|
|
 |
| [May 19, 2011, 11:25 am ET] - Share - Viewing Comments |
Bohemia Interactive announces ARMA 3, saying the next installment in their military shooter sequel is due for release in Summer 2012. Here are some screenshots, and here's word on the game: After years of intense warfare against Eastern armies, Europe has become the last stand for the battered NATO forces. On the verge of being driven into the sea, NATO command embarks upon a most desperate measure. In the hope of seizing what seems to be a well-guarded military secret, Operation Magnitude is launched. A small group of Special Forces and Researchers are sent to a Mediterranean island deep behind enemy lines. However, the mission is compromised and the task force destroyed, leaving Cpt. Scott Miller washed ashore upon the hostile island. In his effort to carry out the mission, he will face the dangers of modern warfare, an unforgiving environment, and the consequences of his own decisions...
Post Comment
Enter the details of the comment
you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at
the bottom of the form.
 |
| 44. |
Re: ARMA 3 Announced |
May 20, 2011, 04:27 |
Jerykk |
|
|
Comparing ArmA to CoD/BF is hyperbole, as they are completely different games. It's ok that you didn't get that, because the point remains; ArmA is not realistic.
Now you're just confusing me. You originally stated that ArmA was not realistic at all, then went on to state that it was no more realistic than CoD/BF. When I contradicted that comparison, you then claimed it was simply hyperbole. So, you now agree that ArmA and CoD/BF are completely different games but that ArmA is not realistic. So what exactly distinguishes ArmA from CoD/BF? They are all modern military shooters where you play as American soldiers fighting against terrorists and communists in Eastern European or Middle-Eastern countries. It seems to me that the primary distinction between the games is that ArmA is much more realistic than CoD/BF. When you say ArmA is not realistic, do you mean it is not realistic at all or it just isn't a perfect representation of reality? If you're saying that it isn't realistic at all, then your original claim was not hyperbole and was simply inaccurate.
I've found that hyperbole works best when it is clearly a gross exaggeration within the context of the conversation. Your entire post consisted of you claiming that ArmA was not realistic. You then stated that ArmA was no more realistic than CoD/BF. Given the context of the post, readers have no reason to believe that the statement was intended to be hyperbole instead of a genuine belief.
This comment was edited on May 20, 2011, 04:38. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
.. ..
Copyright © 1996-2013 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Twitter 
