|
|
|
|
| Re: Jagged Alliance 3 screenshots[message #149565]
|
Mon, 16 July 2007 08:13  
|
|
 Lytinwheedle |
 |
Messages:78
Registered:November 2001
Location: Luxembourg |
|
|
Why does she have four bullets taped to her arm? Does she feed rounds into the gun individually, thinking it's a single-shot bolt-action rifle? And how did that other chap manage to jam that Aug mag into an M16?
Also, does her refusal to wear at least a flak-jacket to cover up her sensitive bits mean we spend 99% of the game carrying her around on a stretcher, while she's shrieking/moaning/going delirious about the sucking wound in her torso she got during the first fight?
[Updated on: Mon, 16 July 2007 08:15] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
Corporal
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jagged Alliance 3 screenshots[message #149589]
|
Mon, 16 July 2007 14:09
|
|
| the scorpion |
 |
Messages:1834
Registered:September 2004
Location: CH |
|
|
LytinwheedleAnd how did that other chap manage to jam that Aug mag into an M16?
ever seen a c7 or c8, chap?
Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant Major
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jagged Alliance 3 screenshots[message #149598]
|
Mon, 16 July 2007 15:08
|
|
| no_clip |
 |
Messages:24
Registered:June 2007 |
|
|
LytinwheedleWhy does she have four bullets taped to her arm? Does she feed rounds into the gun individually, thinking it's a single-shot bolt-action rifle? And how did that other chap manage to jam that Aug mag into an M16?
Also, does her refusal to wear at least a flak-jacket to cover up her sensitive bits mean we spend 99% of the game carrying her around on a stretcher, while she's shrieking/moaning/going delirious about the sucking wound in her torso she got during the first fight?
Maybe because she is a cartoon?
Report message to a moderator
|
Private 1st Class
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jagged Alliance 3 screenshots[message #156145]
|
Fri, 07 September 2007 17:53
|
|
| yeesh |
 |
Messages:5
Registered:August 2000 |
|
|
Pardon my causticity, but to those of you who haven't noticed the following, shame on you. What are you, blind? For those of you who have, nice work. Now allay my fears, or at least give me the comfort of fear company.
What there is to fear about the SS engine is the what sucked about it: It couldn't render big enough playing areas. As a result (one assumes) the ranges for all the weapons were shrunk down on all the weapons, so that even though you were CLEARLY playing on a board that was less than 800m from end to end, a sniper rifle couldn't even shoot half that distance.
Now of course, from a purely visual standpoint, we've had this same feature in JA2 for all these years. BUT THE DIFFERENCE IS that JA2 uses a 2D engine, and is square-based, and we know that each square is 10m square, so we accept that our little mercs aren't actually 8-9m wide, but that this is just a limitation of the graphics engine. So we know that when it looks like our little merc is ~30m away from the enemy, he's really 100m. Whatever our eyes tell us, we know that the squares are what matters. And that's OK, because the little JA2 graphics engine was doing the best it could.
BUT the SS engine, which I'm sure was also doing the best it could, was absolutely to scale. The soldiers were all exactly the right size relative to the houses and other terrain, and there were no squares. AND YET the ranges are out of whack with the perfect visuals. WHY? Well, we can only speculate. If it was SOLELY a conscious gameplay decision, then it was a curious one, considering the careful recreation of such a variety WWII-era weapons. I don't buy that.
No, I believe the ranges were shrunk for the simple reason that the SS engine just couldn't render an area large enough to use the real ranges. If you played SS, think back to those boards. They were awesome (really), and lord knows I believe 3D is the only way to proceed for the franchise (and any other game that needs to simulate visual reality), but man those boards were not quite big enough. Basically, the boards were such that if ranges were to scale with the graphics, you could park your M1903 in one corner, and shoot anyone, anywhere. But of course, that's not the way they want us to play, and so: shrunken ranges.
In conclusion, look at the JA3 screenshots. Please show me where I'm mistaken, but to my eye EVERY SINGLE ONE shows an engagement taking place at pistol/SMG range. I see no evidence of any large environments at all. Haven't you noticed how claustrophobic these screens are? Are you blind? Sure, we'd love to see some close-ups, show us how pretty it is. But SOLELY close-ups? Don't you think it's a little ominous that there isn't a single screenshot (not a SINGLE ONE?) showing any sort of range? Those beautifully-detailed buildings, those handsomely-modeled mercs come at a price. And that price is the size of the boards.
What is the point of perfectly-scaled 3D troops and environments if you have to pretend a guy 35m away is 100m away? That's just silly.
Maybe I'm just paranoid. But why don't you take a look at all the screenshots for yourself. There's plenty all over the web.
Report message to a moderator
|
Private
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jagged Alliance 3 screenshots[message #164496]
|
Wed, 14 November 2007 20:42
|
|
| parachute |
|
Messages:13
Registered:October 2007 |
|
|
yeesh
What there is to fear about the SS engine is the what sucked about it: It couldn't render big enough playing areas. As a result (one assumes) the ranges for all the weapons were shrunk down on all the weapons, so that even though you were CLEARLY playing on a board that was less than 800m from end to end, a sniper rifle couldn't even shoot half that distance.
...
In conclusion, look at the JA3 screenshots. Please show me where I'm mistaken, but to my eye EVERY SINGLE ONE shows an engagement taking place at pistol/SMG range. I see no evidence of any large environments at all. Haven't you noticed how claustrophobic these screens are? Are you blind? Sure, we'd love to see some close-ups, show us how pretty it is. But SOLELY close-ups? Don't you think it's a little ominous that there isn't a single screenshot (not a SINGLE ONE?) showing any sort of range? Those beautifully-detailed buildings, those handsomely-modeled mercs come at a price. And that price is the size of the boards.
...
The main reason I stopped playing SS was my rage about my grenadier, who seemed to be unable to toss a grenade more than 3m. It felt so ridiculous, I disgustedly stopped playing and reinstalled JA.
I am anticipating a mediocre action game. -- And a game, I won't be able to run on my computer^^
Report message to a moderator
|
Private
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jagged Alliance 3 screenshots[message #175431]
|
Tue, 12 February 2008 10:21
|
|
| cooldeadjim |
|
Messages:33
Registered:February 2008
Location: N.Y., USA |
|
|
Wow, sure are a lot of word throwing going on here lol... my feelings are this, Can't wait to see the real release. I'm sure thoese are just place holder graphics as said so many times already... I like turn base combat, give you time to think and enjoy the surroundings, fast action bases games leave out the atmosphere or the surrounds, too much about spitting lead and not enough thinking. when I played JA2 I only used one squad for my main team and the rest I used to just raise militia. The militia we're cool, but made me feel like I couldn't stay focus on my team. I personally like how JA2 UB was, start up with a team, and go from one place to another. Also, I thought buying guns and what not from the net was kind of cool, but it was such a pain in the butt to have to keep going back all the way to the airport to get the stuff then waste all the ammo you just bought, ok not waste lol but time consuming and sometime throws you off track. If there's going to be random battles/sectors, there better be exciting and eventful in some aspect or another to them. I think if JA3 has some cool cut scenes, a large selection of equipment, weapons, team design, atmosphere, voiced interactive conversations, perhaps similar to the FALLOUT games, then I think we'll have our, well my, awesome long lived JA3. As for the Vehicles, good for getting from A to B and carrying your extra equipment that you might need, not all battle need snipers, and not all battles need assaulters. Personally I like to make them come to me, have my guy waiting while a one guy goes fires a few rounds off then have him run back to hide, once they come into the kill zone, open up. sorry off track lol, but I think if theres tanks, APCS, and whatever, might as well just play fallout tactics. so ok sorry I'm starting to ramble. JA3 you have a lot of people counting on you for there JA-Drug FIX lol.
Report message to a moderator
|
Private 1st Class
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jagged Alliance 3 screenshots[message #175676]
|
Fri, 15 February 2008 04:37
|
|
| chairman_meow |
|
Messages:3
Registered:December 2007
Location: Vancouver, Canada |
|
|
Based on the screenshots I've seen, and what I've read, JA3 is going to kick ass. I'm very excited about it.
I remember when JA2 was released. The graphics were crap, even for it's day. But graphics are not what JA is all about. If they even really mattered we wouldn't be still playing JA2 so many years after it's release. That said, all of the little touches the developers put into the graphics in JA2 (the character animations, the head shots)were brilliant. But JA is all about the characters and the open ended gameplay. I would rather see two mercs who liked each other stroll over to each other and give a high five after a battle than have animated grass blowing in the wind. That's what I want in JA3. Vehicles might be fun but I'd rather get a postcard from John Kulba offering to tool up some parts for your C7.
I feel pretty confident, based on what I've seen, that the project is in good hands and the team has a pretty good idea of what makes for a great JA game. And if it takes another couple of years, I'll happily keep coming back to 1.13 in the meantime.
[Updated on: Fri, 15 February 2008 04:57] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
Civilian
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jagged Alliance 3 screenshots[message #178533]
|
Wed, 19 March 2008 07:19
|
|
| Doolan |
|
Messages:13
Registered:July 2006 |
|
|
The screenshots look fairly impressive, and as an avid Silent Storm player back in the day I think the engine has great potential. One severe downside was the almost total lack of mods for Silent Storm, even though it came with an editor. I wonder whether it was lack of interest from the community or lack of quality in the editing tools (which I never tried). I really hope it's the former, since we all know JA3 won't be as rich as JA2 1.13 out of the box and its best moment will come when the gifted modders in this place give it some attention.
This said, the engine offered not only good graphical quality but also a reasonably complex skill system, excellent destructible environments, bullet over-penetration and deflection and, if I remember correctly, gun jamming in the Sentinels title. It also had visual and sound contacts, bleeding, different degrees of aiming (including the possibility of investing more than one turn into aiming in the case of sniper rifles) and true 3D LOS, which got confusing sometimes but did the trick brilliantly.
In short, all the elements are there, all that is left is taking them in the right direction. One little concern was the rather limited range of most firefights (pistols were only useful at, literally, two or three meters tops) and the ridiculously small maps, along with sub-par AI and some obscure points of the leveling system (you could actually *lose* skill points fast if you didn't use their relevant skills often). The lack of breath and morale bars robbed the game of most of JA's beauty.
Even if the developers do a relatively poor job at it, the engine has the potential to make a perfect sequel if the modding tools and documentation are provided.
Report message to a moderator
|
Private
|
|
|
|
Blog
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
and where was she hiding anyway ....?
