ArmA and other FPS's

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for DGFreak
DGFreak

2234

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 DGFreak
Member since 2003 • 2234 Posts

An open question to owners of ArmA: is the game worth buying?

Bugs aside, what is the multiplayer community like? Is it active? Is it relatively mature? Is there a lag problem? Are games easy to find?

 Any feedback would be fantastic; I don't playing any fps's online right now except for CS:S and a few other of the Steam games. If you can reccomend something else that is popular right now, please do.

BEFORE RECCOMENDING, please note that I fully intend on buying Quake Wars when that comes out; I want something to play for the time being.

Avatar image for Deihmos
Deihmos

7819

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#2 Deihmos
Member since 2007 • 7819 Posts

An open question to owners of ArmA: is the game worth buying?

Bugs aside, what is the multiplayer community like? Is it active? Is it relatively mature? Is there a lag problem? Are games easy to find?

 Any feedback would be fantastic; I don't playing any fps's online right now except for CS:S and a few other of the Steam games. If you can reccomend something else that is popular right now, please do.

BEFORE RECCOMENDING, please note that I fully intend on buying Quake Wars when that comes out; I want something to play for the time being.

DGFreak

Judging from the demo I would say no. Did you play the demo? You will be lucky if your find 10 people playing it at a time.

Avatar image for DGFreak
DGFreak

2234

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 DGFreak
Member since 2003 • 2234 Posts

I was going to try the demo out in a few minutes, but figured I would ask around here first.

 Got any other suggestions?

Avatar image for Gordon_Slaveman
Gordon_Slaveman

713

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 Gordon_Slaveman
Member since 2006 • 713 Posts

I was going to try the demo out in a few minutes, but figured I would ask around here first.

Got any other suggestions?

DGFreak

i just bought it... and i must say, be ready for a game where you won't see action all the time... the maps are so huge, that you have to like drive to the objective, and that takes awhile. There aren't many 50 player games going on too. 

Avatar image for DGFreak
DGFreak

2234

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 DGFreak
Member since 2003 • 2234 Posts
Would you say it's worth my $40? I'm just looking for a good community. Should I wait like two or three more days for something like Shadowrun, instead?
Avatar image for Gordon_Slaveman
Gordon_Slaveman

713

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 Gordon_Slaveman
Member since 2006 • 713 Posts

Would you say it's worth my $40? I'm just looking for a good community. Should I wait like two or three more days for something like Shadowrun, instead?DGFreak

you want a good community?? Go with America's Army.... but I don't know how good shadow run is going to be really. As for Arma it's all about your style of play... you want a realistic game, you can go for this, but then again you can save your money and go AA 

Avatar image for ForsbergFan21
ForsbergFan21

2908

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 ForsbergFan21
Member since 2003 • 2908 Posts

It's only worth it for the multiplayer but also, only if you're into coop.   The other game modes are rather dull and there isn't really an objective except to kill eachother.   If you're concerned about the singleplayer portion then skip it and buy Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis instead.   The game isn't optimized and can run rather poorly.   The community is slowly growing right now but the game being so scarce as it is, I can definitely see the community die rather quickly.   I'm sad to say that with so little people and with so few servers around, people are teamkilling, admins are banning you just because you're not on teamspeak or playing as a team even with little 3-4 people including yourself that are in the server not to mention everyone is spreadout on their own.

You might wanna give BF2 a try if you haven't already yet.

Avatar image for DGFreak
DGFreak

2234

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 DGFreak
Member since 2003 • 2234 Posts

I tried BF2, but the community rather sucked, plus EA didn't support the game nearly as well as it could and should have. BF2142 doesn't look much better, either. Quake wars is what I REALLY want.

 It isn't sounding like ArmA is such a great choice. I've tried AA and was rather unimpressed; I'm looking to buy something actually decent. I don't really care about the money.

Avatar image for Gordon_Slaveman
Gordon_Slaveman

713

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 Gordon_Slaveman
Member since 2006 • 713 Posts

I tried BF2, but the community rather sucked, plus EA didn't support the game nearly as well as it could and should have. BF2142 doesn't look much better, either. Quake wars is what I REALLY want.

It isn't sounding like ArmA is such a great choice. I've tried AA and was rather unimpressed; I'm looking to buy something actually decent. I don't really care about the money.

DGFreak

well then in that case, I don't know if I can help you, sadly there aren't that many impressive FPS out right now. Alll i can say is Half life mods :) 

Avatar image for ForsbergFan21
ForsbergFan21

2908

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 ForsbergFan21
Member since 2003 • 2908 Posts

Sadly, there hasn't been a impressive FPS in quite some time.   While it's not an FPS, you might wanna check out Resident Evil 4 if you haven't played it already on the GC or PS2 but only get it if you have a gamepad.

Yeah, I'm also waiting for Quake Wars and a few others.

Avatar image for DGFreak
DGFreak

2234

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 DGFreak
Member since 2003 • 2234 Posts

I find it hard to believe that I've played all the good games (including the PC version of RE4; I never played the GC or PS2 editions).

Have I really spoiled myself so badly?

Avatar image for schu
schu

10200

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#12 schu
Member since 2003 • 10200 Posts

I tried BF2, but the community rather sucked, plus EA didn't support the game nearly as well as it could and should have. BF2142 doesn't look much better, either. Quake wars is what I REALLY want.

It isn't sounding like ArmA is such a great choice. I've tried AA and was rather unimpressed; I'm looking to buy something actually decent. I don't really care about the money.

DGFreak

 

try red orchestra 

Avatar image for AdrianWerner
AdrianWerner

28441

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#13 AdrianWerner
Member since 2003 • 28441 Posts
If you want realistic tactical shooter ArmA is by far the best choice. And yes the community is quite active, both in games and in mods(with ArmA the game itself is only half of the value, the other half is a ticket to 3-4 years of great mod support)
Avatar image for DGFreak
DGFreak

2234

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 DGFreak
Member since 2003 • 2234 Posts

I played Red Orchestra 3.something when it was a mod for UT2k4; is the stand-alone version available on Steam any different from it?

If it isn't radically different, I'm not really interested.

Avatar image for gerygo
GeryGo

12810

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#15 GeryGo  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 12810 Posts

ArmA......Flashpoint......ArmA......Flashpoint.....

will someone please help to connect between those 2 games? :)

Avatar image for -XXVII-
-XXVII-

313

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#16 -XXVII-
Member since 2005 • 313 Posts
Honestly only get it if you want a military Simulator, not a run and gun like Counterstrike. Compared to Red Orchestra, Arma 5x more realistic. Personally i love simulators and its my favorite game at the momment.
Avatar image for ODDFLAME
ODDFLAME

35

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#17 ODDFLAME
Member since 2004 • 35 Posts
The Project Reality Mod for BF2 makes the game almost like ArmA. You HAVE to squad up, and everyone is mature and uses the mics. The game can be seriously intense, and other time, it will bore you but it's great fun overall.
Avatar image for PaverPopPC
PaverPopPC

565

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18 PaverPopPC
Member since 2006 • 565 Posts

Well DG, I am anticipating the release of Resistance and Liberation. A HL2 WWII Mod, like that of Day of Defeat. As of right now Day of Defeat Source is my mani MP game as of later. However, Resistance and Liberation seems it could take a little while longer to get out and I really hope for it because DoD:S I need to move on.

 www.resistanceandliberation.com A bunch of New Zelanders working on this mod. I cannot wait for it to come out, but that date is unclear. :?

Avatar image for frizzyman0292
frizzyman0292

2855

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 frizzyman0292
Member since 2007 • 2855 Posts
Does the reality mod for BF2 work in the single play game?
Avatar image for Glordit
Glordit

1525

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#20 Glordit
Member since 2005 • 1525 Posts

Does the reality mod for BF2 work in the single play game?frizzyman0292

I don't see why not.

Avatar image for burticvs
burticvs

187

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 burticvs
Member since 2005 • 187 Posts

ODDFLAME said it best as far as PR mod for BF2. I'd try AA and see what you think, the maps are kind of small if I remember correctly. I never made it to MP on the ArmA demo, it didn't really impress me.

Edit: Hey PaverPop where'd you get those little sigs?

Avatar image for d12malu
d12malu

1023

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 d12malu
Member since 2002 • 1023 Posts
Have had ArmA for about a week and I would say it is NOT worth retail price. It's a decent game but you could do something else w/ the $40 you save. I love FPS games and have played every major release on all platforms for the past decade, but I was desperate when I bought this. Kinda like a Rainbow Six and BF game all in one, though it leans heavily toward Rainbow Six in the realistic elements. Graphics are standard, nothing that'll amaze you but you probably won't complain about them. Controls could be more intuitive, you'll find yourself searching for the right key for a basic move or command. Maps are huge and you will travel just to get to the action, sounds kinda cool but doesnt end up being cool. Multiplayer was a big drag, standard options and not many players. Really makes you feel like you could be doing something better. Just so many other good populated multiplayers you could be on instead. The game shows signs of being extremely rewarding if you put the time and effort into sticking with it. But initially, just doesnt seem worth it to. Get it if you need your fix, but be ready for disappointment if you are used to AAA titles.
Avatar image for DGFreak
DGFreak

2234

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23 DGFreak
Member since 2003 • 2234 Posts

Have had ArmA for about a week and I would say it is NOT worth retail price. It's a decent game but you could do something else w/ the $40 you save. I love FPS games and have played every major release on all platforms for the past decade, but I was desperate when I bought this. Kinda like a Rainbow Six and BF game all in one, though it leans heavily toward Rainbow Six in the realistic elements. Graphics are standard, nothing that'll amaze you but you probably won't complain about them. Controls could be more intuitive, you'll find yourself searching for the right key for a basic move or command. Maps are huge and you will travel just to get to the action, sounds kinda cool but doesnt end up being cool. Multiplayer was a big drag, standard options and not many players. Really makes you feel like you could be doing something better. Just so many other good populated multiplayers you could be on instead. The game shows signs of being extremely rewarding if you put the time and effort into sticking with it. But initially, just doesnt seem worth it to. Get it if you need your fix, but be ready for disappointment if you are used to AAA titles.d12malu

 

If you've played all the major releasese, what do you reccomend right now? I won't be getting ArmA after your description; it sounds like a good idea just poorly executed.

Avatar image for Artosa
Artosa

5063

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24 Artosa
Member since 2005 • 5063 Posts
buy it if you like realistic combat sims.if your a normal gamer, you probably wont like it.
Avatar image for BlackAlpha666
BlackAlpha666

2614

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 BlackAlpha666
Member since 2005 • 2614 Posts

Red Orchestra is better in my opinion. It's more realistic because the controls aren't as buggy/slow as in ArmA. And it doesn't have lots of visual aids like waypoints, crosshairs, etc, which make the game unrealistic. It also has a better ballistics model for the tanks. It really matters where and how you hit the tanks, sometimes shots can be deflected. Same counts for all the other vehicles but because all other vehicles are lightly armored, they usually explode by the first AT weapon hit. The maps are made in such a way that you never have to travel much to see the action. You simple respawn 100 - 150 meters from the fronline, kind of like in Battlefield 2. Except in the huge tank maps, in those maps you have to travel a little but that's no problem because you can simply take a tank (or APC for infantry). Besides, you'll be "sniping" (shooting from long distances) other tanks anyway and they will do the same to you so you'll always see some action. This is a pretty realistic game so if you don't like realism, don't get it. Realism games tend to scare away the immature idiots so the community is pretty cool and mature.

Personally I hate WW2 games because I've played so many of them. I don't hate this one, however. The thing is that I don't really hate WW2 games, I hate the arcade WW2 games. This one is not one of them. I always like realism games because there are so few of them.

Also note that Red Orchestra is better for the player VS player action. However, ArmA is excelent for co-op.

Avatar image for Artosa
Artosa

5063

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 Artosa
Member since 2005 • 5063 Posts

the armed assault aids can be turned off, red orchestra isnt more realistic than armed assault.

Avatar image for Lonelynight
Lonelynight

30051

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27 Lonelynight
Member since 2006 • 30051 Posts

I tried BF2, but the community rather sucked, plus EA didn't support the game nearly as well as it could and should have. BF2142 doesn't look much better, either. Quake wars is what I REALLY want.

It isn't sounding like ArmA is such a great choice. I've tried AA and was rather unimpressed; I'm looking to buy something actually decent. I don't really care about the money.

DGFreak

If you don't like AA don't then I don't think you would like ArmA too because AA is very realistic and ArmA is 2x the realisem in AA.

Avatar image for d12malu
d12malu

1023

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28 d12malu
Member since 2002 • 1023 Posts

[QUOTE="d12malu"]Have had ArmA for about a week and I would say it is NOT worth retail price. It's a decent game but you could do something else w/ the $40 you save. I love FPS games and have played every major release on all platforms for the past decade, but I was desperate when I bought this. Kinda like a Rainbow Six and BF game all in one, though it leans heavily toward Rainbow Six in the realistic elements. Graphics are standard, nothing that'll amaze you but you probably won't complain about them. Controls could be more intuitive, you'll find yourself searching for the right key for a basic move or command. Maps are huge and you will travel just to get to the action, sounds kinda cool but doesnt end up being cool. Multiplayer was a big drag, standard options and not many players. Really makes you feel like you could be doing something better. Just so many other good populated multiplayers you could be on instead. The game shows signs of being extremely rewarding if you put the time and effort into sticking with it. But initially, just doesnt seem worth it to. Get it if you need your fix, but be ready for disappointment if you are used to AAA titles.DGFreak

 

If you've played all the major releasese, what do you reccomend right now? I won't be getting ArmA after your description; it sounds like a good idea just poorly executed.

Out of all the latest games, STALKER is easily the best of the bunch. It makes other shooters feel like a linear dungeon crawl and heavily scripted. In fact, I don't think I could go back to a regular FPS, STALKER may have revolutionized the genre. STALKER w/ mods would be a game-of-the-year candidate. Multiplayer gives me problems (think my mods screwed something up) but at least there seems to be people playing it. I also really like the Stalker community. A lot of mods are available fairly soon and the developers have already said they will be revisiting the setting in future games. If you have a system where you don't have to be stingy and can play with high settings, you should have the game run smoothly. I haven't crashed one time and I run high settings with over 10 mods. Only drawback is STALKER is such a good game that it'll leaving you wanting more. Main storyline can be done in one intense sitting and just when you start to get sucked into the game, it's over. If you were thinking about ArmA then you probably have already played Stalker. If you were scared away by instability and mixed reviews, you owe it to yourself as a gamer to try it out. Remember, the mods are the key, they change this game from being good to great.

Other than that, there isnt much out there new. Im waiting on the next big thing like you. BF2142 is worth a play, if only to get you ready for Quake Wars. I despise EA but have played their BF series since BF 1942, and they know what they are doing when it comes to that series. I still suffer from random crashes and disconnects on BF 2142 which eventually led to me canning the game, but I still bought the x-pac, played long enough to max out a couple of my favorite tech trees, and it was a lot of fun while it lasted. CS is a classic so you will probably never completely replace it.

Edit: One game I haven't tried is Red Orchestra. WW2 games make me want to throw up but I've heard good things about this game, if you want large maps with realistic shooting and vehicles in a multiplayer. 

Avatar image for EndersAres
EndersAres

5711

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29 EndersAres
Member since 2005 • 5711 Posts

Red Orchestra. If you turn on the options the game becomes the most realistic ww2 shooter available. Now there is another that defines realism called WW2OL but that's pay to play. Just like any community, RO has its share of jackasses. You should definitly check out 2142. The community is strong and mature. You just need to find the right servers. If you play on a crappy server you are bound to run into cheaters and jerks.

Right now there isn't much out. It won't change for a while as there is only a few good games coming out in the next six months.

Avatar image for BlackAlpha666
BlackAlpha666

2614

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30 BlackAlpha666
Member since 2005 • 2614 Posts

The problem with Armed Assault (ArmA) is that it's basically the same as the 6 year old game Operation Flashpoint (OFP). The controls and graphics were acceptable in OFP because it was an unique game and the combined vehicle and infantry combat was a new concept at that time so it was a bit rough. But that doesn't mean that there was something wrong. They didn't bother fixing the controls and aiming system in ArmA. It still feels like you are controlling some other guy. It doesn't feel like you are there on the battlefield and you are in control of your body. You press "go left button" and the guy moves like 1 second later. You quickly want to turn around, instead you have to wait like 4 seconds before the body stops turning. You move the mouse and there's that annoying delay before the screen/crosshair starts moving. There are many other things wrong with the controls and all of this makes the movement and aiming really buggy, especially when compared to other newer and even older games. Obviously, I'm over exeggerating with the times. I'm doing that to make a point. But are we playing as highly trained soldiers or some old grandpa reservists? Grandpa's I guess.

But that's just the controls. They didn't bother updating the graphics. They look horribly outdated compared to other modern games and, again, even when compared to older games. The AI still sucks in urban environments, the pathfinding is horrible. They don't use any tactics in urban environments. Instead they try to use the regular tactics that they use in open fields, which doesn't work very well. Same in forests, actually they suck everywhere except in open fields. The tanks are as arcade as they can get. The hit detection sucks on everything, except the infantry. With everything I truly mean everything (except infantry), buildings, vehicles, ground, trees, everything.

There are many other things wrong with this game. The list just goes on and on. The biggest problem is that it's so easy to notice how little work was done to create this game. It's really outrageous that you have to pay for something that could've been a mod for OFP. Or more realistically, an expansion. It wouldn't have been a big problem if they would've added something totally new that would've made the game fresh again but they didn't! It's EXACTLY the same as OFP, minus a few small enhancements, slightly updated graphics, some new GUI's, some new vehicles. The only big plus compared to OFP is the new chopper flight model, which came in a PATCH! A patch that could've been made for OFP... Bleh...

Red Orchestra (RO) was highly inspired by OFP. RO took many things from OFP and FIXED it. Like the whole movement/aiming system from OFP. You can do all of it in RO but everything is much smoother and more responsive. The ballistics system is also improved. The combined vehicle and infantry combat also improved. Maps are better in a sense that you don't have to travel 5 hours to see some combat. Graphics are improved... Obviously? No, not really, just look at ArmA. It seems like updating the graphics is not so obvious to some game developers. And many other things have been done much better in RO. That is why I say that Red Orchestra is more realistic. The overall gameplay feels more realistic. The only thing it's missing is the gigantic map. Is it really needed? No, not really. You can create your own gigantic maps if you want. There are some, they just tend to be boring because of the long travel time. Besides even in OFP the gigantic map wasn't needed. Most of the time you were boxed in some small part of the map by "minefields".

You should still try the ArmA demo though. But you would have to look past the bugs that plaque the demo and only look at the core gameplay. It happend many times to me that I've read lots of reviews about a game and I was 99% sure that I would hate the game. But when I tried the demo I totally loved it. If there's a demo, you should always try it.

Avatar image for d12malu
d12malu

1023

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31 d12malu
Member since 2002 • 1023 Posts

 They didn't bother fixing the controls and aiming system in ArmA. It still feels like you are controlling some other guy. It doesn't feel like you are there on the battlefield and you are in control of your body.

BlackAlpha666

FTW, I couldn't really pinpoint why I didnt feel IN the game. My thoughts exactly.

Avatar image for bogaty
bogaty

4750

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#32 bogaty
Member since 2003 • 4750 Posts

I think it's an excellent game.  As for other poster's complaints about the controls, I do agree that they are a bit cumbersone in that there are so many of them, but that's to be expected when the game includes so much depth of play.  Were you to get yourself a TrackIR unit and a good HOTAS controller system, you'll find the game a joy to play once you've spent some time reconfiguring.  As for the complaint that the soldier you control doesn't respond immediately to your inputs, that was done intentionally on the part of designers and adds yet another element of realism to the game.  You can't turn on a dime, instantly stop and reverse direction at full speed and neither can the virtual soldiers in the game.  Inertia is modelled both for the soldier's bodies and their weapons.  It takes time to change direction.  It takes time to swing a weapon barrel around and get it on target.  All that's modelled and I think the game is the better for it.

 

I would heartily recommend getting the game provided you're looking for a shooter that errs on the side of realism.  Certainly, it has flaws.  The AI of your squadmates and the enemy isn't the best;  The flight and armour portions of the game are still too arcadish; the engine could still use some tweaking.  But the plusses far outweigh the minuses and you know the modding community is going to do for this what they did for OpF.

 

GET IT!

 

 

Avatar image for isDoooomed
isDoooomed

382

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33 isDoooomed
Member since 2006 • 382 Posts

Have had ArmA for about a week and I would say it is NOT worth retail price. It's a decent game but you could do something else w/ the $40 you save. I love FPS games and have played every major release on all platforms for the past decade, but I was desperate when I bought this. Kinda like a Rainbow Six and BF game all in one, though it leans heavily toward Rainbow Six in the realistic elements. Graphics are standard, nothing that'll amaze you but you probably won't complain about them. Controls could be more intuitive, you'll find yourself searching for the right key for a basic move or command. Maps are huge and you will travel just to get to the action, sounds kinda cool but doesnt end up being cool. Multiplayer was a big drag, standard options and not many players. Really makes you feel like you could be doing something better. Just so many other good populated multiplayers you could be on instead. The game shows signs of being extremely rewarding if you put the time and effort into sticking with it. But initially, just doesnt seem worth it to. Get it if you need your fix, but be ready for disappointment if you are used to AAA titles.d12malu

I would just like to point some things out as I've played the full game for about 6 months now, I can't say I've played every major release of the last 10 years, but I surely played most of them (still waiting for duke nukem forever, damn!). :)

Rainbow Six and BF game all in one? Uh, well, that's probably a legit way to explain it someone who never heard of Operation Flashpoint, but ofc it hurts me a little bit inside.

Yeah, it leans heavily towards realism and if your just in for some quick Action it's not the right game, though some of the players vs players modes are pretty hasty to play, mainly berzerker missions and similar missions. Still the game in general has a very slow pace and is more complex than most mp FPS out there.

If one doesn't like the idea of maybe having to wait 10 minutes in the same spot without anything happening when for example, preparing an ambush. Crawling over fields in enemy invested territory, driving or flying to targets that can be miles away (which can be quite fun with the right people on board and you don't want to have to do it alone, so you better stay alive), constantly scanning your surroundings and moving from cover to cover, heavily depending on your teammates to accomplish something, then most other mp FPS are probably a better choice.

As you said, if one likes this style of game-play it can be extremely rewarding, but it will take time to even master the role of a simple rifle grunt, let alone all the aspects of the game. Personally, I like to be able to snipe at "real" distances and not looking at the wall of fog at ~500m, it also makes moving much more complicated because, for example, you could be detected by an enemy vehicle from 1km away and have no chance because it's out of range of your infantry weapons. The fun in this is of course sneaking up to it and shove an rpg down his exhaust, or trying a "mobility kill" where you disable one or both of his tracks, disable the turret, force the crew to bail out, etc.

The controls take some time to get used to as most keys on your keyboard are bound to something, luckily they are also highly customizable. I've grown quite comfort with them over time.

One thing about the mp at the moment is, that if you have the US version, you're separated from the rest of the world now, as they're using different versions of the game. The patch to fix this is upcoming and there are public beta patches available at the BIS homepage that let at least play friends together. Another thing is, that due to the high complexity, a bad egg can have much more impact on the success of a mission than in most other games (depending on the type of mission of course), so it's best to play in a controlled environment, and even better on servers where you have to get a password first. Of course the ultimate experience is to play in a fixed group, something a clan can provide.

"Standard Options" for mp modes is a bit harsh if you know what's actually possible to do in mp. Of course it does have the standard modes like deathmatch, team deathmatch, capture the flag, conquest and hold, but it also has highly customizable mission objectives, supports several hundred of enemy AI for coop games with, at the moment, up to 64 players, 4 different playable sides that all can play in one mission what allows some pretty crazy stuff, and no hassle with having to download those missions before playing as you will get them on the run.

Good example of this flexibility is the Evolution mission that had quite an impact here on european servers, here some features that are added just by this mission that's downloaded when connecting to a server playing it (just copied the features out of laziness):

  • A rank system based off the players score that unlocks vehicles and weapons as the player gains higher ranks.
  • Automatic vehicle servicing anywhere in the base area (Airport)
  • Dynamic groups, players can join other players groups while in the game.
  • Recruited AI, players can recruit AI units if they are leaders and have a high enough rank.
  • Side missions there are multiple random generated side missions that leaders can pick from.
  • Scores for everything, you get scores for completing main objectives, secondary objectives, side missions, transporting and healing!!
  • The mission remembers you , so if you disconnect and come back later your score and rank is remembered.
  • Missile Cam for hellfires GBU bombs and stingers.
  • Incoming missile warning sound for all aircraft.
  • Optional One hour day mode.
  • Synced time for all clients and jip players.

It runs consecutive even if all players disconnect until all the main objectives on the whole Island are done, which can take quite some time. ;)

I think it's a good example to show whats possible in mission design, even the randomly generated side missions could count as full missions in a lot of games, it's huge. Scripting is a very powerful tool for this and even with the "easy to start but hard to master" in-game editor you can make pretty complex missions (I know as I've put hundreds of hours into both).

 

Some words on the community itself: It will never reach the size of more "mainstream" communities as it is a niche game. On the other side it's a very active community in terms of user made missions, smaller addons like single Weapons, Vehicles etc. and there are a lot of bigger Mods in the works, but the new editing tools aren't even out yet, so people are mostly using OPF tools until now, well, those parts that still work with ArmA. Of course big parts of it are from the OPF community and there are also those kids that like to run amok on public server because they can't handle the fact that they would get virtually raped if they use their usual play-stile, but those will get bored eventually too. Because of its complex nature and slow pace it's also more likely to attract the 26 year old than the 16 year old, so it's a rather mature community. Of course that doesn't mean someone young can't like it.

To get to an end, some words of the graphics: It's very hardware demanding due to high possible view distances and the sheer amount of objects displayed at a time. Those objects are also destroyable, what makes its demands even worse. On the other side the devs are still optimizing it with some good results for performance. It can also look really breathtaking on high settings. If they are not or only slightly updated as some people said, they're free to show me some OPF screen-shots that look "slightly worse" than this, this, this or this, for more pics just check out my other Albums. Yeah, "terribly outdated", I really think BlackAlpha666 was "over exaggerating" a bit with his post, as he said himself, but it's true that most of the features were also in OPF and it's also a good contrast because I didn't mention much bad things about the game, just tried to give some more general information about it in this post.

One says the Controls are clunky, the other says he can finally feel that he's wearing a weapon in a game, that and "it's still just a game" goes for a lot of things BlackAlpha666 said, but it would be too much for this post to give another point of view on this "issues", as it's long enough already.

Avatar image for DGFreak
DGFreak

2234

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34 DGFreak
Member since 2003 • 2234 Posts
[QUOTE="DGFreak"]

[QUOTE="d12malu"]Have had ArmA for about a week and I would say it is NOT worth retail price. It's a decent game but you could do something else w/ the $40 you save. I love FPS games and have played every major release on all platforms for the past decade, but I was desperate when I bought this. Kinda like a Rainbow Six and BF game all in one, though it leans heavily toward Rainbow Six in the realistic elements. Graphics are standard, nothing that'll amaze you but you probably won't complain about them. Controls could be more intuitive, you'll find yourself searching for the right key for a basic move or command. Maps are huge and you will travel just to get to the action, sounds kinda cool but doesnt end up being cool. Multiplayer was a big drag, standard options and not many players. Really makes you feel like you could be doing something better. Just so many other good populated multiplayers you could be on instead. The game shows signs of being extremely rewarding if you put the time and effort into sticking with it. But initially, just doesnt seem worth it to. Get it if you need your fix, but be ready for disappointment if you are used to AAA titles.d12malu

 

If you've played all the major releasese, what do you reccomend right now? I won't be getting ArmA after your description; it sounds like a good idea just poorly executed.

Out of all the latest games, STALKER is easily the best of the bunch. It makes other shooters feel like a linear dungeon crawl and heavily scripted. In fact, I don't think I could go back to a regular FPS, STALKER may have revolutionized the genre. STALKER w/ mods would be a game-of-the-year candidate. Multiplayer gives me problems (think my mods screwed something up) but at least there seems to be people playing it. I also really like the Stalker community. A lot of mods are available fairly soon and the developers have already said they will be revisiting the setting in future games. If you have a system where you don't have to be stingy and can play with high settings, you should have the game run smoothly. I haven't crashed one time and I run high settings with over 10 mods. Only drawback is STALKER is such a good game that it'll leaving you wanting more. Main storyline can be done in one intense sitting and just when you start to get sucked into the game, it's over. If you were thinking about ArmA then you probably have already played Stalker. If you were scared away by instability and mixed reviews, you owe it to yourself as a gamer to try it out. Remember, the mods are the key, they change this game from being good to great.

Other than that, there isnt much out there new. Im waiting on the next big thing like you. BF2142 is worth a play, if only to get you ready for Quake Wars. I despise EA but have played their BF series since BF 1942, and they know what they are doing when it comes to that series. I still suffer from random crashes and disconnects on BF 2142 which eventually led to me canning the game, but I still bought the x-pac, played long enough to max out a couple of my favorite tech trees, and it was a lot of fun while it lasted. CS is a classic so you will probably never completely replace it.

Edit: One game I haven't tried is Red Orchestra. WW2 games make me want to throw up but I've heard good things about this game, if you want large maps with realistic shooting and vehicles in a multiplayer. 

 Your first assumption was correct; I have, indeed, already played through STALKER. I'm looking for a more multiplayer-oriented release. It's looking like I'll just pre-order and wait for Quake Wars. I'll get by on CS:S until then, I guess.

Avatar image for gamerchris810
gamerchris810

2372

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#35 gamerchris810
Member since 2007 • 2372 Posts

[QUOTE="DGFreak"]Would you say it's worth my $40? I'm just looking for a good community. Should I wait like two or three more days for something like Shadowrun, instead?Gordon_Slaveman

you want a good community?? Go with America's Army.... but I don't know how good shadow run is going to be really. As for Arma it's all about your style of play... you want a realistic game, you can go for this, but then again you can save your money and go AA

getting shot 80 miles away with a pistol isnt realistic its just stupid. 

Avatar image for isDoooomed
isDoooomed

382

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#36 isDoooomed
Member since 2006 • 382 Posts
[QUOTE="Gordon_Slaveman"]

[QUOTE="DGFreak"]Would you say it's worth my $40? I'm just looking for a good community. Should I wait like two or three more days for something like Shadowrun, instead?gamerchris810

you want a good community?? Go with America's Army.... but I don't know how good shadow run is going to be really. As for Arma it's all about your style of play... you want a realistic game, you can go for this, but then again you can save your money and go AA

getting shot 80 miles away with a pistol isnt realistic its just stupid.

 

Oh, it's you again. I thought it was pretty clear that you have no idea what you're talking about after your last "contribution" in another thread about ArmA:

i wouldnt call ArmA realistic, inless getting shot 400miles away by one bullet is realistic? and yes i do have the game. but i think BF2 is way better.gamerchris810

How can one be way better than the other if they're totally different games with a totally different audience? It's just an opinion and entirely depends on what game-style you prefer. We've also pointed out to you, that you horribly exaggerated and it's perfectly normal on a real battlefield to be killed from huge distances (though there were problems with overly accurate AI, just nothing even remotely as bad as what you write), we were also terribly sorry that you honestly think war happens only in a 480m radius (BF2) around you.

While it's nice you decreased the still totally exaggerated distance, it's also suddenly a pistol shoot. In the next thread you probably die from 16 miles away because somebody looked at you, right?

I have no problems with profound complains like AlphaBlack666 did it, it was exaggerated but he said that it is. But what you're doing here imho shows pretty clearly that you're not ready to be part of this discussion. Now write something that can be taken serious or go away just like you did the last time, thanks.

Internet=serious business

Avatar image for Makari
Makari

15250

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#37 Makari
Member since 2003 • 15250 Posts
IMO the game is simply realistic to a fault, and that's what most people don't like about it. Talking about Red Orchestra's movement as feeling 'better' is because the thing's a mod based off of an arcade shooter - as someone else mentioned, real people can't turn and change direction on a dime. If you hit the third-person camera and watch to see why it takes your soldier so long to turn and change direction, it's because his body is physically doing it instead of just rotating in place like Q3A. The free-aim box is because you don't have to move your entire head and body to aim slightly around in front of you, you can just move your gun. In any case, you can turn it off if it bothers you. If so many things about the game turn you off about the infantry combat, it's just because you don't like a shooter that's THAT realistic. I bought the game and love it, though I only got it to play LAN co-op with my friends, as OpFlash custom mission coop was an old tradition with 4-6 of us. All that said, I don't know anything about the state of the online community, and it's probably very unforgiving/small right now with the US release, especially being disconnected from the rest of the world via patch differences for now. I don't think I would buy it for what the OP is looking for unless you've got some friends to play with. And yeah, I've got ET:QW preordered too. :D I just reinstalled RtCW: ET.
Avatar image for KorJax
KorJax

2564

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 KorJax
Member since 2004 • 2564 Posts
You could try the Project Reality mod for BF2.  I hear its got a good community, and turns BF2 into a realistic shooter rather than a crap-shoot arcade with 12 year old whiney punks.
Avatar image for MondoCool
MondoCool

866

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#39 MondoCool
Member since 2007 • 866 Posts
I have the game, its terrible I mean shooting isn't bad the demo makes it seem it seem like a better game the ai is brain dead literally, my platoon just stands there doing absalutely nothing.