to us. In addition, the point that there are unelected members who are determining what we do should be addressed. Back on-topic. How do you think the Libya situation will be resolved?

Well I took my cue from the original poster here: .... Although yes it's more about taste and what would be deemed 'acceptable' in games. I think the choice of location is no accident and clearly it's meant to parallel modern day events in Mexico. Perhaps they thought no-one would notice or frankly didn't care. The symbolism isn't overt but it's still there. I think it's fine but I do believe you should have a boundary. For instance a game that allowed one to become terrorists and set-up bombs to massacre civilians would be a stretch too far for me. In fact, I didn't like the Russian airport segment in "Modern Warfare 2". I refused to shoot anyone, well except the police who shot me first but of course you can't progress if you die. I couldn't see the point of that bit although I'm sure the developers thought "we have a clever way of making players choose their morality here!"...yes not quite. I think certain games such as the latest "Medal of Honour" game probably walk a fine line. It can be uncomfortable when you're playing a game in an environment which is modelled on an on-going conflict, where soldiers are fighting in your name and have lost their lives. It can almost feel like a badly done parody of sorts.

Righto, I meant from what you've seen of the footage via trailers etc. Which trailer did you see? I've seen more than I should've! The first two trailers and the international trailers. Plus the clips I've linked of course. It's looking pretty good. It'll be interesting to see how many of the marines they focus on. The problem with an ensemble cast is it's easy to just skim over each character and put a rather narrow focus on each one. There was an interview with the director posted on the Empire website. He talked briefly about how the aliens are similar to us with use of tactics, a military hierarchy and of course objectives. A lot of people are wondering what's so special about LA. My guess is it's the beachhead for the aliens on the pacific coast of America. It's not so much that it has something of importance but rather it being their point of landing and so you'd want to defend it at all costs. I agree with what you've said. It may indeed be a disappointment. Anything's possible. Still, it's got a lot going for it. An interesting premise, a new visceral take on the alien invasion genre, probably a decent amount of action, it looks quite frenetic and I'm hoping the story is dynamic. I'm also eager to see Aaron Eckhart in the role because I've seen him in "The Dark Knight" and "In the Company of Men" where his characters are nasty so it's good to see him inhabiting a different role.

Doesn't stop you from accidentally stepping in it...so, what do you make from what you've seen of the film Archamades?

Hang on, so you're the judge of what constitutes a good film? That's a rather ignorant and arrogant position to take. Each person judges what is a good film for themselves, no-one else. Some people may have a predilection for a certain genre or genres. Who made you the arbitrator of good films? I never said that "ID4" was a "good movie" per se. I merely remarked that I enjoyed it for what it is: cheap entertainment. I understood "True Grit" perfectly well, it just didn't do anything for me whatsoever. Just because one doesn't like a film doesn't mean they cannot 'understand' it, that's absurd and frankly blinkered. Where did I say so, son? If we're talking about "Battle LA" then how do you know if it's a good or bad film when I assume you haven't seen it? No I didn't precious. I mentioned a film as an example of where your 'Hollywood theory' can be proven wrong. By your logic, after having seen the trailer for "The Fighter", I should have been disappointed or as you creatively put it: the typical dumb ass who goes into the theater all hyped up about a movie and comes out with the "I've been screwed" look on their face. You've made a number of assertions which can be easily challenged and frankly just as easily dismissed. I judge a film on its own merits and not whether it comes from 'Hollywood', an independent studio or Bongo Bongo land (sic). You're clearly opposed to this film based on some conceited idea that it's beneath you because it happens to have explosions and special effects. So did "Black Hawk Down" but that film had good drama and characters you could care about, despite the ensemble cast. You seem intent on disparaging the film even though you haven't seen it. Which frankly makes your position look very idiotic indeed. In doing so, one can only surmise that you're trying to influence the opinion of others in a vain and pathetic attempt for self-gratification. If you're comfortable with your view of the film, stop going on about it. If my responses are childish then I've certainly been outclassed by the professional here. Don't worry, I'm sure you can undo that knot. ;)

Well put Archamades. If someone says to me "I've seen this <whatever> and I thought it was nonsense", even if I disagreed with them, fine. It's when someone judges something purely on the basis of what it is or by whom it's made before they've seen it, I find very annoying. Furthermore, when they arrogantly assume that they know how someone else will enjoy a film or that they'll become another 'disappointed' victim.

How does one rant about something that they like? Surely it is the opposite? You seemed to be making the case against seeing the film (before seeing it) because in your view it's bound to be poor. Fine. I disagreed and stated that I look forward to seeing the film despite your ramblings. Give a sh*t or don't, I couldn't care less. Although I'm flattered that you chose me to try and disuade me from going to see the film. The only person here that really looks like a 'typical dumb-ass' (how old are you? ;)) is you for ranting and raving because someone took an opposite view to you. Actually I enjoyed "ID4" on its release and still do. Sure, its flagrant American jingoism but it's harmless and I have the good sense to recognise it for what it is: cheap entertainment. Besides, the producers (namely Dean Devlin) gave permission to the BBC to do a radio-play named "Independence Day UK" that would tie-in with the film. It involved Patrick Moore (a well-respected British astrologer) and a radio host having a fracas with an extra-terrestrial. In it, Mr. Moore punched an alien. Quite comical really. Devlin's only stipulation to the BBC was that they didn't alter the ending, namely the success brought about by the Americans. So there's one 'Brit' that didn't get his proverbial in a twist. Besides, I go commando. No I didn't. Nor did I phrase it in such a way. All I said was say "for instance I saw this film as an example of a Hollywood film whose trailer and content I enjoyed". As you seem to believe that any and all Hollywood output is of a poor quality. On the one hand, I made a general post about how much I liked the premise and look of the "Battle LA" film. On the other hand, your post was a direct reply to mine, one in which I made no such gesture for your opinion. I'm sorry it hurts. You're clearly not mature enough to know when someone's used a bit of mild banter. I was being facetious. You're simply being precious. Lighten up, will you. By the way I saw "True Grit". Filler for a sh*t sandwich as far as I'm concerned. Solicited or not. Back on-topic: A new teaser: If you guys go to the marketing websites: battlela (North America) worldinvasionbattlela (UK & Europe) Enter the site and you'll receive a pop-up window. It'll play the music from the two main trailers ("Sun's Gone Dim and The Sky's Black" by Jóhann Jóhannsson) then afterwards, it'll play music which I think is from the film's score. Sounds pretty good to me. The pop-up window and the above teaser has the same musical piece. What do you guys think of it? I think it sets the scene pretty well. I also like Aaron Eckhart's expression and then the ones of his 'rookie' marines. That palpable look of fear and determination juxtaposed quite nicely.

Look, I understand your point fine. You posit: they only show the good parts or the most interesting parts of an otherwise 'bad film'. In order to propogate a film industry whose sole purpose is to create an output of sub-standard films purely for profit gain. Ergo, we're all hapless victims who are sucked in. Regardless, taste in films is subjective and personal. Usually one can draw a consensus from a body of opinion on the quality of a film but I don't care what others think. If I'm entertained then it's job done. To further add, even though there is always a slew of bad quality films, it doesn't mean that good films have suddenly stopped being made. As I'll state later, use your brain and sense to find out whether it's the film for you. Another example. In an issue of Empire magazine (apologies for inadverent advertising) -- -- I read a review for the film "Taken". The review for it was damning, I think it received one out of five stars. The BBC critic Mark Kermode didn't give a glowing report on the film either and I respect his views on films. So, already I had been fed this negative press about the film. I went to see it and lo and behold I was blown away. Liam Neeson was a revelation and I came away from the film feeling extremely gratified. I don't put any stock in what someone says about a film, I'll go see it and I'll determine whether it's a bad film or not. Carrying on, the film-making industry is a business, it has to make money where it thinks it can do it best. If you get your knickers in a twist over such a thing, then simply rent films at home and stay there like a hermit. Adults handle budgets all the time, I don't see how budgetting for watching a film is a problem. If you're concerned about the cost of food or drinks then stay at home or don't buy them. I don't buy popcorn, sweets (candy) or soft drinks (soda) when I go to see a film. I have my food at home and then simply pay for a film. As I also said, you need to be discerning enough to know when a promotion is 'on' and to take advantage of it. I have, I'm going to see "True Grit" tonight with an 'Orange Wednesday' ticket, I get a ticket free. I didn't solicit your opinion on the film. I used the film as an example to show where your theory can be wrong. One in which a film trailer will show the best parts of a film in order to lull filmgoers into a false sense of security. I thoroughly enjoyed the film. The trailer did its job. The end of it. As I said. I factor in what I pay, it's that simple. I seldom buy confectionary and other refreshments from the cinema. I simply have what I want to eat or drink at home. Which is usually something nourishing and healthy and my only cost is the cinema ticket. The Odeon cinema to which I go does not charge for parking either. If one doesn't like the 'additional' cost of goods in a cinema, then protest by not purchasing them. Besides, I can smell a 'sh*t sandwich' a mile off. If I wanted one, I'd simply go for a big mac. ;) Despite what you've said. My enthusiasm for the film hasn't dampened and each clip I've seen has only made me want to go to see the film even more. It's exactly my kind of film and whilst I recognise it's far from an 'oscar worthy' picture. It doesn't mean I won't enjoy it and be thoroughly entertained. I won't be spending in excess of 25 'bucks' to go see it either.

As Kage74 said, there is the "Space Invaders" mod for "ArmA" which should work mostly work with "ArmA 2/OA". However, they do need to be updated and I think if someone were to perhaps emulate the alien craft soon to be seen in the "Battle LA" film for example. It could provide an interesting set of base-addons to be used for an alien invasion mod. I think I should experiment when I have the time!

No, I feel fine with the way it is, it simply could've done with more options on how to deal with him, that is all. In addition, being able to apprehend someone can introduce a tactical headache but also a strategic advantage. Leverage over a group, intelligence extraction, distrupting a group's ability to operate through lack of experience etc. I won't be river paddling with my Cooper, son. ;)

Well, of course they'll show the bits they deem to be the most interesting but that's what a trailer is supposed to do. I'm not bothered about spending money on a film, if I'm disappointed then fine, I accept that risk when I hand over my money. I wish people would not whinge when they've paid to see a film but come away feeling disappointed. They can't guarantee everyone's enjoyment. It's annoying when I have to read infantile comments such as "I want my money back!". Regardless, I'm confident that I'll enjoy it. For instance, I saw the trailer for "The Fighter" a few times and I thought it looked really good. I went to see it and I thought it was a brilliant film. By the way, we only pay about £9.50 here. Although there's things such as 'Orange Wednesday's (1) where an Orange customer can buy two tickets for the price of one. I don't mean to advertise there but it highlights how one can take advantage of promotions and so forth to save money. Here's another clip: Drawing the line 1. I assume you're American. Orange is a mobile phone network operator.

Will there be a mini-campaign or set of missions released as well or is just the addons?

A "War of the Worlds" adaptation for ArmA would be superb. Imagine this: Hill Battle I can imagine being a lone trooper, facing a huge lumbering Tripod with its signature wail. Of course I'd think "The Javelin's the key!" I mentioned "World Invasion: Battle LA" merely as a template for the type of format I would like to see in an alien invasion ArmA mod. Aliens that are similar to us in terms of weaponry but clearly very advanced. I think it would be fantastic to see a very alien looking craft tangling with a F-35 in the sky. IceBreakr - awesome! Guys, you have to see this video by dcal: It encaptures exactly what I had in mind. My idea is to have a mod titled "World Invasion: Battle..." wherever it may be. So "Battle Chernarus...Battle Sahrani..Battle Tajikistan" etc. There's clearly interest in such a project. Anyone who's seriously considering it please get in touch with me. This type of mod is screaming to be made.

Sure but by stopping them you're prevent criminals from earning a living illegally by not paying taxes and stealing from others. If that was your shop, I'm sure you'd give a damn. I think it's a shame that people just stood by and did nothing.

Anyone at least interested in an alien invasion mod? The potential is huge.

My thoughts exactly: Military SciFi Projects Thread I have to say I don't see this film as an exercise in American jingoism and flag-waving because I think it's more than that. Yes, it's set in an American city but so what? I don't see the difference seeing Los Angeles, New York or London be decimated. I think one reason why Los Angeles is important is because the aliens themselves are 'water-based'. If you look at the trailer, there's a map of the world on some news channel and you can see coastal areas highlighted. Clearly they're attacking coastal areas first before moving further inland. Maybe water is an important component when it comes to their technology? Cloning? Fusion reactors? In addition, I think the point of it focusing on Los Angeles is because many of the world's major cities have fallen to the alien aggressors. LA is one of the few remaining 'human' strongholds and so it's vital that it is held. If LA is successfully defended then it would be a powerful symbol of hope and resistance for all mankind. It also might prevent the aliens from making much progress on 'the western front' of the U.S. Perhaps a delaying action so that reinforcements can be brought in from the east. Check this latest clip: "Boxed in!"

That's fine and I wouldn't tell people how to play a game, it's none of my concern and everyone's gaming experience should be their own. I merely pointed out it's hypocritical to do one thing in one reality and another in a separate one if you're effectively playing yourself. It is what it is. I've been a hypocrite, for instance playing "GTA IV" and running people over. I wouldn't do it in my car in reality of course but then in a gaming environment, it's facile to do something when the repercussions are fairly light. It's funny how morality can shift. Having said so, if you're playing a character who's a serial killer then of course it's very limited in what you can do. Of course you're in character there so it would be natural for him to follow his compunction to murder. What I like within the "ArmA 2" storyline is that B.I haven't forced the player to do one thing or the other. You're given a choice and it reflects the difficulty of operating in the field, where clear goals and actions may not be so easy. If this game is in fact a military simulator then it should reflect the types of dilemma one would find in a military environment. Do you destroy a target regardless of civilian casualties because you don't have to deal with the political ramifications? Do you instead think more carefully as a trained servicemen about whom dies after you pull your trigger. Afterall, you're a trained and highly skilled killer, not a butcher. As I've said before, I like the challenge and for me. Acting as the morally upright character makes it more challenging when there is an easier option to do something which isn't morally sound but expedient nonetheless. It's as if you're putting obstacles in your way because you want to prove that you can overcome them and deal with any difficulty. The one thing I hate in games is when you can't decide what to do and are forced to do a certain thing just so you can progress through the storyline. I think I found that in "GTA IV" but I can't remember anything specifically. I have to say I am quite curious as to what it would be like to be allied with the CDF. It would be interesting to see whether they ask you to kill Prizrak too. I look forward to completing "Badlands" again and this time I haven't missed the two gentlemen in the white car! Interesting dilemmas you pointed out there. For me, I wouldn't have a problem putting the Chedaki commander down. If he had been mangled by high-explosive cannon rounds then there wouldn't be much you could do for him. The only thing to do would be to put him down. Plus, he could have a weapon on him. I'd say the same for the guy who got sniped, you can't help him and so you're very limited in what you can do. Haha, I wonder what that makes Shaftoe? God? ;) I can't remember a insurgent leader begging for mercy. Remind me how it goes. I don't think we're off-topic. We're just discussing something beyond the technical detail of the mission. I'm sure others have considered the same thing and wondered why they couldn't arrest someone. I think it's a very good suggestion and I don't see why can't implement such a thing. It would've been interesting if there was an option to force Prizrak to go into exile. Perhaps he'd be the kind who'd be willing to die for his position (rather than getting others to do die for him) and so you'd have to let him go or kill him.

Calm down will you, you're being more precious than a gay ballerina. I'm merely expressing my thoughts on why I choose to play the way I do. Of course soldiers are trained to kill, that's not the question, the question is to what end and does the end justify the means? I think this is addressed within the 'narrative' of the game immediately after you kill Prizrak. One of the squadmates remarks that they "crossed the rubicon long ago" although clearly he's disturbed by what he's seen. In addition the debriefing window says not to mention it to your superiors. Of course, if you refuse to kill him as one would expect of a marine (regardless of whether you're at ease with it) then the same squadmate congratulates you doing the "right thing" and it's clearly a nod of approval by the game developers. There's no problem as such. I like to explore the dichotomy between reality and virtual reality and the idea that people feel fine with doing certain things because there are no repercussions and they can get away with it. I find it amusing more than anything. Thank you sincerely for your concern. I will add that it's clear B.I put in this dilemma to purposely explore a 'grey area' within warfare and perhaps covert operations. Where accountability is obscured and one can conceivably do things which would otherwise result in severe consequences. It's good storytelling. There are lots of people who are murderers and torturers. Though they usually are put to trial and then dealt with accordingly.