Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Captain_Colossus

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

5,080 profile views
  1. i've run this through several times and it looks as though mortars don't have effect on soft targets such as trucks- i've tried against technicals and ural trucks, i don't think there is any effect on them with direct hits or even nearby
  2. i never got into arma 3, but with arma 2, i tried tooling around with the hind helicopter and that was actually quite a lot of fun - maybe it's because an unsophisticated electronics/flight model were not necessary, but it did have a good sense of motion, speed and violence with the rockets. generally that's what defines arma- you get a lot of playable vehicles, but for the most part they are a foil for an infantry focused simulation rather than the core experience in and of themselves- even when the developer releases new vehicles and attempts to give the impression of an afv simulation, they are still primarily actors in the infantry man's world. the lack of fire control system for modern vehicles does not suffice there for a modern afv sim in addition to the pathfinding and inconsistent spotting routines ( enemy vehicles could seem to pinpoint a pixel of your vehicle in one case, seem to have no reaction when you are parked nearby enemy in another)
  3. it's fine. i get what you mean. most users here would agree with you on priorities- that is why they are here and not somewhere else. and i don't think steel beasts looks all that bad for the entire experience. it looks good. many others here waited for a long time to see it progress incrementally, but no one would turn down graphics altogether, given a choice you would certainly not want to return to the graphics of the original steel beasts. at the same time, i tend to get down in the weeds when it is suggested or stated plainly that they don't like graphics- which is not true of anyone. if a developer says something like that, there is some kind of agenda, or there is a conceit that becomes plain: it's likely because they don't have the resources to put into graphics, much the same way a non attractive girl will say that looks shouldn't matter and that you should be above that sort of thing- what that really is saying that she can't compete on an even playing field against more attractive females. and you might see it go the other way: where developers don't have the technical means or knowledge to develop a high fidelity computer game they may develop an action game and design it around multi-player, meaning there is no useful AI opponent, so what they do is cover up for some deficiency by allowing players provide their own opponents. at the end of the day, people are this way: everyone prefers a ripe, fresh, delicious looking piece of fruit over something that looks mealy and not so good and mushy and this sort of thing. particularly western society with its supposedly egalitarian notions programs people to believe there is essentially no difference and that we all compete on a level playing field, which is not true at all, this is blatantly wrong. people will tend to choose things which are 'superficial' such as good looking people, good looking food sources, or good looking computer games. we are wired that way. from a simulation standpoint, the closer the software looks like the world it is attempting to simulate, the closer it is inferred the user experience will be, more information that looks like the real world makes us presume it is going to be realistic. but of course this facade can peel away quickly when it is discovered the gameplay elements are missing. the big studio FPS games like EA's medal of honor series tend to have almost no gameplay- they are more like interactive movies as far as i am concerned, it's moving a cursor around a move like script on rails. i get more game out of primitive arcade games from the 1970s and 1980s than those types of games. i don't get it, but some seem to like it. buti get what you're saying, my statement was more to clarify i didn't think that graphics improvements to steel beasts weren't just the eye dressing in all cases.
  4. the infantry sprites were fine and functional except that they limited the behavior of the infantry: because they were sprites, their behavior was confined to pre-rendered, hand drawn animation cells. with polygon models, they can do so much more, not because they look better, but because a greater range of movements or behavior or types of infantry can be programmed without having to draw a bunch of animation frames (if you ever looked at the file for the original infantry, it looked like a film strip that defined a very limited range of behavior- which also must have been extremely tedious to hand draw even just a few frames like that). graphics do matter, and not necessarily because they are nice to look at, but because if that weren't true, theoretically it should be possible to run a high fidelity simulation using vector or wireframe graphics or 16 bit color pyramids and blocks and terrain which have no perceivable differences in elevation change 10 or 50 meters away (think 1980s home computer representations of landscapes with a single tree planted on a flat plain at VGA resolution, your imagination filled in much of the blanks to give it a playable experience, which is why going back and playing those retro titles doesn't feel the same as they did back then as passable)- which limits the simulation because those graphics are limited in what they can represent. the astronauts who visited the moon reported the limited information they received from the environment because there is no atmosphere severely affected depth perception- what looked like a small ridge ten feet away could be a large ridge quite far off in the distance or vice versa, which is what older computer simulations looked like with more primitive graphics. obviously there are trade-offs where more resources spent on one thing means less spent on another, and at the same time, completely neglecting one may affect the other. One of my most requested topics as far as graphics are concerned was more dust and smoke and larger smoke columns from burning material, which we have a better representation of than in 2006 with steel beasts 2.xx- and it doesn't just look much better, but affects the behavior of the user- it's possible now to orient your attention or movement in the direction of smoke where this was very difficult before. shadows likewise aren't necessarily dressing only, they affect depth perception, and moreover can obscure or conceal movements, but which appears to tax a lot of cpu resources to render in real time.
  5. i still have to go with a fundamental change to the shooting detection- the ai detects the shooting the moment the trigger is pulled on a weapon and begins searching for the source, giving the ai a jump start. this primarily affects slower moving projectiles and especially atgms, giving crews an advantage to detect a missile launch and reacting too quickly
  6. i didn't know about the hurt locker. so my memory goes back to saving private ryan as the last academy war winner. out of the list, i would barely call the deer hunter a war movie- maybe i'm not the person with the authority to do that, but in my view that was not a war film, it's a drama set during the vietnam war- an usual drama at that, but there is so little in the way of the film that had anything to do with combat, and it's more the leading up to that and the time after that the time film is focused on. i agree that not all of them are good- patton didn't interest me that much, nor did the longest day, there's only a handful on that list that i liked at all. i don't want to get too much into that, but, maybe i'm getting old and cynicism sets in, but i usually have thought most films weren't that good, including a lot of academy award winners. here's my take based on this trailer, of course i have nothing else to go on. but trailers are designed by their nature to catch your attention to make you want to see it. based on the advertising, i don't like what i see. if a lot of 1980s movie trailers basically give away the entire plot (go back and watch a lot of them how much they do this), the modern film trailers in their way can be indicative of what the actual movie will be when you see enough of them. i thought fury was going to be a stinker based on the trailer, there were cues in it based on the trailer but i went and saw it anyway, and it didn't give me any surprises. the very fact that the trailer for danger close trailer opened up trying to manipulate you with something used in every other movie score trying to set a mood already turned me off. you hear that singing voice : "woooohoooooohoooooo" this stuff sickens me, and it can be used in any film. . then from the opening attempt at manipulation, it's just as predictable. have you noticed how in film scores they will play this low key music which cuts out and stops- that's when you know something dramatic is about to happen- there you go, something happened and the bullets start flying. you've seen this before. over. and over and over. different story, different movie, same scene. honestly, what i see now are just anatomies of how films are put together, cliche film techniques rather than films these days. when i watch a movie, i am watching techniques on how movies are made, rather than watching the movies as something seamless- i see the director's intent too much, too much do i see what they are doing and i'm never brought into it. that is also why movies like tropic thunder were parodies of the stereotypical action film and the film industry in general, and you've seen similar self aware types of spoof elsewhere. they parodies of how lazy and complacent the industry can be.
  7. all the combat scenes from dunkirk have been uploaded to youtube and you can watch them- i watched them all. if you remove those, you might have a good drama remaining with good characters and dialogue and period costumes and all that- i don't know, but i do know the war scenes were like watching paint dry. i did see all of those, that is the point i am using as a comparison. now it's true that there are all kinds of politics that go on with academy awards, everyone knows that is so. a comedy would never win an award for best picture, there is no way you will see that ever happen, it's like an unspoken rule, so i get all that too. but honestly, do you think that the recent film era is really churning out really awesome films in your experience? i tend to find some thing to like in every genre- horror, comedy, whatever, but it really is all looking the same to me. the film industry is tired. even box office sales are coming down in favor of streaming, with cable released programming evidently overtaking the movie houses (game of thrones, etc. etc. - which btw i've never seen to comment on it). i make the comparison once that the home console market could compete with the arcade machine experience on the same technical level, arcade games became largely obsolete
  8. i am discussing the scenes of that movie that were relevant to what i'm talking about (that is, the dive bombing scenes on the evacuating british)- i'm not talking about the entire picture from beginning to end and the merits of its story, if i were, then you'd have a valid point. as much as there is to criticize about saving private ryan, from the standpoint of technical achievement, it's not been surpassed, the war drama peeked with that film as the high water mark and was never surpassed. i think it set the bar too high. you can say that is merely my opinion, but there are objective measures to back up my opinion. no war movie as won an academy award for best picture since- this is interesting because as far as i know there is no cgi used anywhere in saving private ryan, it's all practical effects and done with a very simple idea of using first person point of view hand held shaky cameras rather a lot of these dramatic tracking shots. score was more appropriate to the era, either popular music from the time (edith piaf records), or a more classical overture. quite honestly i don't hear a lot of talk among mainstream audiences for the more recent war films lately, i think there is this sense that they aren't really that good. i tapped out of watching movies about 5 years ago or so- they've all become so standard, watching war movies or watching a movie like the sci fi adventure edge of tomorrow have been for me almost the same types of films. i get that maybe non us audiences are interested in films that depict other nationalities, because us centric films are quite common but not not as relevant to them- i get all that. the problem is that film medium itself is by and large a lot of stock cliches, recognizeable manipulation attempts and quite safe subject matter, notwithstanding the decision to depict a battle not from the us perspective.
  9. honestly went over my head. what shouldn't i be discussing? i am making similar comparisons to another war film, and i am prefacing it with the fact i didn't see the whole thing. i am pointing out how the modern war film is about as fornulaic as the films from the 40s and 50s, different but formula in their own way. i think it's time they take a different approach now, but i can tell that they are taking the same kinds of shortcuts and manipulative strategies. this trailer with the anachronistic music score (why not pick music from that era or none at all?), the cuts, the way the actors are delivering their lines looks like a trailer for a transformers movie or for any modern action thriller rather than a war film. it could be that the meat of the film is different from the trailer, however, i'm going to bet that is probably not the case. filmmakers play it very safe these days and it is what it is.
  10. it is over used and as such i think it has diminishing returns (in my opinion of course- that is the only opinion that i can offer- unless i quote someone else's opinion on it). audiences will subconsciously pick up on it, since they have seen it so many times before. your brain will have that somewhere locked up in memory and stored away. it's like going through the motions, sitting through a viewing and seeing the same film techniques and meh. to be clear, these things are always evolving. there used to be times when you watch older films directors used wipes to transition scenes from one to the other- if you've ever seen a star wipe before or the circle that would open up and expand to introduce us to the next scene or close the current one, these are 'discredited' film techinques that no one uses anymore. they had their purpose, but filmmakers realize at some point these were clumsy techniques. they were efficient at what they did however at transitioning from scene to scene, but they are done with that now.
  11. the fact that i am discussing this is not initself 'trolling'. i am sorry but i don't go in for passive aggressiveness nor tolling. i am stating my direct views on this trailer, and if you don't share them, fine, but it doesn't mean i'm trolling or fishing for something. the problem with film directors are common techniques which i think ought to be generally discredited, and if they were, they could produce better films. one of the worst techniques are use of cameras panning across battlefields from a birdseye or godseye perspective. this gives the audience a detached, impersonal view of the battle. so in the actual battle, the blue team doesn't have a panning camera sweeping across the battlefield watching watching enemy soldiers running through explosions, artillery, and what have you. they see it from their perspective, and often not seeing the enemy directly at all. this is what spr did well- spielberg used hand held cameras with gave the audience a pov view during the opening scene, giving the film a more documentary look rather than 'look how much stuff we can cram in a single take'. it's the same sort of techniques for ogre armies and fantasy battles in lord of the rings or something and the effect is in my view diminishing what a war film should be like to separate it from that sort of vision.
  12. but you've seen this before- it tends to be formulaic, what you have are these effectively star trek red shirts for the sake of showing anonymous characters die. you'll have explosions going off two feet away from someone who runs through them, someone else the same distance away thrown in the air or whatever. i didn't watch the whole dunkirk film, only clips of the stukas dive bombing the troops trapped on the ground or in ships, and the effect of the bombs were about the same as hand grenades on bunched up targets. what's odd however in these movies however is the undramatic effect explosions going on right next to human body, but lines of dialogue delivered will have these close ups of emotional reactions on people or cause them to hunker down so that you can see the camera zoom in on their faces. it's a bit uneven. artillery doesn't have quite the suppressive effects as certain moments where the actors or posed just so that or in order that you get to see a freeze frame of a human face in some contorted expression or something. if you remember the scenes in fury where the camera would fix on the gunner's face with open mouth and frozen looking into the eyepiece, these techniques are too contrived and too easily remembered from film to film. there is too much pretense where things are posed, which of course by definition you can't avoid in a film or a play. but i reiterate there was something more natural about spr's combat sequences. remember that fury got people's attention based on the trailer, but if you understand how films are made, then you know the chances are they all look like something you've seen before. why this should this be different? because i the elements are australian, which unusual for films? that's unlikely.
  13. right, of course that is true. but i am making a bet that it will be like most war films that is, about 90 percent of them. most films are made the same way, they follow predictable patterns regardless of the story, for instance, the last stand battle scene is nigh100 percent guaranteed to send off the climax in any war film. likewise the human wave attacks through explosions are also indispensable. then there are the other things which might be more subtle, but when you see all this repeated upteen times, it's hard to unsee it. i see just the glue, that is, the film techniques themselves distracting me from any over arching presentation. there a documentary series on the vietnam war i watched a few years ago, if i could find it again on youtube i would post a link to it for the intro scenes alone- which i think filmmakers should attempt to achieve based on the editing and just the raw grit
  14. that goes without saying doesn't it. sure. however being a discussion thread, i offered my discussion
  15. look at a trailer for edge of tomorrow and see many of the same kinds of cuts, scored music and so on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw61gCe2oqI
  • Create New...