Armed Assault Preview

[Ukraineboy 0]

Quote[/b] ] THOSE IDIOT LOSERS

Was that really neccessary? New people come to these forums and read stuff like that, and form an impression about the gene pool of people who frequent thisforum!

What's wrong with the truth?

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Quote[/b] ]  THOSE IDIOT LOSERS

Was that really neccessary? New people come to these forums and read stuff like that, and form an impression about the gene pool of people who frequent thisforum!  

What's wrong with the truth?

Your calling it the "truth"...

[VISTREL 0]

Maybe because nice graphics and small maps can be fun too? Jesus christ people, stop being so elitist about being OFP players...you're not any better because you trade off graphics for bigger area etc. Man, this has really gone to some of you guys heads.

Anyway, what I meant with my post/oppinion in case your care is that you simply can't have in a game that have or models very large maps the same level of detail that you have in a game which models small maps or else you couldn't run the game that have the very large maps.

How about Far Cry ? I think it's technically possible. Just look at Crysis previews. However, not every developer has enough team members or time to develop such complex environments, engine, etc. Im pretty sure Game2 will be exactly like that.

[Ukraineboy 0]

Quote[/b] ] THOSE IDIOT LOSERS

Was that really neccessary? New people come to these forums and read stuff like that, and form an impression about the gene pool of people who frequent thisforum!

What's wrong with the truth?

Your calling it the "truth"...

Um no, I didnt call it that, Jesus took over my account and posted that I was the one who posted it, ofcourse Im calling it the truth..

It's like saying "but that's YOUR opinion" Yeah it's mine, who's else would it be?

[Scrub 0]

Game mags often don't have the time to look deep into a game, hence missing the fact that some programming/mental gymnastics had to be done to get ArmA this far (E3) graphically, and the frustration is that WE understand it, even if it's only a little bit.

[Stendac 0]

Yes, these guys from the magazines trend to forget the most important part related to graphics that while some other FPS have definitly better graphics than ArmA they DON'T have maps with 400 Square Kilometers and these other FPS usually play thru corridors path while in ArmA you have total freedom of movements!

If you had lets for example the graphics of F.E.A.R. into ArmA (with all it's freedom and ability to play with many diferent vehicles such as Helos, Aircraft, Tanks, etc...) the game would certainly be UNPLAYABLE even in the most advanced PC configuration! I wonder why these so-called game experts trend to forget such an important thing?  

I can sympathize. It's not like PC zone bashes anything with less than cutting edge graphics, but people will begin to get annoyed when game mags continuously point out how ArmA currently looks. The huge environments weren't enough? They also demand leading graphics? You can't have it both ways!

It's not that games with better visuals and smaller maps are no good. It's just that they're treated as the favorite child and that inevitably stirs a bit of resentment from this community.

[frederf 0]

It's kind of like someone bashing a flight sim because the cars on the highway are painted on, or if they are modeled.. don't have rolling wheels.

They see an "FPS" and have 1 standard for what "FPS"s should look like, what they generally attempt, and so on.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Really, I couldn't care less if they bash the graphics in those previews. First of all, graphics aint my first choise (if it was, I would never have started playing OFP). Second, I think this department of the game is really shaping up.

All these previews are from the E3 alpha - but just look at some of the latest screenshots released by BIS. It's a major improvement.

[sniperandy 0]

Nice review, I like it a lot,

specially the little bit about the blog on the 2nd page.

-----

Jesus christ people, stop being so elitist about being OFP players...

or VBS players, or fairy tale players or any kind of bohemia product...

[westy159 0]

Really, I couldn't care less if they bash the graphics in those previews. First of all, graphics aint my first choise (if it was, I would never have started playing OFP). Second, I think this department of the game is really shaping up.

All these previews are from the E3 alpha - but just look at some of the latest screenshots released by BIS. It's a major improvement.

Yes I also think the graphics are very nice but when compared to other games they are quite last year. Gamers want to believe they are in a real world. This is mostly acomplished by the developers making the game look as close to life as possible. The other method is to make the game as realistic to life as possible but the majority seem to prefer the former. We, the small community here at these forums are one of the exceptions but if only we buy the game that will not help BI. They need to attract the casual gamer, who as we have said, prefers great graphics unless BI can market Armed Assault so well that there is a revolution where the majority of gamers prefer to have more realistic games. And I dont see that happening

[ricnunes 0]

I don't have a personal agenda against other people's opinions. I an criticising yours, am I not allowed to anymore?  

Sure you're allowed to! I have no problem with people NOT agreeing with my oppinion at all. But I do start to have a problem if someone makes destructive criticism on mine (or others) oppinions (it's possible to not agree and at the same time not bashing other peoples oppinion, did you know that?) and there seems to be a lot of destructive criticism by your part in many other threads in this forum.

Anyway sorry if I missundestood the objective of your posts.

My point is don't act all elitist because "Oh no some magazine made a negative point about my game, THOSE IDIOT LOSERS, they don't understand that I am a realism gamer!!11"

Well, with my post I was disagreeing or criticizing (althrough not destructivelly) with that magazine's negative point on ArmA (the Graphics -> For the reason that I mencioned before). You did a similar thing regarding my post, so if you and others can criticise my oppinion why can't I criticize an oppinion from a gaming magazine?  

[ricnunes 0]

How about Far Cry ? I think it's technically possible. Just look at Crysis previews. However, not every developer has enough team members or time to develop such complex environments, engine, etc. Im pretty sure Game2 will be exactly like that.

Well you made some good points in your post but while Far Cry doesn't have the "corridor gameplay" that we often see in FPS and it does have a very good level of freedom of movements, I'm pretty sure that each of Far Cry's levels/maps doesn't have the same size as the maps we have in Operation Flashpoint and the OPF map size are smaller than the one that we will see in ArmA (over 400 square kilometer). If you pay close attention in Far Cry you'll see that after playing a level for a while you see that the game will stop for loading the next level or part of map while in OFP and ArmA you can walk from one edge of an island to the other edge (and you'll walk for much, much longer than in any level of Far Cry) and the game will never stop to load other sections of the map or new maps (again like happens in Far Cry).

And this not to mention that in OPF and ArmA you'll have a lot more degrees of gameplay such as playing with air units (helos and planes) while in Far Cry you don't (well you have one lever where you handle a glider but it's not the same thing).

Note that I'm not bashing Far Cry, this game is IMO the best "Sci-Fi" available in the market and it is much better than for example F.E.A.R. that I mencioned before.

Regading Crysis, I don't believe that maps of this game will be much bigger than the ones of Far Cry (at least to the level of OFP/ArmA) and I believe that the loading map parts/new maps will be present like in Far Cry (despite not having any hard evidence on this). But since the technology (Processors and video cards) have evolved, Crysis will certainly have much better graphics than Far Cry (and probably slightly bigger maps).

Finally regarding Game2, since the game will most probably not come out to the market before 2008 (with some extremelly good luck by the end of 2007) the technology will be much more evolved by that time so it surelly will have much better graphics than ArmA and probably even than most of current small map FPS. BUT I'm sure if you compare Game2 with future (by the time when Game2 will be released) "corridor" or small/smaller map FPS I'm sure that Game2 will have inferior graphics than those "small map" FPS this in the case that Game2 follows the same trend as OPF/ArmA (huge maps, huge number of units, total freedom, etc...) which I sincerelly hope so!