Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Free (5, Funny)

wot.narg (829093) | more than 9 years ago | (#11760952)

Of course it wont be free. If it was free, all those TERRORISTS! could get it. Then we'd be attacked again, and they'd eat our babies!

Re:Free (2, Interesting)

game kid (805301) | more than 9 years ago | (#11762101)

If ya get this Army thingy fer free yer a terrist!

Offensive Bush impressions aside, I don't expect this to be cheap; it is going to be on the XBox and PS2 and I doubt either system's maker will go sans some dough--but then, that's exactly what I wonder: Do the system makers have to get paid for games licensed/made for their system? I do believe makers sign NDAs, etc. to make sure the system's technology doesn't get leaked to the public *cough*emulator makers*cough*...and besides Ubisoft have made non-free games (and quite a few from a glance of their main page).

Re:Free (2)

Jane_the_Great (778338) | more than 9 years ago | (#11767146)

Yes - Sony, Nintendo, MS get paid licensing fees for games published on their platforms. That's why the console business, while risky and not stable, is a good place to be - the manufacturer gets a cut for every game sold.

Google for Tengen v. Nintendo for more information.

For someone with the nick "game kid", I would think this information would be well known to you.

Re:Free (1)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 9 years ago | (#11767397)

If I am paying they better let you be the terrorist. I can understand the free America's Army that forced the opposition to be terrorists and you be the propaganda American good guy.

Re:Free (1)

aBlooMoon (765359) | more than 9 years ago | (#11768050)

Programming for the xbox requires a development kit from Microsoft. All code run on an xbox is digitally signed (unless you have a modchip). These things cost money...therefore, unless Ubisoft is getting a large amount of money from the Government to offset the above things, it is not at all likely to be free.

Gonna go out on a limb and say. (3, Informative)

rogabean (741411) | more than 9 years ago | (#11760964)

It probaly won't be free.

1. They have had great success with the game and it has grown into it's own franchise.

2. Distribution costs

3. Can you really se Ubisoft doing anything for free?

Re:Gonna go out on a limb and say. (3, Funny)

Khakionion (544166) | more than 9 years ago | (#11761021)

4. ??? 5. Profit!!

Re:Gonna go out on a limb and say. (-1, Flamebait)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 9 years ago | (#11761238)

Will they let you shoot Iraqi women and children, [freespeech.org] like America's real army?

Re:Gonna go out on a limb and say. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11761521)

No, that wouldn't be fair and balanced.

Re:Gonna go out on a limb and say. (5, Interesting)

GreyWolf3000 (468618) | more than 9 years ago | (#11761623)

Who wrote that webpage? Although the images are disturbing, I don't feel like I can trust it. It frequently draws conclusions, and name-calls soldiers.

Don't the insurgents make children fight, anyways? Could the soldiers be talking about killing armed children?

Where does the author even get the quotes? To me, it's entirely possible that those soldiers are made up. I see no documentation or anything.

All the pictures of beat up children are from the cluster bombs--I think the author wants to confuse them and make it look like soldiers are running around leveling legions of children. Even if the quotes from the soldiers were real, I wouldn't be convinced of that by this article.

I'm not pro-war or anything, either.

Re:Gonna go out on a limb and say. (2, Interesting)

JVert (578547) | more than 9 years ago | (#11762105)

I think the "bigger issue" is the link at the bottom "The United States Government Committed the September 11 Attacks". If you belive that then you shouldn't have a problem believing the captions for the pictures.

Re:Gonna go out on a limb and say. (3, Informative)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 9 years ago | (#11762750)

Not to mention this picture is actually a fake, as proven by snopes: foto [freespeech.org]

Look around under "photos" for the original. I think it originally said "We're Ready"

Re:Gonna go out on a limb and say. (3, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 9 years ago | (#11766061)

Also the picture that says 'Demonic American soldier humiliating an Iraqi man held prisoner' is a BRITISH soldier, hes holding an SA-80 and wearing British issue desert combats. Doesnt add a lot of credence to the claims of that site.

Re:Gonna go out on a limb and say. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11761624)

Yes, but a new interface lets you select and de-select your targets at leisure. Among the additions to version 2.0 is the ability to right-click and hit "INFO" to get a quick background dossier before you shoot, so that there are no innocent casualties.

Re:Gonna go out on a limb and say. (3, Insightful)

SoCalChris (573049) | more than 9 years ago | (#11761147)

Can you really se Ubisoft doing anything for free?

Something tells me that no software company would do something like that for free.

If it does turn out to be "free", it will be because it came out of our taxes, just like the previous versions.

Who said Ubisoft was doing it for free? (3, Interesting)

Goosey (654680) | more than 9 years ago | (#11762247)

I am not going to venture a stab at if it will be free or not, but I find it a possibility. Certainly Ubisoft won't do it for free, but that doesn't mean that the military won't pay Ubisoft to develope/distribute it for free.

I suppose it depends on if it is still seen primarily as a recruiting tool, which I suppose depends on how successful it has been as a recruiting tool. Some analysis on it's success in that regard would be VERY interesting, to say the least.

Re:Gonna go out on a limb and say. (3, Informative)

Mork29 (682855) | more than 9 years ago | (#11764675)

Charging money for this would actually be alot of legal work. Ubisoft will get their money, but it will probably be US tax dollars that pay them. The Army has a huge budget, and the recruiting budget has gone through the roof as of late. Retention is a bit of a problem, so they have to get new soldiers to fill the ranks. I'm sure that they could develop a game for under $1,000,000. That is a trivial amount of money on the scale of the militaries budget. I work in a supply unit and I see that figure get spent several times a day in food, water, and mechanical parts. Besides, it IS an effective recruiting tool. On average, the army spends around $4,000 for every person who signs up for the army. That includes no training, no plane ticket to basic, just to get them in the door and signing their name. I'm sure that figure has gone up even more since I've come in. Also, I don't think the Army can legally sell a commercial product (they can auction off certain surplus, but that's different). In fact, I don't think any govvernment agency can (or the IRS would probably have their own version of Turbo Tax). Besides, if it's a console game, it'll have to be on a disc. You'll have to go to the recruiter to get that disk. He'll probably ask you a few questions before he gives up the disk. In the end, people will go to the recruiter to get a free game, and feet in the door is all they need. Selling the Army is the easy part, it's getting them into the office the first time that's difficult. A free game will do that, but a game you charge for won't. Well, that's my $.02 Oh, and IAAS.

they might do it for free... (1)

mixtape5 (762922) | more than 9 years ago | (#11768081)

maybe the government will spend the US tax dollars on the game and the user will not have to pay for it. Either way, it will not be free, Someone will have to pay for it, the question is who? The user or the government

Re:Gonna go out on a limb and say. (2, Interesting)

Wraithfighter (604788) | more than 9 years ago | (#11771829)

Probably won't be free, but that's because of the distribution costs.

That said, it'll probably cost $5 or thereabouts, simply to recover the manufacturing and distribution costs. The army isn't looking for a profit off of this. Hell, there in enough trouble already with Full Spectrum Warrior.

On a side note, does anyone else find it kinda funny that a French company is making America's Army? Cause, ya know, it has a certain ironic appeal :).

Thanks Slashdot! (0, Redundant)

Leroy_Brown242 (683141) | more than 9 years ago | (#11760996)

For reminding me this game exsisted!

If it weren't for this new game, it might have dissapeared from my memory forever.

That would have been nice.

Or more importantly... (2, Insightful)

hexghost (444585) | more than 9 years ago | (#11761070)

Will this next one not suck?

Re:Or more importantly... (3, Insightful)

PKPerson (784484) | more than 9 years ago | (#11761447)

I agree, but not as trollishly. The most recent game, while being very realistic, lacks the action of newer games. I'll admit, I'm a sucker for source, but, IMHO, it isnt fun at all with the +8 min rounds. If you happpen to get killes in the first munite or so, you have time for a snack...or two...

Its just annoying, and compared to other games, even (shutter) halo 2, it cany quite compete. Frcry was great, if a little pricy (this can be expected of new games) and mabey, Ubisoft can pull this off, funded by our (your...I'm still a minor) hard earned taxes.

I for one, welcome UBIsoft as the devoloper od a new game with a great potential, but ugly, and kinda smelly past.
(As long as its free, which is a different debate)


Re:Or more importantly... (0, Redundant)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 9 years ago | (#11761752)

It's quite obvious you're a minor, what with the "w00t" and the problems with simple spelling.

Re:Or more importantly... (0, Offtopic)

MBraynard (653724) | more than 9 years ago | (#11761875)

want to swap referrals?

Re:Or more importantly... (0, Offtopic)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 9 years ago | (#11761988)

Hell yes.

It Won't Be Free Because of Fucking DRM (2, Interesting)

dcocos (128532) | more than 9 years ago | (#11761072)

The game won't be free (for download at least) because with out modding you PS2 or X-Box you can't burn your own games. And I consider it a waste of tax dollars to distribute it any other way, thank you DRM mongers!

Re:It Won't Be Free Because of Fucking DRM (1)

Khakionion (544166) | more than 9 years ago | (#11761547)

That's a really fucking good point.

Does GNU/FSF have any official position on platforms that explicitly forbid free distribution, like PS2/XBX?

Re:It Won't Be Free Because of Fucking DRM (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11762279)

PS2 and XBox do not explicitly forbid free distribution; they have anti-piracy mechanisms which stop you from using a DVD you burned yourself. The US Army is perfectly capable of making the DVD's themselves and mailing them out or putting them in electronics stores for free (like AOL discs) if they want.

Free (5, Insightful)

jericho4.0 (565125) | more than 9 years ago | (#11761082)

Of course it will be free. This is not a game, it's a piece of government funded propaganda, designed to instill a positive opinion of the US military in youth wordwide.

I played it, and was struck by how many times I died. This seemed highly instructive.

Re:Free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11761109)

that'd be a neat fucking trick given that the game hasn`t been developed yet.

Jeez the mouth-breathers are on top form today

Re:Free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11761564)

He's obviously talking about the first America's Army. Dumbass.

Re:Free (4, Interesting)

cjsnell (5825) | more than 9 years ago | (#11763958)

I'll take the bait.

[Spoken as a former soldier]

If you have an axe to grind, grind it with US politicians, not the US Army. The US Army acts on the orders of their Commander in Chief, the President. The US Army does not make policy, it merely carries it out. Our soldiers are hard working young men and women who chose to serve their country rather than sit around and drink beer "back on the block" with the rest of their generation.

Re:Free (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11764859)

men and women who chose to serve their country rather than sit around and drink beer "back on the block" with the rest of their generation.

Replace "serve their country" by "invading whatever nation we are told to invade and killing thousands of innocent people". That's more like it.

Re:Free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11765831)

what is wrong with wanting to rule the world? it isn't like it is a new idea or anything...

Re:Free (1)

RyatNrrd (662756) | more than 9 years ago | (#11798167)

Indeed not. In fact, as far as cartoonish plots go, it's something of a cliche. Problem is that wherever you look, it's only crazy-eyed supervillains that act on such ambitions.

Re:Free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11766986)

Yea sure go Army!

So did get they orders to put up this website?

http://www.undermars.com/ (See gallery 53 to 57).

Re:Free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11767605)

Well, yeah, I used to think like that. But then another "former soldier" said that I couldn't support the troops without supporting their mission.

That makes a lot of sense too, and it makes your advice seem kind of shallow and even fascist.

Re:Free (0, Troll)

RyatNrrd (662756) | more than 9 years ago | (#11775295)

Your options, according to cjsnell:

1) Invade oil-rich nations, kill innocent people, make a big mess and take orders from Thick Dubya. Thereby serving your country.

2) Sit around and suck beer like a traitor. Like a big fat Generation-X traitor corrupted by the Communist, homosexual, unionist, welfare-loving morals of Seaseme Street. You make me sick.

3) There is no 3. You're killin' or you're traitorin'. What'll it be?

Re:Free (1)

PhotoBoy (684898) | more than 9 years ago | (#11766226)

Will it still be free if EA buy Ubi though? I'm sure EA's bean counters will do a thorough evaluation of the game before deciding the programmers need to be put on something more profitable like The Sims: Old People's Home or the 374th Madden sequel.

Re:Free (1)

Pionar (620916) | more than 9 years ago | (#11768929)

Bottom line: It doesn't matter. Since it's owned by the Army (AFAIK), and it's not classified, it's public domain. Anything produced by the US government that's not classifed is public domain.

course it wont be free (1, Informative)

cassidyc (167044) | more than 9 years ago | (#11761085)

the same what that Full Spectrum Warrior isnt

Re:course it wont be free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11764613)

offtopic, I'll give you fucking offtopic.

Maybe it should have said

"the same what that Full Spectrum Warrior (another game developed as a training and recruitement tool for the american army) isnt"

of course silly me mod points != intelligent application

Better question (1)

Lisandro (799651) | more than 9 years ago | (#11761151)

Will there be a Linux port? Say what you want about AA, but at least it was one of the very few quality games ported to the penguin recently.

I know the answer is "no", but one can dream...

Re:Better question (1)

Punboy (737239) | more than 9 years ago | (#11761595)

Forget Linux (even though it would be neat), what about GameCube? That's what I have. Would rock if I could play AA on it.

Re:Better question (1)

Grey Ninja (739021) | more than 9 years ago | (#11761816)

I have a GameCube as well. But honestly, I'm just as happy that it's not coming. The game just simply belongs on a PC.

Re:Better question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11766953)

As I'm sure you already know, there already is a Linux port. This version of AA is not going to replace the current PC game which will continue to grow and develop. In fact, it can be considered a port in itself. Why would you need to port a port to Linux when a Linux port already exists? The Xbox version can't possibly keep up with the dynamic nature that this game has enjoyed so far, unless it will allow for additional content to be downloaded as it is ported to the Xbox.

Oh wait I don't own a PS2 or X-Box (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11761751)

Thanks for wasting my taxes dollars on some fucking game!

Oh the irony! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11761851)

A French company developing a US military recruitment tool.

Re:Oh the irony! (1)

EMH_Mark3 (305983) | more than 9 years ago | (#11763888)

It would be more ironic if Ubisoft was actually a French as in 'From France' company as opposed to simply a french canadian company...

Re:Oh the irony! (5, Informative)

Alarash (746254) | more than 9 years ago | (#11764882)


Ubisoft is a french from France company, created by the Guillemot brothers. They also possess the Hercules hardware manufacturer (formelly known as the... "Guillemot" brand). Ubisoft also posses GameLoft, a cellphone games developper.

The company is spread like this:

- Headquarters are in Montreuil, a city right next to Paris. A few games are developped there, like Rayman. That's also where the websites are designed.
- European warehouse is located in Bretagne (a France's departement, what you guys in US would call a state althought it's quite different).
- And last but not least, the main development studio is located in Montreal, Canada. Games like Splinter Cell or Farcry are developped there. This is also where most of Ubi.com teams are located (aka the evil GMs that get you banned in Shadowbane or EverQuest Europe). The reason is that the Canadian government made a very, very good offer to Ubisoft, and as a result it's 40% cheaper for the management to send people there rather than having them work in France (where social security, health care and transports are to be payed at least at 50% by the company, that's the law).

Re:Oh the irony! (1)

JimmehAH (817552) | more than 9 years ago | (#11773300)

Far Cry was developed by an independent team called Crytek. They're from Germany. Ubisoft was just the publisher for that game.

I don't know about Splinter Cell. I think it was an all Ubisoft venture.

Re:Oh the irony! (1)

Alarash (746254) | more than 9 years ago | (#11775478)

Crytek employees where hired with Ubisoft contracts and many of them worked in Montreal. I saw one of them sign his contract with my own eyes.

Re:Oh the irony! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11780597)

i was under the impression that the engine and initial development was done in Germany, so perhaps then much of the content and polishing was done in Montreal?

Ubisoft? Uh oh... (1)

thirty2bit (685528) | more than 9 years ago | (#11761957)

Given Ubi's penchant love of hostile copy protection schemes, will it be playable for most people? The nicest part of AA is the lack of an annoying anti-user protection scheme.

Just a quote from an old favorite game.... (3, Funny)

dousk (829088) | more than 9 years ago | (#11762155)

Kill, kill, kill..... Doesn't anybody **** anymore ?

Re:Just a quote from an old favorite game.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11762264)

Interesting quote...what game is it from?

Re:Just a quote from an old favorite game.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11766397)

Leisure Suit Larry 1.

When you entered an unrecognized verb to the parser as part of a command, say "kill clerk", it would respond in the manner of the parent post.

In related news... (1)

failedlogic (627314) | more than 9 years ago | (#11762198)

(ficticious) but wouldn't be surprised to see this sometime soon:

A new video game for the US Army is being created by Electronic Arts.

After hearing of the news of having to develop yet another war game in a short time, many EA developers, artists and other staff have decided to enlist in the US Army. Reason: the pay is the same and the days are just as long.

Re: (1)

Maserati (8679) | more than 9 years ago | (#11773647)

Reason: the pay is the same and the days are just as long

... and you occasionally get to shoot at people who piss you off.

Of course its not free the us taxpayer is footing (4, Insightful)

cyrax777 (633996) | more than 9 years ago | (#11762591)

the bill same with the other AA games!

Re:Of course its not free the us taxpayer is footi (1)

altodarknight (832950) | more than 9 years ago | (#11765440)

You the tax payer of the US, the rest of the world gets it free. That's if it is free as its not. Think of it this way, not every person in the US will play this game, lets say 1 in 350 will play it. So 350 people will pay for your game, 50/350 = $0.12 you pay for the game. Thats if its free.

Answer a question with a question... (1)

TrippTDF (513419) | more than 9 years ago | (#11763253)

The only question is, will it be free like past AA games?

Depends on how recruiters are doing for Iraq...

Congrats! (1)

Taulin (569009) | more than 9 years ago | (#11763311)

Wow...this is an incredible contract that Ubisoft got. The few govt. contracts and grants I have done in the past were almost always over paid and plush.

hm (1)

Louse (610514) | more than 9 years ago | (#11764762)

I ventured, around 3 months ago, to post on the AA board about how crappy their engine was and how easy it was for game hackers to cheat in the game. This came after I saw the nice little threat AA offered to cheaters. "And we're comming for you." Ha. I am glad Ubi is making the game, but sadly reserved from pure glee because I doubt the game will be free. The game that is avaliable today is like the first nuclear weapon device (it wasnt quiet a bomb)...held together by duct-tape.

Free? (1)

rafael_es_son (669255) | more than 9 years ago | (#11764903)

Not a fat chance. Pigs would fly before all that. No. It certainly wouldn't happen. Not a chance in many. Na-ah. Nope. BUAHAHAHAHA.

-"Ahhh, children..."

respose from the submitter (1)

altodarknight (832950) | more than 9 years ago | (#11765122)

When I submitted this I had another sentence after the question saying probably not, but maybe a budget release. A free release would have issues with international releases. Production and distribution internationally would not create any more US army recruits, and hence be a waste of money. The only possibility is that it is distributed over xbox live for the xbox release, and bundled with another ubisoft game for the PS2 release. And this is not likely.

Re:respose from the submitter (2, Insightful)

Sierpinski (266120) | more than 9 years ago | (#11765518)

Production and distribution internationally would not create any more US army recruits, and hence be a waste of money.

This isn't a recruiting tool. Its a propaganda tool. I played AA from version 1.6 to 2.2, and there were probably more international players than US players, all across the time board. Most people just wanted a free online game.

The whole point of the game was to make people think about our soldiers, and what they're doing "over there" (wherever "there" is at the time). Nobody ever discussed wanting to join the military just from playing the game.

A recruiting tool is the 'Army of One' campaign at the army is using, not this game. Making someone think that they are an army all by themselves (when in reality they are a drone that is supposed to do what theyre told and nothing more) is what might convince someone to join up.

So the government isn't wasting money on a recruiting tool. They are wasting money on propaganda. They want folks to sympathize with the American Soldier, which will bolster support for them, and for their warmongering leader.

(Yes, I am an American, and have been my whole life.)

Re:respose from the submitter (1)

altodarknight (832950) | more than 9 years ago | (#11765697)

AA was originally desgined as a recruiting tool, the fact that it has this side effect was irrelivant in the development process. It mainly targeted the gamer which was a group that had a low recruit percentage (obviously you can't measure this but its just common sense). The US Army ads all across the web also have this objective. This is shown with the new game. It shows a recruits life in the army from bootcamp to the field to leadership. If it was just to show international people the US troops then this aspect would be pointless. The fact that there are more international players than Us players makes sense. There are more non US peple in the world than US people, these people don't give a rats ass about joining the american armed forces, just playing online. Also, with this game being a console game, there will be less online players with PS2's crappy online system that has very few players. Xbox live might have a decent contingent of online player but no where near the ammount if it was a PC online game.

Re:respose from the submitter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11766206)

You are a fucking idiot.

It will be free: (1)

Sarin (112173) | more than 9 years ago | (#11765558)

You can get a free copy for your xbox or ps2 after you have a small talk -with no strings attached- about your options in the army at your local army recruitment office.

Re:It will be free: (1)

Sylver Dragon (445237) | more than 9 years ago | (#11767883)

This ought to be fun:
Hi, I'm 28 with a herniated disc between my L5 and S1 vertebrae. I think that Bush is a terrorist who should be tried for treason for his crimes against the country, along with the rest of his cabinet. Can I have a free copy of the game now?
BTW, I support the military, and think you guys do a good job at what you are trained to do, kill people and break stuff. Why the past several presidents have decided that you should work as a world police force is beyond me, but no I have no interest in joining, I watched the government screw my father out of pretty much all of the benefits promised to him when he joined. So about that game....

Xbox live is NOT free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11765624)

How will xbox owners play on line without xbox live. I am sure xbox has some legal lock on being able to play games online without using xbox live.

On top of that, I am sure ubisoft has to pay MS licensing fees to sport the xbox live name.

So no way in hell this will be free.

Re:Xbox live is NOT free (1)

leonardluen (211265) | more than 9 years ago | (#11765900)

it is unlikely ubisoft will be paying for that. it will likely be the army that will pay for that, so ultimately all the american taxpayers will be paying for it.

it very well could be released at no charge. but of course it won't be free, the game will be paid for in one way or another, and at least partially through taxes.

GOOD! (3, Informative)

xchino (591175) | more than 9 years ago | (#11766399)

I used to be an avid America's Army player, until I got so sick of all of the bugs. Half of the weapons dont work and aren't used in any maps, like the shotgun and fists.. which have been bugged for years. It also runs like absolute crap. I can play Doom 3 and HL2 both at 1024x768 with moderate settings and they play smoothly. With all the settings turned down in AA, I still get lag on any map more compliacted than Bridge Crossing. Sometimes it would bug causing your teammates to look like OpFor. I once hit a guy in the chest with a 203 round, it exploded, and didn't do a single bit of damage. This game is written like crap, and any time you complain to the community about it, you get 1000's foreigners crying "Quit bitching! It's FREE!". Well no sir it is most certainly not free to us Americans who's tax dollars were used in its creation. I have no problem with them making a game for recruitement but I would expect it to at least be commercial quality, i have seen open source projects done better than that game. I have since quit AA completely, and play Counter Strike Source exclusivly, but if Ubisoft can make this game, and make it right, I very well might switch back. Under current circumstances however, I find it to be unplayable.

Re:GOOD! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11768874)

As to several of your comments they appear to be exaggerations; however, they do hold some merit.

1. "Avid...player" + shotgun and fists "bugged": You do realize that these were available only from the command line and were never actually implemented into the game, correct? And as such they could not be considered bugged but merely incomplete.
2. Runs horribly: This is an issue with the underlying Unreal engine, I am truly sorry for you if you can play HL2 but can't get AA to run. When I played the game (which I do not now) I played on a completely unsupported system; graphic card, cpu, ram everything except hdd space and I managed to get the game to run quite nicely.
3.The Opfor bug: I believe this was fixed before I quite playing on a regular basis (over a year ago).
4. The community as a bunch of "foreigners" yelling It's FREE: First, many of those yelling would be those from the states and even if you ignore the whole attack on those who didn't pay for it in taxes I ask you how much you payed in taxes for this game? They allocated $10mil for the game... Please do the math and if you don't have that in pocket change in your couch then you have my pity.
5. "Commercial quality": you have a valid point.
6. "Open source projects done better": Not to be inflammatory but I really want to know which open source games there are that do the kind of job you would find if you went and downloaded the current version what ever that is in the 2.x range because simply I would like to play it. I love finding cool open source games and even pitching in my bug reporting as I am incapable of programing.

Anybody else amused? (1)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 9 years ago | (#11767298)

Does anybody else find it amusing that the recruitment tool for the US Army is being made in Montreal, Canada? Arguably the city in North America most opposed to the invasion of Iraq?

Re:Anybody else amused? (1)

Sylver Dragon (445237) | more than 9 years ago | (#11767965)

Does anybody else find it amusing that the recruitment tool for the US Army is being made in Montreal, Canada? Arguably the city in North America most opposed to the invasion of Iraq?

Its being made in Montreal, a city that was largely opposed to the war in Iraq. By a company based in France, a country which was most certainly not part of the Coalition of the Willing.
You'd think that the jigoistic reaction that the US had to France's position against the war in Iraq would have kept this from happening, but then, the Anti-France thing was all just a show to galavinze US support for the war in Iraq. It gave the people another enemy to hate, other than the US government which was running us into a war on false pretenses.

Not Amused, More like Pissed Off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11768822)

Pissed off that my tax dollars are being wasted on this drivel, but more importantly, that those dollars are going to a French company who is hiring Canadian developers to do the work. Yeah, that's fuckin' amusing.

Re:Not Amused, More like Pissed Off (1)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 9 years ago | (#11773091)

I understand why you'd be upset that this is what your tax dollars are being spent on (I would be), but are you opposed to those dollars going to the French, or we Montrealers :p

I'm not even an american (1)

truffle (37924) | more than 9 years ago | (#11767410)

And even I think it's dumb this game isn't being made in America.

While the details aren't clear, this is obviously associated with the US Military, and it seems like the money should be going to a US company.

The caveat to that of course is a US company would have to make a competitive offer! I guess that didn't happen, but it seems too bad.

Actually I'm a canadian (Ubisoft main development in Montreal) and I'd prefer to not have this game developed in my country =P

Re:I'm not even an american (1)

Sylver Dragon (445237) | more than 9 years ago | (#11768076)

At the risk of being called isolationist, I agree. Why wasn't this game made by a US company? It often strikes me that the US government should be doing everything it can to spend money locally. Basically, if its a military purchase, buy from a US company. If the government is solving a problem in a particular state or town, buy the supplies and labor from companies in that state or town. This way, not only to you get the immediate effect of the solution to whatever problem is being solved, you also get the secondary effect of that money going into that local economy, which will help speed recovery.
This rule should also extend to international endevors. For example, the rebuilding in Iraq, why are US companies involved in this? The US government should be hiring local companies to supply the parts/materials/labor for the reconstruction. I understand having US companies involved in the military supply train, that is a security matter, but the civilian reconstruction should be using local Iraqi companies. If there aren't currently any, then we put some loans out there into the community to bootstrap a few to do the work.
Same idea in Thailand, and everywere else hit by the Boxing Day Tsunami. Get local companies to do the rebuilding. If they can't because they have been effectivly wiped out, we loan them the money (at no interest, and with a realistic repayment schedule) to get them running, so that they can do the work and reap the economic benefits.
Am I really a bad person for thinking that tax money should be spent locally?

Re:I'm not even an american (1)

Rick Zeman (15628) | more than 9 years ago | (#11773734)

And even I think it's dumb this game isn't being made in America.

C'mon, this is the same US Army that got berets for all of their soldiers (not just special forces, and against their wishes), all with a large Made In China tag in 'em. BIG PR flap.

It will be kinda free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11770850)

i have not doubt that the game itself will be free. however since both systems can get online i expect the most part of the game to be a live PvP game. with you stats nicely loged for govermetn er... presonal review. its what they are trying to do with AA. there is probly spyware in there too.

just my 2 tinfoil cents

AA is in Trouble (1)

hammurderer (819640) | more than 9 years ago | (#11774413)

This could be good or bad. as for being free I dont think so. But lets face it I have an XBOX and I really can't see playing AA on it. it just wouldn't be as good as the computer version. now if I could transfer my jacket over to the XBOX version that might be worth it and also would be cool but thats some wishful thinking, and most likely not going to happen. just thinking about having to get all my certifications and ranks again makes me shutter, also sitting through medic training again. I think I am going to cry.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account