tmichc

I'm the complete opposite to you Rocky; if a game lets me have some element of character customisation I will use it, whether I see it all the time or not. It's for exactly the reasons you describe; feeling attached to the character, making them look the part, and to stand out from the crowd in some small way. I think I've played too many RPGs though! The CC in a game like Arma is functional, and for my own SP experiences with the game is certainly adequate, but I'd like there to be more options. And yes Alex, I have got your mod as well as the likes of CUP! It'll be interesting to see what level of customisation they bring to the game. I suspect we'll have a similar level to The Division, with a selection of heads, skin colours, eyes, etc. and I'd be surprised if it went as deep as, say, Black Desert Online, whose CC is just immense from what I've seen. I also suspect that there will be a selection of gear to chose from, occupying various 'slots'. In fact, I'd be unsurprised if they pretty much imported The Division CC wholesale, including a lot of the clothing options, as you can make your character look like some sort of SF-type already. Tim

Thanks Rocky! I keep meaning to add a Part 3, detailing how I'd like an average SP mission to play out, etc. If you get any more chances to chat to the devs, feel free to point them towards the blog as one of the places to get some ideas as to what the community may like to see in this revamped game! Tim

As I ranted about on that wee blog of mine, I'd expect this level of squad control to be mandatory, including soul-switching. Tim

True, and I think you're spot on with Arma's success. The next iteration in the series always improves the graphics and adds new features, which excites the Arma fans and possibly bring in new ones. Arma 3 is definitely an iteration on Arma 2, and the ease with which Arma 2 assets can be ported over to Arma 3 has certainly helped its adoption. But, that's argueably because BI know their audience. They realise that they can create a great campaign, but the success of the game will depend upon how easy it is for the modders to customise the game and make it the way they want it. However, this in itself promotes brand loyalty. Not only that, it means that the developer has to iterate on their previous game. As well you know, gamers can be fickle, and most tend to go with a 'once bitten, twice shy' attitude. Hence the reason I suspect that Ubi Paris is trying to engage the community early in development; they know that GRFS was regarded as a failure to the 'loyalists' and GRO wasn't well received, and is trying to win back support. In this regard, I think Bethesda got it right when they announced Fallout 4 at E3 this year; far enough from the previous game to capture interest, close enough to release to sustain the interest until launch day. Plus, Fallout loyalists tend to mod the game as much as they can! Edit: However, it helps that games with proven modding success tend to be more sandbox games than linear shooters. Tim

We can but hope Papa 6! I'm waiting to see what happens too... Also, those few of you who read Part 1, here's Part 2: Part 2: Game Choices and Modding As ever, feedback is welcomed! Tim

Oh Blue, isn't it obvious; you'd make them! After all, every soldier looks after their own welfare! And if you want an issue Horror Bag, then you'll need to earn it. Tim

Thanks Burner! I hope they do too, but that could be asking for too much! In theory, Part 2 - Expanded Gameplay & Modding will go up next week, once work's quietened down enough for me to put something together! Tim

To my mind, that speaks volumes as to how good the original was; that we're still using it as a yard stick for Wildlands, as opposed to GRFS. I'm eagerly watching for tidbits for this one, as I have a good feeling about it, based on what we've seen/read so far. Tim

Thanks! Hopefully they will see where they went wrong with GRFS and redress it! Tim

Well, ever since GRW was announced at E3, I've been following things as they've developed here and on the official forums (known as Timberley over there). It's gotten so bad and I've been posting in many different topics, so I thought I'd collect my thoughts and actually write a blog... Terrifying stuff, as I'm usually quite reserved! Anyway, here's my little (ha!) blog post, collecting my thoughts on what made OGR great, and why GRFS was a load of old pony, and what I'd like to see GRW become as a Single-Player game... The Serious Business of Gaming - Blog Post 1 And here's my most pertinent posts on the official GRW forums: On Characters On Female Characters On Single Player The 'Wishlist' Thread Post All comments and feedback gratefully received! Tim

Is there a plan for us to be able to play actual SP, with multiple fire teams that we can direct to other positions then 'body slide' into that team member when we need to do something the AI isn't capable of doing? Having AI team mates is all well and good, but if they're just following me around like sheep, and I can't set up complex manoeuvres like I could in OGR using just the map and the AI (sending them to the opposite side of an objective to sweep in and catch runners/unexpected enemies blocking my extraction route, etc), then this may well be a deal breaker, as it's very difficult for me to get into coop play, given that I have no 'normal' hours for playing games. Tim Edit: And hello again GR.net, it's been some years since I've been here (back in the days of Island Thunder modding and getting the Blackhawk to fly nicely)!

Here's the gallery to go with the pics (after much faffing as the PC version of the game overview doesn't link to gallery): http://uk.media.xbox360.ign.com/media/142/14290333/imgs_1.html Tim

Well, I'm definitely with Daywanderer here. The Original had that fantastic balance between gameplay and realism that was sort of lost in GRAW (or certainly in the GRAW demo I played on PC). Nothing definable, but it felt weird. I'm definitely in the 'combined arms/tactics' group. If I can achieve an objective without firing a shot, but going all sneaky-beaky round the back, that's fantastic, but if I can also achieve the same result by setting up a distraction fire-team, or having a sniper on overwatch to take down sentries whilst a snatch team or something races in to secure the objective, then that's also fantastic. Certainly that live-action trailer thing they did makes it seem like that'll be the case, but it depends on where they take it... Tim

It's a 2a for me. As someone who enjoyed the orginal, but didn't play GRAW (my PC spec was too low to run them), I'm intrigued to see where they're taking it. For me GR's always been about the extrapolation of near-future military tech and putting it in a Tac-Sim environment. As Alien said, if I want pure Mil-Sim I play ArmA or OFP (Original and Dragon Rising). MP doesn't matter to me, I want a nice, tight SP experience, with a good story and believable gameplay mechanics. That said, I'm waiting to see if this is going to be a pure FPS (a la CoD), or more squad-based with the fun-o-meter dialled up a bit (a la OFP). When actual gameplay is shown, then I'll make my decision. Tim

Thanks for that Whisper. I've also been glancing over at the BFS game. It looks like it could fulfill some of the requirements I'm after, though obviously my RPG elements aren't really in keeping with the NORG-factor. Most of the stuff (i.e. map creation) I want to be able to set up within some sort of editor (similar to the CRYEditor from Far Cry, and the upcoming Crysis editor). Models for weapons, NPCs, enemies, etc, I'd like to be able to import from 3D Studio Max (I have Max 6.2) with hopefully minimal fuss (like [GR]). As Krise Madsen pointed out in the weapons topic of the BFS board, I'd like to be able to equip my guys with more than 2 weapons, in a similar way to GRAW. However, [GR] doesn't quite do it, so I'll have a look at ArmA (don't quite have the cash for VBS1). As an aside, aren't the guys who helped with OFP but didn't do ArmA releasing some sort of TacSim similar to OFP? Kind Regards, Tim