CM Operation Flashpoint 3 announced | "Oops, they're doing it again..."

[Zipper5 74]

Perforator, I played and edited ArmA for about a year on lowest settings @ 20 FPS (if I was lucky) before I got my new PC. It's nice to have a higher FPS, but it doesn't mean that before, I wasn't aware of the game's potential. Even if Arma 2 prefers to take an entire core for MicroAI, I have friends who played/still play Arma 2 on single-core CPUs, they just deal with the low FPS as I did.

Everyone has a right to judge. I don't know why you think you can "impose" such a rule on people. So because I still can't play Arma 2 maxed out (though I can get it pretty damn close while keeping a stable framerate), I have yet to experience the game's full potential and cannot comment on it?

Edited December 19, 2010 by Zipper5

[Perforator 10]

Everyone has a right to judge.

Not if they don't possess credential. You can't judge the performance of a sports car if you don't get past first gear.

[dmarkwick 261]

If it's such a great game, why don't more people play it?

That is not the criteria of a great game.

Or, if you wish me to answer from the other side, it's a great game that only appeals to few people. BIS market for a fat slice of a thin pie, not a thin slice of a fat pie :)

---------- Post added at 07:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:55 AM ----------

Not if they don't possess credential. You can't judge the performance of a sports car if you don't get past first gear.

Anyone who can play the game has a right to judge it :) this is the internet, saying someone "can't" do such a thing is clearly nonsensical ;)

[Perforator 10]

Anyone who can play the game has a right to judge it

Please explain how someone can carefully evaluate the worth of something (which they themselves have never personally experienced) and pass judgement upon it. There's a big difference between evaluation and assumption.

It's only common sense that someone who has only ever played Arma2 on low settings is going to form a totally different opinion then someone who plays it on max settings.

[Zipper5 74]

I thought that if there was one thing that we learned from OFP, it was that average graphics do not break a good game. Even after all these years, I still love playing OFP, even if it still looks like a game almost a decade old.

[Perforator 10]

I thought that if there was one thing that we learned from OFP, it was that average graphics do not break a good game. Even after all these years, I still love playing OFP, even if it still looks like a game almost a decade old.

It isn't a simple matter of whether or not the gameplay looks pretty, the point is that the graphics settings in ArmA2 can exercise great influence on the gameplay, especially when trying to locate enemy forces hidden amongst vegetation.

Don't underestimate the importance of camouflage in the modern battlefield.

[max power 21]

The discussion isn't about liking OFP, it's about justification to judge and compare ArmA2 to other games.

I shall give you a very basic yet extremely important example -

If you are playing the game with low settings then enemy troops will stick out like a sore thumb, particularly if you have the view distance on low or medium setting, but if you play the game with max settings the enemy becomes much harder to distinguish from all the content on the battlefield, camouflage and concealment become a real issue, and the enemy has a much better chance of firing off the first critical shot before you can spot them.

In the real world good camouflage and concealment can be the difference between life and death, mission success and mission failure.

The same applies for ArmA2, it can be a highly realistic military simulation if played to it's full potential.

Anyone who hasn't experienced it at it's full potential doesn't have a right to judge it.

So what you're saying is that this isn't about liking a game, but it is about holding or expressing an opinion about a game. LOL. I think that this neglects a few things.

a) OFP is a game

and

b) Liking something is holding an opinion about it.

So I guess the answer is no, I'm not allowed to have nor express a favourable opinion of OFP anymore, given that I've never run it on its full settings. Thanks for that ridiculousness.

[andersson 285]

I agree, one can judge a game even if its low graphics. This goes specially for BIS series as its so much about game play mechanics. The thing one should have in mind thought is the scalable micro ai. Ben_S have had opionions about ofp:dr ai being better than arma2 ai, which is wrong until he tries it with atleast min spec (dual core). One way ofcourse to experience proper ai is to join a dedicated server as then the ai calculations are taken care of (except the local group).

[dmarkwick 261]

Please explain how someone can carefully evaluate the worth of something (which they themselves have never personally experienced) and pass judgement upon it. There's a big difference between evaluation and assumption.

It's only common sense that someone who has only ever played Arma2 on low settings is going to form a totally different opinion then someone who plays it on max settings.

It's quite simple: the game has settings that allow you to play it with lower quality. That means it's being played as designed.

[Perforator 10]

So what you're saying is that this isn't about liking a game, but it is about holding or expressing an opinion about a game.

No, it's about people forming an unfairly low opinion of ArmA2 simply because they don't own a decent gaming rig. I have played both Dragon Rising and ArmA2 Operation Arrowhead on max settings and have observed firsthand the impact that ArmA2's graphics have on gameplay.

In terms of realism visual quality is extremely important in a military simulation, in Dragon Rising the enemy sticks out like dogs balls, in ArmA2 the enemy can remain unseen even at very close range thanks to Bohemias highly detailed graphics.

To put it bluntly, if someone hasn't played ArmA2 to it's full potential then they shouldn't pass judgement on whether or not it's better than another game, because the truth is that they don't really know.

[ben_s 11]

Unfairly low? I think ArmA II is one of the best games I own, with great potential. haha

Ok then, Here's a crude example. I cannot play Call of Duty 4 at max settings due to my system, and I cannot play it at max resolution because my monitor wont let me. Does that mean I'm not allowed to comment on Call of Duty 4 because I've not experienced it properly?

Edited December 19, 2010 by Ben_S

[Perforator 10]

It's quite simple: the game has settings that allow you to play it with lower quality. That means it's being played as designed.

If you play ArmA2 with low quality settings then I genuinely feel sorry for you, and I mean that respectfully, because you are missing out on a feature-rich virtual environment that makes a huge impact on tactical considerations.

---------- Post added at 11:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:26 AM ----------

Unfairly low? I think ArmA II is one of the best games I own, with great potential. haha

Perhaps you should gloss over some of the comments you have made on this thread Ben...

[ben_s 11]

If you play ArmA2 with low quality settings then I genuinely feel sorry for you, and I mean that respectfully, because you are missing out on a feature-rich virtual environment that makes a huge impact on tactical considerations.

At low settings anything important that you need to see you still can, Thanks to the way BIS made the game. It's just not glamoured over with all the niceties around it.

---------- Post added at 11:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 AM ----------

Perhaps you should gloss over some of the comments you have made on this thread Ben...

You mean saying where it could be better, and where other games beat it parts. I've never said ArmA II is bad, nor is it a terrible game. It IS one of the best games I own, Otherwise, Why would I be in this forum, watching mods and stuff. Like PR, I44, and the latest FoW: Normandy. (Yeah, I like WW2 :))

Looking to get OA once I improved my computer. Because, I cannot experience it at its fullest potential (i.e. Nice graphics or good framerate in Urban areas, thats about it), But I still like the game.

[Perforator 10]

Ok then, Here's a crude example. I cannot play Call of Duty 4 at max settings due to my system, and I cannot play it at max resolution because my monitor wont let me. Does that mean I'm not allowed to comment on Call of Duty 4 because I've not experienced it properly?

Call of Duty 4 is not a realistic military simulation, it's an arcade game where camoflauge and realistic tactics won't have an impact on gameplay, however if you can't run Call of Duty 4 at max settings due to your system then you really are living in the stone age mate.

[ben_s 11]

Call of Duty 4 is not a realistic military simulation, it's an arcade game where camoflauge and realistic tactics won't have an impact on gameplay, however if you can't run Call of Duty 4 at max settings due to your system then you really are living in the stone age mate.

And what does 'realistic military simulation' got to do with 'seeing a games full potential', You're saying if you cannot get a games full potential then you cannot comment.

Does that mean I cannot comment on Call of Duty 4 because I cannot see its 'full potential' ?

[Perforator 10]

At low settings anything important that you need to see you still can

Thats horseshit, plain and simple, but then again how would you know when you are playing the game on such low settings.

[dmarkwick 261]

If you play ArmA2 with low quality settings then I genuinely feel sorry for you, and I mean that respectfully, because you are missing out on a feature-rich virtual environment that makes a huge impact on tactical considerations.

I don't play it on low settings, I don't know why you assume I do. I play it on high settings.

[ben_s 11]

Thats horseshit, plain and simple, but then again how would you know when you are playing the game on such low settings.

Because I can still crank up the settings and run at 15FPS. Which I've done before.

The CPU means low framerate, My GPU still lets me get decent graphics on most games.

Because I cannot run it at high framerate on high graphics, it means I cannot have an opinion on it?

[Perforator 10]

You're saying if you cannot get a games full potential then you cannot comment.

Not if most of the battlefield is missing. The surrounding environment is very important for a sniper, the difference between max and low settings can be the difference of a sniper hiding in long grass or laying on what is essentialy barren ground.

[ben_s 11]

Seriously, If you think long grass suddenly disappears whilst they're still in range of me shooting them. You're confused on how low I'm playing the game on.

---------- Post added at 11:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:51 AM ----------

To add to the sniper part, on low settings telling a sniper from a small bush apart at a distance (where its so far away grass HAS disappeared) is hard on low settings.

Lets demonstrate.

[max power 21]

No, it's about people forming an unfairly low opinion of ArmA2 simply because they don't own a decent gaming rig.

To put it bluntly, if someone hasn't played ArmA2 to it's full potential then they shouldn't pass judgement on whether or not it's better than another game, because the truth is that they don't really know.

Oh! I get it now. I'm allowed to have a positive opinion of OFP but not a negative one. That makes much more sense. :rolleyes:

[Perforator 10]

Seriously, If you think long grass suddenly disappears whilst they're still in range of me shooting them. You're confused on how low I'm playing the game on.

Unless you terrain and view distance are set to maximum then you haven't got a leg to stand on, the rendered clutter makes a huge impact on realistic gameplay.

[ben_s 11]

Unless you terrain and view distance are set to maximum then you haven't got a leg to stand on, the rendered clutter makes a huge impact on realistic gameplay.

So, Because I cannot see 2 inch high grass, and tin cans at 500 meters, I cannot judge ArmA II? Well played. :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 12:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:19 PM ----------

Anyway, It still runs decent on my machine, And I still like playing it. The fact I cannot see that tin can doesn't bother me in the slightest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGdYWbyP57Q

[Hans Ludwig 0]

I wish BIS would just give us OFP: CWC with prettier graphics, MP experience, and title it Arma3. Is that too much to ask for?

Edited December 19, 2010 by Hans Ludwig

[Perforator 10]

So, Because I cannot see 2 inch high grass, and tin cans at 500 meters, I cannot judge ArmA II? Well played. :rolleyes:

Like I said earlier in this thread, don't underestimate the importance of camouflage on the modern battlefield. A well hidden RPG team or an I.E.D, that's all it takes to obliterate an entire squad and this has a significant impact on realistic gameplay. No other game comes even close to ArmA2's highly realistic virtual battlefield when played on max settings, if you haven't experienced it then you won't understand it, you might as well go buy a console.