ARMA II or operation flashpoint 2:DR

Well TC which would you prefer? ArmA or ArmA for kids?

If you're looking for the best military sim buy ArmA 2, if you're looking for something else buy Battlefield 2 ($30 for the complete pack on steam).

To anybody who's interested, I just wanted to say that the Gamespot PS3 review of Dragon Rising is up. It scored a 7.5.

[QUOTE="MrUnSavory1"]

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. :)

Uncle_Uzi

Lol you cant even jump in OFDR! GTFO NOOB!

Noob?....LMAO!!....is this supposed to hurt me? Son, I was playing games when you were still learning to stop wetting your pants. Along with 30 years in the computer industry. Your lame little attempt too 'Cut me Down' was patehetic. Look, go play the sims and have tea partys.......LOL.....Noob.....that word cracks me up......it is used by those with no real knowledge or language skills........LOL

Arma 2. Is a better game. About performance you dont have to use distance view all the way up to 3km .Dial it down abit. At 1700-1800 there is litle difference from max and you get a good performance boost. The same about AA. Turn it off or use 2xAA the game with that settings will still look almost as good as on max settings and you will gain alot of performanceadamosmaki

You still no matter what need a good pc to run it. Don't get me wrong. There's a lot's of issues on fps at the moment. I'm sure they trying to fix it right now anyway. I do love ArmA, but optimization is not his strongest point. 2000 is about probably a most. I can snipe at around 2000 easily in it. Enemies can also do things that go way far too, sometimes it's crazy how they can aim a grenade that far and still hit perfect. At least it is better than in ArmA (the first one). AA can be put at 2xAA for something that doesn't effect much the machine. Higher than this a lot's of people seem to see a drop in fps. No matter what this game have issues about his requirement and that is 100% sure. The best thing would be to try a demo before buying. It's also more wise. I'm sure all these problems will be fixed soon anyway, it's a company that do care about his players. Looks how much they did release for the first. Sure it was buggy at first, but they still fixed a lot's but a lot's of stuffs. Side by side with mods, there's not much someone can ask.

Operation flashpoint 2

i would say OF2 beause it works, not like Arma 2 but if Arma works its fun to play

i would say OF2 beause it works, not like Arma 2 but if Arma works its fun to play

henrynarits

Works fine for me.

ArmA 2's editor alone is worth more than OF2.

From what I've played in the ArmA 2 demo, I wouldn't want anything to do with it. ArmA 2 may be a much deeper game, but it's also poorly made, poorly presented, and unbelievably clunky. OFP2 is right down my alley because while it's not as realistic, the developers remembered to make the game fun and accessible, and it's made for an intense experience IMO. I'd rather have a bit of both instead of having all of one to the point where playing the game is more of a chore.mo0ksi

exactly

i am suprised there are not more class action lawsuits against game developers given the amount of either unfinished or unplayable games released.

Back in the day when I had some money I normally would not complain, but considering I cannot afford as many games as I used to every penny counts. And guess what? ArmA I is still unplayable on mine and many other people's PCs, and we've received an expansion and a sequal before it was even fixed.

My arguement is not about whether a game is good, it is about whether a game is quality. There are a lot of good, low-quality games out there...STALKER, ArmA, ArmA II, Empire: Total War, etc...the list goes on.

Its just...I dont know. 50 dollars is a lot of money for an unfinished product, that is all I am saying. When I get off work and come home and play a game, I dont want to get a crash within 10 minutes or invest an hour and realize the savepoints or mission objectives are buggy, thus making me redo the level.

I will take a good, polished game over a great, buggy game any day.

[QUOTE="mo0ksi"]From what I've played in the ArmA 2 demo, I wouldn't want anything to do with it. ArmA 2 may be a much deeper game, but it's also poorly made, poorly presented, and unbelievably clunky. OFP2 is right down my alley because while it's not as realistic, the developers remembered to make the game fun and accessible, and it's made for an intense experience IMO. I'd rather have a bit of both instead of having all of one to the point where playing the game is more of a chore.mrbojangles25

exactly

i am suprised there are not more class action lawsuits against game developers given the amount of either unfinished or unplayable games released.

Back in the day when I had some money I normally would not complain, but considering I cannot afford as many games as I used to every penny counts. And guess what? ArmA I is still unplayable on mine and many other people's PCs, and we've received an expansion and a sequal before it was even fixed.

My arguement is not about whether a game is good, it is about whether a game is quality. There are a lot of good, low-quality games out there...STALKER, ArmA, ArmA II, Empire: Total War, etc...the list goes on.

Its just...I dont know. 50 dollars is a lot of money for an unfinished product, that is all I am saying. When I get off work and come home and play a game, I dont want to get a crash within 10 minutes or invest an hour and realize the savepoints or mission objectives are buggy, thus making me redo the level.

I will take a good, polished game over a great, buggy game any day.

First off, never compare a game from its demo. Its widely known that demos for games are never a full representation. Everybody I know including myself thought the arma 2 demo was terrible, I almost didn't buy the game because of it.

If you've patched ArmA I to 1.16 and you still can't play it on your pc, its time to upgrade... my dad's dell from 2006 can even play arma I and that computer sucks...

As for quality, you think DR is better quality than arma 2??? WELL AT LEAST I CAN PLAY A MULTIPLAYER MATCH WITHOUT LAGGING TO DEATH. ArmA 2 has something called dedicated servers (something EVERY FPS WITH MULTIPLAYER NEEDS).

I don't need to keep posting an argument because I know arma 2 is better

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="mo0ksi"]From what I've played in the ArmA 2 demo, I wouldn't want anything to do with it. ArmA 2 may be a much deeper game, but it's also poorly made, poorly presented, and unbelievably clunky. OFP2 is right down my alley because while it's not as realistic, the developers remembered to make the game fun and accessible, and it's made for an intense experience IMO. I'd rather have a bit of both instead of having all of one to the point where playing the game is more of a chore.simardbrad

exactly

i am suprised there are not more class action lawsuits against game developers given the amount of either unfinished or unplayable games released.

Back in the day when I had some money I normally would not complain, but considering I cannot afford as many games as I used to every penny counts. And guess what? ArmA I is still unplayable on mine and many other people's PCs, and we've received an expansion and a sequal before it was even fixed.

My arguement is not about whether a game is good, it is about whether a game is quality. There are a lot of good, low-quality games out there...STALKER, ArmA, ArmA II, Empire: Total War, etc...the list goes on.

Its just...I dont know. 50 dollars is a lot of money for an unfinished product, that is all I am saying. When I get off work and come home and play a game, I dont want to get a crash within 10 minutes or invest an hour and realize the savepoints or mission objectives are buggy, thus making me redo the level.

I will take a good, polished game over a great, buggy game any day.

First off, never compare a game from its demo. Its widely known that demos for games are never a full representation. Everybody I know including myself thought the arma 2 demo was terrible, I almost didn't buy the game because of it.

If you've patched ArmA I to 1.16 and you still can't play it on your pc, its time to upgrade... my dad's dell from 2006 can even play arma I and that computer sucks...

As for quality, you think DR is better quality than arma 2??? WELL AT LEAST I CAN PLAY A MULTIPLAYER MATCH WITHOUT LAGGING TO DEATH. ArmA 2 has something called dedicated servers (something EVERY FPS WITH MULTIPLAYER NEEDS).

I don't need to keep posting an argument because I know arma 2 is better

From what I've played in the ArmA 2 demo, I wouldn't want anything to do with it. ArmA 2 may be a much deeper game, but it's also poorly made, poorly presented, and unbelievably clunky. OFP2 is right down my alley because while it's not as realistic, the developers remembered to make the game fun and accessible, and it's made for an intense experience IMO. I'd rather have a bit of both instead of having all of one to the point where playing the game is more of a chore.mo0ksi

I wouldn't go off the Demo for ARMA 2. It's definitely a case where the demo will hurt sales of the acutal game. I couldn't believe how bad the demo was. I almost didn't buy ARMA 2 but I loved the first one and figured ARMA 2 is what it was suppose to originally be so I did buy it. The actual game is amazingly better than the demo and better than ARMA 1. It does still have some bugs but most games to date do. I played NHL 09 only to be frustrated by empty promises of cheating online and autmomatic goal scoring being fixed. And when the fix came out it broke other aspects of the game. So I waited for NHL 10 which is a much more solid game. Kind of like ARMA and ARMA 2. Some things you have to wait for them to evolve. I bought OP Flash DC and will judge both after I've played both.

But as some have stated it boils down to what you are looking for in a game. I have friends who love COD Modern Warfare. I can't stand online except in Hard Core mode. But they love it. I know they will never play ARMA because they find the realism boring so I don't try to convince them of how great I think it is. So play what you like and have fun.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="mo0ksi"]From what I've played in the ArmA 2 demo, I wouldn't want anything to do with it. ArmA 2 may be a much deeper game, but it's also poorly made, poorly presented, and unbelievably clunky. OFP2 is right down my alley because while it's not as realistic, the developers remembered to make the game fun and accessible, and it's made for an intense experience IMO. I'd rather have a bit of both instead of having all of one to the point where playing the game is more of a chore.simardbrad

exactly

i am suprised there are not more class action lawsuits against game developers given the amount of either unfinished or unplayable games released.

Back in the day when I had some money I normally would not complain, but considering I cannot afford as many games as I used to every penny counts. And guess what? ArmA I is still unplayable on mine and many other people's PCs, and we've received an expansion and a sequal before it was even fixed.

My arguement is not about whether a game is good, it is about whether a game is quality. There are a lot of good, low-quality games out there...STALKER, ArmA, ArmA II, Empire: Total War, etc...the list goes on.

Its just...I dont know. 50 dollars is a lot of money for an unfinished product, that is all I am saying. When I get off work and come home and play a game, I dont want to get a crash within 10 minutes or invest an hour and realize the savepoints or mission objectives are buggy, thus making me redo the level.

I will take a good, polished game over a great, buggy game any day.

First off, never compare a game from its demo. Its widely known that demos for games are never a full representation. Everybody I know including myself thought the arma 2 demo was terrible, I almost didn't buy the game because of it.

If you've patched ArmA I to 1.16 and you still can't play it on your pc, its time to upgrade... my dad's dell from 2006 can even play arma I and that computer sucks...

As for quality, you think DR is better quality than arma 2??? WELL AT LEAST I CAN PLAY A MULTIPLAYER MATCH WITHOUT LAGGING TO DEATH. ArmA 2 has something called dedicated servers (something EVERY FPS WITH MULTIPLAYER NEEDS).

I don't need to keep posting an argument because I know arma 2 is better

1.I played the demo, yes, but my judgements are based on the boxed, finished game I purchased.

2. Its not my rig...I have a C2D E6400, 2GB memory, and a 9800GTX video card running on XP.

3. And yes, in terms of quality OF2 is by far the winner. Quality...not gameplay. The simple fact is we all were duped into purchasing a beta build of a game when we got ArmA II. End of story. And until they fix it, I am going to say OF2 is the better game. Its more polished, the gameplay is almost as good.

If you are given a working, intact Honda Civic and a Ferrari Enzo without an engine in it, whats the better car? The Honda, of course...sure, you can sit there and debate that the Enzo would be the better car, but it is not. Why? because an integral part of it is not there. This is exactly why OF2 is the superior game at the moment, and why ArmA II is the inferior.

4. Why, oh why, do you always come back to the multiplayer? That is your only strong argument for ArmA II, and its starting to show when you reply back "But the multiplayer is better..." and you cant say much else.

To sum up, let me just say that if ArmA II had the quality control and polish Codemasters put on Operation Flashpoint 2, it would definately be the superior game. It has good gameplay, good visuals, amazing depth, the editor is far easier to use, and yes, better multiplayer. But it doesnt work well. And, like the Honda, I would much prefer a working, good game/car than a broken great game/car

1. your pc is behind the standards... 2gb of ram hasn't been enough for a while. Also 2.13ghz dual core is NOT powerful. My laptop is seriously more powerful than your entire pc.

2. I'd take the enzo any day. You know it's still worth more than that POS civic. I'd wait a bit and then buy an engine for it... it would be cheaper than the civic and still WAY WAY better. You can have your crappy little civic all you want.

3. I keep coming back to multiplayer because that's all FPS can offer these days. Single player FPS will last the average player about 10hrs and they will never touch the SP, they will go to the multiplayer where they can continue playing the game. Without this, people become bored of the game and look to something else (arma II)

1. your pc is behind the standards... 2gb of ram hasn't been enough for a while. Also 2.13ghz dual core is NOT powerful. My laptop is seriously more powerful than your entire pc.

2. I'd take the enzo any day. You know it's still worth more than that POS civic. I'd wait a bit and then buy an engine for it... it would be cheaper than the civic and still WAY WAY better. You can have your crappy little civic all you want.

3. I keep coming back to multiplayer because that's all FPS can offer these days. Single player FPS will last the average player about 10hrs and they will never touch the SP, they will go to the multiplayer where they can continue playing the game. Without this, people become bored of the game and look to something else (arma II)

simardbrad

1. My PC runs Crysis at 1680x1050 with a combination of very high, high, and medium settings. If it can do that, its more than enough for any other game.

2. So you will take a carbon-fiber paper weight over a working car? That just seems crazy to me, but to each his own. And please tell me how it would be cheaper than the civic, considering the Enzo's engine is 80% of the cost, and to change its oil it cost 2500 dollars each time?

3. As I said in an earlier post, all games need to have polished singleplayer games unless they have been explicitly marketed as "multiplayer only" (like Unreal Tournement, the Battlefield games, etc). Also, I am over 10 hours into the OF2 campaign, and its been worth every penny.

I dont know, people dont complain about Bioshock's 10-hour campaign, and it had ZERO multiplayer. I wonder if you hate on Bioshock too; after all, it would only be fair.

i've been seeing a lot of these threads and none so far has helped me to decide which to choose. it'd be great if someone around here can give an honest account on how much of Arma2 has been fixed to date.

1. your pc is behind the standards... 2gb of ram hasn't been enough for a while. Also 2.13ghz dual core is NOT powerful. My laptop is seriously more powerful than your entire pc.

simardbrad

[QUOTE="simardbrad"]

1. your pc is behind the standards... 2gb of ram hasn't been enough for a while. Also 2.13ghz dual core is NOT powerful. My laptop is seriously more powerful than your entire pc.

OoSuperMarioO

yes, its very hard to take someone seriously when they say 2GB of memory (with Windows XP) is too little lol

also, "teh multeeplayer" argument is getting a little weak

Arma 2 if you want a true sim.

The single player sucks in Arma 2, but seriously, there are so many scenarios you can make or download that are tons of fun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KK6Fo3Y0AU

That is an example.

Arma 2 used to be a bug fest. It was stupid and annoying. After the patches though, it works great on my PC.

The graphics are very good. There is a reason why it scored 9/10 on graphics from IGN.

Concerning Operation Flashpoint: DR, it reminds me of Grid or Need for Speed Shift. As in, it isn't a true sim, but it isn't an arcade racer either

It is leaning far more towards sim, but there are still some arcade elements in it.

Graphics are far worse in OP DR, and I hate the grainy effect that tries to cover it up, but you shouldn't judge a game for its graphics.

OP DR is easier to get into. If you don't like steep learning curves, I recommend OP DR. However, if you just want the better game and are willing to

take the pain of the learning curve, than get Arma 2.

Oh ya, the campaign might be better in OP DR, but it last like 6 hours.....You could get so many more hours from the player created scenarios in Arma 2.

And the multiplayer is pure garbage in OP DR. No dedicated servers, and a tiny map.

There are also some really annoying console touches. Like no quicksaves but checkpoints only instead, and you have an action menu.....lame lol

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]

[QUOTE="simardbrad"]

1. your pc is behind the standards... 2gb of ram hasn't been enough for a while. Also 2.13ghz dual core is NOT powerful. My laptop is seriously more powerful than your entire pc.

mrbojangles25

yes, its very hard to take someone seriously when they say 2GB of memory (with Windows XP) is too little lol

also, "teh multeeplayer" argument is getting a little weak

i've been seeing a lot of these threads and none so far has helped me to decide which to choose. it'd be great if someone around here can give an honest account on how much of Arma2 has been fixed to date.

Jinroh_basic

Jinroh I just started playing ARMA 2 after downloading the 1.4 patch. I haven't played since the 1.2 patch. Not because the game was riddled with bugs but because of lack of time.

I can honestly say I played for 3 hours straight without a single crash or any problems. Only reason I stopped playing is I had to go to bed so I could get up for work. In all honesty the only problems I had before were lockups every once in a while but adjusting my graphics seemed to take care of it.

If you want realism or what I would call as close to real as you're going to get from a game then take try out ARMA. Haven't played OF DR yet as my copy hasn't come in so I can't give you an honest opinion of the game.

If you want a great military simulator with tons of replay value the ARMA 2 is worth the money.

If my copy of Op Flash comes in tomorrow I'll tell you an honest opinion of which I like more and the reasons why.

good to hear that it's running smoother now. but what about the AI? can i expect that choppers won't fly headlong into the trees, that dudes won't zig zag around for no apparent reason, and that my teammates are not ducking in front of cover?

A lot of the people dissing ArmA 2 have one problem in common: they can't run it. Just because you don't have a good enough computer to run the game does not make it bad. Sure it has problems but its scope and scale are unmatched and there isn't really any other game I know of that is this ambitious.

Of course OF2 plays better it doesn't even come close to pushing the limits of anything. Really a game that is inferior in almost every way is somehow easier to run with better frame rates? What is this madness.

OF2 isn't even in the same league, it's a console game and thus plays and looks like one. I would compare it more to FarCry 2 or BF: BC, those game are within its league. There is nothing like ArmA.

OF: DR doesn't have dedicated servers ? That's ... terrible.

good to hear that it's running smoother now. but what about the AI? can i expect that choppers won't fly headlong into the trees, that dudes won't zig zag around for no apparent reason, and that my teammates are not ducking in front of cover?

Jinroh_basic

I haven't played enough to say the AI has gotten better. I'm just happy it's a major step up from the AI in ARMA 1 which I felt like was a beta and then they decided to release ARMA 2 right after I bought it. But after knowing the reason why I understand.

I did have a helicopter crash in to some trees but I believe it was shot down. I wasn't paying close attention as I was in a firefight at the time. So far every other AI helicopter has landed in an open field. I'm only playing the scenarios at the moment. I did have the helicopter in the campaign that taxis me around fly in to the trees once so maybe I'll go back tonight and see if the AI is any better.

The AI is one of the things I was trying to work on with the scripting of the game. Bohemia released an article on how to work with the FSM for the AI. I ran out of time working on it due to work restrictions and I was waiting for ARMA 2 to come out.

The most intriguing thing about ARMA is just the fact the if you can find enough people you can create online military scenarios and not worry about the AI. There are some groups on the web that are dedicated to this sort of gaming. And the ability to edit the game and create great single player missions is worth it's weight in gold. I created a Spec Op mission and played it over and over testing but still found it fun even though I know where troop movements were going to be and where the objectives were located. A friend of mine created a system that allowed people to walk in to garages and have vehicles spawn via a menu system. The modding of the game is were ARMA shines.

Looks like I get my OP Flash copy tonight so I'll do an comparison as soon as I can.

OF: DR doesn't have dedicated servers ? That's ... terrible.

R4gn4r0k

yea I know, too bad I have to stick with the epic, lengthy, and fun singleplayer

[QUOTE="R4gn4r0k"]

OF: DR doesn't have dedicated servers ? That's ... terrible.

mrbojangles25

yea I know, too bad I have to stick with the epic, lengthy, and fun singleplayer

have fun being a loner then

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="R4gn4r0k"]

OF: DR doesn't have dedicated servers ? That's ... terrible.

simardbrad

yea I know, too bad I have to stick with the epic, lengthy, and fun singleplayer

have fun being a loner then

lol seriously? Is that what your argument has been reduced to?

I don't know how to reply to that, to be perfectly honest, so I guess I'll just laugh...

:lol:

:|

[QUOTE="R4gn4r0k"]

OF: DR doesn't have dedicated servers ? That's ... terrible.

mrbojangles25

yea I know, too bad I have to stick with the epic, lengthy, and fun singleplayer

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="R4gn4r0k"]

OF: DR doesn't have dedicated servers ? That's ... terrible.

R4gn4r0k

yea I know, too bad I have to stick with the epic, lengthy, and fun singleplayer

yes they are, so you can communicate with friends and get some tactics rolling.

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

Hmm lets make this clear, again... I DONT CARE ABOUT THE FREAKING MULTIPLAYER. OPF2 singleplayer compaign is better and more playable too. As for optimazation i like the way it looks, and it runs better.

I would also like to add that th MP argument is getting old, especially when you use it to me that i dont play much multiplayer in games.

I like games with good campaign. I would like to point out that with OPF2 you will have a better singleplayer campaign experiance. Another thing i would like to pointiout is that OPF2 is console focus in design but it definitely not dumded down, of course its easier than arma 2 but its not likecod4 of bad company or graw on consoles or rainbow six vegas, its much harder than that and requires more tatctics. I cant really see how it can be possibly make money on consoles. My point is that codemasters did not totally dumd it down for consoles, its still tactical enough for pc.

[QUOTE="R4gn4r0k"]

OF: DR doesn't have dedicated servers ? That's ... terrible.

mrbojangles25

yea I know, too bad I have to stick with the epic, lengthy, and fun singleplayer

The campaign isn't even longer than 8 hours.

And there are so many scenarios in Arma 2, that it would last over a good 15 hours at least.

[QUOTE="simardbrad"]

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.

dakan45

Jesus Christ. No one plays the single player

Go get some player made scenarios. Those are the stuff you play in Arma 2 instead of the single player. Sheesh

[QUOTE="dakan45"][QUOTE="simardbrad"]

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.

foossilo

Jesus Christ. No one plays the single player

Go get some player made scenarios. Those are the stuff you play in Arma 2 instead of the single player. Sheesh

Nvm but there was still a performance increase.:

• Accelerates performance in several gaming applications. The following are examples of improvements measured with version 191.07 drivers vs. version 190.62 drivers (results will vary depending on your GPU, system configuration, and game settings):
  • Up to 12% performance increase in ARMA 2
  • Up to 8% performance increase in Batman: Arkham Asylum with GPU PhysX enabled
  • Up to 50% performance increase in Call of Juarez: Blood in Bound with SLI enabled
  • Up to 14% performance increase in Fallout 3 (indoor scenes) with antialiasing enabled
  • Up to 10% performance increase in Far Cry 2 (DX9 version) with antialiasing enabled
  • Up to 34% performance increase in Prototype with antialiasing enabled

[QUOTE="foossilo"]

[QUOTE="dakan45"] Hmm lets make this clear, again... I DONT CARE ABOUT THE FREAKING MULTIPLAYER. OPF2 singleplayer compaign is better and more playable too. As for optimazation i like the way it looks, and it runs better.dakan45

Jesus Christ. No one plays the single player

Go get some player made scenarios. Those are the stuff you play in Arma 2 instead of the single player. Sheesh

I know.

Listen, I know multiplayer is fun. I play a lot of games online.

But I love the concept of a good singleplayer game as well: the story, the characters, the diversity. I learn to appreciate the hard work a developer has put into the artificial intelligence, setting and atmosphere, and level design.

Why are you guys essentially stating that the singleplayer portion of FPSs is dead? I have had as much fun, if not more, playing singleplayer campaigns as I have multiplayer. Maybe it is because I have been gaming for 20+ years (before most had internet), but I still see multiplayer as an added perk, and singleplayer as the bulk of a game (unless the game has been specifically marketed for online play, like the Battlefield series).

And it is not like multiplayer games are not without their problems: people with bad internet connections, immature players, people that suck worse than an AI character, etc. Yet I dont see you mentioning this about ArmA II

In closing, let me just say (again) that I love both games to death. With that said, each game has a huge, glaring, problem: ArmA II is unplayable for people wanting to go through a singleplayer experience, and Operation FLashpoint 2 has no dedicated servers. Those are both huge problems that need to be acknowledged by both sides of this argument.

You cannot sit there and say Operation Flashpoint 2 is a bad game because of the lack of dedicated servers, and yet praise ArmA II despite its lack of a stable, bug-free singleplayer game. That is not fair or objective.

:shock: If thats the case then this whole argument is without meaning... arma 2 fans trying to pose arma 2 as an amazing game for multiplayer and user maps...that the quality and polish dont appear in the campaign. But OPF2 fans simply wanna play a fun singleplayer compaign. Hmm... how did this argument started again? I still dont get how arma 2 is better since metacritic scores has OPF2 scores than arma 2. You say that no one plays the campaign and plays user made scenarios.:lol: I think that proves why arma 2 is not considered good. Because we want singleplayer campaign and in arma 2 the campaign is meh at best. I think i solved the problem, why is this argument still going on?dakan45

Because some people personally prefer Arma 2. Like me, for example...

"If thats the case then this whole argument is without meaning... arma 2 fans trying to pose arma 2 as an amazing game for multiplayer and user maps...that the quality and polish dont appear in the campaign.

But OPF2 fans simply wanna play a fun singleplayer compaign.

Hmm... how did this argument started again?

I still dont get how arma 2 is better since metacritic scores has OPF2 scores than arma 2.

You say that no one plays the campaign and plays user made scenarios.

I think that proves why arma 2 is not considered good. Because we want singleplayer campaign and in arma 2 the campaign is meh at best.

I think i solved the problem, why is this argument still going on?"

The single player campaign is like 6 hours. It is pretty short if you ask me.

Player made stuff means the game is bad? Explain why LittleBigPlanet got game of the year at the Interactive Achievement Awards?

Everyone played it for its level creation and level sharing because people can make really good levels.

This is the same. People can make some really good scenarios. Massive battles with co-op

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaAnCP9GeMQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KK6Fo3Y0AU

Halo 3 has a higher score than No One Lives Forever, Far Cry 2, FEAR and Crysis on metacritic.

Metacritic means nothing. Not to mention Arma 2 was terrible when it was released

LOL.....an E6400?......If thats all you got no wonder you you don't have a high opinion of Arma2. I have an E8400 at 3Ghz and ArmA2 runs flawless for me. And I am only running dual 8800's. I run at 1920x1200 and never drop below 40 fps. It is easy to blame a Developer for problems but sometimes we must look back at our own skills with a computer and setting them up to run at the optimum performance. developers nowdays haveproblems putting out flawless software but we have to look at the obstacles faced nowdays with hardware that we did not have in the 80's or 90's. We also have the fact that developers nowdays just can't hold a candle to developers of old. I just don't think they have the skills. You can argue all you want but it won't change anyones opinion. :)

81(opf) vs 77(arma)

81 > 77

or

OPF > Arma 2

what something could be is not what it currently is.....

LOL.....an E6400?......If thats all you got no wonder you you don't have a high opinion of Arma2. I have an E8400 at 3Ghz and ArmA2 runs flawless for me. And I am only running dual 8800's. I run at 1920x1200 and never drop below 40 fps. It is easy to blame a Developer for problems but sometimes we must look back at our own skills with a computer and setting them up to run at the optimum performance. developers nowdays haveproblems putting out flawless software but we have to look at the obstacles faced nowdays with hardware that we did not have in the 80's or 90's. We also have the fact that developers nowdays just can't hold a candle to developers of old. I just don't think they have the skills. You can argue all you want but it won't change anyones opinion. :)

MrUnSavory1

I know the difference between poor performance and poor coding and quality control.

If a game stutters when there is an entire battle taking place, thats my bad; an E6400 cannot handle that stuff, and I have come to accept it.

If a game crashes, however, for no apparent reason and has other non-hardware-related issues, that is their (the developer's) bad.

I dont fault BI for the former (stuttering), but I do fault them for the crashes and poor performance, especially whenperformance should be ideal. ALso, my PC runs Crysis with almost no issues, and that is likely the most demanding game out there for both CPUs and GPUs; if a small studio like Crytek can refine a powerhouse game like Crysis, I do not see why BI cant do the same.

As I continue to say, I have purchased and enjoy both games, but they have their faults. With that said, Operation Flashpoint 2 is polished and has met every obligation to gamers (multiplayer is not an obligation for any game unless specifically stated by the developer).

Conversely, ArmA 2 is an excellent game but has not met every obligation to gamers (it is a bug-ridden game that is, thus far, not worth purchasing until fixed).

When I argue against ArmA 2, it is not because I hate it, or even think its worse than Operation Flashpoint 2. I just think it is an insult to gamers, given the pedigree behind it. There is infinite potential to it that is not being met, and there is nothing worse than wasted potential. I look at ArmA II and I feel sad, and I feel bad for gamers starving for a war simulation settling for something that does not deserve their money.

Metacritic may not be flawless, but its a far cry better then just one review to base a purchasing opinion on. Currently it is probably one of the more effective ways of judging a game..alextherussian

agreed. You always have to take reviews with a grain of salt, but a cumulative score of a variety of reviews combined with user reviews, forum threads, and demo experience is a good way to judge the quality of a game prior to purchasing it.

Metacritic is not flawless, like you said, but it gives you a good idea.