Innomadic

This is that folding at home stuff correct?

Thought this was interesting... By Dnote

Having actually played DR, i can say without a doubt that the most "tactical" element of the game was avoiding enemy patrols. Everything else, grab an M4/16 ACOG and headshot every last enemy. My "team"? Line formation and then dully proceed to waypoints. There is nothing tactical in it at all. However it DID have potential. The terrain was magnificent, the distances decent. However it still played like CoD, and i was playing on the hardest difficulty from the outset. It also looked like a dogs breakfast...and then turned out to be one.

Anyone with a conscious should, i don't understand how you could just let that happen...

Why conspiracy theorist? You're not questioning 9/11 itself, and only a fool wouldn't see the repercussions since.

As another outsider looking in, i totally agree. People are begging Obama to do something yet his hands are tied by this kind of idiocy (again, from an outsiders view), and then people complain when he doesn't do anything. Its nigh upon impossible to do his job and hes doing a damn good job just keeping his head in the game.

I agree, the need for perspective in relation to other events is necessary, however to show such immense apathy to an event of the scale of 9/11 not only shows your lack of understanding of the event but total contempt to those who died and continue to die since 2001 in the wake of the attacks. You got a response out of me, i hope you're happy, now back under your bridge.

Did a whole unit of English on the whole jumper issue, to say that they were all forced out is incredibly disrespectful (entirely untrue too, in face of evidence). Their choice to either stay or go simply proves that in the end they had direct control of the outcome of their lives, and wasn't dictated by the perpetrators.

This thread....just wow....

This, but why is the point moot? I was only picking up on the battle for best-looking-Russian-chopper...meaning theres no point, i thought i was quite clear in implying that i don't agree with the statement of the Mi-28 being the best looking chopper.

Can i just ask why this is an issue when the option to fiddle with all the options has always been there?

That photo looks so greyscale its not funny. Very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very.... ...very very very subjective

I was under the impression that all US Military arms were slowly integrating the HK416 upper receiver into their rifles and thats why reliability has become less of an issue.

From your link Hence, A4 designates semi/burst function and RIS/MWS systems.

I'd still take a lean function that you call poor over no lean function any day.

Then disable it before play? Its so simple why is it an issue?

Leave it in as an option, can't imagine why you want to limit the freedom of choice in Arma...

You are aware that the TKH maps are 1200km^2, that they're not as fully detailed as Lemnos, right?

Curious how you'd intend on replacing the GAU-8.

Tis funny, i turn myself into a broken record saying that the only way to revive OFP is to make a game that is CWC and then some, get shouted down as a troll for it, but when someone else says the same thing, its like a grand new idea that was handed down by god himself.

Take On Helo's environments are less densely populated with trees, buildings etc as resources are being taken up by the already large buildings and the flight model, so basically there will be times when you will essentially be looking at a .jpg on the ground (impression i got from E3). This is also due to the fact that the map is 60x60, significantly larger than A3's. Basically, unless you actually want all the detail from a typical A3 map removed just so you can shoot of skyscrapers, its not really worth it in the scheme of things.

Actually i didn't mind Homefront, for a run and gun shooter, it definately felt more playable than CoD. Indeed, when i found out that many hadn't even played CWC on the CM forums and claimed they were hardcore "fans of the series", i simply gave up...

I am about to rant. Some parts may seem disconnected. Now, here i would post a couple of pics, but im afraid AusArma is having some issues and my images seem to have gone...somewhere. Regardless if you had been paying attention i have, several times, applauded the terrain design, it was very very VERY good indeed. However thats where the praise ends. Poor shooting mechanics, poor animations, poor textures, poor AI (friendly and hostile) who never seem to hit anything/anyone. I've played it, it was legitimately terrible, and i didn't even bother finishing the game because the story was quite simply boring, much in the same way i gave up on Blops. I simply could not be bothered. Now the only thing in that paragraph that was opinion was the story. It is fact that it has poor textures. It is fact that the AI was gobsmackingly poor. It is a fact that they dropped support straight away, and it is also a fact that the DLC's offered were quite frankly a quick grab for cash. You cannot legitimately tell me that allowing free roaming without any mission capability, which was a pre-launch promise, is either good game design and good marketing. HOWEVER, and this is a big however, i have not played the Templar mods, and i've been informed that these do indeed expand the game that somewhat resembles a tac shooter. From this it is not hard to see that DR was still a step in the right direction, you could still use the Mission Editor to do what you wanted. It had potential. However that was never enacted upon. Then Red River came along, so importance is placed upon the actions of the developer considering the beating taken after DR. If RR was not an expansion upon DR and did not fix the issues in DR, then people would complain. And what happened? Oh, the AI wasn't broken, just needed improving on (like "improving" needed a new game? BIS improves the AI all the time, its called a patch). We removed the mission editor and modding but its got loads of replayability because you can level up classes. Its a great online game, but only 4 player co-op because we removed PvP because it wasn't popular (because the net code was positively atrocious, this is also fact). They removed more than they put in, they lied again, they claimed they made a sequel (which to me implies a bigger game than the last), delivered less, and charged the same price and claimed they are quality developers, so perhaps it is true in the case of RR, hating the devs instead, but that doesn't mean its completely irrelevant. The only way we can stop this trend is by simply demanding that devs improve their game. I'm sorry but i will not settle for sub-par quality as industry standard. I completely agree, if they made a game that actually lived up to the OFP name, had enough freedom and was developed with PC in mind so that it could possibly compete with Arma, yes, i would probably buy it, much like i want RTI to be released commercially. However they haven't, and it is indeed rather painful when you hear a friend say to your face that "OFP: DR is the most realistic FPS ever made". That is not only blatantly untrue it is completely the result of CM's milking of the OFP name. Its been said before and i'll say it again. If a game is worth it, i'll buy it. If its not, i won't. From the very beginning it never helped, because they never made a game that lived up to the name. Its not rocket science to understand. Would you be so forgiving if, say, Ford USA started importing cars from China and called them their own (if you're passionate about home grown cars like i am)? I can tell you that the response was similar when Holden started re-badging Daewoos here...doesn't matter the medium. If a name stands for certain qualities, and those qualities are dumped in favour of the $$$, then people will be upset. Illogical? Perhaps. Meaningless? To some. Irrelevant? Definately not. /rant...

Between 0-70 yes, then on nope.