Armed Assault is GOLD !!!

[bravo 6 0]

GOLD with 55%

http://games.tiscali.cz/reviews/arma/index.asp

[Heatseeker 0]

GOLD with 55%

http://games.tiscali.cz/reviews/arma/index.asp

I dont understand czech... 55% and there is 2 out of 5 stars with some lame smilie, they didnt like it?

edit:

http://games.tiscali.cz/reviews/arma/x3.html

Ground textures are the best i ever saw!

[GBee 0]

GOLD with 55%

http://games.tiscali.cz/reviews/arma/index.asp

Not a "Dancing Banana" score ....

Unless it's ridden with bugs I fail to see how it could be given 55%. Even if the reviewer doesn't like the gameplay the scale, graphics and content of the game deserves a minimum of at least 75%.

Hell OFP:E got better scores just 12 months ago and Arma is 100x better.

[EiZei 0]

GOLD with 55%  

http://games.tiscali.cz/reviews/arma/index.asp

Not a "Dancing Banana" score ....

Unless it's ridden with bugs I fail to see how it could be given 55%. Even if the reviewer doesn't like the gameplay the scale, graphics and content of the game deserves a minimum of at least 75%.

Hell OFP:E got better scores just 12 months ago and Arma is 100x better.

Or maybe it just sucks?

[Heatseeker 0]

Pfft... mainstream gamers... lets see what the military thinks about "Arma" compared to the rest .

[RatoN 0]

Can somebody translate the last paragraph please?

VERDIKT:

Hra, která toho nabízí snad až příliÅ¡ mnoho pro příliÅ¡ málo lidí. Vyšší uživatelská přítulnost a kvalitnější optimalizace by jistě posunuly hodnocení trochu výš, takhle je Armed Assault jen sentimentálním upgradem a náznakem toho, že se třeba jednou dočkáme opravdového pokračování Operace Flashpoint. Tohle se dá brát jako solidní pokus nanečisto. Příště to bude chtít větší rozeběh a možná také trochu rozhlížení, aby autoři těsně před odrazem nějak nezakopli.

Edit: Well that came out all weird!?

Better look at the original doc...

http://games.tiscali.cz/reviews/arma/index.asp

[GBee 0]

Or maybe it just sucks?

Possibly ... but why?

I mean OFP/OFP:E didn't suck and Arma is an updated version of them, so what could BIS do to make Arma suck so badly? Especially when all the features, screenshots and videos we've seen suggest it should be so much better?

[paragraphic l 2]

maybe this low score because they play on a sucky pc

Ah well, OFP:E managed to get 12% scores and also 80% scores so this doesn't say anything.

[KingC 0]

There are some really strange things happening in those screenshots. Perhaps they had to tone it to minimum settings or there are some graphical bugs.

Just look at the vegetation, terrain and buildings in these pictures

http://games.tiscali.cz/reviews/arma/x7.html

http://games.tiscali.cz/reviews/arma/x16.html

[rundll.exe 12]

loool look at the trees

I think they are really noobs at tiscali games. Cant even update their graphic card drivers. and set up the game properly. Those guys should be banished from their country and safely locked up on antartica or something.

[maxqubit 1]

In general reviews suck:)

But alas, they make a good read. This is what i do:

If reviews in general are good, i read the review with the lowest score

If reviews in general are bad, i read the review with the higest score

Normally this would give you the most critical reviewer, who is from my experience mostly spot on:)

[hoot 0]

Those shots remind me of having a glide powered 3dfx-card in 2001 - similar effects

[Heatseeker 0]

Or maybe it just sucks?

Possibly ... but why?

I mean OFP/OFP:E didn't suck and Arma is an updated version of them, so what could BIS do to make Arma suck so badly? Especially when all the features, screenshots and videos we've seen suggest it should be so much better?

Same old same old...

Guys..

Does anyone expect Armed Assault to get high scores/ratings in mainstream gaming sites? It wont, it wont get the perfect 9.0's of Doom3, half life2, GRAW, Far Cry, BF, etc... even if it delivers many features that so called next generation games dont event scratch.

Lets also not forget that a big label behind a game equals a big media kiss in the ass .

Maybe the game is a little rough, it was developed quite fast so its possible but we know BIS will support it, im far from worried.

edit:

Its strange that some of the pics stink:

http://games.tiscali.cz/reviews/arma/x8.html

But even at low resolution settings some still look nice...

http://games.tiscali.cz/reviews/arma/x10.html

[Adamicz 3]

Well the reviewer marked ArmA as too difficult and only for military hardcore players which want a realism

The game has bugs (and which hasn't ), too high HW requirements (don't know on what PC was review made, but graphic card was 6600GT)

[EiZei 0]

Or maybe it just sucks?

Possibly ... but why?

I mean OFP/OFP:E didn't suck and Arma is an updated version of them, so what could BIS do to make Arma suck so badly? Especially when all the features, screenshots and videos we've seen suggest it should be so much better?

Same old same old...

Guys..

Does anyone expect Armed Assault to get high scores/ratings in mainstream gaming sites? It wont, it wont get the perfect 9.0's of Doom3, half life2, GRAW, Far Cry, BF, etc... even if it delivers many features that so called next generation games dont event scratch.

Lets also not forget that a big label behind a game equals a big media kiss in the ass .

Maybe the game is a little rough, it was developed quite fast so its possible but we know BIS will support it, im far from worried.

Well.. the original ofp did pretty well in the mainstream press in case you forgot.

[Heatseeker 0]

Well.. the original ofp did pretty well in the mainstream press in case you forgot.

Thats because there were no other shooter games with vehicles at the time, the game is much more than that .

[bravo 6 0]

GOLD with 55%

http://games.tiscali.cz/reviews/arma/index.asp

Not a "Dancing Banana" score ....

Unless it's ridden with bugs I fail to see how it could be given 55%. Even if the reviewer doesn't like the gameplay the scale, graphics and content of the game deserves a minimum of at least 75%.

Hell OFP:E got better scores just 12 months ago and Arma is 100x better.

Or maybe it just sucks?

it means i dont care what % they give!

I know what i want! thats why the fecking banana.

even if they gave 30% or -10% i don't care! i bet core fans don't give a crap about the score they give

[Nicolas Eymerich 0]

Great Bis!

Congratulations.

I hope I'lle be able to play Armed Assault as soon as I can

Regards

Nicolas

[judge&jury 0]

I think the reaction to new ArmA reviews will tell us a lot about the maturity of the community. If the reaction to OFP: E reviews are any indication, then we should expect further baseless accusations of unprofessionalism and industry corruption, and even a healthy dose of consumer stupidity. Oh, and don't forget about those no-good publishers! This does not bode well for a community that prides itself for being above the nonsense of other groups.

Our forum has come up with many complicated theories explaining why ArmA isn't accepted by the wider gaming community. The theories range from publisher-reviewer connections to the changing market, both for publishers and gamers. Some theories reflect a real shift from single to episodic content and the commoditisation of gaming, and are actually useful in explaining some parts of the ArmA story. But many of the suggested reasons are simply absurd, and border on conspiracy theories.

Take one popular theory, the changing desires of gamers, for example. It is often said that gamers are not interested in complicated games, and would rather a simple shoot-em-up. This is used to explain why many gamers, and thus (it is assumed) gaming sites show no interest in ArmA. While possibly true within some groups, it stands at odds with other facts. If anything, you could argue that the modern gamer is in general more complex than at any time in history. He fights in clans, he uses mods, he spends an inhumane length of time at the computer, and he masters complicated sets of rules to gain an edge over his components. This is evident if you compare your average BF2 player to a Quake player of the late 90's. This is also true for other genres, such as RPGs, real-time and turn-based strategy games, racing games, and even other simulations. Least of all, it certainly doesn't explain why the "most complicated" OFP sold so well.

I don't intend to turn this into an essay, but I will leave you with one thought. Knee-jerk reactions serve to help no-one, and will only result in the embarassment of you and the community. If ArmA sucks, then so be it. If you think it's great, well that's fine! But don't fill up the forums with garbage, naive posts in an attempt to sling mud at popular targets. It's getting really boring. And stupid.

[bravo 6 0]

you mean who exactly?

[tykimies 0]

j&j, well said.

[maxqubit 1]

@judge&jury ... so basically you think 55% is a correct score for ArmA???

(btw, a lot of OFP:E reviews were rubbish, the decent onces only 'complained' about the dated gfx, which imho was the only valid point which could be made ... OFP:E still owns all shooters on console, esp. as a co-op agaist AI game)

[NeMeSiS 11]

I dont know if i have to laugh or cry at those screens, this is the 2nd (or 3rd?) time that site has so incredibly high quality screenshots

[Heatseeker 0]

The gaming media (generally speaking) is terrible .

Not only they live of the hard work of programers, artists, designers, etc but they do a lousy job most of time.

Gamers easily predict what games will get the great review scores and extensive media coverage and what games wont.

Very often gamer reviews differ from media reviews and scores in the most suspicious way (im still generalising here), a big label or popular franchise is usually behind the kind of products i refer too, big advertising generates income... small studios, small development and production budgets dont.

Sometimes i even think that the Label, presentation and the quality of the buffet's have more influence on the preview of a product than the product hitself, its noticeable in many articles.

This post doesnt relate with the tiscali or any other Arma preview in any way, i dont speak czech or tried Arma myself and atleast they previewed the game...

The previews/reviews i really care about are from the gamers who follow the game and understand its possibilities and features, those who explore the full depth and potential of it.

[colt 0]

At first I thought there must be bad blood between Tiscali and BIS, but they gave OFP 91 %.  

If they gave it a low score because of the realism and they convey that through the reveiw text then it will appeal to those who want a simulation but that shouldn't be reflected in the score - lets face it the first thing people scroll down to see are the marks.

It's like reviewing a flight simulator and giving it 10% and summarising with " it's too much like flying a real plane..."

Surprised at the screenshots as well. Do they test all games on the same hardware?

But I'll wait for a translation of the salient points before coming to a steadfast conclusion on this particular review...