Harry Canyon

And these kind of screaming tantrums from the fanboys is why people dislike this forum. And of course, I can see the fanboys already rushing in to derail the thread. Thanks to those who actually debated. I agree with you Goty's, nothing looks like its going to change around here. Back to the Outera forums, where there are good people who actually debate, and actual "players" are welcome. Not to mention they are the next-gen engine that's going to replace "everything".

Nah, nothings changed. They just don't get it. This "game" should explicitly say on the virtual cover that this "game" is only for people who are modders. You must make your own stuff, because the company is only supplying a large desert and some ancient mod tools. This is not Crysis, this is not battlefield, this is not any kind of real FPS. There is no "game" here. This is only a modders sandbox. 99.9% of fps players will not like it. Do not buy it. A real shame. If BIS gave us some actual, interesting maps to play in, it would be fun. Like a highly realistic Battlefield, with better graphics. ---------- Post added at 17:44 ---------- Previous post was at 17:42 ---------- Fixed it for ya. ---------- Post added at 17:46 ---------- Previous post was at 17:44 ---------- Yeah, its like a box of lego's. While I do have some knowledge and tools for modding, I don't have time for that anymore. I'm looking for a completed game, like Battlefield. As a lot of people have said, Arma is only half done in that sense. And they don't state that (cause it would kill their sales ).

Yeah, well, I could map out my backyard, and that would be realistic. But would it be fun? Probably not. You get my point. Guess I'm going to have to try and convince some old school modders to get interested in Arma.

Hmm, that's what I thought.

Oh, weren't you one of the guys that said this is a "sandbox"? Or have you now dropped that opinion, and only large maps are allowed, hmm? And who said I didn't like the game? Just because I think there should be more variety of maps than just a wasteland desert, doesn't mean I don't like the game. As I've pointed out in other posts.

Lol, no, I have good and bad to say about both games. You guys seem to have the hardened opinion. As for the community, you mean the 10 people who actually post a lot on this forum? I keep hearing this "we", "the community", where are they? ---------- Post added at 05:52 ---------- Previous post was at 05:50 ---------- Yeah, hopefully they'll make some good ones. I just wish the devs would quit waiting for the community do it, and do some themselves. They are the ones that have the resources, the time, and the money. And their the one's we paid for a AAA game. Their are BF 3/4 players who have praised this game. But they like the maps in BF better. A shame, because this game has better graphics, realism, and weapon / character handling.

Lol, you missed the 70's. Note avatar from the movie "Heavy Metal". :) Then make a different game. It is a "sandbox" after all. Just keep the soldier models and weapons we have now, and make new terrains. And if the engine can't handle trees, then that's just ridiculous. How can it call itself an FPS engine?

Lol, I didn't say Battle Field was perfect. Their graphics suck. Their movement and weapon deployment is arcadish. Yet, like the mods True Combat, and Infiltration I used to play, it has a lot of good points. Interesting maps being one. Urban areas, smaller maps made for PvP / TvT play. Another is destruction ( though I don't think Arma engine is capable of that ). Some people say the player model is not capable of CQB, but it feels to me like Crysis Wars movement, in which CQB was fine. And I like I said before, Battle Field sells! You don't need HUGE maps. It really depends on what you want. Medium and Small maps would be fine as well.

The devs need to stop waiting for everybody to do everything for them, and put out an actual GAME. The "its a sandbox, and the modders will save the game" is getting really old. While we have some modders, all I see is little, small stuff, and I sure as hell don't want to have to rely on free stuff, when I paid for a AAA game. Battlefield smokes this game, mapwise. And decent maps are what is REALLY holding this game back. Another problem is, I see all this talk about Ai. Screw the Ai. Its never going to be good. What you need is PVP, TVT. Now that's a match. I've never understood COOP, and from what I've seen of messing with the Ai so far, they're dismal at best. What I'd like to see is some smaller maps, with Urban terrain, and real mission goals, where you don't have drive half an hour, just to get to whatever tree your supposed to defend. This game has potential, the devs just have to realize it. Just look how many copies BF is selling. Forget "its a sandbox". Make a better BattleField, which this game is completely capable of, and they will come.

Well, he didn't get much off, but his names Zeep on the forums. Wish they would hire him.

Well, really, if this engine can't render anything more than a flat desert, what good is it? Even Battle Field can do this stuff with ease.

I am so sick of the desert. Its in every Arma game. Time for some urban combat. Give me some Cities. Buildings. Industrial plants. American / European towns. Castles. Large military bases. Something besides the freakin desert. CQB. You can say what you want about Battlefield, but at least their maps have some variety (and some buildings!).

Now you know why Xeno quit, and ACE isn't coming.

Take a look at Battle Field maps, copy, make them a little bigger.

Eh, no. Most do not. Engine burn on the Maverick for example, is about 10 seconds. But yeah, I'm sure the missile makes some sound because of violent air displacement. EDIT: What?, large apartment buildings in the desert? I know for sure that has to be fake, because Arma is so real, and there's no such structures in the desert map.