@buccomatic True but when Medal of Honor (as WW2 games) released a game every year the prices where still 40 - 45 euro (don't know the dollar prices back than) and DLC didn't excist. You had expansion packs that brought a lot more content than DLC does these days. Sure a expansion pack would cost you around 20 - 25 euro back than, but you had a new singleplayer campaign and new multiplayer maps. CoD charges 15 euro's for only 5 maps so a entire expansion pack was cheaper when you look at the content value.

And don't forget, back than we got so sick and tired of MoH games that they quit producing new MoH's for a few years ;) And now people like MoH again, so its worth to wait a few years between the versions :) Hopefully other shooters like CoD will follow that example. I get sick and tired of CoD cause it gets a new release every year and you just don't notice anything new (even though the die hard fan will claim its entirely new with each version). Than again i don't only got this with shooters, sport games suffer from the same. Fifa charges gamers with the full price every year and sometimes the ony thing they changed is removing some teams that didn't made it to the competition and add those who promoted to the competition.

@Anigmar @buccomatic @warhawk-geeby Seperating the SP and MP would be great if it means you get a fair price for the SP alone. The SP in CoD and MoH was between the 6 and 8 hours...that would be worth 15 - 20 euro/dollar. I would be totally in favor for that. But if you know Activision and EA you know they won't do this..or they do separate it...SP 40 euro/dollar and another 100 euro/dollar for the MP if you include all DLC maps.

@buccomatic @warhawk-geeby You confuse it with CoD. Medal of Honor came out in 2010, wasn't there last year and not 40 dollar DLC. But when talking about the general state of shooters i totally agree, way to short and adding DLC for high prices while you hardly got anything worth the 60 dollar/euro you spend on the basic game.

The problem i have is that i agree with Tom on the fact that one shouldn't call it a realistic war game when you auto regen health and such. It isn't smart of a dev to say you make a realistic shooter when its not. The defense says it is a realistic shooter made to be fun. But that isn't a valid statement, you either go realistic and that is fun for those who love realism, or you just do what the others do, making a FPS but not mentioning it to be realistic. So Tom had a point there.

However, as journalist Tom is a poor one. He claimed he wants to be a hard ass journalist who doesn't give a high score easy. During this interview he is stuck on one thing and keeps hammering on that. Just as he does in his game reviews. You can't just do that, hammering on one thing. To be a hard ass game journalist you need to be a fair journalist.

This interview could have been a 2 minute movie, Tom could have done his saying, Greg could reply on that and both would have won. Tom made his point, Greg his defense tadaa move on enjoy the show instead of being away from the show for 20 minutes.

I totally agree on the part that most military shooters these days are far from reality. As Brendissimo35 pointed out, that isn't Medal of honors fault, but yeah if they claim to be a "realistic" military game they should be as realistic as Arma 3. In the Arma games (and before Operation Flashpoint 1) you wouldn't be able to walk anymore when your legs where shot and aiming was really hard to impossible when hit in the arm. But okay not everyone likes games to be realistic. So lets make a difference, we call Arma a military simulator, cause it really is one with the US army training in that game.

Problem is that today the mainstream gamer is the main target for publishers. And seeing that the poor mainstream gamer finds it really a terrible idea when you are low on health and need to look for a medipack like in the older shooters (half life 2, doom, Soldier of Fortune, etc) they get auto health regen, god forbid that the mainstream gamer dies cause he didn't play the game well enough to survive.

@grizzal81 you are confused, Operation Flashpoint sold very well in its targeted crowd. Not with the mainstream gamer no, cause Operation Flashpoint and the Arma games where never aimed for the mainstream gamer. Not all games need to be simplified so someone with half a brain can play it. Believe it or not, there are gamers out there who want to plan things ahead, who want to feel the tension of being shot which means you just wasted 20 minutes on getting safely to the objective. And you comment "If ur player is out of the game after one death what is the incentive to stick around. If you like this sort of stuff go play a game with survival mode" it was normal in shooters before the whole mainstream BS hit the gaming industry. Games became stupidly easy. In Counter Strike if you got killed you had to wait till the end of the round, making sure you played it tactful and not like some dumb Rambo. We have to play survival mode? If mainstream gamers don't wanna die and have to think, they should play freaking Kirby's Epic Yarn or that Prince of Persia where you can't die. Also when you died in the old games you learned from it, today you don't. And you can see it back in gamers who didn't play games 10 years ago..they just keep making the same mistake cause hey, you respawn in 10 seconds anyway.

@Tom Mc shea, as someone who played Arma 2 alot online i can tell you that if you want realism in your war game this is what you are looking for. Especially when you go play with hardcore clans on hardcore servers. Hardcore means they are all for realism, added extra mods that make the game even more realistic (like talking, when you stand close to someone and he talks trough the mic you can hear him, the further away you go the less good you hear him. Same goes for walky talkies with how much range they have). I played with a clan who's members are active and retired US marines, playing with them meant a long preparation before we would actually go on a mission. Get the right gear, everyone gets their role to play, deciding the drop zones, etc etc. And avarage play session would take up between the 3 and 4 hours. And most of the time we where just planning and getting to the objective. When we did get enemy contact it would be like in RL, finding cover and you enemy mostly was just a figure some where in the distance. Heck a lot of times you didn't even know where the shooting came from, bullets flying around your ears, total chaos as you dive to the ground and trying to spot the enemy. Also you can't take many bullets. Depending on the hit you are either instant dead (head shot for example) or you get wounded. Wounds come in many forms, from shot in the leg making you less mobile to heavely wounded and dropping you to the ground as you start to fade away, only now and than opening your eyes and just hope your team mates come to your aid. You can bleed to death even with a wound in the leg when its placed right. War is hard, and ARMA captures it the best way possible for a game. Planning is important, run and gun is certain death and you don't regain health by hidding behind a rock, infact it would probally get you killed to not treat the wound with bandage, morphine, etc.

@Foppe Amen!

@SopranosFan You sure like to overreact. I been playing BF since the first BF on the PC and beside a few servers i never been kicked cause i was better than the Admin (and funny enough the times i was kicked it was on french servers and i heard it from more friends that it happened to them on french servers). Beside is a season pass required to play the game hm? Cause on the PC i never ever had to pay for a season pass at all for battlefield.

@hinkwokching It depends on how goodlooking you want it to have. But yeah in general it takes a good machine to run the Arma games. You can however test the game. They launched a free version of Arma 2, you can only play the multiplayer and no mod support but that way you can check if your computer runs the game :)

@neomoglin Well the Dutch (yes the dutch too! To many seems to forget that the dutch where a great nation back than unlike today), French and Spanish forces where providing support to the American revolution fighters so it would be weird for the assassin to attack them no? And back than the British Empire was the enemy. It has nothing to do with the developers having some prejudice against the British, its just based on a real event with its own twist.

But really in the revolution war it was the British Empire vs America and the other 3 great European powers who saw it as great excuse to get even with the British Empire (seeing that the British took many colonies from the other 3 powers).