ArmA II focusing too much on realism?

[rexehuk 16]

I'd say ground vehicles are not so terrible - they're passable with a few quirks (that'd be nice if fixed.) I rarely fly choppers (and never planes) so I don't comment on those.

Aye, I was a little harsh as vehicles are not that bad, the damage model is though (hitpoint system). I have a bad view for the air assets as I play all of the DCS series (LockOn / FCS / DCS BS / DCS A10) and IL2, call it bias maybe but I hate when people refer to them as simulation etc!

[sparks50 0]

I've just played Operation Flashpoint Cold War Crisis and comparing it to ArmA II, it just feels like Operation Flashpoint had more "soul" in the game. Maybe it's just the old graphics and the cheesy voice acting for Operation Flashpoint, but in ArmA II, everything feels so sterile, souless, and simulatorish. In summary:

Operation Flashpoint: A video game that focused on realistic combat with infantry and vehicles. (Swat 4, Rainbow Six 3 Raven Shield)

ArmA II: A simulator that was ported to civilian use with realistic combat with infantry and vehicles. (DCS : Blackshark, IL-2 Sturmovik)

First of all, Arma 2 is not a port of a simulator, the VBS series is in fact based on Arma and OFP.

And the voiceacting for the Arma games(And arma 2 especially) feels to me way more cheesy/bad than the OFP campaigns were.

I think that yes, OFP was better on some areas(perhaps atmosphere, voice acting, storytelling in general), but where does the higher realism(?) come in?

What kind of higher realism are we talking about here? Better graphics?

I dont think the Arma games are more realistic than OFP, its just that the gaming world has become more casual than it was in 2001(look at other tactical series, like the Rainbow six and Ghost recon series.).

Edited November 7, 2010 by sparks50

[h - 169]

Huh, I guess I'm in the minority who doesn't care.. :P

OFP is great, A2 is great, personally I see no reason to compare them really.

EDIT:

Ok, I agree that OFP CWC and Resistance campaigns were more engaging, but I don't find A2 or OA campaigns to be particularly bad.

Nor the voice acting, haven't really come across a game that wouldn't be somehow cheesy on that department..

Edited November 7, 2010 by h -
removed stupid crap

[Cookieeater 10]

First of all, Arma 2 is not a port of a simulator, the VBS series is in fact based on Arma and OFP.

And the voiceacting for the Arma games(And arma 2 especially) feels to me way more cheesy/bad than the OFP campaigns were.

I think that yes, OFP was better on some areas(perhaps atmosphere, voice acting, storytelling in general), but where does the higher realism(?) come in?

What kind of higher realism are we talking about here? Better graphics?

I dont think the Arma games are more realistic than OFP, its just that the gaming world has become more casual than it was in 2001(look at other tactical series, like the Rainbow six and Ghost recon series.).

I'm not comparing them in terms of actual realness and realism, i'm comparing them in the fact that there is a broad difference between something like Swat 4 and something like IL-2 Sturmovik. I know that ArmA II is not based off VBS2, I know that VBS came after OFP. It's more like saying, Swat 4 is a game that uses realism to make it very visceral and exciting as a video game, while IL-2 Sturmovik is more about cramming all the features in airplanes, and putting it in a video game format. One of them is a realistic shooter that requires teamwork elements and cooperation to get anything done, while the other one is just a simulator that is jam packed with features albeit very unpolished, and has no "zest" to it.

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

Arma 2 is not, and god willing will never be, anything like SWAT 4. ArmA II is a military simulator. It doesn't focus on a specific aspect of combat/a specific vehicle/branch of military.

Its meant to be a MilSim, it is a MilSim, and I hope like hell it never becomes a "tactical shooter" like SWAT or Ghost Recon.

[[aps]gnat 28]

I hope ARMA2 never stop focusing on realism that`s the only reason I like this game because its not scared to actually make use of the pc for what its good at

Simulations.

Yes, totally agree!

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Give me realistic rockets and I'd be fairly content with the realism for a vanilla game. Probably some more issues I can't remember right now. But for me it's not that the game isn't realistic enough, but that the typical players at least on public games, doesn't have intentions on playing it realistically.

[ffur2007slx2_5 11]

Hey guy.

10 years is not a short time! Actually you've grown a lot and become more matural, and your knowledge to the game is also changing. It's easy to figure out that your current feeling to OFP gameplay must be different with 10 years ago!

You dewelling the OFP times, it has already been an important part in your memory, no other games can replace it. So that's the point.

I'm definately sure that you prefer AA2 to OFP if both games come to light at the same time!

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

Actually no, OFP was definitely better. I doubt there will be a campaign as immersive and just plain fun to play as Resistance.

[Cookieeater 10]

Hey guy.

10 years is not a short time! Actually you've grown a lot and become more matural, and your knowledge to the game is also changing. It's easy to figure out that your current feeling to OFP gameplay must be different with 10 years ago!

You dewelling the OFP times, it has already been an important part in your memory, no other games can replace it. So that's the point.

I'm definately sure that you prefer AA2 to OFP if both games come to light at the same time!

I played ArmA II first and OFP second, and I prefer OFP more in terms of everything else except gameplay.

[ffur2007slx2_5 11]

Actually no, OFP was definitely better. I doubt there will be a campaign as immersive and just plain fun to play as Resistance.

So, which one do you prefer if AA2 has the same campaign as OFP?

for example: AA2 Cold War Crisis.

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

Eh... never played CWC as much. Personally OFP:Resistance tops everything. I have made my own recreation of it in A2 but it just isn't the same. If it OFP:R was upgraded using the A2 engine, animations, etc. It would just feel... wrong.

[Katrician 0]

I've just played Operation Flashpoint Cold War Crisis and comparing it to ArmA II, it just feels like Operation Flashpoint had more "soul" in the game. Maybe it's just the old graphics and the cheesy voice acting for Operation Flashpoint, but in ArmA II, everything feels so sterile, souless, and simulatorish. In summary:

Operation Flashpoint: A video game that focused on realistic combat with infantry and vehicles. (Swat 4, Rainbow Six 3 Raven Shield)

ArmA II: A simulator that was ported to civilian use with realistic combat with infantry and vehicles. (DCS : Blackshark, IL-2 Sturmovik)

You summarized it well, has I got the same feeling playing user missions and using the editor, it feels dull and synthetic; minus realism I don't know where you could find more realism in ARMAII and there are tons of threads about realism lack of.

When editing for a mission I discovered that the face was the same and fitted many characters just changing skin tone, only the modeling of objects and island scenery is stunning, the rest have been left at work...

Now if you ask me there is no other game in that niche that could match ARMAII for the moment.

[maturin 12]

CoD focusing too much on shooting?

[Cookieeater 10]

Comparing the two, ArmA II doesn't seem to be that more realistic than Operation Flashpoint. The same gameplay principles are there. See a dude from 400m away, shoot at him. In ArmA II, it adds weapon shakiness when you run alot and your vision gets all blurry and wavy from bloom and post processing.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I think A2/OA is infinitely better than OFP as a game in whole. I don't think Resistance can be matched without being a copy/remake of that idea, but if Resistance was done now (from scratch), I think it would be a hell of a lot better even. But Resistance was only a campaign, it wasn't the game.

[Tonci87 163]

O Jesus I would love to play this Campaign again with the current engine.... *dreaming

[Alwarren 2767]

Actually no, OFP was definitely better. I doubt there will be a campaign as immersive and just plain fun to play as Resistance.

I think it was mostly because CWC and Resistance were much more personal. You felt a real connection to the main characters. Armstrong felt real because you, as a player being thrown into a game that was unlike everything you played before, felt the same confusion, awe, and even fear as Armstrong, a private that was thrown into his first conflict. It fused you to the character, and made his story your own.

For Resistance, Troska had a background, a character. You understood his motives, you felt his blight, and you could see why he was drawn into the whole affair reluctantly.

In ArmA II's campaign, even though I did like it (we played it mostly multiplayer), the characters were mostly flat. Personally, I thought that Rodriquez was a much better character than Cooper, and that says a lot. I'd have preferred to play him instead.

[wipman 1]

Hi, i don't think that the ArmA2 be "too focused in realism"; it leaks of many features that you would spect to have in the so called... "ultimate realism simulator". From the construction of the models passing by the damage system to the gaming/playability options, where many things just are not there; like shoot from the cargo of the vehicles... . Let's C ya

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

Nobody ever called it the ultimate realism simulator. Its the ultimate (civilian) MILITARY simulator. Also, so what if we can't shoot from vehicles. If that feature is so desperately needed, buy VBS2. ;)

[Baff1 0]

Gameplay first, realism second is my personal order of priority.

I concur with Nkenny about which is the better title... but I have to say that I am well pleased with ArmA 2 nonetheless.

I have played the OpF campaign through perhaps 10 times. I have not completed it in ArmA 2.

So while I very much enjoy realism for the added immersion it gives me, being immersed into a game I don't want to play especially is of no particular value to me.

[ben_s 11]

Well if ArmA II is focusing too much on realism is just your opinion. I think that the game only feels sterile due to the bad voice acting (sounds like you're playing with robots...) the storyline is, average and the whole movment system is like a robot as well. The whole game doesn't seem to "flow", unlike in CWC where everything seemed to flow well with a good storyline and it just made it more beliveable and as it were, less sterile.

But thats just my opinion...

[Heatseeker 0]

I decided to atleast try OA's campaign and it met my expectations, i gave up on mission 2..

I dont think A2/OA represents warfare any better than CWC did.. realism wise.

CWC had some kind of vietnam vibe to it or something, it was imersive so it felt more realistic, even if it wasnt :confused: .

[instagoat 133]

It seems what´s being discussed here is the merits of OFPs Mission design versus that of Arma2, not so much wether or not the game tries too hard on the realism side.

I think it does, but the bigger drawback in the default Missions in Arma 2 seems to be that they´re trying overly hard to be large and complex. Arrowhead feels terribly disjointed because you have too few, too large and complex missions that completely prevent you from forming attachments to the characters you´re playing. All you really get from Drake is an uber-manly shout at the start of the first mission, and then nothing anymore. The total exposition of the other characters is all of one mission, each. 7 Missions would barely be enough to focus on one character, let alone four. On the SP side, Arma 2 and Arrowhead have been disappointing to me, and slowly I feel like I´m being a bit let down by BI. BAF was good, save for some unfair mission design choices here and there, but in general I´d like more of this kind of the focused gameplay it offered, over the bumble that´s Arrowhead, for example.

[Heatseeker 0]

Gameplay wise they are not that diferent imo, except for flying helicopters and commanding a tank, maybe. Other than that i actually find the increased realism to make things somewhat easier.

You still recover from nearly dead to 100% combat efficient just by watching a 5 second animation near a mash tent..