Comments on: Stuff Explodes, Dudes Get Shot: Arma II

By: Bassem B.

Bassem B. — Fri, 08 May 2009 13:14:47 +0000

Huh… I’m a fan of OFP and ArmA1, but colour me very unimpressed. This feels identical to ArmA1, especially the trademark unrefined character animations.

I really hope the final product will feel more “final” than the clusterfuck that was ArmA1.

By: Slippery Jim

Slippery Jim — Tue, 05 May 2009 22:39:09 +0000

Sigh… here’s a clip of very old and WIP AI: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBEFgBsIyio&fmt=18#t=03m10s

By: Drahza

Drahza — Tue, 05 May 2009 04:46:18 +0000

@Slippery Jim, I’d have to say that the burden of proof lies with you my friend, let’s see these fantastic AI in action.

Lets have a look at the major features that have been added to the game from OFP 1.96 to Arma 1.16.
-JIP multiplayer
-Multiple turrets on vehicles
-New scripting commands
-Swimming
-Missiles on car class vehicles

That’s less improvements, developments and additions than came with the Resistance expansion pack for OFP, let alone the difference between OFP 1.00 and 1.96.

More work went into OFP patches than went into the whole of Arma1. Just look at the ‘campaign’, the woeful single missions and it’s near unplayability at initial release.

Arma2 looks amazing, for sure, but there’s nothing to suggest the actual game engine is any better than ARma1.

By: Slippery Jim

Slippery Jim — Mon, 04 May 2009 19:15:26 +0000

If you provide a link for the ‘retarded AI’ I’ll provide you a barrage of links for the suppressive fire and a better wounding system.

By: Dongles

Dongles — Mon, 04 May 2009 17:48:11 +0000

Wow, if rudimentary FCS modelling is too complex for you guys, maybe Halo or BF2 is more your speed. M1 Tank Platoon had more advanced FCS and armor/penetration modeling on 386s almost 2 decades ago. The OFP/ArmA hitpoints system is suitable for action games like BF2, but hardly appropriate for a self-proclaimed tactical shooter/simulation.

As for advanced wounding and suppressive fire, can you provide a link? Because that is the first I’ve heard of it.

I’m complaining about ArmA2 because I want an actual successor to OFP. Something superior. I’d love to be totally wrong and throw my money at BIS for a game that has more features than WGL 5.1. I don’t understand why you BIS sycophants are so delighted with “OFP 1.97: Not really the next generation, but gosh, it’s fairly pretty”.

By: Bhazor

Bhazor — Mon, 04 May 2009 15:13:14 +0000

Pet Tech Peeve: Where a satellite is shown zooming in and the image becomes blocky and then becomes crisper. Zoom does not work like! That only happens if you zoom in on an actual picture and then replace the image with a crisper close up a la Google Maps. I’m pretty certain the American Army doesn’t use Google Maps to analyse war zones.

By: Dinger

Dinger — Mon, 04 May 2009 11:15:38 +0000

Uh. Chaz: TrackIR works really well: the problems you mentioned just aren’t there — it’s not at all like looking out of the corner of your eye.
On the other hand, I’m not a fan of ArmA’s implementation of TrackIR. It feels like they limited the speed of head movement. So you turn your head, and the view “catches up” to your position. It’s the only game implementation of TrackIR that made me queasy. So that tracking in ArmA2 is much faster is more necessary than good news.

The rest? Their dynamic range still looks hard to me. I remember playing with the sky lighting in the engine in ArmA, and I never could get it to “feel” right. It still looks that way: really bright sky, really dark terrain. It’s as if the whole game were shot on a cheap digital camera on a bright overcast day.

Still, it’s the only thing of its type out there, and I hope it does really well.

By: Gap Gen

Gap Gen — Mon, 04 May 2009 10:37:31 +0000

Presumably that stuff is in the military’s version? Maybe they could add it as an ultra-Veteran option? I dunno.

By: Slippery Jim

Slippery Jim — Mon, 04 May 2009 10:33:32 +0000

Nice selection of features, there, Dongles. A miserable detractor f I ever saw one. Oh, and suppressive fire and more advanced wounding is included in ARMA2 (though no doubt not up to your standards).

I admit that I would have liked to see FLIR, FCSs, and a better damage model, but I also think that the improved AI (show me otherwise), good story (I hope), improved movement, and more will make up for it. After all, OFP was great due to its realism yet accessibility, a good story and wide-open battles. Most people don’t want to be taught how to use a FCS before they fire a shot in a tank.

Unfortunately for you, BIS are making the game for a wider market than those who want perfectly-modelled FCSs, who are vocal but low in number. Feel free to skip ARMA2 if it doesn’t live up to your excessively high standards.

By: phuzz

phuzz — Mon, 04 May 2009 09:53:47 +0000

Aww Dongles, my heart goes out to you. It must be so terrible to be forced to play a game that would have been so much better had the devs just come and asked your opinion first.

By: Dongles

Dongles — Mon, 04 May 2009 02:11:01 +0000

Does ArrmA2 feature vaguely realistic AFV combat? Wounding beyond that featured in OFP? Suppressive fire? FLIR? FCS on AFVs? No. Then where are the meaningful feature changes? Better graphics?

What ArmA2 does have is dragging wounded, UAVs and a command engine, all of which were available via mod in OFP.

Being a hardcore OFP fan (I still play and mod it a lot), I know that the community will likely do wonderful things with ArmA2. Things the devs should have had in there from the start.

By: A-Scale

A-Scale — Sun, 03 May 2009 16:42:29 +0000

Those faces are AWFUL. Thankfully the movement and other graphics look nice.