ben_s

Hmm, I agree. CWC was a great game. I don't know why everyone spams facepalm pics at anyone who goes "CM and BIS working together would be better", because its true. I have a feeling we're not gonna get another CWC until this dispute between BIS and CM is settled and they get back together to create the first, proper OFP since CWC and RH. I mean, ArmA is good and all. But it really lacks a few things that CWC had. The overall feeling, Now, I do not know if this "feeling" was created by BIS alone, or whether CM helped alot during this proccess. And we, probably shall never find out. I know most people here will say that CM had no input to the game, but its obvious that isn't true when you look at them side by side. So, Yeah. I highly doubt we shall see something like CWC for a long time, too. ---------- Post added at 08:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:57 AM ---------- And ArmA deserves the OFP name more? Neither game live up to the OFP name, and neither deserves it IMO. Sorry but, DR... well that needs no explination. ArmA just doesn't have the campaign, the feeling nor the story. Neither really do fully deserve to have the name OFP stuck on it.

Guess thats the best way of putting it. :rolleyes:

Which is why its a stupid arguement. And I have no idea why I started it. its a mix of a combat sim, tactical shooter with some aspects from a mil-sim. ArmA Doesn't really have a genre ... Its a confusing topic.

What do you mean?

Yeah, Read my last post. I cleared it up a bit. But yeah, we want to be sneaking off an island, covered in russians without getting nailed. The fear, the anticipation on whats going to happen next. Does a patrol come down that road as you cross... etc Its not the "now you got toilet duty" lines that make you buy a game. Obviously, taking it a huge extreame there.

I think you missed the point. People want to run about shooting things, so we got a shooter game. That gives us the guns, tanks, jeeps, explosions, jets and helis. But we didn't get all the simulator properties of endless ammount of patrols, building base of operations, creating roadblocks, handing out aid and food to the civilians, spending time in towns gaining respect. (I mean the features to let us do this within the editor or real-time dynamic game world) We didn't want that, so ArmA doesn't have it. So its a shooter, its more in the reigon of a combat "shooter sim" or something. but the point is, its not got the tools in it to be a proper military simulator. Like VBS or upwards. Thats the point im trying to make here.

Yeah... Thats the point im getting at. Its not a simulator by terms since noone really wants it to be. They want to run about shooting. Which defines it as a shooter. Anyway, This conversation is doing my head in and getting all complex.

Hmm, Perhaps thats right. But its still not very well suited to it. The game is a combat simulator. The missions can be pointed towards any way you want it to be. But it doesn't change the way the game is made. obviously, there could be a mod released I don't know about that adds all of the usual everyday jobs for the servicemen. patrols, handing out food and aid. Seeing to problems. Setting up outposts or blockades, without complex mission making. Like built in modules that do it. That would make the game a low end Military Simulator. Since it would then simulate the military. Not just combat. See what I mean now? Anyways, This is a very vauge subject, and open to interpritation.

Sorry, What I mean is "military simulator" is a very broad spectrum. It doesn't mean "computer software". past VBS you have all the 3d technology and training tools. And then you have real-world War Games. I mean, ArmA is more a "combat simulator" since it doesn't "simulate" anything about non-combatant scenarios. its all about the combat, whereas things like VBS+ is about how you deal with the whole battlefield. The civilians, tactical options (as a whole). I mean, about the military jobs and the logistics (as well as) the combat. Whereas ArmA II is still a simulator. its just not a military one, more of a "combat simulator" if you see what I mean? But I guess its really all down to where the line is drawn with "military simulator" ---------- Post added at 09:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 PM ---------- I'm don't understand what you mean by that? How can it be a military simulator if its a simulation of combat, not of military tasks and other military parts. When its just mainly the combat, surley its a "combat simulator" rather than a "military simulator"

I (personaly) think its more a fact that "you don't want to know", and find it hard to admit that its NOT a mil-sim. And just find it hard to come to terms with the fact its just not what you belive it to be. No offense, but thats just how I see it. (p.s. I have been playing JCOVE and ArmA, more often that you seem to think)

Actually, I think it woudl be better if they split it up into 3. Tactical Shooters (Rainbow, PR, DR) Combat Simulators (ArmA) Military Simulators (VBS) I would say, That makes it more clear. As ArmA isn't a "Military" simulator, its more a simulator of combat. But its still not really a Tactical Shooter. Does that explain my point furthur? I'ts hard to get accross what I mean .... :( ---------- Post added at 06:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:36 PM ---------- Because they're not real Simulators, like VBS is. They're the "inbetween" of the Civ Flight Sims like X-Plane and the fun ones like HAWX for instance..... This area is very grey and hard to explain what I mean ..... Sorry. And rememeber the term "military simulation" doesn't refer to computer games. Thats why VBS lay in the low-spectrum as its the computer generated military simulator, whilst things like real-world "war games" (nickname) and training excersizes fall higher in that catagory.

Calm Calm I never said it doesn't Simulate to some extent. I just said its not a full blown military simulator. It does fall within the "tactical shooter" reigon. But you must rememeber this reigon is quite a large spectrum. Ranging from ArmA series to DR to Rainbow, to even some BF mods (like PR) But because it just has a more realistic look on the cover its not a military simulator, mostly because its totaly focused on the combat aspects, whereas "simulators" are about simulating. So go to great details in the setting up bases, patroling, paperwork (9 line medevac sheets for instance), battlefield clearence procedures, whole civlian procedures. Roadblocks, outposts. And theres probably alot more along the reigon of vehicle repairing and things. Simulators aim for high realism on the spectrum of "non-combat", tactical shooters aim for high gameplay factor on the "combat" aspect. if ArmA went all out on the whole non-combat aspects, it would place it in the lower reigons of Simulators... But Thats just names and titles, it doesn't change game. I hope you see what I mean more clearly now?

HALO, COD, BF they're generic FPS' OFP series arn't, they're the more tactical side of it. But ArmA still isn't a MilSim. You get the Tactical Shooters being around the area of DR/Project Reality/OFP/ArmA In that order, Mil-Sims are VBS, and such. The almighty mil-sim is picking up an m16 and joining the military. ---------- Post added at 06:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:01 PM ---------- ArmA II is classed as a Tactical Shooter. As its a game, its not a simulator. With all the mods it comes closer to a Simulator. But its still a game at heart, still a shooter.

Tiny? There are litteraly thousands of features that differ from VBS to ArmA. ArmA isnt a Mil-Sim, and DR isnt a generic FPS. They both fall (at opposite ends) of the Tac-Shooter spectrum.

Yeah, and its all those features that make it the mil-sim. Which is why ArmA has the capacity to become a mil-sim over time. Its just not at that mark yet.

Yes, Who would want to impersonate Zipper? Thats an odd one.

Neither ArmA nor the original OFP are Military Simulators, since they don't "simulate" it. They're just a more realistic first person shooter with tactics. VBS is where the mil-sims begin. Not saying A2 isn't realistic or anything, its just not what you could call a mil-sim. Yet......

Huh? I don't think that was you anymore. Its probably the same guy as the new Sir Pol.

lol, Pol said that he would never touch the game nor forums again. So that was our first clue. You post about that forum and look on that forum daily....

Pol ended with that forum ages ago. I Dobut thats him. Considering he already has an account thats not banned or anything. ---------- Post added at 11:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:18 AM ---------- lol, Am I really still going on about the mission editor? I think I should give up on that one, its not as if they're gonna listen to us. :rolleyes:

Yeah, I wont have enough money to buy RR after getting a new PC anyway. I will still be out of pocket. So its not bothering me. :D

They're doing better than last time with this dev-community communication. Though, I've still not seen better than on the ubi forums (RUSE ones) where devs used to come on and go "yeah, we fucked up there" lol

Just make sure you point that thing in flash's direction. Not mine. :D

I *attempted* to play with you back then. * lag fest * I gave up playing BC2 ... A2 runs better. lol

Yeah, lets give the devs an infraction on their own forum. Nice one. :D