as much as theres less cheatin ggoing on in Battlefield, howeverit has punkbuster, so im not touchign the game. I cant stand that service adn it single handedly made me uninstall Bad compnay 2 , BF2 and COD4. Id rather have a couple of hackers and just switch servers than deal with punkbuster, seriously. I havetn seen many on MW3, but then i play more Counter Strike. A lot of Counter Strike servers have dedicated Admins on all the time.

love Pirates, one of the coolest games ever made.

Dead Island has more balls and is more interesting than this game. DOOM 4 please and DONT make it open world...god lol. At least in Borderlands it kind of felt like a bizarre cartoon that kept me interested. With the crazy robot and strange fictional world that kept me relatively engaged. As i played RAGE, i could fully feel th efallout 3 wannabe stuff in it but trying to make it primarily a shooter. They needed more shooting and less sandbox , for SURE in this game.

the problem io have with RAGE, its just not interesting. Theres nothing interesting keeping me engaged to it. The world is kind of lacklustre and boring, the gameplay is pretty typical, but yet not as fun as borderlands. Theworld your in kind of seems pointless, the quests seem just a bit bla. go find missing person because yourthe onlytough guy running around a strange landscape that doesnt seem to make any sense. So BAndits are nasty? but theres people by themselves SITTING out in the wastelands guarding sewer entrances. So bandits are dangerous? but 1 guy can guarda swer entrance that doesn teven seem to have a gun? Just doesnt make any sense. Fallout 3 at least made a bit of sense in a fictional world.

Id rather go replay borderlands or play farcry 2 than this, at least the premise is a little interesting. For $89US? i bought Borderlands + all expansions for $4 and 5 minutes of that game is more fun than an hour of this. At least Bioshock put me into a whole new world where it made me care about what was happening. This doesnt even attempt to make me give a sht. I can shoot thingsin any game. I coul dplay through the call of duty Modern Warfare series 1-3 and have tons more fun than this. I could replay fallout 3 and get more out of it.

They should of stuck with theDOOM formula , but in a post apcoloptic wasteland. DOOM 3 OWNs OWNs OWNs OWNs OWNs this game. The should go back to making FPS's with some balls and flag the open world formula.

lol, cracks m up this Bullsht, who cares, they cant play online, so bla. So 20 thousand or so get it free but cant actually play it to its full extent. Awesome, good for them. Its not going to affect the 20 million otehr people that will probably get it. Plus, If you have a game taht sells 5 million plus,I dontgivea sht. DAMN so Robert Bowling wont get 10 +million this time, maybe just 9 + million, what a shame.

thissentence"So basically, you now must go through the tormenting process of going all the way back to the area the boss is at from the beginning of the act" is practically Diablo in all its entirety.

thats not the only problem with upgrading to 64 bit. Even playing games like TOCA 3 and DOOM 3 and 16 bit application are a SUPER friggin hassle. The fact Microsoft doesnt include 16 bit stuff on 64 bit operating system sux. I like having the future tech but i dont like sacrificing nostalgia and sometimes playing ol school games thatare better than playing newer versions of them. I would MUCH rather play splinter cell the original and Chaos theory than the new splinter cell games that are crap in comparison and that goes for the original Ghost recon is Far better game than the new Ghost recon games.

I like playing games that require better hardware and seeing todays graphics, BUT PC games are meant to always have the FUTURE in mind. Like DOOM 3 for example had 16x anti aliasing as an option 6 years before the hardware even caught up. But if the future operating system doesnt allow for the future stuff to be used then whats the point in ID software creating a feature in it's game thats supposed to be used in the future if MS doesnt supportthe actual software required to RUN ITwith every OS?

the game itself looks exactly like those screen shots. So i dont know what your talking about. Going into a forest in this game is by far a million times more realistic than Battlefield or call of duty . It actually looks and feels like a real farmland. I know so many places outside my city that looks exactly like this. Almost identical. Go to your nearest lake forest and then go play Arma 2 editor mode and look at chenaurusand you wont notice much difference from tha to real life. theyve captured a very realistic landscape so much better than any other game ive ever played. Company of heroes does a pretty good job on realistic environments.

When i first walked throughthe chenerus forest, i was shocked athow realistic it was and how right it felt over any other game ive efer played that has a forest. No other game has ever created a forest environment like Arma 2 has done. But i agree the textures on the people arent 2011 . But the environment itself more than makes up for the lack of textures on peoples faces and bla bla bla. The game itself feels like your walking through real country towns and thats all i care about.

The people that think the graphics in this game are crap, should get thier eyes checked. BUT, i do agree with you that the performance is crap. However in the editor mode the performance is fine. Arma 2 is the Most underrated game of all time. HOWEVER i completey agree with the performance issues. They should of focused on performance over graphics and the game would of been so much better.

but then look at grand theft auto 4 on PC, that also ran like a pile of sht tooon alot of mid-high end systems.Even starcraft 2 has soem wierd performanceissues on Mid range systems.But thats no excuse, If I pay for the game and the recommended specs meets my computer specs, i expect much better performance than what is in Arma 2 or Arma for that matter. At least on low -medium settings.