This topic is locked from further discussion.
Meh, Knowing them the demo will be buggy and have performance issues. They will fix those with patchs later on.
Cool, I can't wait to see how it performs on my computer. Played through the original Op: Flashpoint campaign last week to let me appreciate the improvements more. Never played ArmA so this will be interesting. :PinoperativeRSTry making a mission in ArmA... that will give you headaches and make you really appreciate ArmA 2
Do they intend to change the computerized voices? IMO that completely ruins the any immersion that this game was hoping to get. I probably won't buy it unless they intend to fix that.i was watching some vids and it looked really unfinished. but w/e, i'll still try it out
REforever101
should i get arma 1 first? is them multiplayer alive and is the sp alone worth it? johnny27Last time I was only multiplayer (few weeks ago) there were still a lot of people playing it. The singleplayer is good only if you liked Operation Flashpoint, it had some hard parts but overall pretty fun. I would reccomend it.
It's not too bad. OFP and ArmA 1 both were more buggy on release. It probably doesn't help that the majority of people who have played it pirated it and are experiencing the game's copy protection system, which is making it seem more buggy than it actually is.It's been out in Germany for a while now and it is buggy as hell. It also runs really badly and has game engine issues.
-Unreal-
[QUOTE="-Unreal-"]the game's copy protection system, [which] is making it seem more buggy than it actually is.It's been out in Germany for a while now and it is buggy as hell. It also runs really badly and has game engine issues.
Bumzur
I really REALLY doubt that.
[QUOTE="REforever101"]Do they intend to change the computerized voices? IMO that completely ruins the any immersion that this game was hoping to get. I probably won't buy it unless they intend to fix that. Do what I do, turn off the voices.i was watching some vids and it looked really unfinished. but w/e, i'll still try it out
Swiftstrike5
Game looks so bad, lol... ArmA was great, but the only level I could find a server on was the Bridge level though it never got old. Guess I'll see how the ArmA 2 demo fairs.
BI is a crappy developer.
Well, scratch that...they are freaking awesome and have lots of talent, they just cant fix their own games to save their lives.
I still have issues with ArmA, and it got A.) an expansion pack and B.) a sequal before it is fixed.
Im not the only one, either, this game is afflicting tons of people.
From the videos I've seen there seems to be very little physics in the game. How can you have a realistic simulation, that is supposedly used by some armed forces for training purposes, without realistic physics? Even World War 2 Online: Battleground Europe has realistic physics applied to all the ballistics, damage models, flight models etc. and that is an MMO which is nearly 10 years old!
Uh... Wrong game, probably? There is no "Bridge level" in ArmA, as all the missions take place on an island, be it Sahrani, Avgani, Afghan Village, or any number of other islands. They are all free-roam as well.Game looks so bad, lol... ArmA was great, but the only level I could find a server on was the Bridge level though it never got old. Guess I'll see how the ArmA 2 demo fairs.
OoSuperMarioO
There were few physics objects in ArmA1 as well. It managed to fare well without the need of ragdolls and things. They are superfluous anyway. Besides, calculations of physics on an island that is 400km^2 would require a computer sent to your doorstep directly from heaven. ArmA1's Sahrani island took over 45 minutes (that's real-time) to cross on foot. Don't forget, either, that you can see at least 10km of that distance if the weather is clear at any given time. If I hop in a jet, I could effectively see from one end of the island to the other. Could you imagine rendering physics of the same level of realism as the rest of the game for everything beneath me?From the videos I've seen there seems to be very little physics in the game.EvanescenceUK
How can you have a realistic simulation, that is supposedly used by some armed forces for training purposes, without realistic physics?EvanescenceUKI'm not too sure how object physics apply to training...
Training requires you to learn what tactics to use and things of that nature, not learn how far a fence will bend realistically if a 5t Ural runs into it. I'm curious how you feel adding proper physics, aside from visuals, would make the game any more realistic, or make it any more of a useful training aid.
Even World War 2 Online: Battleground Europe has realistic physics applied to all the ballistics, damage models, flight models etc. and that is an MMO which is nearly 10 years old!ArmA has exceptionally realistic ballistics, realistic recoil model, has damage models (based on projectile size, speed, and other things), models the distance and time that sounds takes to travel to you (and how fast an object is going - i.e., it is perfectly logical to not hear the shot that kills you because the shot is supersonic), HDR, and even included a pretty decent flight model as well for a game that openly boasts itself as an INFANTRY simulator. The only thing lacking from it was wind affecting your bullet dispersion. Did you play the first one, or are you basing everything you know off a few videos?EvanescenceUK
There were few physics objects in ArmA1 as well. It managed to fare well without the need of ragdolls and things. They are superfluous anyway. Besides, calculations of physics on an island that is 400km^2 would require a computer sent to your doorstep directly from heaven. ArmA1's Sahrani island took over 45 minutes (that's real-time) to cross on foot. Don't forget, either, that you can see at least 10km of that distance if the weather is clear at any given time. If I hop in a jet, I could effectively see from one end of the island to the other. Could you imagine rendering physics of the same level of realism as the rest of the game for everything beneath me?LordFuzzywigApplying realistic physics to every bullet, shell, soldier, ship, tank, plane (including all their internal components) etc. has been done for nearly 10 years in World War 2 Online: Battleground Europe and that game is played on a half scale map of western Europe measuring 320,000 sq km at the last count, and that was a couple of years ago so it is probably much bigger now as they model new towns and cities every few months and it runs fine on my 3 year old computer. It takes hours to fly accross the map and days to drive or walk accross, some crazy players have done it just to find out how long it would take :D
I'm not too sure how object physics apply to training...To me it is very important in a realistic simulation to model the physics for the armour types and thicknesses, weak spots, bullet and shell types, sizes, velocities, damage models, flight models etc. as realistically as possible and the players would then need to train how best to use this information tofind out what ammo to fire, at what agle, at what distance, at which part of a tank for example to get the best results. This is the way things are done in WW2OL:BETraining requires you to learn what tactics to use and things of that nature, not learn how far a fence will bend realistically if a 5t Ural runs into it. I'm curious how you feel adding proper physics, aside from visuals, would make the game any more realistic, or make it any more of a useful training aid.LordFuzzywig
ArmA has exceptionally realistic ballistics, realistic recoil model, has damage models (based on projectile size, speed, and other things), models the distance and time that sounds takes to travel to you (and how fast an object is going - i.e., it is perfectly logical to not hear the shot that kills you because the shot is supersonic), HDR, and even included a pretty decent flight model as well for a game that openly boasts itself as an INFANTRY simulator. The only thing lacking from it was wind affecting your bullet dispersion. Did you play the first one, or are you basing everything you know off a few videos?LordFuzzywigNo, I haven't played either of the Arma games yet. I was basing my thoughts on the videos've seen of tanks bouncing around like rubber balls and also the views of the people who have played the German release of Arma 2. When I saw the bouncing tanks I feared they probably hadn't applied proper physics to everything else as well and use hit box damage models for example. But if you say they have applied proper physics to the most important stuff then that gives me hope :)
Don't get me wrong, I think Arma 2looks great and I have it on preorder. I can't wait to play it on Friday! :)
Why are you comparing WWII Online to ArmA 2. You fail to mention that 90% of the gameworld is empty and no fighting gets used, the network lag basically ruins the inf combat, the hit detection and phsyics are still extremely buggy, the graphics (although upgrade is coming with 1.31) are still way outdated, the preformace is crap, and you have to rely on other players being on...
I could go on about the bugs.
I play both WWII Online and ArmA very often. I can honestly say that ArmA is the better game all around. Awesome ballistics, much more full enviroment with much more varitey, a much more diverse amount of vehicles and weapons, and overall just more quality. ArmA has mods and player made content, I can honestly say I have played over 100 uniques missions made for ArmA and that is only a fraction of what is out there. I have played Veitnam mods, WWII mods, mod packs for realism, mod packs for extra weapons and vehicles, everything. Heck I make missions for it.
ArmA is an amazing game. Its bugs and its crappy AI really hold it back. Thats why ArmA 2 looks so good, most of ht ebugs have been ironed out and the AI is much better.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment