Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

NielsS

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    73

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by NielsS

  1. Posted

    The open Beta begins on September 29.

    RUSH mode only.

    Pretty much confirms it's going to be Bad Company 3 with planes and tanks.

    Conquest will be held off until they get everyones money, we then find out the enormous maps aren't so enormous

    most of what you see merely set dressing behind invisible walls.

    Dice/EA's pr bulls***ing machine is in full swing. Recommended specs: quadcore and GTX460.:eek::confused:

    It's an xbox360 game so a low end dualcore would run BF3 maxed out with no problems.:rolleyes:

    health bar with regenerative health (with a little delay.:rolleyes:).

    Mod tools on the backburner (i doubt if we're going to see mod tools at all as it looks to be more and more a console port).

    It is obvious that they want to compete with MW3 and need to turn BF3 into BFBC3 in order to do that.:(

  2. Posted

    I hope that dude turns out to be right, because I've had my fill of the grandiose graphics and shockingly bad gameplay that pervades the industry nowadays. Give us back the right to choose and to act within the game, and leave the movie making to the movie makers.

    The reason for this is simple: consoles. Graphics wise they have reached there limit some years now wich is why multicrossplatform games today look pretty much like games that are 4 years old. Unfortunatly the same applies with AI. The processors in the consoles are not that powerfull hence why pretty much all MCP games have mediocre AI. The only way to see an increase in both is to go PC only or wait for new consoles to be released.

  5. Posted

    Speak for yourself, not for the rest of us.

    Codemasters have been around for a long time and I remember playing a lot of good games made by them for the Amiga. Just because you don't approve of their recent games because the fanboy man children of today are never satisfied with any new games that come out, doesn't make them a bad company.

    It's their buisness ethics that make them a bad company, not their games.:rolleyes:

  9. Posted

    Operative;2008887']It's a matter of opinion dude. This is what I've been talking sometime. There are (fact) people that like DR and/or RR. There's people that like COD (the most hated game in this community)' date=' there's people that like Tibia, there's people that like Minesweeper (my favourite, of course), and there's people that hate them all. Now, how can someone tell anyone that the game that he like/love/dislike/hate is good/bad/horrible/perfect?

    It's all a matter of opinion.

    What I'm talking about is that people hate OFP2/3 because of the developer, not because of the game. A lot of people here that hate them didn't even bother to play it. How is that?

    People complain about bugs, but people have been playing ARMA2 since day one, and they love it! Sometimes, it's forgiveable, as not everyone is so minimalistic and sensitive about these kinds of things.

    You may say it's broken or unfinished, but, afterall, if someone finds fun playing it, what's it worth for him?[/quote']

    First of all people jumped on him not for liking the game but saying that DR/RR were very polished games, wich they were not. How polished a game is is a fact, not an opinion.

    FYI this forum does not hate CODMW2 but rather the people saying that it is very realistic. Now granted CODMW2 might be an unimaginative,simplistic,low quality,arcade shooter, it does not mean people can't enjoy it. I also don't judge people as being unimaginative and simplistic just because they play MW2. To each it's own i say.;)

  12. Posted

    Unfortunately, I'll have to say that I believe that some people simply expected Red River to be worse than complete rubbish. So they accept it how it is today. And that's the whole problem; If people accept low standard products, that's what the gaming companies, or any company, will give them, because they buy it.

    Why do you think COD MW2 did so well besides the fact it was a sub-standard POS. Because Activision/IW know that people will buy it simply because of the name.

    If CM's OFP games where simply called Dragon rising and Red river without laying the emphasis on the OFP name the sales figures would be different but even then the fact would be that DR is an OK game and RR a very bad one.

  14. Posted

    I'll post a picture as soon as I got it on my car.

    I asked if there will be a console version, entry animations for vehicles and working rear-view mirrors for vehicles which were not present and they are definitely looking into it but both depends on performance, which liked in most game projects, has among the highest priority.

    Strange. The Arma 3 site clearly states that Arma 3 is a PC exclusive.

    Thanx for the info.

  17. Posted

    I found that almost all of my core requests to them featured in the end product for both releases.

    Obviously many of the usual things I advocated in all these games forums were not. No bayonets for example. All those rants wasted!

    Broadly speaking it ticked all of my core demand boxes. Functionality. LAN play. Decent frame rates. Solid net code. Co-op. Value for money.

    I'm surprised that RR hasn't outsold DR. It is by far the superior of the two in my opinion.

    This game for me is like GRAW. For all it's faults, for it's it's failure to live up the expectations of the franchise's fanbase, it's a game I go back to and play again. Solid.

    I hope it's done well enough to get another iteration in the works, but I'm not convinced that it has.

    Mr. Spock would say: "Your logic is flawed Mr. Baff."

    I had on very few instances fun with DR but had no fun at all with RR. Ergo logic dictates that RR is worse than DR and therefore sold less than DR. You can't deny logic.

    Also low expectations are the very core of console gaming as developers are creating games with less and less content to increase profits as is seen with CODMW2 (apparently 25 million people have low expectations.) and most of the times sell that removed content as DLC. Thank god we have BIS.

  18. Posted

    Unless you can provide proof stating that all console games are locked at 30 FPS, they are not. I have a console, I've played many games on that console, and many of them run at 60 FPS. The Call of Duty games are specifically engineered to run at 60 FPS on consoles, but DICE are not afraid to have the better looking game but have it run at 30 FPS. And yes, there is a huge difference for me between playing, say, MW2 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 on my PS3 at 720p.

    I found out that in order for MW2 to have 60 fps Activision/IW lowered the resolution to 600p. I posted this yesterday with a link but maybe the forum mods don't like that site very much or it's still being looked at, i don't know but you can look the source of my findings up with google.

    It's obvious that Activision used the 60 fps as a selling point but couldn't get the game to run 60 fps with a resolution of 720p.

  19. Posted

    I see a lot of talk from almost every PC gamer saying that Arma 2 can't be done on the Xbox 360 and PS3, claiming that the consoles would "shit themselves" trying to run it, yet never explain exactly why they would. I would like to hear from the developers whether or not Arma 2 can be done on the consoles, beyond typical reasons like the games complexity in its gameplay features.

    It's simple. In order for games to run on consoles they need to have low resolution textures (meaning the size of the textures need to be small), low quality LOD's (Level Of Details), small Field Of View (in order to make things that are distant look closer so you can distinguish details), no or little anti-aliasing (as the grapics cards in the consoles are not very powerfull) and have massive post-processing applied in order to hide the fact that the game looks like it's 6 years old.

    Consoles are just outdated because the tech inside them haven't changed over the last 5 to 6 years. ArmA 2 can run on a 2 to 3 year old PC barely with all settings set to low. So how can it possibly run on a 5 to 6 year old console?:j:

  21. Posted

    No, they aren't. Who told you that? Activision recently said itself that the 60 FPS that Call of Duty games runs at on consoles "gives it the edge". Besides that, I own a PS3 and can say for certain that MW2 runs at 60 FPS on it.

    Yes and Activision is known for being thruthfull all the time.:j:

    It's BS. There is no noticeble difference between 30 and 60 fps on console shooters because games like MW2 and Halo 3 are set at 720p/30 fps. DICE recently announced Battlefield 3 on consoles is set to 720p/30 fps because apparantly they can't get all that supposedly "splendour" like soldiers,vehicles and planes to run smooth at 60 fps.

    I found an interesting read. http://web.cs.wpi.edu/~claypool/papers/fr-rez/paper.pdf

    One sentence caught my eye. It reads "PC gamers will often tune the display options for their games in an

    ad-hoc fashion until the game “feels†right. Console gamers and hand-held gamers typically do not have such an option,

    but instead rely upon the settings the designers chose when building the game and gaming platform.";)

  23. Posted

    This jumping box is just a simple example. It becomes something different with games. Console games are set at 30 fps, but is considerd smooth because those games use low resolution textures and graphics, no AA and excesive blooming and blurring. 30 Fps in PC games is considered choppy because those games use high resolutions and AA. So running CODMW2 at 30 fps is smooth, but running ArmA2 at 30 fps is not very enjoyable.;)

×