I installed the Arma2 Demo yesterday myself and, after surprisingly finding out I had to manually upgrade my DirextX9.dll file, was really very disappointed by what I experienced the 1st hour into the singleplayer assignments. The controls, the voice acting, the general performance.. Your review spurts me to give it another try tonight though and perhaps even go and buy it, just to experience the multiplayer part for myself. Thank you.

It seems it is mostly the same as ArmA 1: generally buggy, convoluted UI, ridiculous AI, still lots of fun.

Why are BI not learning already. What’s the point of releasing it before OFP2 and MW2, if it’s (once again) a handicapped release? don’t they realize this will harm them?

This feels like a beta release. I’ll wait 6 months for their “gold” version, where at least some of the bugs are addressed, and another SP campaign added.

OFP has been the only one of the bunch that I’ve played in multi-player, and then, only with one other player. And even then, it’s been multiple times better than single-player. I really hope I get the chance to play ArmA2 with a big group. It’s very unlikely, thanks to where I live.

I have similar fond memories of opflash the original, visionary and uncompromising, and from the vids I have seen it looks like the have been constantly working on everything that was good about the first game. I admire that kind of dedication and the courage not to compromise to the 10 year old gamer.

Hello, and welcome to every squad-based shooter in the last ten years.

Are you being serious? Its nothing like the same thing. The first Operation Flashpoint’s campaign was a far more linear (with a couple of small deviations) more tightly scripted experience. Mostly focusing on set-piece battles and events (though these set pieces you could approach in your own way). OFP2’s campaign is far more open ended, and includes RTS base building, gain money from kills elements torn from the warfare multiplayer mode.

The argument between tightly scripted well written linear games (Half Life) vs more open ended but less charater/story/event driven games (STALKER) has been going on for a while, and I don’t think anyone has been so arrogant to claim that one approach is flat out “better” than the other. However, two things A) Your point is that they are the same, they are not. B) Open ended games generally are more buggy etc than linear ones for obvious reasons. However the broken scripting in some missions (Project Manhatten being the most obvious example) borders on making it flat out unplayable.

In addition the original OFP campaign was fought out over 3 islands. As opposed to the 1 map of the Arma2 campaign. Not that that’s definatly a bad thing, as the world of Chernarus is more diverse and well realised than any of OFP’s islands. That being said, we’re talking about the campaign here, and the campaign’s short length really doesen’t deal with a large proportion of the island in any real detail, whereas you fought all over Malden and Everon (less so Kolguchev)

In another addition, OFP had sections as a grunt, a special forces soldier, a chopper pilot and a tank commander. Arma2 always has you as the same guy. Again not neccerily a bad thing, I always enjoyed the infantry part of the game the best, but again your point that its the same is conclusively wrong.

Indeed, the only time you’ll get near a tank or chopper is in the “Warfare” missions. Which ironically enough is where the campaign fell apart.

I didn’t like the totally broken scripting in Razor Two or Project Manhattan, but I coulden’t feel angry with BiS about it because at least they were TRYING something new and different in an industry increasingly dominated by the safe and secure.

What I DID feel angry about was them shoehorning in two missions that I could port straight from any online warfare map. Making them part of the single player campaign was a horrendous idea, not only was it a woeful lack of effort, but seeing “bases” pop up out of nowhere and summoning troops from money you get when you kill bad guys? SERIOUSLY immertion breaking.

Not to mention that making them over such a large area of map was a very very cheap was to increase the size of the campaign. Not to mention they AI they built is thoroughly incapable of playing warfare and just spams jeeps.

Phemox I really don’t know how you can say its more of the same. If you can justify that comment in any way I’d love to hear from you.

I built an escape mission and played it last night with eleven other guys. It took us an hour and fifteen minutes to play–and during that time none of us fired a single round. I have never experienced anything like that in another game. Lying there in the field as the patrols I had scripted passed, I felt suspense and tension I haven’t experienced in a game in a long time.

At another point, one of the patrols slowed down near our position. After it had passed, one of my teammates said, “Why did it slow down like that?”

Another said: “To make me [poo] myself.”

Good times.

You are indeed correct on that front sir. I bought the game last night and found when I redid the training mission again, that the bug didn’t replicate. Have to say the game is pretty smooth overall. I can’t say I’ve experienced any major bugs so far.

@EBass: I doubt you’re being objective here, as it’s more or less exactly the same thing, but with a slightly different story obviously. But that’s probably why you’re unimpressed by it.

It’s also the one thing I really feel disappointed about. The game still feels like Operation Flashpoint 1, instead of Operation Flashpoint 3 (as Arma 1 was a re-issue / sequel as well, don’t forget that).

It definitely looks good and runs great on my machine, but to be honest… it’s sort of a let down to the extent of not doing anything really new.