Parabellum
-
Posts
3,376 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Parabellum
-
-
ArmA II is looking better and better. Without a doubt, this is the best game in the genre, in my opinion.
-
The first thing that we tried to do was to make the game much more battlefield-oriented than the previous one. Our consumers told us that it’s much more fun to shoot people than intel.
No, really? People play a first-person-shooter to shoot things? This genius acts like that's a new revelation, or that Ubi is on the cutting edge by having the game play in a shooter be about shooting.
Not especially. Like always, we’re trying to stick to the places where the real [inaudible] might be. Like the previous Ghost Recons we’re a Tom Clancy product so we always try and reflect the reality of the world. We try to move to the hottest points where you can find conflicts etc.
....
For sure, some people think that it will be too easy, you’ll just have to activate your optical camo and run, but obviously that won’t be the case....And enemies will be armed with countermeasures, such as EMP grenades, so optical camo is not the ultimate tool.
The reality of the world today is that our forces are fighting an asymmetrical war. When do the geniuses at Ubisoft think that the people that we're really going to be fighting against are going to have access to, and the funds to acquire, things like EMP grenades? These are things that are still in development by the U.S. Army; if the most high-tech army in the world doesn't have this device ready yet, what makes the clowns at Ubi think that 'realistic' enemies are going to have them any time soon? It's not really believable to think that a group like the Taliban or Al Qaeda would acquire them, when said groups are using tubes with pull strings to launch mortars.
I still can’t talk about the multiplayer, but you will find every classic mode that you had in the previous Ghost Recons – what I can say is it’s going to be eight versus eight online, and there’s lots of good stuff to come.
I know that Genius is talking about consoles here, so there are some limitations, but eight versus eight was done, oh, I don't know, way back in Rainbow Six. It's not as if Ubi is breaking ground there, either. I love how this guy is pointing at things that are either unrealistic, or things that have been done over a decade ago, and act like it's something new and innovative.
Yep, there’s four-player co-op, for the full campaign – it’s something we really want to push, having four people living the experience like real spec ops, developing strategies, just like the real guys.
I snorted my drink when I read this line. It's funny in a sad way, on so many levels.
Absolutely. This why the things that consumers found cool in the previous Ghost Recons, will also be found in this one. I think we’ve managed to strike a great balance between innovation and keeping the things that people liked in previous games. Just hearing the feedback from E3, where we saw a lot of big Ghost Recon fans – I think this is the Ghost Recon game they were waiting for.
First, there is one Ghost Recon. There have been three stillborn sequels, two of which came to the PC. Secondly, it's doubtful that Ubi is paying much attention to the people that made Ghost Recon such a hit in the first place: The PC community. Ubi keeps taking this series further away from Ghost Recon with each release. I have a hard time believing that this is the Ghost Recon game that I've been waiting for. The closest thing out there is ArmA 2. GRAW and GRAW 2 were no more Ghost Recon than CoD 4. In fact, I'd say that they play and feel more like a CoD game than they feel like Ghost Recon. Maybe Ubi should just license the CoD name, and call it CoD: Future Soldier. That would be fine.
interviewer: "We’re pretty sure previous Ghost Recon's have never had a beta…"
Never.
Right. That's why GR.net had a beta feedback forum for GRAW.
(discussing Move and Kinect)Now what we are trying to do is explain to core players that playing with this kind of technology isn’t something that will make you become a casual gamer.
No, failing to realize that this (along with both GRAW titles) is just another subpar shooter capitalizing on CoD-style gameplay is what makes people casual gamers.
Really, what I keep hearing from Ubi is that they don't have any new ideas, and that they're trying to blow smoke up our backsides, hoping that people will be unaware of how sub par and mediocre their product really is.
-
Ironic? Really? I assumed you'd watch all of it before commenting on it, but as you said, you didn't think it would be worth your time after watching "the whole ten minutes" that you did watch.And yet, ironically enough, DS, I gave my opinion, and you don't want it. Go figure.Like NQ, did you go to the same school of 'Having the last word'? Oh!...how ironic...I just did. Go figure!
DS
*laughs* The last word thing was good, DS. I actually thought about that shortly after I posted. Cheers, mate.
-
Blargh! Channel 4's YouTube videos aren't available in the U.S.
-
So, I've been working out my 3D and 2D art skills lately. I've been working on modeling musical equipment; we've got guitars, amps, mixers, and keyboards all about, so there's plenty of inspiration and reference material. Currently, I'm working on modeling a recording studio in Max. I've about got the drum set where I want it, I think, and the other gear is coming along decently well. Have a look at the following couple of images, and share your thoughts, if you would.
edited to use pics for links instead of text
-
And yet, ironically enough, DS, I gave my opinion, and you don't want it. Go figure.
-
Sadly, the video isn't available here. The description seemed very interesting. Having read a little about the Chinook conversion, I think you used the right term to describe the problems surrounding that entire process. It certainly seemed like a fiasco to me, just based on what I've been able to read.
-
]No...you've lost me there, and I was being sarcastic when I stated that, but I do sense those particular interviews are included in a part you never watched, which, let's face it, is the bulk of the video.
No, I watched quite a bit of the videos, DS. I just wasn't convinced by them. I'm not convinced by things that look real, without having the proof that they actually are real. I also noticed that the interviewer led the 'eyewitnesses' quite often. "So, would you say that you saw the plane coming from the North, then?" he'd ask. And then the person would agree with him. Does that mean that that person's testimony is completely invalid? No, but it leaves me questioning the veracity of what's said, and the motives of the interviewer.
Feel about it? I posted a link to a video and mentioned early on that I don't know if there's a conspiracy there or not and asked you to counter what some interviewees had said. I wasn't going to judge you upon where you stood on things, I just wanted to hear your opinions. I am bewildered though, that you could be so vocal and sure about something when in reality, you hadn't watched it, seemed reluctant to watch it and when you did, ony watch part one of nine, and then later skipped over the rest. Now that Para...is weak!You apparently misunderstood what I was saying, DS. If I had watched all 90 minutes, rather than skip around (I spent about an hour watching footage, total) would you then feel like I had a right to voice my opinions? You rather succinctly suggested that I shouldn't have posted anything at all.
I can't speak for Calius, but I like to think I'm just putting stuff out there and I have mentioned a few times that I find things like this thought provoking. It is after all, a thread about conspiracies.You may find it thought-provoking, but that's not the first time that you've suggested that people not post a contrary view point. Is that not what you meant by saying that I shouldn't have posted at all? You seem to be under the impression that I didn't watch the videos. Not only did I watch a large portion of the videos (even after I said that I wouldn't) I took the time, on the first video at least, to comment on specific portions of the footage, and even provided approximate time stamps to reference my points. That should have been an indicator to you that I took careful note of what was said on the video. Would you like specific observations on other portions of the videos, or do you just want me to watch them all and agree with you? After all, you did say that we should accept what was said therein. That's not inviting discussion. That's asking for agreement.
-
How many of those 12 million people would continue to play, if they had to pay a nominal monthly fee? For that matter, how many would have purchased the game at all, if they knew ahead of time that they'd have to pay extra to play online? The article does state that it's difficult to answer either of those questions, but if I were a betting man, then I'd bet that the 12 million would dwindle to a much smaller number. The Suits, however, will still try to charge people, because greed is king.
-
Do you think the same things, when you see a video of a so called family member of a 9/11 family victim or witness to the official story? Do you ever think the producers of non-conspiracy videos have their own agendas, especially TV and news networks? A few weeks after the 'underwear bomber' incident, the BBC aired a documentary about it. I was surprised that of all of the interviews with [so called?] witnesses, they never included the one from
and his wife. The next day, out of curiosity I phoned the production company that made the documentary for the BBC and spoke to the producer. She told me that they actually interviewed Mr and Mrs Haskell, but as their accounts differed from the official story, they didn't include them in the documentary. After watching the documentary, I was left wondering whether the documentary was made to reassure the public that the skies were safe.Actually, yes. I'm pretty sure that every news outlet (including the producers of this video series) have an agenda, and I'm pretty sure that facts are usually not represented without some spin.
If you came away thinking that from the bits you watched, then you might want to phone the Pentagon and tell them that there are two paid actors posing as Pentagon Policemen, wearing [fake?] side arms and driving [fake?] unmarked cruisers in public, close to the Pentagon!.... Because no one has ever portrayed a police officer in a film before? Come on, DS. That's weak, mate.
Para, you've had a lot to say about this video, especially your breakdown of part 1, yet you've not watched it from beginning to end, and if you were [and still are] reluctant to watch all of it, then it would have made sense to not bother posting anything, rather than a lot about it.
Let me ask you something: If I sat through all 90 minutes or so of the video, and still had nothing good to say about it, how would you feel then? As I said earlier in the thread, I think that yourself and Calius don't so much want discussion or possibly contrary views posted. Rather, I think that you just want people who agree with you to post. I may be wrong, but that sure is how it seems.
-
Well done Para, you finally got around to watching it. Now, click on it again, and watch all of it ie. parts 2 to 9.I finally got around to watching this video.......For me, it offered nothing but ten minutes of unsubstantiated opinion.
DS
Honestly, mate, I don't think it would be worth my time. The whole ten minutes that I watched left me with the feeling that the whole thing is hokey and juvenile. The producers obviously want to believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy, and so any information that they find is going to be skewed to fit that view.
Further, DS, I have a question for you specifically: Why should I accept what the so-called eyewitnesses have to say about what they supposedly saw? Should I accept what they say, because they're ostensibly police officers and military personnel? If the U.S. government really did perpetrate 9/11, then wouldn't that make any agent of the government a potential suspect, and therefore render their testimony moot?
How do I know if they are who they say they are?
How do I know if they saw what the videos say they saw?
How do I know that the producers of the video aren't spinning the statements to suit their own agenda?
The simple answer to all three questions is that I don't, and I can't. Nor can you. When it all comes down to it, everything presented is hearsay, or data interpreted in a way to fall in line with pre-existing expectations. In short, the producers have no credibility, because they set out to prove what they already believed, and not to gather information to truly find out what happened.
quick edit
To clarify, I've watched bits and pieces of all nine videos. I'm unconvinced, and further, I came away wondering how many of the 'eyewitnesses' were actually paid actors. The whole thing felt ... fake and contrived to me.
-
I posted this in June last year, soon after it was released. Someone's recently uploaded a clearer version. Worth watching with and accepting what the military and law enforcement witnesses state they saw.Read what I posted ref the plane I was referring too, prove the plane hit (an actual large jet) you get a cookie. If not then its open debate and if its open debate its not a closed case, etc and so on.DS
I finally got around to watching this video. I can't honestly accept this video as proof of any U.S. government conspiracy. There are several points which I'd like to contest:
-At about 2:10, the narrator says that none of the debris found at the Pentagon has been conclusively linked to Flight 77.
Says whom? The narrator provides no proof that this statement is indeed factual.
-At about 2:25, the narrator compares the impact at the Pentagon to various plane crashes around the world.
No effort is made by the video's producers to rectify the fact that a crash on the ground is not equivalent to an impact with a building. Is there a wealth of information available concerning previous 757 crashes into the Pentagon? No, there isn't. I wonder if there were large pieces of airplane fuselage found littering the streets of New York that day. This particular comparison by the producers on is one of apples to oranges, and it doesn't hold water.
-Between 2:25 and 4:00, the narrator discusses what could be described as expected damage vs observed damage.
I would again point to the fact that there have been no known cases of a 757 striking a building in the past. There have certainly been no known cases of a 75 striking a building which, in the narrator's own admission, is 'blast-proof'. It's as if the producers expected the damage at the Pentagon, which is a hardened structure, to match the damage seen when a plane strikes an open field. Again, I think they're comparing apples to oranges.
-At 4:00 in, the narrator says that photographs taken on September 21st show that there is no damage to the foundation at all.
This is despite the fact that one can clearly see massive cracks and chunks missing from the foundation of the building. I honestly laughed out loud at this point in the video.
-Between 4:00 and 5:00, the narrator discusses how the impact angle would have been impossible.
My concern here is along the same lines of most of my other concerns: This conclusion is, again, drawn by people who are on the fringes of the area of study, and whose work is not independently verifiable. The producers also do not acknowledge that the simulations possibly leave out many factors, or that the simulations run may be biased toward a preconceived outcome. How do we even know that the people analyzing information are qualified to do so? How do we know that they're analyzing the data correctly? The answer there is that we don't. The producers do nothing to establish their credibility. Nothing.
-The discussion of interviews begins at 5:35. I have quite a few questions about this segment.
Who is Citizen Investigation Team? Are they impartial? How can we verify that the people supposedly interviewed are who they say they are, or that they're telling the truth? We're supposed to disbelieve the government, and yet we're supposed to believe this group of people. Why? These people, at least to myself, have no credibility, and I have no way to independently verify what they're saying.
-At 6:54, the narrator says, and I quote, "the true flight path as reported by eyewitnesses definitively contradicts this government-controlled and supplied evidence, proving it has been manipulated..."
It should be middle school science for anyone to realize that when you're looking at an aircraft, its actual location is not necessarily where one on the ground might observe it. Since the 'eyewitnesses' were looking at said aircraft from a harsh angle, and had no real reference for its location, its quite feasible that they are, in fact, incorrect.
Further, I didn't see a single researchable, outside source for the information provided. Where were the slew of police officers and military personnel who supposedly had testimony to offer? Who are these people who supposedly provided their eyewitness testimony? The video provides no names, no dates and times of the interviews, no actual statements. We, the viewers, have no way to verify the authenticity of the so-called eyewitness testimony. The producers of this video provided no way for the viewer to verify the so-called testimony of eyewitnesses.I saw nothing but anti-government propaganda, honestly. Is the video compelling? I suppose that it would be, for someone who wishes to believe that 9/11 was a U.S. government conspiracy. For me, it offered nothing but ten minutes of unsubstantiated opinion.
-
Well, now we know where the Man of Steel has been hiding. The first thing that I thought of was the Fortress of Solitude.
-
My mention of you and Para only related to that video. Just watch it. I don't know if it's conspiracy material or not, but the flight paths differ greatly, and NQ?...you don't need a tin foil hat for this.@DS: No idea...really, I'd have thought that you were following along with this parody, all along. My mistake.
For the record, I was responding to your request of a response and for that following another link from the good folks at TinFoilHats.Com was not required, when the offical record will do.
DS
I'll watch the video tomorrow probably, DS. I was simply commmenting on the unreliability of human testimony as it regards traumatic events. Once I watch the video, then I'll comment on the actual content.
-
Rocky it's the same documentary that you've seen and commented on before, and by all accounts, lots more security cameras captured the incident, but none of them have been released, plus, it was five or six years before the public got to see the security booth shots, and that's after the U.S. Government denied any existence of any video footage!I haven't watched it yet, but as far as the official investigation and version of events regarding the pentagon incident, I did see a TV documentary where they interviewed several witnesses including trained observers, and it was plain as the nose on your face the actual flight path of the plane is totally out of sync with the official explanation.Personally I find it hard to get over the fact that only one security camera caught the crash, kind of. I think my local shopping centre has more security cameras than the Pentagon.
I'll watch that video with interest DS.
So deny existence of any video footage, then release some video footage...and never be held accountable for your denial?
NQ?...Para?...please counter the military and law enforcement witnesses that were 'there'.
DS
Without having watched the video, DS, my honest reply is that during a traumatic event, people will often think they saw things that they didn't see, forget things that they did see, and subconsciously create events to help them rationalize what they've experienced. Several years ago when I was going through law enforcement training, one of the things that we learned was that in court, witness testimony is seldom reliable, and never reliable over actual physical evidence. Later, when I was working in a non-sworn position, I'd take statements from people who'd been involved in violent incidents, and their statements very often conflicted with each other, and with evidence that was collected. Does that mean that they were lying? No. Very often, people don't actually see and hear what they think they did.
Also, I can think of several very important reasons not to release footage of the incident (to use your word) at the Pentagon. Again I'll reference law enforcement, where video footage covering crimes is often not released while investigations are being conducted. Does that mean that there's some conspiracy there, too? Not at all. Withholding information is a safeguard against releasing too much to the wrong people, and it also aids in an investigation. I'm not saying that's what happened in this case, mind you. I'm just saying ... it could be what happened.
-
LOL that's awesome! Very funny, indeed!
-
Will see
HDTV took 10 years, alot of people just switched to HDTV recently
We still don't have an HDTV. We would, if we could afford it, but we can't. So we don't. Maybe someday we can and we will, but right now we can't, so we don't. But we won't be without it forever.
-
Murray Pannel lives in La-la Land. How does he think that everyone (his word, not mine) is going to be able to afford 3d TV's, especially in this recession? Clearly, he's been drinking the same kool-aid that the rest of the executives at Ubi have been drinking. You know, that kool-aid that makes them think that they actually make good games...
-
Well, we only know what the news tells us over here about the UK, my friend.
Either way, it doesn't surprise me. I'm not particularly bothered by it, either. -
Awesome!
-
As far as I can tell Pandora is free. The downside is there are occasional advertisements.
The option is there to subscribe with the main benefit that there are no commercials.
What I like about Pandora is being introduced to artists unknown to me in a musical genre I like.
Thanks for the heads up about grooveshark. I'll give it a try.
Pandora is free to a certain point. After x number of hours per month, you have to pay to keep listening. At least, that's how it was last year when I was listening a lot in my office.
-
Big and co:
I think you're missing what Marcinko and PZ are saying. They've been in combat. Have you? 90% of the fools in the media have probably never served. Those eggheads have neither the right nor the perspective to judge what they're seeing when they see combat footage. Really, it's no different than the eggheads on TV who sit back and judge cops who get into shootouts, when those same reporters have never put their lives in danger. I cringe every time I listen to some idiot in the grocery store criticizing cops. In fact, some fool in Publix the other evening was criticizing two cops here in town who shot and killed a gangbanging P.O.S. who shot at them first, striking and wounding both deputies. He said "Why couldn't they shoot the gun out of his hand?" I can't type my response to him here, but I assure you that he got the message. I've seen people calling both deputies murderers, or worse. It's pathetic, really. Most people have no idea what our public servants go through, and you know what? It's pretty damn easy to see how much more character the people serve us have, than the ######ing morons in the media. In spite of being largely unappreciated, the people who keep us safe keep right on doing their jobs, and protecting the very ######stains that badmouth them.
-
Try grooveshark.com. Unlike Pandora, you can actually select specific songs to build your own playlists. GS will also select songs with similar attributes for you, just like Grooveshark will. Moreover, Grooveshark is completely free, unlike Pandora.
-
Honestly DS, this move doesn't surprise me. The UK already seem to monitor so many facets of British life. We read about how there are cameras everywhere in Britain.
Now Over 100,000 Posts in "GR (PC) - Modding" Forum
in Site Feedback
Posted
This is an older thread, but this site's success is, I think, 100% due to its owner. There's no site on the net like GR.net. Thanks for giving us all such a great home, Rocky!