German GameStar slaps Armed Assault

[imported_bör 0]

For those who want to make fancy banners trashing Petra. Take a look over here.

And here is Miss Sunshine herself...

You better edit your post A gamestar moderator is on his way here to pursuit you.

There've been cases that members of gs.de flooded other forums flaming, so the moderation is a little sensitive about this topic, you'll understand.

Thanks for editing. Let us all be friends.

[JPSelter 0]

or they did it on their own, thinking it would be "cool", and look what happens, R6:Letdown, Commandos: Strike Force, Quake4 (Quake was all about MP, it shouldve remained that way) and many more, and community rejected them (more or less).

That´s what happened with IGI2 when they changed from Eidos to Codemasters. One of those "cool" features was limiting the space you could walk. You could run miles and miles in IGI1, just for fun, then in IGI2 you had invisible walls... I´m glad that BIS doesn´t think this way...

[Frantic 0]

GameStar has only proven that they cant write articels with informations in it.

this articel is just Petras opinion, and its sad that the chefredakteur has not modified or deleted her articel.

she must have been very overworked when he came to the IDEA-box. On the one hand i can understand that she was not really happy what she saw there. One poster on the door and not even a guy from BiS there.

i would be unhappy about that too. But i would have tested the game a bit longer than only 35mins to make an objectiv articel about ArmA.

Most game magacines r just not good.

But i think ArmA will become popular cause it will be the only game out there with such a huge amount of addons and maps just from the beginning.

We will see soon a new article on the GS-site when the first Multiplayer-demo is out! and then another journalist will write a better articel than this from Petra!

GS is not the only site in the internet where u can get informations about ArmA, so dont worry about this crap articel.

[4 IN 1 0]

Quote[/b] ]Regarding the functioning of BIS, it should be allowed to mention it. Because if the developers would work that hard and consequently on their games, the Xbox version of OFP wouldn't have come 2 years to late, BIS wouldn't have lost Codemasters as publisher and wouldn't have been searching for a new publisher for two years. ArmA was planned to be released in 2005, now they say 2006 and to tell the truth, I wouldn't be surprised if it would be pushed back to 2007, because no major publisher wants to take the risk at the moment - there are certainly its causes. It maybe that the graphics of a game are taken too important by to many gamers, but it has been that way all the time and (unfortunately) it will be that way all the time.

you can say that miss know-it-all, just because those fatass publisher trying to sell the idea which didnt work at all to the dev team who trying really hard to put everything those fans and themself have always wanted put in a game which cause them really really long time, and you say that they aint hardworking at all?

tell you what this world had gone mad

p.s. makes me remember the VW Golf GTI mk5 "sing'in in the rain" Ad

many of you might know that the new Golf is way better then the past one and really are the updated version of the first one, but what happened is that when the Ad comes out ppl starts to shout about how the "new version" Ad makes the "old" movie looks bad, and would only make them think that the car is crap(which in fact far away from being truth)

[da12thMonkey 1943]

What sort of 'innovation' did they expect ArmA to offer exactly?

OFP's innovation lay in it's simulation of the scale and actions of real military conflict. Is still far in advance of any tactical shooter, or indeed most other action games to date, in terms of its scale and realism. How can it be said that ArmA isn't innovative when there's still nothing that directly rivals, or even parallels the innovation of the original?

The only other games I can think of that offer such large-scale battles as Flashpoint/ArmA are RTS games, and ArmA looks far more detailed than any RTS I've seen.

[imported_bör 0]

Quote[/b] ]Regarding the functioning of BIS, it should be allowed to mention it. Because if the developers would work that hard and consequently on their games, the Xbox version of OFP wouldn't have come 2 years to late, BIS wouldn't have lost Codemasters as publisher and wouldn't have been searching for a new publisher for two years. ArmA was planned to be released in 2005, now they say 2006 and to tell the truth, I wouldn't be surprised if it would be pushed back to 2007, because no major publisher wants to take the risk at the moment - there are certainly its causes. It maybe that the graphics of a game are taken too important by to many gamers, but it has been that way all the time and (unfortunately) it will be that way all the time.

you can say that miss know-it-all, just because those fatass publisher trying to sell the idea which didnt work at all to the dev team who trying really hard to put everything those fans and themself have always wanted put in a game which cause them really really long time, and you say that they aint hardworking at all?

tell you what this world had gone mad

p.s. makes me remember the VW Golf GTI mk5 "sing'in in the rain" Ad

many of you might know that the new Golf is way better then the past one and really are the updated version of the first one, but what happened is that when the Ad comes out ppl starts to shout about how the "new version" Ad makes the "old" movie looks bad, and would only make them think that the car is crap(which in fact far away from being truth)

This answer was not written by Petra Schmitz but by Rene Heuser!

[dinger 1]

You know guys, this is how FP is going to look at E3. You have people playing really sweet demos, and then they see what looks like a gussied-up flashpoint.

The thing that makes this evaluation questionable is that it makes the mistake of hypothesizing what happened.

Instead of just laying the experience out there (and maybe trashing it as ugly with too many wide-open spaces and FP1985 models), she tries to explain the process that brought it about.

For example, stating that BIS was so embarassed by it, they didn't show up, just reveals her ignorance: Anyone following the story knows they haven't announced a publisher, that IDEA games is a consortium put together by BIS and others, and thus A) without a publisher, they're not going to make a big marketing splash and B) BIS is represented by the group they formed to do just that.

Or claiming that BIS was sleeping for the last five years. Give me a break. Either make factual statements about the development process, or say nothing and comment on the product itself (saying it's crap).

But you folks here on the boards, don't resort to rabid fanboism. Let the press do their job.

[Balschoiw 0]

I guess it should end now.

It´s somewhat irrelevant what people on other pages think / write about ArAs or not.

The forum rules are pretty clear on debating things that originate from other sites or forums.

I am not in defense of the gamestar article or the author, but it belongs there, not here.

There´s already a flaming - contest going on on their site, I guess it´s the most mature move here to keep the forum clear of that hogwash and represent ourselves as the community we are:

Grown up and mature enough to draw our own conclusion.

Please uphold this standard and act correspondingly.

Quote[/b] ]§6)Do not start threads relating to discussions on other boards

What happens in this forum should stay in this forum and vice versa, conversations other than those strictly relating to OPF matters should not be brought into these forums from others.

[ziiip 1]

I don't know of any game that i did or didn't purchase because of someone elses review. I'm mature enough to know that i can make my own decision when it comes to buying a game. A fine example is any fighting game (beatemup). I can't stand that type of game but some magazine reviews give them 8 or 9/10. I know they must like it but i know i won't. Unfortunalty the easily swayed children arn't as savvy and fall prey to this type of media. keeping this game on the PC platform will help somewhat but every platform has idiot comsumers. I pay for my own games so i have the ultimate decision. I would say alot of theses magazines are aimed at 11/15 year olds and thankfully they can't buy ArmAss..

I say bump it up to an 18 certificate and have removable limbs.

That's what demos are for: see for yourself if you like the game. S**t on the stupid articles!!

[blackland 26]

Petra has a preview version of ArmA - did not test it these.

[imported_bör 0]

You should know that back in 2001 and 2003 GS rated Flashpoint very well. Got a 88%, conclusion: tactical shooter of in the upper class with movielike story.

Resistance got 88% as well, conclusion: addon for pros with fantastically told story.

Petra did both of these test and her personal commentary was very positive, in both tests. Petra also has/had a faible for James Gastovski.

Sadly she never participated in our GSPB coop online matches. That was quite some fun back then.

[4 IN 1 0]

Quote[/b] ]Regarding the functioning of BIS, it should be allowed to mention it. Because if the developers would work that hard and consequently on their games, the Xbox version of OFP wouldn't have come 2 years to late, BIS wouldn't have lost Codemasters as publisher and wouldn't have been searching for a new publisher for two years. ArmA was planned to be released in 2005, now they say 2006 and to tell the truth, I wouldn't be surprised if it would be pushed back to 2007, because no major publisher wants to take the risk at the moment - there are certainly its causes. It maybe that the graphics of a game are taken too important by to many gamers, but it has been that way all the time and (unfortunately) it will be that way all the time.

you can say that miss know-it-all, just because those fatass publisher trying to sell the idea which didnt work at all to the dev team who trying really hard to put everything those fans and themself have always wanted put in a game which cause them really really long time, and you say that they aint hardworking at all?

tell you what this world had gone mad

p.s. makes me remember the VW Golf GTI mk5 "sing'in in the rain" Ad

many of you might know that the new Golf is way better then the past one and really are the updated version of the first one, but what happened is that when the Ad comes out ppl starts to shout about how the "new version" Ad makes the "old" movie looks bad, and would only make them think that the car is crap(which in fact far away from being truth)

This answer was not written by Petra Schmitz but by Rene Heuser!

change that "miss" to "mr."

then those words still stand

i am not being personal here, but when i saw how BIS, knowing it might not sell very well, yet still keep working and improving the work, i get really sorry for them

i say screw the publisher thing BI, do it what you did with VBS, just make sure it is cheaper then VBS itself for the basic and we sell it/ mod it for you, FOC (everyone disagree with this could just think it as a bad joke)

[Chunder 0]

Unfortunately reviews like this show the complete moronity of pc magazines looking for 'flash' titles.

10 years from now, PC games will have developed to such an extent that nothing will be new - not much is now. Much like 10 years ago was seing the dawn of the 3d Graphics age - so everything was new and exciting. You now have game generes covering just about everything. Which is a paradox, how can u create something totally new if it's already been done!

For games like ArmA, that model real world tactical stuff, emphasis will switch more and more away from the environment and type of game play to enhancing an already solid product. Games will be released with upgrades to make use of new PC technology, rather than expanding into a totally new area - because engines will allow games to branch off into many areas whilst still being the same game.

Game 2 is like this, ArmA is a proving ground for some of the concepts of Game two, such as loading only relevant portions of area, dynamic environments, wildlife, hitpoints and animations. Flashpoint was a revolution when it occured because nothing else came close. Flashpoints modelled a whole new area of accessable gaming to military gaming fans. It's like loosing your virginity - it only happens once - someone forgot to tell these guys that. It's sad in a way because the obvious is that once a genre is entered into, it can't be entered into twice because it's already been done, it can only be improved, a-la the virginity comparison, something that these reviewers attention obviously needs to be drawn to.

ArmA is a very important stepping stone to Game 2. It will test the community that will come up with a trend and areas that can make a solid difference that will be included in Game 2. many areas have been improved and no doubt have taught the developers something about game two. Gauging how we the consumers use their product will provide insight on how to approach the inevitability of the gaming future. And it looks as though BIS has a VERY commanding lead. Simply put, an engine that created such a huge environment, could also, feasably turn out what those junkie SWAT / Rainbow 6 Type games allow and eclipse them by shear variety.

In ArmA's case it definitely is a situation of 'Don't judge a book by it's cover'. And with that knowledge it's just how short sighted some of the consumer games are with face value graphics and their consumer face value reviewers are. Trapped in a world with no clue on where gaming is going.

ArmA will help BIS Pave the way for their own future. When what is being churned out in recent years past & now becomes extinct and reviewers are begging for a part of the action from the people they dissed 5 years ago but now have to suck up, as the games become so flexable, they swallow specialist genres. BIS will be cleaning up as it takes it's engine to more and more extremes.

[Hekezu 0]

So I think there is a basic responsibility in journalism, you can't be too biased nor spread lies. If something doesn't please constructive criticism should be given. Or at least tell why something sucks.

Biased? Aren't these people supposed to review games and not copypaste press reports?

A press release is probably the most biased info publisher/developers can give, so copypasting that and saying that is the way it goes is really biased in my mind. Developers/Publishers give their biased view of thing. For example a publisher claims that a game is the greatest action title ever made.

It is journalists' job to see if the publisher/developers have delivered what they've promised on the game's cover. But on the other hand a journalist can be biased so that he or she pans the game even though he or she can't state reasons. For example a fanboy of some game could review another game and be too biased in his/her views. I love reviews/articles that try to see things from as many angles as possible.

Ofcourse ArmA could be so bad that there isn't anything positive to say about it. I guess we have to wait for further pre-/reviews and try a demo ourselves.

But in my eyes everything seems to be shaping up pretty nicely but no doubt the writer has seen more than I have. Criticism is a great thing but I think constructive criticism is what everyone wants.

[sirex 0]

im willing to bet that ArmA will be one of those games that no publisher wants to touch, somehow comes to the market anyway, and goes massive.

[grayace 2]

ah let the bozos rott in their claustrophobic BF2 world while we are rolling on OFP universe... I dont give a XXX to that god damn reviews which are being written by some extremely narrow minded bozos who are only wise(!) enough to applause EA served mainstream trash.

besides, such crap was written just before the movie of TITANIC was released, in the end TITANIC made 1.8 Billion dollars. And people have wiped their ass to those reviews while enjoying the movie...

[sanctuary 19]

I am not disturbed by reading someone negative opinion on a simulation i am expecting to enjoy before the end of this year. It is always interesting for me to read pro and cons from people that have touched what i have not but expect to buy.

The problem is see with this article (at least the translation of it, as i don't understand the original german) is that i see no reason for a reporter to create rumours like "BIS is just a bunch of lazy guys that did nothing in 5 years" , "publishers know that for a fact".

What the reporter has done there is not a preview, either he did this on purpose or made it "accidentally", the result is the same : he made an article that only objective is to hurt a company relations with their possible publishers.

videogaming or more serious matters, internet journalism or paper journalism is the same : you can't just state something without proof and consider yourself as a real reporter/journalist, that's not journalist ethic : that is just being totally unprofessional.

The "reporter" should already consider himself lucky to have not being fired after that, in some newspaper office it would have been the case.

[4 IN 1 0]

well we are here with a good example on how communitys punchs at reporters/journalist after make a they had made some misinform/hilarious/stupid/unprofessional, sometimes even wrong/false kind of pre/review

anyone remembered that socom 3 photoshop photo? i am not sure but thats one thing that we might be one of the ppls who started the hold thing up in first place

[cornhelium 0]

Quote[/b] ]I love ofp trust me, but they have to do better.

.

.

.

Armed Assault is the same lady in a new dress, but shes 4 years older now.

Hehehe, she may be 4 years older mate, but she's all the woman I need.  

And, with JIP, 64 players, streaming terrain, multiple gun positions etc, she's improving with age.

As for the new dress, gamestar can keep it

OFP 1.5 will do it for me.

Cheers,

CH

[deanosbeano 0]

author unknown

[aus_twisted 0]

LOL, nice one.

[Guest Ti0n3r]

Sigh

Ok, she wrote a worthless preview. So what? Get over it.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Sigh

Ok, she wrote a worthless preview. So what? Get over it.

I agree

As a fan of OFP, she must have been disapointed for some reason. Now its BIS job to show us that she is wrong

Bring on the information BIS

[Big Dawg KS 6]

What's the FSM doing there?

[Dwarden 1125]

Original article is unprofessional to extreme. Casual reader gets no real idea about changes just negative opinion ...

e.g. he mentions improved textures yet from trailer video i would swear (IMHO) most of ground textures are not yet enough improved (or at all) )) He ignores the fact game version was 75% WIP.

Why hide fact ArmAs get also SP campaign of ~12 or more missions . Plus just removal of OFP/OFPR/OFPE limits plus improved MP and new animations itself are enough to be considered new game (i wonder if he get BALLs to say same about EA's BF1 and BF2 serie tricks

and most ignorant comment is about UT2007 or Crysis or HAZE ... all these games are scheduled for year 2007 (usually Q2 to Q4)

only 2 "visually next gen" FPS scheduled for this year are Enemy Territory : Quake Wars and BattleField 2142  (both for Q3-Q4) while ArmAs schedule is Q2-Q3

somehow he ignores to consider difference between IDsoft (multi-bilion company) or EA/DICE (multi-bilion company) or EPIC (multi-bilion company) or Ubisoft (multi-bilion company)

against smaller (size/finances) BIS studio (hard to say if VBS made them more than millions but I doubt billions ))

Quote[/b] ]Regarding the functioning of BIS, it should be allowed to mention it. Because if the developers would work that hard and consequently on their games, the Xbox version of OFP wouldn't have come 2 years to late, BIS wouldn't have lost Codemasters as publisher and wouldn't have been searching for a new publisher for two years. ArmA was planned to be released in 2005, now they say 2006 and to tell the truth, I wouldn't be surprised if it would be pushed back to 2007, because no major publisher wants to take the risk at the moment - there are certainly its causes. It maybe that the graphics of a game are taken too important by to many gamers, but it has been that way all the time and (unfortunately) it will be that way all the time.

this answer above is much worse than article itself as shows sort of hate or ignorance ...

You hardly find developers supporting theirs game players and modders with patches and tools YEARS after release like BIS

OFP:E was first BIS console game and it meant not just completely port the engine but also fight the huge XBOX limitation. IMHO it's small wonder that OFP:E runs and looks great.

Armed Assault was announced 19.5.2005 (onsite) but I'm unsure if there was at that time Q4 2005 release date ...

why he ignore the fact titles he mentioned are in production much longer and completely hides the fact of Game2 in development ...

Nobody except CM and BIS knows real reason why BIS decided to split with publisher ...

take in count that CM made huge $ at FlashPoint i doubt they were happy to loose Potential sales of sequel as whole community knows who is author

and like was said before by IG/BIS if they fail to find publisher soon they release it self via online digital distribution and retail boxes later ...

times where developers were forced to sign deals with only greedy publishers demanding full control over trademarks, intellectual property, etc and eating most of $ are history ...

-

in short these reviewer guys are types who like fancy over bloated graphics in hyped products playing it on theirs donated (by EA) uber systems

btw. FarCry and FEAR have together less MP players than `archaic obsolete lame laughly ughly looking` OFP/OFPR

it shows gameplay and fun is what matters ...

P.S. evil idea to BIS : please remaster (or just ask community:) Your PR demo version with hires 2048x2048 textures (i know 4096x4096 exist too but that results into need of 512MB VRAM and ATI X1xxx or NVIDIA SM3 card)

photo realistic textures and then send some 2048x1536 shots to gamestar.de

You can also add some with tons of fancy postprocessing effects

... sorry for long post