ARMA II or operation flashpoint 2:DR

I have reached a dilema

I can't decide which one to get.

I would get ARMA II in a heartbeat but it's so buggy and it doesn't utilize SLI and i get poor frames run running on my GTX 260 SLI system

the only problem with OF2: DR is that it seems that customization options are much less and the battlefield is much less grand.

thanks for any help.

Arma 2.

ok, so do you have any Idea how to get it to use SLI? because 30 fps on high settings doesn't sound appealing

my games ratings? I don't remember any game ratings. regardless, I don't want an "easy" game, i just want to make sure it will run nicely on my computer

so back to the matter at hand, does anyone know if they can get ARMA II to utilize SLI

Get Arma 2 if you want precise realism, a huge variety of weapons and vehicles, and tons of customization options. Be aware, thought, that you will be dealing with a broken single player campaign, bloaty performance, ugly visuals, and an array of other issues.

Get OFP2 if you don't mind some scaled-down realism, a limited variety of weapons and vehicles, and limited customization options. That said, the single player campaign is wonderfully done, the game runs and looks great, and there are very few technical issues.

It really depends on what you want in a military sim. I personally am enjoying OFP2 a lot more than Arma 2, mostly because I'm not ripping my hair out in frustration from trying to deal with bugs and performance issues. Greater realism, variety, and customization don't really amount to anything if the game just doesn't work.

Get Arma 2 if you want precise realism, a huge variety of weapons and vehicles, and tons of customization options. Be aware, thought, that you will be dealing with a broken single player campaign, bloaty performance, ugly visuals, and an array of other issues.

Get OFP2 if you don't mind some scaled-down realism, a limited variety of weapons and vehicles, and limited customization options. That said, the single player campaign is wonderfully done, the game runs and looks great, and there are very few technical issues.

It really depends on what you want in a military sim. I personally am enjoying OFP2 a lot more than Arma 2, mostly because I'm not ripping my hair out in frustration from trying to deal with bugs and performance issues. Greater realism, variety, and customization don't really amount to anything if the game just doesn't work.

dos4gw82

I just finished a playthrough of the ArmA II campaign on 1.04 and I didn't have any scripting errors show up or anything that stopped me from playing.

Also you'll probably want to be buying arma II for multiplayer anyways due to the fact that there are a lot of fun gamemodes out there such as evolution, domination, AAS and Warfare.

The thing about ArmA II is that 30fps in a fight works really well. I get about 70fps at the start of a warfare match, goes to about 45fps when action picks up. Your fps will depend on what gamemode you want to play.

There are tools to help your FPS as well, I have one called FPS helper which basically removes some grass and minor details that you won't notice, but that will really help the game.

I have also played OFP2 and judging you that are gravitating to ArmAII, you won't like it. Its very arcadey. Reminds me A LOT of cod or BF2.

my games ratings? I don't remember any game ratings. regardless, I don't want an "easy" game, i just want to make sure it will run nicely on my computer

so back to the matter at hand, does anyone know if they can get ARMA II to utilize SLI

afrosud12

OFDR has been a blast so far... ARMA II has been uninstalled and forgotten.

The fact of the matter is that Arma 2 is pretty much like an extremely intelligent person with absolutely zero social skills. Awkward when dealing with, to say the least.

OFDR is like a person that is pretty smart, gets A's and B's in all of his classes, but still has the character to go out on weekends and get shwasted. This dude knows how to talk to people, and have a good time in general.

Who would you rather be friends with?

The fact of the matter is that Arma 2 is pretty much like an extremely intelligent person with absolutely zero social skills. Awkward when dealing with, to say the least.

OFDR is like a person that is pretty smart, gets A's and B's in all of his classes, but still has the character to go out on weekends and get shwasted. This dude knows how to talk to people, and have a good time in general.

Who would you rather be friends with?

Uncle_Uzi

Thats a great explanation! :)

The fact of the matter is that Arma 2 is pretty much like an extremely intelligent person with absolutely zero social skills. Awkward when dealing with, to say the least.

OFDR is like a person that is pretty smart, gets A's and B's in all of his classes, but still has the character to go out on weekends and get shwasted. This dude knows how to talk to people, and have a good time in general.

Who would you rather be friends with?

Uncle_Uzi

that's a failure of an explanation... ofp2 doesn't do anything well. Its a cheap consolized rip off of cod and bf2.

It fails to capture the simulation and I find the campaign rather boring.

ARMA II is better but it has HUGEEEE system requirements:evil:

People keep calling Arma II insanely difficult, but when i played it, the friendly AI kept on completing objectives for me! i went through two or so missions where all i did was run from objective to objective, every time i reached the objective it had already been completed. I gave up on the campaign when i was told to look for 'clues' about some guy, with absolutley no idea of where to start on this huge map. After driving around for 20 minutes, running over the occasional civilian, i gave up on the campaign and went with the scenerio/editor for a while. The game is just to clunky for me to enjoy properly. the HUD needs a massive overhaul, it was so bloody unintuiative. I loved the randomness of the game, just hated how difficult it was to do... anything.

I'm about to get OFP:DR today, and i have high hopes, since i honeslty don't care how 'watered down' it is. If its less arcady and more open than games like COD, i'll be happy.

[QUOTE="Uncle_Uzi"]

The fact of the matter is that Arma 2 is pretty much like an extremely intelligent person with absolutely zero social skills. Awkward when dealing with, to say the least.

OFDR is like a person that is pretty smart, gets A's and B's in all of his classes, but still has the character to go out on weekends and get shwasted. This dude knows how to talk to people, and have a good time in general.

Who would you rather be friends with?

simardbrad

that's a failure of an explanation... ofp2 doesn't do anything well. Its a cheap consolized rip off of cod and bf2.

It fails to capture the simulation and I find the campaign rather boring.

"It's a cheap consolized rip off of cod and bf2."

Please explain.

It's all depends what you looks for seriously. Myself would prefer ArmA 2 over OFP 2 for it's ultra realism and the mod community as well for the multiplayer. If you are not that bad with computer, you won't have any problem to add extra contents in the near future that will make the game last for a long time. Keep in mind that it is a war sim and not a traditional fps. Don't think you can run and kill everything. You are just a man after all, you have to plan first and re-adjust on the battlefield. There's now 4 patch out that fixe a lot's of the bugs. The games is not that buggy like some people say. Sure it's not the perfection yet, but I never saw a game that had perfection in it anyway. ArmA 2 have not the best graphic, but it's not the main goal of a simulator after all. I think the graphics are still well no matter what.

I didn't played OFP 2 yet, but from the people that I know it is also really good. It's just not as realism and there's a lot's less contents in the games. I didn't see the script but I doubt it will have as much mods for it since ArmA 2 almost use the same script they did use for the first. I also heard that the single player was a lot's more fun. If you want something that will looks a bit like GRAW (Ghost Recons Advanced Warfighters), this could be the game to get.

Everyone have is game. Some prefer realism and some prefer arcade-ish. It's up to what you are looking for.

Difficulty, depth, realism, and gameplay aside, we gamers need to look at the most important fact: we pay money for finished games.

ArmA I and II were both unfinished. Dont buy them. I dont care how much your loins ache for a semi-realistic military sim; dont support companies that publish unfinished games.

Difficulty, depth, realism, and gameplay aside, we gamers need to look at the most important fact: we pay money for finished games.

ArmA I and II were both unfinished. Dont buy them. I dont care how much your loins ache for a semi-realistic military sim; dont support companies that publish unfinished games.

mrbojangles25

Great point, it's getting out of hand with the ammount of companies that are releasing unfinished games.

Difficulty, depth, realism, and gameplay aside, we gamers need to look at the most important fact: we pay money for finished games.

ArmA I and II were both unfinished. Dont buy them. I dont care how much your loins ache for a semi-realistic military sim; dont support companies that publish unfinished games.

mrbojangles25

your such a hypocrite... DR's devs didn't finish the dedicated server (THAT IS A REQUIREMENT OF A PC FPS!!!), they totally overlooked multiplayer in general. I'm sorry but 2 small maps for team deathmatch is rediculous.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

Difficulty, depth, realism, and gameplay aside, we gamers need to look at the most important fact: we pay money for finished games.

ArmA I and II were both unfinished. Dont buy them. I dont care how much your loins ache for a semi-realistic military sim; dont support companies that publish unfinished games.

simardbrad

your such a hypocrite... DR's devs didn't finish the dedicated server (THAT IS A REQUIREMENT OF A PC FPS!!!), they totally overlooked multiplayer in general. I'm sorry but 2 small maps for team deathmatch is rediculous.

absent does not necessarily mean unfinished. Maybe they wanted to stress the singleplayer more than multiplayer? After all, this is a large-scale military game with a lengthy campaign.

and no, it is not a requirement of PC FPSs.

[QUOTE="simardbrad"]

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

Difficulty, depth, realism, and gameplay aside, we gamers need to look at the most important fact: we pay money for finished games.

ArmA I and II were both unfinished. Dont buy them. I dont care how much your loins ache for a semi-realistic military sim; dont support companies that publish unfinished games.

mrbojangles25

your such a hypocrite... DR's devs didn't finish the dedicated server (THAT IS A REQUIREMENT OF A PC FPS!!!), they totally overlooked multiplayer in general. I'm sorry but 2 small maps for team deathmatch is rediculous.

absent does not necessarily mean unfinished. Maybe they wanted to stress the singleplayer more than multiplayer? After all, this is a large-scale military game with a lengthy campaign.

and no, it is not a requirement of PC FPSs.

yes it is a requirement, its a general thing that there HAS to be a dedicated server unless you don't give a **** about your multiplayer, if that's the case your really stupid. FPS should always have a strong multiplayer component or just don't include it at all.

also Codemasters outsourced their dedicated server work to another company due to the "lack of time" which I find hard to believe because this game was announced quite a while back.

check, your move!

Dear Fanboys,

It is possible to enjoy both games.

Thank you, that is all.

Dear Fanboys,

It is possible to enjoy both games.

Thank you, that is all.

Revolution_DDM

exactly

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="simardbrad"]

your such a hypocrite... DR's devs didn't finish the dedicated server (THAT IS A REQUIREMENT OF A PC FPS!!!), they totally overlooked multiplayer in general. I'm sorry but 2 small maps for team deathmatch is rediculous.

simardbrad

absent does not necessarily mean unfinished. Maybe they wanted to stress the singleplayer more than multiplayer? After all, this is a large-scale military game with a lengthy campaign.

and no, it is not a requirement of PC FPSs.

yes it is a requirement, its a general thing that there HAS to be a dedicated server unless you don't give a **** about your multiplayer, if that's the case your really stupid. FPS should always have a strong multiplayer component or just don't include it at all.

also Codemasters outsourced their dedicated server work to another company due to the "lack of time" which I find hard to believe because this game was announced quite a while back.

check, your move!

i dont know what Big Book of Game Development Rules you read, but there is absolutely zero requirement for a game to include a multiplayer mode at all. If anything, multiplayer is a perk of any game released unless the game is specifically designed for multiplayer (unreal tournement series, battlefield series).

Furthermore, wouldnt you take it as a sign that the multiplayer would be an afterthought if they outsourced it? Its sort of hard to be let down when they essentially tell you the multiplayer aspect will by sub-par.

Just because first-person shooters are the most popular, most ideal, platform for multiplayer doesnt necessitate that they have to have it, especially when so much work and time has been put into the singleplayer aspect of it

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="simardbrad"]

your such a hypocrite... DR's devs didn't finish the dedicated server (THAT IS A REQUIREMENT OF A PC FPS!!!), they totally overlooked multiplayer in general. I'm sorry but 2 small maps for team deathmatch is rediculous.

simardbrad

absent does not necessarily mean unfinished. Maybe they wanted to stress the singleplayer more than multiplayer? After all, this is a large-scale military game with a lengthy campaign.

and no, it is not a requirement of PC FPSs.

yes it is a requirement, its a general thing that there HAS to be a dedicated server unless you don't give a **** about your multiplayer, if that's the case your really stupid. FPS should always have a strong multiplayer component or just don't include it at all.

also Codemasters outsourced their dedicated server work to another company due to the "lack of time" which I find hard to believe because this game was announced quite a while back.

check, your move!

Arma II. Flashpoint isn't bad, though...

well, had no idea i created such a pile of kindling....

anyway, I think I am going to get ARMA II first, then in about 2-4 months, get OP2:DR. I have found a lot of different guides to get ARMA II to run smoothly on an SLI rig, and my PC has more than enough horsepower.

I want a game as realistic as possible, if this is going to be anything harder than Project Reality mod, I will love this game, never had a bigger rush in gaming than in PR mod, being dropped at the top of a hill by a helicopter with a sniper and medic, holding off the other team as they run up.

It depends on what you want, If you want an easy game where people are jumping around like bunnies and able to shot accurately while in full sprint then OFP is for you. If you want a more immersive game that requires skill, cunning and good team cooperation then you want ARMA. I dont know what all the fuss about ArmA2 is, I have had it since the day it released and it has always worked fine for me. Great frame rates, smooth game play and a real military feel. I am guessing those that have had all the problems really do not know squat about computers and how to tweek a system to minimize problems. Either way in the end it is still just a game. I would imagine you will have fun with either one you choose. :)

well, had no idea i created such a pile of kindling....

anyway, I think I am going to get ARMA II first, then in about 2-4 months, get OP2:DR. I have found a lot of different guides to get ARMA II to run smoothly on an SLI rig, and my PC has more than enough horsepower.

I want a game as realistic as possible, if this is going to be anything harder than Project Reality mod, I will love this game, never had a bigger rush in gaming than in PR mod, being dropped at the top of a hill by a helicopter with a sniper and medic, holding off the other team as they run up.

afrosud12

You will love Arma 2...

[QUOTE="simardbrad"]

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

absent does not necessarily mean unfinished. Maybe they wanted to stress the singleplayer more than multiplayer? After all, this is a large-scale military game with a lengthy campaign.

and no, it is not a requirement of PC FPSs.

mrbojangles25

yes it is a requirement, its a general thing that there HAS to be a dedicated server unless you don't give a **** about your multiplayer, if that's the case your really stupid. FPS should always have a strong multiplayer component or just don't include it at all.

also Codemasters outsourced their dedicated server work to another company due to the "lack of time" which I find hard to believe because this game was announced quite a while back.

check, your move!

i dont know what Big Book of Game Development Rules you read, but there is absolutely zero requirement for a game to include a multiplayer mode at all. If anything, multiplayer is a perk of any game released unless the game is specifically designed for multiplayer (unreal tournement series, battlefield series).

Furthermore, wouldnt you take it as a sign that the multiplayer would be an afterthought if they outsourced it? Its sort of hard to be let down when they essentially tell you the multiplayer aspect will by sub-par.

Just because first-person shooters are the most popular, most ideal, platform for multiplayer doesnt necessitate that they have to have it, especially when so much work and time has been put into the singleplayer aspect of it

I don't know where you learned to read because I didn't say that there HAD TO BE MULTIPLAYER. I said if you have multiplayer FPS, include a dedicated server.

If multiplayer is an afterthought, then this game will be dead in two months. The editor is way too complicated for this game. Arma II's editor is more powerful (from a community point of view, I script for it) and it is also easier and more user friendly.

Once again your googly eyes must have read something that I said the game must include multiplayer... I said THERE HAS TO BE A DEDICATED SERVER FOR FPS MULTIPLAYER!

It depends on what you want, If you want an easy game where people are jumping around like bunnies and able to shot accurately while in full sprint then OFP is for you. If you want a more immersive game that requires skill, cunning and good team cooperation then you want ARMA. I dont know what all the fuss about ArmA2 is, I have had it since the day it released and it has always worked fine for me. Great frame rates, smooth game play and a real military feel. I am guessing those that have had all the problems really do not know squat about computers and how to tweek a system to minimize problems. Either way in the end it is still just a game. I would imagine you will have fun with either one you choose. :)

MrUnSavory1

Lol you cant even jump in OFDR! GTFO NOOB!

At the moment though its multiplayer is pretty laggy and broken.KHAndAnime

If you want something that is very simy and very online friendly, get ArmA 2. If you want something that has a big war feel and great single player campaign with the absense of good online, get OFP DR.

I just tried the game for the first time, and while i like it, my stupidity needs to be explained and laughed at.

When i started the campaign, i started blindly charging at the first objective i saw. It happened to be the 2nd objective, not the first (which is where the game has its tutorial).

It took me three tried, but FINALLY i managed to complete the objective, learning how the game worked as i went by looking at the controls. I was about to come on here and whine about how it shoves you into the game with no instructions, but i turned around to see the objective marked "1" on my compass. I started in that direction, encountering a few hostiles, and all the while wondering why in gods name there haven't been any checkpoints yet. I finally realize my error when i get to the first checkpoint at the first objective. sigh. talk about trial by fire.

Anyways, i quite like the game so far. Those who say its like a dumbed down BF2 don't know what they are talking about, its a very compitent tactical shooter somewhat remeniscent of the first GRAW for PC. Its far more polished and optimized than ARMA II, although your control over your character/squad is not nearly as great (although it is a lot easier to get the hang of in this game).

What i really love is the combat. Its very tense, and requires tactics galore. Everything feels very polished and finished, the hit detection is really the best i've ever seen in any game, ever. When you hit some one, white lines appear around your reticule. When you kill them, the lines flash red instead of white. Sounds simple, but its really convenient when your pinned down trying to out of a sticky situation. My only qualm so far would be the checkpoint system, but other than that its really great, i personally like it much more than i did Arma II, although this game can't hold a candle to certain aspects of that one. The AI, friendly and enemy, is better in Arma II, and the randomness of encounters in Arma II is much greater than that in OF:DR. But Arma II was simply to clunky and unintuitive for me to enjoy it, OF:DR provides a much more streamlined experience. Just my two cents and first impressions.

hey OFP2 loves, especially you dakan...

YOU CAN ONLY PLAY IN 4KM AREAS IN MULTIPLAYER. I lolled so hard when I was trying to map for it, what a piece of crap.

This game isn't more optimized or better looking than arma2. Only reason it runs better is because it's not as visually demanding as arma2. It says the game has a 32km view distance, but its really more like 1.5km cause anything past that and vehicles/troops don't really render.

Checkmate, lets end this flamewar of ARMAII vs DR, DR is the clear loser.

If you want something that is very simy and very online friendly, get ArmA 2. If you want something that has a big war feel and great single player campaign with the absense of good online, get OFP DR.

Wasdie

Quoted for truth...

The campaign in OF: DR is quite food. It feels polished, and plays nice. I miss the stunning visuals, in depth controls, and huge battles of Arma 2 though...

hey OFP2 loves, especially you dakan...

YOU CAN ONLY PLAY IN 4KM AREAS IN MULTIPLAYER. I lolled so hard when I was trying to map for it, what a piece of crap.

This game isn't more optimized or better looking than arma2. Only reason it runs better is because it's not as visually demanding as arma2. It says the game has a 32km view distance, but its really more like 1.5km cause anything past that and vehicles/troops don't really render.

Checkmate, lets end this flamewar of ARMAII vs DR, DR is the clear loser.

simardbrad

Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising metacritic score: 85

Armed Assault 2 metacritic score: 77

Im sorry but you said OF is the clear loser? yeeeea

Now, professional reviews dont count for everything, but I will take their word over your fanboy-fueled words any day.

And since when is this a contest? Theyre both great games, each just has a couple huge, glaring flaws

And since when is this a contest? Theyre both great games, each just has a couple huge, glaring flaws

mrbojangles25

Imagine if they combined the best features of both... it would be the single greatest game ever, in my opinion...

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

And since when is this a contest? Theyre both great games, each just has a couple huge, glaring flaws

psn8214

Imagine if they combined the best features of both... it would be the single greatest game ever, in my opinion...

Oh I agree complete. Codemasters' polish and quality assurance matched with BI's talent for making amazingly deep games. It'd be like the first Operation Flashpoint all over again, only better!

[QUOTE="psn8214"]

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

And since when is this a contest? Theyre both great games, each just has a couple huge, glaring flaws

mrbojangles25

Imagine if they combined the best features of both... it would be the single greatest game ever, in my opinion...

Oh I agree complete. Codemasters' polish and quality assurance matched with BI's talent for making amazingly deep games. It'd be like the first Operation Flashpoint all over again, only better!

Indeed it would.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

And since when is this a contest? Theyre both great games, each just has a couple huge, glaring flaws

psn8214

Imagine if they combined the best features of both... it would be the single greatest game ever, in my opinion...

I hate to see threads like this. It's a kind of FANS vs FANS threads. You guys should take a step back and see every point of both and not only think you are the only one to be right.

Without dedicated server OFP2 won't last long. Why? Because the best community this game can have is somewhat some who were playing ArmA :Teams like Shack Tactical,Tactical Gamer and 6th sense. Without dedicated servers those teams won't play it. They won't play it, if they don't play it... they won't mods for it. What is a War sim if you don't have a good multiplayer support... Not much if you ask me. I prefer playing with humans over AI for sure IMO. ArmA 2 is not the best polished game, but it is easy to script for. This lead to a big support community.

The first ArmA do already have more content than it's sequel with the ACE mod. It's just a matter of time to see a better ACE mod see the light in ArmA 2. The best thing for someone that want realism and a polished game would be to wait until some patches from ArmA2 and the ACE2 mod as well.

Also if you compare the flexibility of ArmA2 over OFP2, you can't say it doesn't beat it. The script is really open and can welcome a lot's of new stuffs. Some bugs fixing is way easier than creating something that doesn't exist in the game already for moders.

If you want something to play now and don't want to downloads mods or wait for some bugfix, OPF2 is the way to go. If you don't like ultra realism in a game, ArmA is not for you either. Don't forget ArmA is ''the simulation of a combat environment so effective, that the engine forms the basis for training simulators used by real armies the world over.'' If you want a single player game and don't care for replay value, OPF2 is the way to go.

Not everything is better in ArmA2 and it's why I can understand some people prefer it over ArmA. I just don't like reading words that are meaningless and not right. So please guys, respect each other and try to discuss with an open mind. It will probably lead to a better discussion that will be appreciated by a lot's more people. Thanks.

have you read the reviews that are counted on in Metacritic?

There are journalist with integrity, who treats games with respect and considers their quality with long history of gaming in hindsight.

Then there are journalists who treats game reviewing as a task which just needs to be over with, and has no regard over the quality of the game in respect of its predecessors and influences, as well as gauging expectations of the target crowd to the finished product.

Any review which does not mark down a PC game for the lack of manual saves and lack of dedicated servers (where multiplayer is an integral part) cannot read without a large bucket of skepticism over the professionalism of the reviewer himself.

Not to mention lack of advanced graphical options (for a "grand game") and modability ( with regards to its direct competitor).

Bad review sites which no regard of true professionalism are all over the web. Gamespot had became one amongst them. ( at least in the PC subdivision)

have you read the reviews that are counted on in Metacritic?

There are journalist with integrity, who treats games with respect and considers their quality with long history of gaming in hindsight.

Then there are journalists who treats game reviewing as a task which just needs to be over with, and has no regard over the quality of the game in respect of its predecessors and influences, as well as gauging expectations of the target crowd to the finished product.

Any review which does not mark down a PC game for the lack of manual saves and lack of dedicated servers (where multiplayer is an integral part) cannot read without a large bucket of skepticism over the professionalism of the reviewer himself.

Not to mention lack of advanced graphical options (for a "grand game") and modability ( with regards to its direct competitor).

Bad review sites which no regard of true professionalism are all over the web. Gamespot had became one amongst them. ( at least in the PC subdivision)

Redhunt_86