• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About desertjedi

  • Rank

Profile Fields

  • Platform
    PC gamer
  1. But how is that any different from any other combat game, tactical or non-tactical shooter? I'm sure I mentioned this but the last time I encountered fantastic teamplay on a regular (not random) basis was with VietCong. Some might say, that was just a hokey first-person-shooter. My point could be playing 3D Backgammon and have the best combat gaming experience of your life as long as every player followed the orders of the designated Team Leader. I hear of such experiences in Arma and Arma 2 but they appear to be random. And it appears that there are many different takes on "teamplay" in Arma as its far more complex a game than VietCong. My thought on this was always...if you build it, they will come. But running a zero-tolerance teamplay server reguires a server admin with a truly iron hand and a lot of time and effort.
  2. Really good point, Led! From just looking at what real soldiers carry on their back and all around their torso, one would imagine that trying to engage in a firefight that required any sort of movement to be incredibly awkward. And this seems to be portrayed pretty well in the recent films showing combat in the streets of Iraq. Two points... - we've been acclimated to video games where the player's mobility is orders of magnitude greater than what it would be in real life. - can you get past the limitations of a game and enjoy the parts where it REALLY shines? I do this with every game I play. In specific areas, every game out there sucks horribly so adjustments are always needed. As I said, I've played Arma so much that I don't remember how wickedly awkward soldier and gun movement is. I just got totally used to it. Playing is literally like second nature now. When they created Arma, the Devs had to know how it compared to other combat games in terms of clunkiness. IMHO, this was probably done so that you had to think to succeed and not just "twitch". In other words, the game would reward you for taking the time to consider the strategy and tactics to set up a "win" situation and not how good you were and diving and rolling. Whatever came of that? Does anyone still play it?
  3. It's easy to pick at all the weaknesses of the Arma series. But it's hard (for me anyway) to list all the different areas in which the Arma series shines. The best way, IMHO, to know that a game is doing things right is when you get that feeling that's as close to real combat as you can get given today's PC gaming software/technology. And Arma 1/2 will give you that feeling. And you will experience "holy ****" moments that you will remember for quite some time. To be honest, I have to say that I don't relate well to some of the criticisms of the Arma series. I've been playing so much Arma for so long that I don't even think about its weaknesses. I remember when I first tried Arma, I had been playing R6 Vegas for a long time. Arma felt so incredibly clunky in comparison. There was a VERY LARGE *ahem* "adjustment" needed - probably more so than with any other game I've played. But you always get accustomed to stuff like that, eventually you don't even remember what the problem was. And I don't. In Arma, think of yourself as a grunt, a infantry soldier best suited for long-range engagemnents. The scripting language is so rich that you can create a myriad of mission-types and objectives. That can even include "stealth" but it definitely does not include CQB/CQC! Arma shines at mid- or long-range engagements. It can get a little hokey at short range though. There is no diving and rolling, or blind-firing or cover-moves. There is nothing sexy here. Once I had an AI enemy soldier go prone right in front of me (zero distance) to prepare to shoot me. Hmmm? So I pointed down and shot him in the head. Also, I strongly suggest you don't try the SP in the series. I found it so bad that I almost threw the game in the trash...but then I tried MP. And if someone doesn't like something about Arma 1/2, you can be assured someone is working on a mod to change or enhance it. The mods truly are amazing. If you've been waiting on the sidelines, you've missed a lot of good gaming. Where you can find better "tactical" co-op combat, I have no clue. Even so, I have to admit I have not jumped feet first into Arma 2. IMHO, with the Arma series, you have to wait for A LOT of patches to come out before I consider it "playable". Even so, I'd recommend that you pick up Arma 2:Combined Ops and get going. Combined Ops is Arma 2 boxed with Operation Arrowhead. One really good way to get a feel for combat in the Arma series is to watch some videos. I made a video ( ) to try and convey what gameplay feels like in Arma. Nothing is staged, nothing is scripted...and nothing is really sexy. The Arma in that video is extremely modified (WarMod). Vanilla Arma is way more sedate in comparison.
  4. CS or Lean?

    Well no one's saying that the cover system has to use a 3rd-person view. I keep thinking how awkward and, IMHO, unrealistic a lean-system is. And then I remembered, this was similar to my biggest beef with SWAT 4. There was no cover-system in SWAT 4. If you wanted to deploy a tactical aid (e.g. flashbang), you had to move in front of the open door and throw it. I don't think you could successfully lean and throw in SWAT 4 due to collision issues (with the door frame). Often, you'd get blown away while deploying the tac aid because you were exposed. Another issue I see with leaning is that you have to stand a few feet back from the corner in order to have your AR in a firing position - which seems to be what people want in a lean system. If you move flush to the corner, where does your weapon go? It gets in the way and is awkward to bring into a firing position. People describe a cover-system as "Hollywood". But why is it we see it on a daily basis in movies and police shows when these directors are obviously using military or police consultants? I say the heck with NORG in this situation because it assumes that WE KNOW what's realistic and there are obviously two different opinions here of what's realistic. Bottom line...simply ask an experienced SWAT or Special Forces member how it's done. There's got to be only one "real" way to do this. I'm guessing that he/she would say "yes, that's definitely how it's done" to one method (probably with some tweaking) and to the other method he would say "what! are you nuts?". I would be perfectly fine with either method as long as its the one used by real-life combat professionals.
  5. CS or Lean?

    When we say "old school lean", are we referring to the lean system of, for example, Ghost Recon? Where you stand at a corner and bend at the waist with your upper body leaning to the side? IMHO, not only does that look retarded, I doubt it would be something a combatant would do. It puts the soldier off-balance and exposes too much of his body to fire when all you need to expose is enough of your face to use one eye to see what's ahead. Wouldn't the more common sense approach to this when, for example, at the corner of a building be as such: - Plank up to corner (back against the wall) with body as close to corner as possible without exposing anything. - rotate head exposing just enough of your face to use one eye to look ahead. - regarding the step above, the player can do a key tap to get a quick glance with head quickly returning to non-peek position. Holding peek key can hold the peek view until released (as an example). - if you decide you want to fire at what you see, rotate your body as you move out a bit to bring your weapon to bear. You can't be telling me we can't come up with a better system than one that's been in existence since the early days of 3D gaming? Would a cover system be more palatable to everyone if the camera never left 1st person view? The devs could even somehow simulate the reduced accuity you get when looking with only one eye. If I see the old GR lean method in this game, I'm running for the exits shrieking! j/k
  6. Depth of view (focus)

    I do have to say that the first time I looked through binocs in ArmA I was totally blown away - the depth of field made the view so much more realistic and immersive. But AFAIK, ArmA doesn't do any blurring when aiming/shooting - at least with the basic ARs. If some depth-of-field can be added to aiming/shooting without hampering the process, I'd be for it.
  7. How LOUD gunfire should be in the game

    I completely agree. But is the M249 loud in real life??? In OGR, the SAW used to scare the teeth out of my teammates and even myself shooting it but is that real? I've listened to what I've been told is a real M60 firing and it wasn't loud at all. It simply sounded mechanical and muted. Is the SAW that different from the low "whump, whump, whump" sound of the M60? From what I've heard from my military buddies, many of the ARs used just aren't that loud (I know there are some exceptions). I've heard the M16 described as a "whump" sound. And the way it was portrayed in VietCong and ArmA its like someone hitting a pillow with a wooden bat. OT comments regarding bullet sounds and realism... I couldn't stand the vanilla sound of the M16 in ArmA. I tried it and said, "okay this is boring". IMHO, gun sounds should enhance the intensity of the battle - not put you to sleep. I went out and found the ArmA sound mod whose gun sounds were the most..."inspiring". Gun sounds that inspired you to get your ass down when you heard them. Maybe not realistic, but a lot more fun. ArmA was the first game I've played with the supersonic cracks. The problem I had with them was that all I heard were cracks and no gun noises. It was like someone was cracking their knuckles in my face and it was very annoying. I use the "Proper" mod that gets rid of them. But yeah, I think a separate volume slider for guns is ridiculous. I think one poster put it succintly..."the guns should be as loud as they should be" or something to that effect.
  8. Why this game could fail! *MUST READ*

    Yeah, when I read the initial post I wasn't even really sure if the poster was being serious or not. I was even kinda surprised that many here took him seriously and tried to explain what GB and BFS is all about. It's been many years since we've seen games where you needed to plan out your approach, your "combat strategy" as it were and were forced to be very tactical in your approach lest you get taken out with one bullet. With the spate of COD4 and COD4-look-a-likes, I don't think that a lot of today's gamers are familiar with what games like Ghost Recon and Rogue Spear (the latter I never had the pleasure of playing) are really about. I think that Moderator was honest when he said that GB is directed at a niche audience. But can a niche product be financially successfully? I say if done right, absolutely! And if a niche game is a "winner", I think it can be hugely successful because its more focused and is trying to excel in a specific area and not just appeal to the generic twitch-shooter masses. For example, Vegas 2 is an absolute blast to play in co-op. But it is what it is - fairly mindless shooting. And how long will I play this game? Well compare its replayability with the incredible depth of replayability in Ghost Recon (OGR) and you have your answer. Will the masses come around to a game where running and gunning is a death sentence or where you might be resigned to covering the rear of your squad for a while? Some will come around and others never will. But nothing breeds success like success so I think if GB can accomplish what it's setting out to do, it might just lay the foundation for a more permanent niche for thinking man's shooters. How long have we seen "run n' gun, health-bar" shooters simply rehashed in a new environment or locale? The "run n' gun" and the "thinking man's shooters", IMHO, are two distinctly different markets and I honestly believe there is more than enough demand for both. Ok, that's my bi-annual post - I'll be back to keep an eye on all this...
  9. Squad tactics in mp

    It's great to hear people talking about trying to force (not the right word but oh well) players to work together as a squad using real-world tactics. The concept has always been one of those lofty goals I keep in the back of my head. I've always been convinced that TDM was not a gametype where teamplay and squad tactics were used or encouraged. But with co-op being such a minority gametype, I always kept my mouth shut. My poor opinion of TDM was not helped by joining a TDM match and having it look like the opening scene in 3DMark05/06 where a million "bullets" are flying in every direction. No matter. I used to play VietCong co-op on servers where teamplay was enforced and you didn't fart unless you had permission from your team leader. It was easily the best, most authentic gameplay I ever experienced. The actual tactics were limited in scope since you weren't playing a human enemy and thus the co-op matches played out very similarly each time, but the "forced" teamplay was a major leap over standard co-op. And if you did not adhere to the teamplay concept you were simply kicked or banned. I'm not sure a dev can make a game with such incredible depth and realism such that teamplay and more importantly, squad tactics will ALWAYS prevail over run n' gun nonsense. To accomplish this, IMHO, would require that the game world's realism would have to approach "real world". I think the major "wrench" (but not the only one) that throws this off in gaming is the immeasurably potent, hyper-accurate firepower each player has with the typical guns given to each player. Add to this, the terrible accuracy of the enemies' weapons and their partial blindness/deafness and tactics can simply go out the window. A perfect case in point...I was playing a co-op game on a specific map with 2 friends and we kept getting quickly wiped out. After about the 8th try, my two mates died and I said, "enough is enough", got "focused", and wiped out the map solo. It was a lot of fun but it typifies many of today's games where co-op players simply have the overwhelming advantage. Let me put this way, in real life, hand me a CAR-15 and drop me off in a hostile place with a bunch of other guys and my ass is glued to my squadmate's and all hopes for glorious kills go out the window. But the need to do that in gaming just isn't there. In gaming, way too much importance is placed on shooting and the "individual kill". In RL, the "kill" should be the culmination of all the tactics used to achieve a good "kill position" or simply overwhelming force. In other words, you defeated the enemy squad by overwhelming them with tactics, not individual firepower or accuracy. Some of the use of tactics and teamplay simply comes down to discipline of the players involved. Such discipline can be encouraged and even enforced in a co-op environment but try to do the same in an adverserial environment like TDM...and you all know how that can go! To stick a fork in this, I think a lot of what's being discussed here boils down to game "balance". Until games become so difficult or better, more realistically balanced, to the point where Rambo tactics result in near instant death, I think it will be difficult to create a game where squad tactics or even simply teamplay pays off in spades. On the other hand, I think this goal is the end-all-be-all of tactical gaming and should be strived for as strongly as possible.
  10. CS or Lean?

    Well put and I think I'm going to have to agree with you - due to the limitations of gaming, there's just so much you can do. Maybe something a limit more "realistic" looking and feeling than your typical game's lean and I'll be a happy camper.
  11. CS or Lean?

    I think the game should implement the cover system just like R6V with the ability to blind fire... j/k What the OP doesn't state is...CS or Lean for the purpose of seeing or for firing? If for seeing, then I say lean but with a caveat. If a player performs a quick peek-lean, it should be executed so fast as to make it virtually impossible to be shot while doing so. I'm assuming that Special Forces (military or police) (who don't have a corner mirror as part of their repertoire) are trained to perform a peek with enough speed to make it virtually impossible to be shot. Of course, if they "hold" the lean than all such bets are off. This is one of my beefs with GR, leaning while standing or crouching is pretty much a death sentence against enemy AI. Ironically, you can usually pull off a quick lean while prone without being shot. For a true tac/sim, I'm not big on the "Vegas move" because the player sees things that his model couldn't really see. And third person introduces some extra strange situations that need to be addressed anyway. Unfortunately, the "Vegas move" is excellent for nade throwing when doing room entries. Actually, it's got to be the only safe way to deploy a nade when stacked up at a door without getting your head blown off - as in SWAT 4 where you have pretty much stand in front of the door and throw the tac aid overhand while exposing yourself to fire. If the OP is talking about CS or Lean for the purpose of shooting, then my answer would have to be neither. I've never found any lean n' shoot technique in any shooter to be "realistic". If you watch behind as your co-op buddy does it in Ghost Recon, not only does it look goofy but I don't think that is how soldiers shoot when at a corner. Does a soldier really bend at the waist so his head is at a ~60-70 degree angle from the ground thereby disorienting his view, stick his rifle out and fire?? Firing with your head not upright is kind of like sticking your head between your legs to shoot something behind you. I would think that any soldier, in order to fire, would have to keep his head and body perpendicular to the ground and expose part of his head, arm, leg and even body to fire a shot while at a corner. So for peeking, I say use the Lean for sure. But for shooting, I really hope I don't see the rubber Gumby move like is currently in GR.